[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4049-S4055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 3672
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I now submit a request. It has been
cleared through the leadership on both sides of the aisle, as I have
been advised.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of
amendment No. 3672, the Simpson-Kempthorne amendment, as modified, and
that there be 30 minutes for debate, 20 minutes under the control of
Senator Dorgan, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Domenici; to be
followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment without further
action or debate. And immediately following that vote, regardless of
the outcome, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Dorgan
amendment, No. 3667.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3672, As Modified
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send the modification of the amendment
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
Amendment No. 3672, as modified, is as follows:
At the end of the amendment add the following:
(1) social security is supported by taxes deducted from
workers' earnings and matching deductions from their
employers that are deposited into independent trust funds;
(2) over 42,000,000 Americans, including over 3,000,000
children and 5,000,000 disabled workers and their families,
receive social security benefits;
(3) social security is the only pension program for 60
percent of older Americans;
(4) almost 60 percent of older beneficiaries depend on
social security for at least half of their income and 25
percent depend on social security for at least 90 percent of
their income;
(5) 138,000,000 American workers pay taxes into the social
security system;
(6) social security is currently a self-financed program
that is not contributing to the Federal budget deficit; in
fact, the social security trust funds now have over
$400,000,000,000 in reserves and that surplus will increase
during fiscal year 1995 alone by an additional
$70,000,000,000;
(7) these current reserves will be necessary to pay monthly
benefits for current and future beneficiaries when the annual
surpluses turn to deficits after 2018;
(8) recognizing that social security is currently a self-
financed program, Congress in 1990 established a ``firewall''
to prevent a raid on the social security trust funds;
(9) raiding the social security trust funds would further
undermine confidence in the system among younger workers;
(10) the American people overwhelmingly reject arbitrary
cuts in social security benefits; and
(11) social security beneficiaries throughout the nation
deserve to be reassured that their benefits will not be
subject to cuts and their social security payroll taxes will
not be increased as a result of legislation to implement a
balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that any legislation required to implement a balanced budget
amendment to the United States Constitution shall
specifically prevent social security benefits from being
reduced or social security taxes from being increased to meet
the balanced budget requirement.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from North
Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
A couple of colleagues wish to come to speak on this amendment as well.
First of all, the circumstances are we will vote on a Kempthorne
amendment. I have no objection to that amendment. I intend to vote for
it.
It contains conclusions that I support, talks about the desire to
balance the budget, to do so without Social Security benefits being
reduced or Social Security taxes being increased. I have no objection
to that. I intend to vote for it.
But that is not the issue. The issue is the second vote on the
amendment that I offered, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. That
amendment is very simple. It is an amendment that says that when a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget is brought to the floor
of the Senate it ought to include a firewall between the Social
Security trust funds and the other revenues of the Federal Government.
The reason I feel that way is because we are now accumulating a
yearly surplus in the Social Security trust funds. It is not an
accident. It is a deliberate part of public policy to create a surplus
in the Social Security trust funds now in order to save for the future.
The reason I know that is the case is because in 1983 I helped write
the Social Security reform bill. I was a member of the House Ways and
Means Committee at the time. We decided in the Social Security reform
bill to create savings each year. This year $71 billion more is coming
into the Federal Government in receipts from Social Security taxes over
what we will spend this year--a $71 billion surplus this year alone,
not accidental but a surplus designed to be saved for the future.
It is not saved for the future if it is used as an offset against
other revenue of the Federal Government. If it is simply becoming part
of the revenue stream that is used to balance the budget and the
operating budget deficit, it means this $71 billion will not be there
when it is needed.
I have heard all of the debate about, well, this is just an effort by
some of those who would not vote for the other constitutional amendment
to balance the budget, just an effort to justify their vote. No. There
were two constitutional amendments to balance the budget offered in the
U.S. Senate last year. One of them balanced the budget and did so by
the year 2002, using the Social Security trust funds as part of the
operating revenue in the Federal Government. I do not happen to think
that is the way we ought to do it.
[[Page S4050]]
The Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, is on the floor. He has
been one of the authors of that particular amendment. I happen to know
that he changed his mind on this issue. He originally felt we should
not include the Social Security trust fund money as part of the
operating revenue of the Federal budget.
