[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9-S13]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      HOSTAGE TAKING IS NOT PRETTY

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, let me join with those who complimented 
Senator Dole for taking the leadership yesterday in sending a clean 
continuing resolution to provide Government funding over to the House. 
I not only want to compliment Senator Dole, I also want to compliment 
all the Republicans on their side of the aisle in the Senate because 
Senator Dole made that proposal, knowing full well that he had 
unanimous consent, or he would not have made it. So I want to not only 
congratulate him but also the Republicans on the other side who I feel 
are 

[[Page S10]]
working in good faith trying to bring this to an end.
  Yesterday afternoon, I was making a couple of notes for some remarks 
on the floor this morning. I was going to start out by talking about 
hostage taking, how it is never pretty and it is always unfair. The 
innocents are penalized for something they had nothing to do with. I 
was not aware at that time of what the lead editorial in the Washington 
Post was going to be today. They say ``The Government as Stage Prop.''
  They start out saying almost the same words:

       Hostage-taking is an ugly business. It doesn't matter what 
     the cause. Innocent people are seized and used as pawns; they 
     become political trading stamps whose welfare is exchanged 
     for things the hostage-taker could not win by normal means. 
     That, even more than the mindlessness, the waste (in the 
     supposed cause of economy in government), the inconvenience 
     and the instances of outright harm to unpaid workers and 
     unserved citizens alike, is what is finally wrong with the 
     current Government shut-down.

