[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17064-S17068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the 
Senate a message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 1868, a bill 
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for 
other purposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives.

       Revolved, That the House disagree to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the 
     Senate numbered 115 to the bill (H.R. 1868) entitled ``An Act 
     making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me bring the Senate up to date on 
the status of the foreign operations appropriations bill. It has been 
sort of bouncing back and forth between the House and the Senate.
  The conference report itself on foreign operations was passed by both 
Houses by very wide margins. It passed in the Senate 91 to 7. It passed 
in the House, 331 to 71.
  This morning the House passed, once again, language offered by 
Congressman Smith, 237 to 183, which remains in disagreement with the 
Senate. So what we have extant is an amendment in disagreement. The 
conference report will not be needed--will not be needed to be voted on 
again.
  So what we have before us this afternoon, upon which there will be a 
motion to table shortly, is the Smith language.
  The Senate defeated this language 53 to 44 on November 1, and, 
candidly, I expect the outcome of the vote we are about to have to be 
exactly the same. Let me repeat. The only item in disagreement is 
amendment 115. That is the only item upon which we are called to vote 
in a few moments.
  The underlying conference report, which we have already approved, 
enjoys strong bipartisan support. We fund a number of key national 
priorities including the Camp David accords, aid to the NIS, including 
Armenia and Ukraine. Also in this bill is an extension of the Middle 
East Peace Facilitation Act.
  So, again, let me say the conference report itself enjoys very 
strong, overwhelming bipartisan support. The only item we have before 
us today is what is known as the Chris Smith language, on abortion.
  My colleague, Senator Leahy may want to make a few comments and then 
I believe the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is going to make 
a motion to table.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, very briefly, I am old enough to remember 
going to the movies when they would have a cartoon. They would have 
sort of a single line to follow the bouncing ball. Most of the other 
Members here are not old enough to remember those cartoons. But in 
effect this bill has been like a bouncing ball going back and forth. 
The distinguished chairman can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe 
we had 193 items in disagreement in conference that lasted until after 
midnight. We resolved 192. Both bodies have voted on those. It is time 
now to realize that the last matter is at an impasse. Let us get the 
basic bill passed and sent on to the President for his signature and 
allow this part, at least, of our foreign policy to go forward.
  So I support the distinguished chairman in this. I see the 
superchairman, the overall chairman, on the floor. So I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, very shortly I am going to move to 
table the underlying Senate amendment, amendment No. 115, which will 
take with it both the original amendment by Senator Kassebaum and the 
House amendment by Congressmen Callahan and Smith.
  Madam President, I need not talk further about the crisis that we all 
face today and of the need to resolve the crisis. I am taking a small 
step to narrow the area of disagreement between the White House and the 
Congress.
  But I want to make it very clear that I speak as a deeply committed, 
unadulterated pro-life person, and I have cast my votes on this Senate 
floor scores of times on that issue. I ran a political campaign in my 
State for reelection when that issue was of paramount importance, and 
Oregon is considered the most pro-choice State in the country.
  So I want it clearly understood that, regardless of my personal 
viewpoint on this question, I have to look at the fact that we are 
legislating on an appropriations bill, and we do so regularly.
  We have three appropriations bills struggling with this issue of 
abortion. Not one of these amendments belongs on an appropriations 
bill. It violates the rules of the Senate. It violates the orderly 
legislative process.
  At the same time, this very issue and this form of the abortion 
question is already on the foreign relations reauthorization bill 
adopted by the House of Representatives, by the same authors, which 
will be here for consideration by the full Senate. That is where the 
issue should be debated. That is where the issue should be worked out, 
not on the foreign operations appropriation bill.
  I realize that when you get into the position of trying to explain 
procedure to the public, you are lost. But, nevertheless, this is a 
fundamental procedural question that we have to consider seriously. 
Bear in mind we could have a vote on this--and I plan to ask for the 
yeas and nays--so that everyone will have an opportunity to express his 
or her viewpoint and to cast a vote. I hope that people vote on the 
procedural question rather than on the abortion question.
  That is probably wishing against all odds, but I do feel that even as 
a pro-life person I will have to vote to table this amendment that was 
put on this appropriations bill. I have no desire to further encumber 
the appropriations process and to further exacerbate the contention 
that now exists between the White House and the Congress. We have to 
take some small steps to bridge and to resolve that conflict, and I 
think we ought to be about the business of resolving it rather than 
exacerbating the circumstances of conflict.
  So we can pass this bill. If we will adopt this tabling motion, we 
can pass this bill that has been approved by this 