I still believe fervently we should not do that. One of the sober,
sane things that was done in the 1980's in public policy was to create
a surplus each year in the Social Security accounts to save for the
future when it is needed, when the baby boomers retire. To simply
decide to throw that all in as operating revenues and provide for it in
a constitutional amendment to the Constitution, and use it to help
balance the operating budget of the Federal Government, is in my
judgment not honest budgeting.
We are either going to save this or not. If we are not going to save
it we ought not collect it from the workers. If the workers have it
taken from their paychecks and are told, ``This money coming from your
paycheck goes into a Social Security trust fund,'' and if it goes into
the Social Security trust fund and then is used as other revenue to
balance the Federal operating budget, it is not going to be there when
the baby boomers retire.
That is the import of this amendment. If those who propose a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget would bring to the floor
a constitutional amendment with section 7 changed as we proposed it
previously and voted on it that says it is identical in every respect
to the constitutional amendment offered by Senator Simon, Senator Dole,
and others with the exemption that the Social Security trust funds
shall not be used as operating revenue in the Federal budget to balance
the budget, they would get 70 or 80 votes, 75 votes perhaps for a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
Because they did not do that, they fell one vote short. They intend
to bring a constitutional amendment to balance the budget to the floor
of the Senate again, and have announced they intend to do it under a
reconsideration vote. They have a right to do that. We simply want an
opportunity to provide a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to say to all
of those in the Senate, when you bring this, do it the right way this
time. If you do it the right way you will, in my judgment, pass a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget out of this Senate and
send it to the States for ratification.
That is what this sense-of-the-Senate vote is about. It is not about
protecting anybody. It is not about setting up a scarecrow. It is about
very serious, important public policy issues. Anyone who says this is
not an important or serious issue apparently misunderstands what the
policy issues are here. I did not vote to reform the Social Security
system--I did not vote to increase payroll taxes in the 1980's, as did
most Members of Congress, in order to have that money go into the
operating budget of the United States and not be saved for the future
in the Social Security trust funds as we promised the American people
it would be.
Last year the Budget Committee brought to the floor of the U.S.
Senate a budget. They said, ``Here is our balanced budget.'' And on
page 3 it says, ``Deficits--'' in 2002, $108 billion. How can that be
the case? Because technically they say, ``We haven't yet balanced the
budget, technically in law, but what we have done is promised we will
use this money to show a zero balance because these Social Security
trust funds, to the tune of $108 billion, will be used to balance the
Federal budget.''
It is not an honest way to do business. It ought not be done. We can,
in my judgment, remedy this problem very quickly. Voting for my sense-
of-the-Senate resolution, and including in the constitutional amendment
to balance the budget that is brought to the floor of the Senate, the
provision I have described, which is fair to the American workers,
keeps our promise with the American workers, is fair to senior citizens
in this country, and does what we said in 1983 we were going to do for
the future of the Social Security system.
I am a little weary of hearing people stand on the floor of the
Senate saying the Social Security system is going broke. The system has
been around 60 years. In the year 2029, which is 30-some years from
now, we have financing problems with it, yes, but we are going to
respond to those long before 2029. For someone to say a system that has
been around here for some 60 years is going to go broke because in the
year 2029--33 years from now--we have financing trouble is, in my
judgment, unfathomable.
This is a wonderful contribution to this country of ours, the Social
Security system. We can and have made it work, and will make it work in
the future. But I will guarantee you that it will not work in the
future the way we expect it to, to help the people who are going to
retire in the future in this country, the baby boomers especially, if
we do not take steps to protect the Social Security trust funds and use
them for the purpose that they were intended back in the 1983 Social
Security Reform Act.
Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is under the control of Senator
Domenici and Senator Dorgan. Senator Dorgan has approximately 12
minutes left of his time. Senator Domenici, who I do not see at this
point, has 10 minutes under his time.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, since I have not spoken to Senator
Domenici, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 3
minutes and not have it charged to either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I agree with 90 percent of what my friend
from North Dakota has to say. Where I do differ is--and let me add in
the Budget Committee I supported Senator Fritz Hollings in saying that
we should exclude Social Security as we balance the budget. I
cosponsored that legislation. What is true, however, is that the
balanced budget amendment that we proposed, as it was, protects Social
Security more than the present law does. Bob Myers, chief actuary for
Social Security for 21 years, strongly supported the balanced budget
amendment saying it was essential to the protection of Social Security.