  I will not read the rest of the editorial. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks, along with 
another enclosure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, innocents are being penalized for something 
with which they had nothing to do. Congress protects its own income, of 
course. We do not give up any of the $133,600 a year, but for those 
making $33,000 a year, it makes all the difference in the world, and 
this because one small group thinks that they, and only they, have the 
wisdom on how this Government should go and that they can dictate the 
future of this Nation.
  We elect 535 people to the Congress of the United States, and what a 
charade it is that just a small group thinks that they can shut down 
everything and bring such pressure that the rest of Government, 
everyone else who is elected to Government will give in and say, ``OK, 
this is getting so bad that we give in to your unfair tactics.''
  Why do we get into this mess? Let us go back just a few years and see 
what happened. Let us go back to the history. Let us ``go to the 
tape,'' as they say on the sports broadcasts.
  Did Democratic problems contribute to some of the situation we are in 
now? Why, of course it did. Back some years ago, we had an economy that 
was not as well managed as it should have been. We wound up at one time 
with 21-percent interest rates and 17-percent inflation rates, and that 
lead to what was called the ``Reagan revolution.'' That revolution came 
in with an experiment in supply-side economics, as it was called then, 
that did not work, and we can show that.
  In the years 1981, 1982 and 1983, we cut taxes by 25 percent--5 
percent the first year, 10 percent the second year, 10 percent the 
third year. This was supposed to result in more investment and such an 
increase in the economy of this country that new revenues were going to 
more than make up the losses from those tax cuts.
  It flat did not work. When it started, we had, from George Washington 
through to the end of the administration of Jimmy Carter, $1 trillion 
in national debt. What do we have now? In the few short years since 
that experiment in supply-side economics, we have seen the debt 
skyrocket. We have added $3.9 trillion--$3.9 trillion--in the last few 
years. It will be just a short time until we hit a total debt of some 
$5 trillion.
  Entitlement growth has contributed to that, of course. Were we prompt 
in taking action to slow some of these things down, in Medicare, 
Medicaid, and welfare? No, we probably were not. But does that mean we 
dump the whole of the programs and just stop Government now?
  I know from talking personally with President Clinton on a trip he 
made to Ohio that first priority of the new administration was get 
control of the economy. Otherwise, all the other things would not be 
possible.
  What did he do? He came out with a program then, and it was a program 
that has had considerable success, in spite of the fact it seems to be 
mentioned only rarely these days. About half of it came in cuts in 
programs and about half of it came in some tax restoration, to restore 
some of those tax cuts that had happened under the Reagan 
administration and went too far. President Clinton, to his everlasting 
credit, had the fortitude to go ahead and make some changes in those 
programs and restore some of the tax rate that could bring us back into 
balance.
  We remember that day on the Senate floor very well in the summer of 
1993. When the effort was made to pass the Clinton program, we had 
complete opposition on the other side, both in the Senate and in the 
House. It was a very dramatic moment when the Vice President, sitting 
as President of the Senate, broke the 50-50 tie and put the 
administration's program into effect.
  Now, every single Republican Member of the House and every single 
Republican Member of the Senate voted against that proposal to move 
toward a balanced budget. Every single one. There were no cries then 
about the balanced budget and so on. It was a complete stonewalling of 
the President's efforts to get us headed toward a balanced budget. Did 
it work, or did it not work in the ensuing years, since 1993? Let us 
look at the record.
  At the time the President made his proposal and at the time that we 
voted the program in, the budget deficit, per year, was running right 
at $300 billion. Last year, what was the record? The program was 
working. The budget deficit went down to $246 billion per year.
  Last year, the record is that it went down to $162 billion. So we 
were on the right path--without any major revolution, without dumping 
whole programs of Government. We were tailoring them back.
  I know from my own personal experience, because I was chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee and I was assigned billions of dollars 
to cut back on programs that did not have that big a budget, and we did 
it. It was tough and we made some very, very tough decisions at that 
time. That was opposed by every single Republican Member of the 
Congress, in the Senate and in the House. They said, ``We cannot 
restore any of those tax cuts. We cannot come up with any tax increase 
at all.'' That was the rationale for most of the opposition.
  Well, it did work. We have been on a track down where the budget 
deficit has been declining in each one of those years. Where was the 
Republican interest in the balanced budget? Did anybody ever say a good 
thing on this floor about what was happening as a result of those tough 
votes we made in the summer of 1993?
  We need to keep going with those reductions. I agree with that. It 
has leveled off somewhat. Some of the predictions indicate that it will 
be $150 to $200 billion as far as the eye can see. So we need to make 
an effort to keep cutting those down and do it not by some great 
revolution but by the evolution that has been successfully started.
  It is said that we have to transfer all these responsibilities to the 
States. Some should be transferred to the States; I agree with that. 
But I also say that these proposals to shut down the Government are not 
affecting only Federal employees, as has been pointed out on the floor 
here this morning, they also impact the people on welfare, children, 
the poor, and the care for the elderly.
  Here are a few examples of how the people of this country are being 
impacted, and this is not just Government employees, as important as 
that may be.
  We have some 54,000 Federal employees in the State of Ohio. All of 
those are not affected by this, but I will use that figure. I do not 
have a breakdown on how many exactly are impacted. We cannot get 
information because the appropriate offices that would provide that 
information are closed down.
  These Federal employees are important to us in Ohio. But, Mr. 
President, regarding care for the elderly, 600,000 elderly Americans 
face the potential of losing their services of Meals On Wheels, 
transportation, and personal care provided by the Department of Health 
and Human Services, if a CR is not passed this week. This covers 
protection and services for children, unemployment insurance, 
securities markets, and so many other areas that are affecting every 
single American, not just the Federal employees, right now.
  So what we need to do is say to our colleagues over in the House that 
``enough is enough,'' as the majority 

[[Page S11]]
leader has said. Enough is enough, and it is time that we got on with 
not only putting Federal employees back to work but rendering the 
services that the American people expect and are paying for and should 
have.
  Over in the House, the Speaker has said that the crown jewel is the 
tax cut. That comes out of Medicare, as I see it, some $270 billion. 
They say you cannot equate that. If you cannot equate it directly from 
Medicare to the tax cut, that means we are borrowing $245 billion to 
give a tax cut. We are borrowing the money to give a tax cut. I 
disagree with President Clinton's proposal on a lesser tax cut, also. I 
do not believe any tax cut at this time is necessary. Borrowing to give 
tax cuts is pure folly, as I see it.
  The social fabric of this Nation should not be changed by a 
revolution dictated by a few, but by evolution, slower change, which 
lets people adapt, whether it be the elderly, children, the sick, the 
poor, those who need Medicaid. To just throw this back to the States 
and say that we will give you a bag of money, but we are going to put a 
much greater increase on requirements that you have to comply with, 
makes the biggest mockery of the unfunded mandates legislation we 
passed earlier this year than I can possibly think of. So we are giving 
them responsibilities, a little bit of money, and saying, ``Good luck 
to you.''
  Mr. President, I think we need a clean CR, again, that the House will 
accept. We have narrowed this down to where it is time that the House 
of Representatives and their group of diehards gave in a little bit and 
decide that we can negotiate these changes and put the Government back 
to work.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Washington Post, Jan. 3, 1996]