[[Page S17065]]
Senate before with 90-some votes. It has gone through the conference 
with very little acrimony. So then we can get this bill down to the 
White House, and the President, as I understand, has signaled that he 
will sign this appropriations bill.
  We are going to get the Transportation bill down to the White House 
today. The President has indicated he will sign it. We have cleared up 
the Treasury-Post Office problem in conference. The House will send 
that over to us. I hope we can get it down tonight or early tomorrow. 
The President will probably sign it. And then legislative. We can have 
7 of the 13 appropriations bills completed and signed by the President 
in the next 48 hours.
  That is going to make the job of reconciling the so-called balanced 
budget question--or sometimes referred to as the reconciliation, or the 
continuing resolution--and the debt ceiling; all these others that we 
must act upon. I think this will help facilitate those other tasks that 
we have.
  So now I move to table the underlying Senate amendment, amendment No. 
115, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when the Senate first considered the 
amendment in disagreement, regarding abortion funding with foreign aid 
money, advance notice was given only to those who opposed the House 
position. Today, no notice was given to anyone. It was I who urged a 
rollcall vote on the issue.
  I urge Senators to support the House position. I heard it mentioned 
that the Senate already has defeated this language, but that is just 
not the case. The Senate has never voted directly on this provision and 
it won't today; previously, it voted on a Kassebaum provision which, in 
essence, gutted the House provision.
  I have heard assertions that pro-life Members refuse to budge on 
various amendments or provisions. But, Senators should understand that 
the House position has already changed substantially from its original 
position in order to meet concerns of the Senate.
  The original ``Mexico City'' language as passed by the House has been 
modified to cover only foreign private and voluntary organizations. 
This is an important distinction that Senators on the other side of the 
aisle ignore.
  Furthermore, the provision relating to the U.N. Population Program 
[UNFPA] was modified by the House in several ways. First, more time was 
provided to UNFPA to terminate its operations in China, thus allowing 
it more flexibility. Second, the term ``motivate'' was redefined so as 
not to prohibit family planning counseling.
  The House has tried to accommodate Senate concerns. It is pro-
abortion Senators who refuse to compromise. And I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the tabling motion and thereby support the House position.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the vote begin at 10 
minutes to 3.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will not 
object. So people understand, we are trying to coordinate the schedules 
of people on both sides of the aisle in doing that. I support the 
motion to table. I support the unanimous consent request of the Senator 
from Kentucky.
  Mr. SARBANES. Reserving the right to object, can one assume that we 
will have morning business between now and 10 of 3?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Maryland that we will be glad 
to divide the 10 minutes between now and 10 minutes to 3. He takes 5 
and we take 5. Is that agreeable with the Senator from Maryland?
  Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Who controls the time, Madam President?
  Mr. LEAHY. If we have 5 minutes on this time and the Senator from 
Kentucky has 5 minutes on that time, I yield my 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I am prompted to rise because of the 
comments made by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee with 
respect to passing appropriations bills and sending them to the 
President.
  It is very important to understand how we find ourselves in this 
outrageous impasse with the Federal Government closing down and with 
the ability of the United States to honor its debts cast in jeopardy. 
The fact of the matter is that, as of this morning, only 3 of the 13 
appropriations bills have been signed into law. Only four have been 
sent to the President. He vetoed the legislative appropriations bill, 
and that has come back to us, and it will have to be resubmitted.
  I hear all of these protestations from my colleagues from across the 
aisle. But the fact is they have not moved the appropriations process 
forward. Now they want to hold the President hostage and engage in 
legislative terrorism. That is exactly what is happening here, and 
800,000 Federal employees are furloughed as a consequence of this 
terrorism. How are people who live from paycheck to paycheck going to 
meet their mortgage payments or tuition payments for their kids who are 
in school?
  A budget reconciliation package has not even been passed in the 
Congress. It is not even out of the conference committee. So the 
President has not had a chance to act on the budget. He has not had a 
chance to act on most of the appropriations bills--10 out of 13 as of 
last night. A couple will be sent to him shortly--hopefully this one 
that is now before us and a couple of others that we be considered 
shortly. So the fact is that the Congress has not done its work in 
sending the appropriations bills to the President for him either to 
sign or to return to the Congress with his veto.
  What is underway is a tremendous coercive tactic to try to force the 
President to accede to the priorities that are being set by my 
Republican colleagues with respect to the budget, and that essential 
priority that is contained therein is deep cuts in Medicare in order to 
give tax breaks to wealthy people. That is essentially the driving 
force behind the budget proposal of my Republican colleagues. Of 
course, the President has indicated he will not agree to that, and now 
they are trying to use every tactic in the book in order to compel him 
to do so.
  It is an outrage that they have closed down the Federal Government. 
Clearly, what should have been done is we should have had short-term 
extensions of the appropriations measures and an extension of the debt 
ceiling until the remainder of the appropriations bills and the 
reconciliation measure could be sent to the President. That was not 
done, and the Republicans are now trying to coerce the President into 
accepting a set of priorities with which he does not agree.
  I oppose that set of priorities and continue to do so. But I must say 
that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you are playing with 
fire. Standard & Poor's this week issued a strongly worded warning to 
the Government saying the faith of investors has to some degree been 
diminished by the threat of imminent default on its debt. I ask 
unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Mr. SARBANES. I am now quoting from the article: ``The unusual 
statement by the Standard & Poor's Corporation, the rating agency, said 
that it was not reducing the United States' triple A credit rating, the 
highest grade--and one granted to only about a dozen countries. But it 
clearly left open that possibility.''
  And they went on later: ``The President of Standard & Poor's * * * 
said''--and this is a quote of his--``if this were any other country 
than the United States that we were talking about, we would have put 
them on credit watch.''
  That is the fire that is being played with here.
  Later, on their own credit line release, Standard & Poor's questioned 
the Government's willingness to make timely debt service. I ask 
unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks. 