I recognize that we are close to getting something worked out. I hope
we can. I do think it is unrealistic, the amendment offered by my
friend from North Dakota, that by the year 2002, we can do this,
excluding Social Security. I think if we go on a glidepath for a few
years later, that can be worked out.
To those who question that, that provides a great deal more
protection than you have in the present law. The present law gives
theoretical protection, but it is not there. The Constitution gives
muscle to that.
Now, I add that I want to make sure that, in the years we have
deficits, we fill those deficits, that we do not exclude both the
receipts and the deficits, because the time will come--I may not be
around to need it but the Senator from North Dakota will--when we need
to protect those deficits and make clear that is a liability of the
Federal Government.
I am hopeful something can get worked out yet. There are various
versions floating around right now. It would be a great day for the
American public if we could get it worked out.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time do
the Democrats have and how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is remaining 12 minutes 15 seconds under
the control of Senator Dorgan and 9 minutes 50 seconds under the
control of the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not sure I need all my time. Let me
yield myself 5 minutes at this point.
Mr. President, I guess I start this by paraphrasing Ronald Reagan:
Here we go again. Every time we get into a balanced budget debate,
someone tries to claim that Congress is raiding the Social Security
trust fund. Every single time it happens, somebody gets up and claims
we are not doing it right.
I simply want to note that there is a bit of irony in this debate in
the Dorgan amendment. In 1995, we saw a plethora of budget proposals
from both sides of the aisle. We saw a number
[[Page S4051]]
from that side of the aisle. Indeed, at last count, the President
himself has proposed 10 different budgets since January 1995. Each and
every one of those budgets, including the President's 1997 budget,
includes Social Security in the deficit calculations.
I am not suggesting that is in any way violating the law, because it
is not. It is not violating the law to produce a balanced budget and
call it a balanced budget under the unified concept which has been used
since Lyndon Johnson's time, when at the direction of Arthur Burns, one
of the best economists we have ever had serve us, the United States
decided to put everything on budget, because everything on that budget
had an impact on the economy of the United States. So does the trust
fund have an impact on the economy. The unified budget was a concept of
putting everything on there that has any economic impact on the people
of the United States and the American economy.
Somehow, it seems to me, we have some kind of a gap here. Unless I am
reading wrong, Senator Daschle, Senator Dorgan, two of the sponsors of
this so-called Social Security amendment, promoted a balanced budget
here in the U.S. Congress. If I am wrong, the Senator can tell me I am
wrong. Somehow, it seems to me that something must have escaped,
escaped the mind, because that plan could only claim to reach balance
in 2002 including the Social Security trust fund.
As a matter of fact, I have not seen any budget produced that has
been offered as an instrument upon which we would vote here in the
Senate that produces the kind of balanced budget that is now being
encouraged by this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The Republican
budget, the first one that balanced the budget, the first one to pass
Congress to balance the budget in two generations, also included the
Social Security trust funds in this deficit calculation.
That does not mean that in doing that you are detracting from the
solvency of the Social Security fund. As a matter of fact, in each and
every one of the budgets I have been discussing, to my recollection,
the nine the President has offered, two of which have been balanced,
the others that I have referred to in a very, very formidable way,
those budgets do not touch Social Security. They do not touch the
benefits. They do not touch the taxes that are attributable to Social
Security. You get a balanced budget without in any way doing harm to
the Social Security trust fund and the taxes that are imposed on the
American people in order to get that done.
Frankly, it seems to me, for those who would like to make sure we get
a balanced budget and not use the Social Security trust fund in the
calculations, I wonder how they get to balance. I have not seen any
proposals that have accomplished that. From this Senator's standpoint,
if we are going to get there by 2002, which I think is everybody's
agenda, I believe it is inconceivable that you can get there and in the
final calculations--that is why I am saying in the calculations--you do
not use the unified budget concept, which for more than 20 years has
been used in almost every examination of the impact of the Federal
budget on the people of this country.