                      The Government as Stage Prop

       Hostage-taking is an ugly business. It doesn't matter what 
     the cause. Innocent people are seized and used as pawns; they 
     become political trading stamps whose welfare is exchanged 
     for things the hostage-taker could not win by normal means. 
     That, even more than the mindlessness, the waste (in the 
     supposed cause of economy in government), the inconvenience 
     and the instances of outright harm to unpaid workers and 
     unserved citizens alike, is what is finally wrong with the 
     current government shutdown.
       Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole was trying again last night 
     to find the formula to reopen temporarily. Good for him; it's 
     the right position; and he takes it at a certain cost. 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich said it would be ``very hard'' to find 
     the necessary votes in the House without a budget agreement. 
     Does he really lack the power to produce such a limited 
     result? Sen. Phil Gramm, meanwhile, one of Sen. Dole's rivals 
     for the Republican presidential nomination, spoke for the 
     vaudeville wing of the party. He is one of those who, over 
     the years, have found it convenient to make almost a cartoon 
     of the federal government.
       It's a straw-man style of politics. First you portray the 
     awful thing, then you run against it, and no matter if the 
     portrayal bears scant relation to the reality. ``I do think 
     we've discovered one thing,'' he said on television Sunday, 
     ``and that is, Have you missed the government? I mean, 
     doesn't it strike you funny that 280,000 government employees 
     are furloughed, large segments of the government are shut 
     down? I think this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we 
     need to go back and eliminate 150,000 to 200,000 bureaucratic 
     positions.'' Mr. Gramm and others thus use the government as 
     a stage prop. Rather than make the decisions they ought to be 
     making--ought in fact to have made weeks ago--both parties 
     are using it, or the lack of it, to score political points 
     and gain leverage in the underlying budget talks, even as 
     they also scramble to avoid the blame for the spectacle they 
     have jointly achieved. We have a suggestion for them. They 
     ought to reopen the closed agencies while they talk, since in 
     fact they do finally seem to be talking. It's a nasty game, 
     the shutdown, and it's gone on long enough.
                                                                    ____


      Effects of the Government Shutdown, Tuesday, January 2, 1996

       Congressional Republicans, by refusing to approve funds 
     even for the short term, are forcing a continued shutdown of 
     the government. The continuing shutdown is causing 
     increasingly severe hardships for millions of Americans who: 
     depend on government services; serve the public as federal 
     employees and contractors; and are impacted by the economic 
     spin-off effects of reduced government activity.