[[Page S17066]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. SARBANES. Let me just quote:

       Standard & Poor's triple A rating of the U.S. Government is 
     predicated on the dual components of the Government's 
     overwhelming capacity and unquestioned willingness to honor 
     its debt obligations. The U.S. Government's financial 
     capacity to meet its debt obligations remains a worldwide 
     standard based on the size and strength of the U.S. economy. 
     However, the current budget dispute between the President and 
     Congress has raised issues regarding the Government's 
     willingness to make timely debt service.

  This is what is at risk regarding the game that is being played here. 
Most of the appropriations bills have not been sent to the President. 
Of the 13 appropriations bills, as of yesterday, only 4 had been sent 
to the President. He signed three of them. Now we are starting to send 
the remaining appropriations bills to the President. And I approve of 
that process. I hope we will get the bills down to the President.
  Not only have the Republicans failed to pass the appropriations 
bills, but they have also failed to pass the reconciliation bill. The 
reconciliation measure is not even out of conference. The conference 
report has not yet passed the House and Senate. It is not even out of 
conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. As one of the Federal employees who had been furloughed 
said in the morning paper, ``It is stupid.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. He said it is stupid. It is stupid. It is stupid, and 
it ought to stop. Mr. President, he is right.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 11, 1995]

         S. & P. Strongly Warns Government of Threat of Default

                          (By David E. Sanger)