Maybe I am missing something. Maybe somebody knows another way to do
it by 2002 and reduce the expenditures of our Government by another
$190 to $200 billion. I do not believe, in my efforts, which I think
have been at least, if not successful, at least we have shown various
ways--and it has been a rather formidable exercise--I do not think we
have ever come up with anything that could do that.
While I understand the debate is a useful debate, we ought to be very
concerned about it. I think it is truly, ``Here we go again,'' and I
hope the U.S. Senate decides we ought to get on with the subject, get a
balanced budget, and get a constitutional amendment and not do the
sense of the Senate at this point.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina,
Senator Hollings.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota.
Obviously, I do not take any pleasure in correcting the record made
by my distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. I served as
chairman of the Budget Committee and had the best of cooperation from
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. I hope we can cooperate
again in getting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that
protects social security.
Last year on March 1, 1995, five Senators signed a letter to the
majority leader stating that we were ready, willing and able to vote
``aye'' on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so long as
we did not repeal the statutory law of the United States that prohibits
the use of Social Security trust funds in computing either deficits or
surpluses of the Federal Government.
Now my distinguished friend from New Mexico says that both sides use
it, and he starts, of course, with President Lyndon Johnson.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a budget table of the deficits and surpluses for the past 40 years.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.
budget Gross
President and year (outlays Trust Real Federal Gross
in funds deficit debt interest
billions) (billions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:
1945....................................................... 92.7 5..4 ........ 260.1 (\1\)
1946....................................................... 55.2 3.9 -10.9 271.0 (\1\)
1947....................................................... 34.5 3.4 +13.9 257.1 (\1\)
1948....................................................... 29.8 3.0 +5.1 252.0 (\1\)
1949....................................................... 38.8 2.4 -0.6 252.6 (\1\)
1950....................................................... 42.6 -0.1 -4.3 256.9 (\1\)
1951....................................................... 45.5 3.7 +1.6 255.3 (\1\)
1952....................................................... 67.7 3.5 -3.8 259.1 (\1\)
1953....................................................... 76.1 3.4 -6.9 266.0 (\1\)
Eisenhower:
1954....................................................... 70.9 2.0 -4.8 270.8 (\1\)
1955....................................................... 68.4 1.2 -3.6 274.4 (\1\)
1956....................................................... 70.6 2.6 +1.7 272.7 (\1\)
1957....................................................... 76.6 1.8 +0.4 272.3 (\1\)
1958....................................................... 82.4 0.2 -7.4 279.7 (\1\)
1959....................................................... 92.1 -1.6 -7.8 287.5 (\1\)
1960....................................................... 92.2 -0.5 -3.0 290.5 (\1\)
1961....................................................... 97.7 0.9 -2.1 292.6 (\1\)
Kennedy:
1962....................................................... 106.8 -0.3 -10.3 302.9 9.1
1963....................................................... 111.3 1.9 -7.4 310.3 9.9
Johnson:
1964....................................................... 118.5 2.7 -5.8 316.1 10.7
1965....................................................... 118.2 2.5 -6.2 322.3 11.3
1966....................................................... 134.5 1.5 -6.2 328.5 12.0
1967....................................................... 157.5 7.1 -11.9 340.4 13.4
1968....................................................... 178.1 3.1 -28.3 368.7 14.6
1969....................................................... 183.6 -0.3 +2.9 365.8 16.6
Nixon:
1970....................................................... 195.6 12.3 -15.1 380.9 19.3
1971....................................................... 210.2 4.3 -27.3 408.2 21.0
1972....................................................... 230.7 4.3 -27.7 435.9 21.8
1973....................................................... 245.7 15.5 -30.4 466.3 24.2
1974....................................................... 269.4 11.5 -17.6 483.9 29.3
Ford:
1975....................................................... 332.3 4.8 -58.0 541.9 32.7
1976....................................................... 371.8 13.4 -87.1 629.0 37.1
Carter:
1977....................................................... 409.2 23.7 -77.4 706.4 41.9
1978....................................................... 458.7 11.0 -70.2 776.6 48.7
1979....................................................... 503.5 12.2 -52.9 829.5 59.9
1980....................................................... 590.9 5.8 -79.6 909.1 74.8