        effects of the continuing shutdown on average americans

       Care for the elderly: 600,000 elderly Americans face the 
     potential of losing their services of ``Meals on Wheels,'' 
     transportation and personal care provided by HHS if a CR is 
     not passed this week.
       Protection and services for children: As of today, states 
     will lose $74 million in quarterly grants for discretionary 
     child protection programs, which help states respond to more 
     than 2.5 million reported cases of child maltreatment each 
     year. In addition, the Federal Parent Locator Service, to 
     which 20,000 child support cases per day on average are 
     referred, is closed.
       Unemployment insurance: By the end of this week, 11 states 
     (plus DC and the VI) will have exhausted Federal funds for 
     administering the unemployment insurance program (New Jersey, 
     Alabama, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Kansas, Alaska, 
     Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Utah, New Mexico). In 
     order to keep unemployment offices open, states will have to 
     fill the gap with their own funds. Otherwise, unemployment 
     offices would have to close and benefit payments would cease. 
     Kansas has already closed its unemployment office.
       Securities markets: The SEC's funds are expected to be 
     exhausted by the end of next week, causing delays in review 
     of an estimated three-fourths of pending and new SEC filings 
     for the month of January. A delay in review of filings for 
     initial public offerings, mergers and acquisitions, and 
     filings for new debt or stock offerings would eventually 
     impact the flow of corporate financing and capital formation.
       Home-buyers: Each day of the shutdown, the Federal Housing 
     Administration cannot process 2,500 home purchase loans and 
     refinancings ($200 million of mortgage loans) for moderate- 
     and low-income working families.
       Protection of workers: Since the start of the shutdown, 
     over 1,000 workplace safety complaints have gone unanswered 
     and 3,500 investigations involving pension, health and other 
     employee benefit plans have been suspended.
       Environmental protection: All EPA non-Superfund civil 
     environmental enforcement actions have stopped, costing $3 
     million a day in fines or injunctive relief against 
     polluters; and as of today, up to 32 Superfund cleanups will 
     be shut down.
       District of Columbia: The December 22 CR expires tomorrow 
     which will continue the uncertainty over how DC can continue 
     to operate its services.
       Passports: Each day, the State Department can't process 
     23,000 applications for passports that it would normally 
     receive.
       Programs for Native Americans: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     cannot make general assistance payments due to about 53,000 
     Indian families and individuals, or to guardians and foster 
     families that care for about 3,000 Indian children.
       Veterans: While the December 22 CR provided funding for 
     certain benefits and payments, it expires tomorrow; 
     consequently, contractors providing services and supplies to 
     hospitals will not be paid, and benefits for January will not 
     be paid on February 1 in the absence of a CR. In addition, 
     approximately 170,000 veterans did not receive their December 
     Montgomery GI Bill education benefits and will not receive 
     benefits in January. Funding has also lapsed for processing 
     veterans' claims for educational and rehabilitation 
     counseling, and enabling veterans to obtain VA guaranteed 
     home loans.
       Small businesses: Each day of the shutdown, over 260 small 
     businesses are not receiving SBA-guaranteed financing; and 
     1,200 small business owners are not receiving SBA-sponsored 
     training and counseling normally available to them.
       National parks/forests and related businesses: Each day, an 
     average of 383,000 people cannot visit National Parks. 
     Potential per day losses for businesses in communities 
     adjacent to National Parks could reach $14 million, due to 
     reduced recreational tourism.
       Foreign visitors: Each day, the State Department cannot 
     issue 20,000 visas to visitors, who normally spend an average 
     of $3,000 on their trips.
       Export promotion: On an average day--export licenses with a 
     value of $30.5 million that would otherwise have been 
     approved by the Bureau of Export Administration will not be 
     acted upon; more than $92 million in sales of U.S. products 
     are blocked due to inability to process license applications; 
     and more than 2,500 telephone calls and faxes from U.S. 
     businesses seeking export information are not being answered.


                       effects on federal workers

       Due to Congress' failure to approve short-term funds, 
     beginning last Friday, December 29, about three-quarters-of-
     a-million Federal employees have received only half their 
     usual pay.
       They received pay for December 10 to 15, but not December 
     16 to 23.
       Unless the Congress approves funding by late this week, 
     emergency and furloughed employees will not receive pay for 
     the current pay period on time (i.e., next week).
       480,000 emergency workers are working, and the government 
     is obligated to pay them, but they can't be paid until 
     Congress approves funds to end the shutdown (includes federal 
     law enforcement officials, prison guards, and nurses at 
     Veterans Hospitals).
       280,000 non-emergency workers are currently furloughed and 
     not being paid (and have no guarantee they will receive back 
     pay unless Congress acts to approve back pay).

  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  
[[Page S12]]