       Washington, November 10.--One of the world's leading 
     credit-rating agencies issued a strongly worded warning today 
     to the United States Government, saying that the faith of 
     investors ``has, to some degree, been diminished'' by the 
     threats of imminent default on its debt.
       The unusual statement by the Standard & Poor's Corporation, 
     the rating agency, said that it was not reducing the United 
     States' triple-A credit rating, the highest grade--and one 
     granted to only about a dozen countries. But it clearly left 
     open that possibility if the country failed to meet any of 
     its payments on United States Treasury obligations because of 
     the budget impasse.
       In an interview this evening, the president of Standard & 
     Poor's, Leo C. O'Neill, said that ``if this were any other 
     country than the U.S. that we were talking about, we would 
     have put them on credit watch,'' the formal warning the firm 
     issues when a government or company is at risk of having its 
     credit rating lowered.
       Mr. O'Neill said that a committee within his firm debated 
     today's statement for nearly two days after it became clear 
     that Congress and the White House were headed toward a 
     showdown. While the warning, which was issued late in the 
     afternoon, itself may rattle the markets early next week, Mr. 
     O'Neill said that he thought it was important that Government 
     officials understand the implications of a default on the 
     country's solid gold credit rating.
       He said that he fully expected that the United States would 
     make full payment on its debts. But the willingness of 
     American officials to talk about the possibility of default 
     has already done lasting harm to the United States' 
     international image as a country willing to pay back what it 
     borrows, he said.
       ``Even if the issue is resolved in the 11th hour and 59th 
     minute, in some respects the damage has been done,'' Mr. 
     O'Neill said.
       The growing uncertainty in Washington over the budget and 
     the prospect of shutting down the Government and defaulting 
     on the national debt is already rippling through Wall Street. 
     Bond prices fell and the broad stock market indexes slumped 
     as the Democratic White House and the Republican Senate 
     headed into the weekend playing an old fashioned game of 
     chicken. And the price of gold, a traditional haven in times 
     of uncertainty, surged $3.10, to $390.50.
       The price of the 30-year bond fell as the yield, which 
     moves in the opposite direction, rose to 6.33 percent. The 
     Dow Jones industrial average managed to inch 6.14 points 
     higher, to a record 4,870.37. But the S. & P. 500-stock index 
     slipped 0.54 point, to 592.72, and the broader Nasdaq index 
     fell almost 2 points.
       For decades the United States has been the gold standard in 
     the world of investing. Long considered the safest of all 
     investments, Government debt is the yardstick by which the 
     risk of lending funds to other nations or corporations is 
     regularly measured. If Standard & Poor's lowered the 
     nation's rating the result would almost certainly be an 
     increase in interest rates, in order to attract investors 
     to take a marginally higher risk of not being paid back on 
     time. That, in turn, would affect a raft of other rates, 
     including variable-rate mortgages held by millions of 
     American homeowners. Those mortgages are usually based on 
     the interest rate of Treasury obligations.
       Politically, the rating agency's action today plays into 
     the hands of President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Robert 
     E. Rubin. Both have warned that Congress was threatening 
     America's creditworthiness around the world by linking an 
     increase in the national debt limit to a number of other 
     Republican budget priorities. But many Republicans and some 
     on Wall Street have dismissed that view, contending that 
     investors see the current threats of default as a political 
     sideshow that has little to do with the United States' 
     ability to pay its debts.
       It is still unlikely that the United States is heading for 
     default and any imminent action is doubtful. Mr. Rubin has 
     been extraordinarily cagey in recent days when asked how long 
     the United States can continue to meet its obligations 
     without increasing the $4.9 trillion ceiling on Federal 
     borrowing.
       He has authority--which Congress is trying to strip away--
     to draw on Federal trust funds that keep their money in 
     Treasury securities. That, in turn, would allow the United 
     States to borrow more to meet its operating expenses and to 
     repay investors. The first big hurdle comes on Wednesday, 
     when the Government must pay $25 billion in interest to 
     bondholders; another $44 billion is due the next day.
       Standard & Poor's argued today that even without a default, 
     America's reputation among investors was hurting. ``Even 
     assuming a debt ceiling agreement is enacted in time to 
     forestall default,'' the firm said in its statement, ``the 
     global capital market's unquestioned faith in the United 
     States Government's willingness to honor its financial 
     obligations has, to some degree, been diminished by the 
     failure of the Government to act in a timely fashion. As a 
     result, the reduced level of market certainty may require 
     some time to overcome, well after the immediate fiscal 
     dispute is resolved.''
       That wording almost exactly parallels warnings issued 
     recently by Mr. Rubin, who has said the United States will 
     pay for a default ``for years and years to come.''
       Mr. O'Neill said that he had had no contact with Treasury 
     officials concerning his firm's rating of American debt, or 
     about today's statement. This is the first time Standard & 
     Poor's has issued such a warning. In past debt limit battles, 
     Mr. O'Neill said, ``we didn't really believe there was a real 
     threat of default; now, we are concerned that the debate 
     isn't being resolved.''
       When Republicans and Democrats can bicker over who is at 
     fault, only Standard & Poor's and its competitor, Moody's 
     Investors Service Inc., have the power to issue ratings that 
     are followed by investors around the world. They are viewed 
     as politically neutral, interested only in the question of 
     risk, not the wisdom of various budget-cutting policies.
       Moody's issued a less dire warning on Wednesday. It said 
     then that while the odds of a default were low, they were 
     already higher than in 1989, when the United States last 
     faced an impasse over the debt limit.
       The effects on the United States Government of a lower 
     rating are clear: some institutions in the world will only 
     invest their funds in triple-A securities. But the effects 
     would also be much larger. Many cities and towns issue debt 
     that is linked to United States securities, and others offer 
     those securities as collateral. Standard and Poor's also 
     warned that ``a disruption in U.S. Government debt payments 
     also would have major implications for the liquidity of 
     various financial institutions, money market funds and 
     Government bond funds.''