Reagan:
1981....................................................... 678.2 6.7 -85.7 994.8 95.5
1982....................................................... 745.8 14.5 -142.5 1,137.3 117.2
1983....................................................... 808.4 26.6 -234.4 1,371.7 128.7
1984....................................................... 851.8 7.6 -193.0 1,564.7 153.9
1985....................................................... 946.4 40.6 -252.9 1,817.6 178.9
1986....................................................... 990.3 81.8 -303.0 2,120.6 190.3
1987....................................................... 1,003.9 75.7 -225.5 2,346.1 195.3
1988....................................................... 1,064.1 100.0 -255.2 2,601.3 214.1
Bush:
1989....................................................... 1,143.2 114.2 -266.7 2,868.0 240.9
1990....................................................... 1,252.7 117.2 -338.6 3,206.6 264.7
1991....................................................... 1,323.8 122.7 -391.9 3,598.5 285.5
1992....................................................... 1,380.9 113.2 -403.6 4,002.1 292.3
Clinton:
1993....................................................... 1,408.2 94.2 -349.3 4,351.4 292.5
1994....................................................... 1,460.6 89.1 -292.3 4,643.7 296.3
1995....................................................... 1,514.4 113.4 -277.3 4,921.0 332.4
1996....................................................... 1,572.0 126.0 -270.0 5,191.0 344.0
Est. 1997.................................................. 1,651.0 127.0 -292.0 5,483.0 353.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Budget realities: Senator Hollings, April 17, 1996.
Note: Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government FY 1996; Beginning in 1962 CBO's 1995 Economic and
Budget Outlook.
Mr. HOLLINGS. If you look at this table, you can refer to 1969 when
we had the last budget balanced. I happened to have been here and to
have voted for it. That is a unique experience.
If you look down to the 1997 budget that we will be working on, you
can see the intent to use $127 billion--$127 billion in trust funds.
Up, up and away.
I hold in my hand this light blue book entitled ``Budget Process Law
Annotated.'' You will not find the word ``unified'' in it. You, will,
however, find section 13301 of the statutory laws of the United States.
I ask unanimous consent to have that section printed in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Subtitle C--Social Security
SEC. 13301. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF OASDI TRUST FUNDS.
(a) Exclusion of Social Security From All Budgets.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and
disbursements of the Federal Old-Age Survivors Insurance
Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund
shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays,
receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes--
(1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted
by the President,
[[Page S4052]]
(2) the congressional budget, or
(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985.
(b) Exclusion of Social Security From Congressional
Budget.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and
revenue totals of the old age, survivors, and disability
insurance program established under title II of the Social
Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals
required by this subsection or in any other surplus or
deficit totals required by this title.''.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, section 13301 says you cannot use Social
Security. In our failure to follow that law, we should not wonder why
the people do not have any faith or trust in their Government.
Let us go back to Social Security. In 1983, we increased the Social
Security payroll taxes in order to save the program. We said these
moneys would be used only for Social Security. We were going to balance
the budget for general government and build up Social Security
surpluses to ensure that money would be there when they baby boomers
retire. However, working in the Budget Committee with the distinguished
Senator from New Mexico, you could see what was happening. Budget
deficits went up, up and away. We had less than a trillion-dollar debt
when Reagan came to town. It is now $5 trillion. So in the Budget
Committee, on July 10, 1990, I offered an amendment to protect the
surpluses in the Social Security trust fund. It was my amendment that
passed the committed by a vote of 20-1.
I ask unanimous consent to have the vote printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Hollings Motion To Report the Social Security Preservation Act
The Committee agreed to the Hollings motion to report the
Social Security Preservation Act by a vote of 20 yeas to 1
nay:
Yeas: Mr. Sasser, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Riegle,
Mr. Exon, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Simon, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Wirth,
Mr. Fowler, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Robb, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Boschwitz, Mr. Symms, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kasten, Mr. Nickles,
Mr. Bond.