                      DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR AMERICA

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I was elected to Congress in 1980. I took 
office in January 1981. At that time, during that election, there was 
some view that it was a major election. Ronald Reagan was elected 
President, and a number of changes took place that were viewed then as 
historic. Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate for the first 
time since 1954. Republicans did not take control of the House of 
Representatives but in a sense they gained working control because they 
elected a significant number of new Members and, joining with 
conservative Democrats, they formed a working majority that passed some 
very significant legislation.
  One of the primary issues, if not the primary issue, of that election 
year and the agenda that was proposed and adopted in part during that 
95th Congress was the whole question that we are debating here today 
and this year, which is, what is the size of Government? What is the 
scope of Government? Is Government too big? Does it try to do too much? 
Does it overregulate, overspend, overtax? What is the proper role of 
Government?
  David Stockman, then Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
for then President Reagan, proposed a plan to begin to trim back some 
of the spending of Government. There was an outcry from the American 
people. It was the issue of the year. When we compare what was then 
proposed with the magnitude of the problem then versus what is proposed 
today and the magnitude of the problem today, it is seen as a very, 
very minor, almost inconsequential, proposal, in retrospect.
  That debate, in one form or another, has been taking place now for 
the past decade and a half. In a growing sense of frustration, I think 
the American people are viewing the Congress as incapable of really 
addressing the fundamental core issues, of really doing something that 
makes a difference. I do not know how many times we have promised a 
balanced budget through plans that have been offered by Members from 
both sides, by both parties. But it was said, ``This is the plan that 
will balance the budget.''
  We had, of course, the 1981 and 1982 legislation. We had the 1983 
Social Security legislation, which is probably the closest we came to 
making a policy change that substantially made a difference in the way 
we spend money. We had the 1986 agreement, the 1988 agreement, the 1993 
agreement. Each agreement, Members stood on the floor and said this 
will do the job. We have finally stepped up to the plate, and we have 
done what the American people have asked us to do. We go home and 
campaign on it. This is the real balanced budget. Gramm-Latta I, Gramm-
Latta II--we have been through it all. There is plenty of blame to 
spread as to why this was not accomplished.

  The Senator from Ohio talked about tax cuts that were proposed and 
those were attempts to address the question of more and more hard-
earned money from those who are in the work force being siphoned off to 
Government--whether Federal, State, local, or sales tax, or excise tax, 
or whatever--and also an attempt to dry up the supply of money coming 
from taxes, to try to slow down the spending. We can argue whether that 
was proper strategy or not.
  I do not think anybody would argue the fact that we have seen the 
national debt accelerate from a $1 trillion level when I came to 
Congress in 1981, to nearly $5 trillion level, a 500-percent increase 
in just this short decade and a half, that the solution would have been 
$4 trillion of additional taxes out of the American taxpayers pockets. 
I do not think anybody is advocating that as the solution.
  So now here we are with this ever-accelerating frustration on the 
part of the American people, cynicism, apathy, distrust of this 
institution's ability to successfully address this problem. Here we 
are, now, in 1995, having spent this last year primarily attempting to 
address this question.
  We had, again, what many would call a historic election in 1994. As 
the American people exercised their frustration with the status quo, 
their frustration with the way that the Congress was addressing the 
question, the fundamental question, of what the role of Government is 
and its ever-expanded expenditure that was placing our Nation's 
economic future in jeopardy and, I think, violated the basic moral 
responsibility that many people feel we have, and that is to not 
continue to pass on debt for the enjoyment of expenditures, the 
utilization of expenditures for our own enjoyment in the present, paid 
for by someone else's earnings in the future.
  I argue that there is an economic necessity for our getting hold of 
this ever-accelerating rate of growth in the Government and that there 
is a moral requirement placed on each of us to do what I think each of 
us knows is the right thing to do, and that is not to enjoy the 
benefits of this society that the Federal Government can provide to us 
in the form of payments and benefits to the extent that it places an 
extraordinary debt load and obligation on the future. That is one of 
the most basic principles of life: Delaying gratification so that you 
do the things that are necessary now to provide for a better result in 
the future. We have robbed our children of this lesson. We have 
demonstrated to them, I think, a great irresponsibility in terms of the 
way in which we handle our Nation's finances.