                               Exhibit 2

         S&P Highlights Broad Implic of US Gvt Dbt Limit Debate

       New York.--Standard & Poor's CreditWire 11/10/95--Standard 
     & Poor's, while maintaining its triple--``A'' rating on the 
     United States government, is increasingly concerned about the 
     global financial market ramifications of the current U.S. 
     budget impasse. Even a short-lived default on the U.S. 
     government's direct debt obligations would profoundly impact 
     a broad range of securities and financial market 
     participants.
       Even assuming a debt ceiling agreement is enacted in time 
     to forestall default, the global capital market's 
     unquestioned faith in the United States government's 
     willingness to honor its financial obligations has, to some 
     degree, been diminished by the failure of the government to 
     act in a timely fashion. As a result, the reduced level of 
     market certainty may require some time to overcome, well 
     after the immediate fiscal dispute is resolved.
       Standard & Poor's triple--``A'' rating of the U.S. 
     government is predicated on the dual components of the 
     government's overwhelming capacity and unquestioned 
     willingness to honor its debt obligations. The U.S. 
     government's financial capacity to meet its debt obligations 
     remains a worldwide standard based on the size and strength 
     of the U.S. economy. However, the current budget dispute 
     between the President and Congress has raised issues 
     regarding the government's willingness to make timely debt 
     service. Standard & Poor's continues to regard that 
     fundamental willingness as consistent with the highest credit 
     rating category, but in the midst of the current budget 
     struggle, the threat of delayed U.S. debt 

[[Page S17067]]
     service payments has become a highly charged political tactic.
       While the current debate in Washington has focused 
     substantially on the government's ability to honor its debt 
     obligations in the absence of an agreement to raise the 
     existing ceiling about $4.9 trillion, there are numerous, 
     ancillary debt issues that would also be negatively affected 
     by the failure to reach an agreement. Corollary credit 
     ramifications of a U.S. government default would affect; 
     corporate and municipal agency debt linked to U.S. 
     securities, pre-refunded municipal bonds amounting to $400 
     billion, collateralized by U.S. obligations. A disruption of 
     U.S. government debt payments also would have major 
     implications for the liquidity of various financial 
     institutions, money-market funds, and government bonds funds.

  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that the Senator 
from Kentucky controls the time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield me 5 minutes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have listened in the last several 
minutes to my colleague from Maryland talk about tactics that have 
caused certain financial interests and indicators in this country to 
react.
  There is a clear tactic that has been played out here for the last 
several weeks by the Secretary of the Treasury saying that if we did 
not do certain things, the Government will shut down. All the while he 
was saying that to the American community of financial interests and to 
this Congress, he knew and we knew that was nothing but a tactic. And 
yet he went on with the scare game that has been used and is currently 
being used.
  I suggest, if there is a sense of irresponsibility, then the 
Secretary of the Treasury ought to know that suggesting something that 
is not real, and that is financial collapse of this Government if we 
did not pass x pieces of legislation when he knew he had the capacity 
to keep our Government running and to honor its debt structure for the 
next several months, is in fact the worst tactic of all.
  Now the White House is suggesting that they will not deal with us to 
achieve a 7-year balanced budget under CBO figures. ``Nonstart, won't 
go, can't go,'' says the President and his men, although the President 
has suggested in a variety of ways that he could accept a balanced 
budget in 5 years if we gave him a large tax increase. And he got the 
tax increase, and now it is 9 years and maybe 7 years, but he is not 
really sure because he does not really know.
  Here is what we know. We know that we are headed down the course of 
producing a budget for this Government and this country that will 
balance in 7 years, and that in balancing it in 7 years we will use CBO 
figures because the President said in the Chamber of the U.S. House of 
Representatives that they are the ones you can trust, the CBO, so we 
will use those figures.
  Beyond the rhetoric of a balanced budget and CBO, and concurrent 
resolutions and debt ceilings, what is the reality of what we are 
trying to do? What is the impact on America? What will the American 
family achieve or receive as a result of our efforts? I suggest to you 
that a temporary shutdown in the Government, while it may represent 
some pain, is a short-term problem to a long-term solution. And that 
long-term solution is achieving a balanced budget.
  That is what we are after, and that is not what this President is 
after because he is not really sure about where he can get and how he 
can get there, but we are. We have worked to produce legislation that 
will achieve just that.
  Madam President, a $500 tax cut to 28 million American families 
raising 51 million children in this country and having the ability to 
provide a better lifestyle to assure a college education, that is what 
our balanced budget is all about. I think it is very clear what we are 
trying to achieve here--provide a more spendable income to create a 
better sense of being in this country.

  Madam President, a 7-year balanced budget with the tax cuts that are 
proposed in this, they yield good things for America. Why not suggest 
that the gross national product should grow by an additional $10.8 
billion by the year 2002? A new study just out by an econometric 
modeling firm, one of the best in the country, indicates just that, if 
you have a tax cut along with spending reductions of the kind that we 
put together into the mix--and that is what we are trying to do--you 
have an additional $32.1 billion in real disposable income.
  What happens when you put real disposable income out there in the 
hands of the American consumer and the American family? They buy homes, 
they save for a college education, they buy a new car, they do all of 
the kinds of things that we ought to be suggesting to the American 
family they are entitled to do. This President says, ``No. Let's stay 
with the past, let's stay with spending, let's stay with the big 
government that has proven itself incapable of dealing with the real 
needs of America.''
  That is what we are about here. That is the fundamental argument 
underway. And I understand what my colleague from Maryland is 
suggesting. Let me suggest that the long-term benefits of a balanced 
budget, the kind this President wants to destroy, means real income for 
America, and real opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question now occurs on agreeing to the motion to table the 
underlying Senate amendment numbered 115. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 575 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--44

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lugar
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 115) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, may we have order, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me describe where I believe we are 
on the foreign operations bill as of this motion to table.
  According to the Senate Parliamentarian, based on precedence, 
beginning in 1898 and in subsequent votes as recently as 1984, either 
House has the option to recede on its amendment. Based on discussions 
with the Parliamentarian, it is my understanding that by tabling 
amendment No. 115, we have, in effect, receded our position on both the 
Kassebaum language and the Chris Smith language leaving no further 
amendments in disagreement. 

[[Page S17068]]
 This means no further action is required by the House on the foreign 
operations appropriations bill, unless it chooses to, and it can be 
enrolled by the House and sent to the President, again, if the House 
should choose to take that route.
  I thank my colleagues, and I hope we have completed our action on 
this legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I concur with the analysis of the Senator 
from Kentucky. I point out, as I did earlier, the Senator from Kentucky 
and I went into this conference with 193 items in disagreement; we 
settled 192, after a great deal of work, a lot of informal conferences, 
and a formal conference that went well after midnight. This was the 
only item, and this is the only way to take care of it, frankly.
  The Senate has spoken loudly and clearly on this, and it is a good 
compromise between both bodies. Let us get off this subject. The issue 
can come up on authorizations bills, where it belongs, not on 
appropriations bills, and we can go on with the business of the Senate.
  The only way we are going to get out of the real budget problem we 
have, when people are out of work and everything else, is to pass the 
appropriations bills. Here is another 1 of the 13 appropriations bills 
that could go to the President. If he signed it, that would be 3 of the 
13 appropriations bills signed, with only 10 more to go, and we are out 
of this problem.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say that, hopefully, within the next 
minute or two, we can call up another conference report--the Treasury, 
Postal Service appropriations bill. As I understand it, the Senate 
papers are on the way up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________