  Now, all of this came to a head early on when we debated the balanced 
budget amendment, because many of us stood here and argued, having gone 
through all this statutory process, this process of will, if we just 
work hard enough with it we are able to deal with this problem; having 
gone through that several times and failed miserably, that only a 
constitutional mandate to balance the budget would accomplish what we 
were seeking to accomplish.
  That was supported, largely by Republicans but also by a significant 
number of Democrats, and failed by one vote. It was the greatest 
disappointment of my time in Congress to lose that by one vote, because 
as I spoke here, I said I doubt that we will ever have on a sustained 
basis the will to do what is fiscally responsible on a year-after-year 
basis, because the political requirement, or at least the political 
temptation to please constituents now and worry about paying for it in 
the future is so great that it will continue to drive us toward 
providing more and more benefits and less and less personal 
responsibility in terms of asking people to pay for those benefits in 
the here and now.
  Because the Government has the ability to float debt and postpone 
repayment of those obligations, the political temptation to sort of 
please those people you represent now so that you can get elected at 
the next election and worry about repayment of that or putting the hard 
questions before the people we represent, that is always deferred.
  Now, in 1994 I think that frustration, as I said, boiled over. We had 
a dramatic change in the representation in the House of Representatives 
and, I think, a very strong mandate from the American people that they 
wanted something different than the status quo. They wanted the real 
thing. In response to many who said, ``Well, I'm not voting for this 
balanced budget because it doesn't have an exception for this, an 
exception for that, and, besides, we shouldn't have to rely on the 
Constitution to make us do what we know is right. We should have the 
will to do it ourselves. So let's forget the mandatory constitutional 
requirement and let's go forward by exercising our own personal will 
and do what we know is right.'' That is what the attempt has been all 
this year.
  Here we are. Now it is 1996. We were not able do that in 1995. We are 
arguing over small numbers and details and large numbers and details, 
but we are not focusing our efforts on the core concepts.
  The Senator from New Hampshire came down here a few moments ago and 
redirected our attention back to what I think are the basics, what 
should be the basics of this debate. Instead of focusing on those 
basics, we are focusing on whether or not a Federal employee should be 
paid for work that they are doing now, whether they should be held 
hostage to this process, what the impact is on people and their 
families, and that impact is real. However, it does not address the 
core debate.
  Mr. President, it seems to me our options are somewhat limited at 
this point. We can talk about this endlessly and posture and get spins 
out of the White House and spins out of Congress. 

[[Page S13]]
 This can go on and on and on and on, or we can simply say, ``Look, 
there is a basic principle involved here. We all know it requires major 
policy changes, or we will just simply be back here 2 years from now 
arguing the same thing.''
  We all know, as the Senator from New Hampshire said, unless we 
address the three basic programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare 
reform and change policies that drive that spending and decouple the 
entitlement from the automatic spending train, we will not have 
achieved success in balancing the budget. I think everybody understands 
and knows that. Yet, we are now addressing that or focusing on that 
question.
  I do not know what the solution is, Mr. President. Maybe it is to 
require that the President of the United States, the leader of the 
Senate, and the Speaker of the House be sent to Dayton, locked up at 
Wright Patterson Air Force Base--as were the Bosnian factions, leaders 
of the Bosnian warring factions; they have been at war with each other 
for 600 years, and being locked up at Dayton produced a result most 
thought would not happen--perhaps locking up the three leaders of our 
Government in Dayton, cutting off and saying, ``No Larry King, you 
cannot read any newspapers, you cannot take any polls, you cannot watch 
the television, you cannot go to Hilton Head to play golf, and you 
cannot go to New Hampshire and campaign until you do what is right for 
America,'' maybe that is the solution. I do not know.
  Doing what is right for America is what ought to be driving us in 
this debate. I think we all know what is right for this economy and 
what is right for the President and what is right for the future. I 
think we all know or we should know that unless we address these 
fundamental changes in the way in which this Government spends money 
and we put some restraint and control on that, we will not succeed and 
we will be back here arguing the same thing.
  I regret the Federal workers are out of work. There are a lot of 
people out of work. AT&T just announced they are going to lay off 
40,000 people, so it is not just the Federal workers. In defense of the 
House Republicans, they are using the only leverage they have against 
the President. It has not worked very well because the President's spin 
has captured the headlines and their spin--the Republican House has not 
captured headlines with that.
  I have probably gone over my time. I appreciate the patience of the 
Chair and my colleagues. I will have more to say about this later, but 
I do think we ought to focus on the basic issues and I do think, 
despite what the polls say and despite what the phone calls say, we 
ought to do what we believe is right for America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

                          ____________________