Nays: Mr. Gramm.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, after our success in the Budget
Committee, I worked with Senator Heinz to offer the same amendment on
the Senate floor on October 18, 1990. The vote was 98-2, and the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico voted both in July, and in
October to not use Social Security trust funds.
I ask unanimous consent that that vote be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Hollings-Heinz, et al., amendment which excludes the Social
Security Trust Funds from the budget deficit calculation,
beginning in FY 1991.
yeas (98)
Democrats (55 or 100%)--Adams, Akaka, Baucus, Bentsen,
Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers,
Burdick, Byrd, Conrad, Cranston, Daschle, DeConcini, Dixon,
Dodd, Exon, Ford, Fowler, Glenn, Gore, Graham, Harkin,
Helfin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry,
Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Metzenbaum,
Mikulski, Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Reid,
Riegle, Robb, Rockefeller, Sanford, Sarbanes, Sasser, Shelby,
Simon, Wirth.
Republicans (43 or 96%)--Bond, Boschwitz, Burns, Chafee,
Coats, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Dole, Domenici,
Durenberger, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield,
Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Jeffords, Kassebaum, Kasten, Lott,
Lugar, Mack, McCain, McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles,
Packwood, Pressler, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stevens,
Symms, Thurmond, Warner, Wilson.
NAYS (2)
Republicans (2 or 4 %)--Armstrong, Wallop.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, when the both sides continued to use the
surpluses--I teamed up with Senator Moynihan. I said, ``Look, you are
using these moneys for defense, education, housing, foreign aid, for
everything but Social Security. Let us just stop the increase in taxes
on Social Security.''
So exactly 5 years ago, on April 24, 1991, the distinguished Senator
from New Mexico moved to table the Moynihan-Kasten-Hollings amendment
that would have reduced Social Security revenues in the budget
resolution by about $190 billion.
I ask unanimous consent that that vote be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Domenici motion to table the Moynihan-Kasten-Hollings
amendment which reduces Social Security revenues in the
budget resolution by $24.6 billion in FY 1992, $27.6 billion
in 1993, $38.2 billion in 1994, $44.0 billion in 1995, and
$61.7 billion in 1996; and returns Social Security to pay-as-
you-go financing.
yeas (60)
Democrats (26 or 47%)--Baucus, Bentsen, Bingaman, Bradley,
Breaux, Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Conrad, Daschle, DeConcini,
Dixon, Ford, Glenn, Graham, Heflin, Johnston, Kohl,
Lautenberg, Levin, Mikulski, Robb, Rockefeller, Sasser,
Shelby, Simon.
Republicans (34 or 79%)--Bond, Brown, Burns, Chafee, Coats,
Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Dole, Domenici,
Durenberger, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatfield,
Jeffords, Kassebaum, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell,
Murkowski, Packwood, Pressler, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Smith,
Specter, Stevens, Thurmond, Warner.
nays (38)
Democrats (29 or 53%)--Adams, Akaka, Biden, Boren, Bryan,
Cranston, Dodd, Exon, Fowler, Gore, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye,
Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Leahy, Lieberman, Metzenbaum,
Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Reid, Riegle, Sanford,
Sarbanes, Wellstone, Wirth.
Republicans (9 or 21%)--Craig, Hatch, Helms, Kasten, Mack,
Nickles, Seymour, Symms, Wallop.
not voting (1)
Democrats (1)--Pryor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on November 13, 1995, the Senator from
New Mexico again joined with us on a vote of 97-0 not to use Social
Security trust funds. But in March of last year they were trying to get
a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that used an additional
$636 billion in Social Security trust funds.
Under that approach, we would come around to the year 2002 and say,
``Whoopee, we have finally done our duty under the Constitution and we
have balanced the budget.'' But we would have at the same time caused
at least a trillion-dollar deficit in Social Security. Who is going to
vote to increase Social Security taxes, or any other tax, to bring in a
trillion dollars?
That is our point here. That is why we have offered this sense of the
Senate. What happens is the media goes right along. I want to quote
from an April 15 article in Time magazine which talks about the
surpluses in the highway trust fund:
Supporters argue, rightly, that the money would go where it
was intended--building roads and operating airports. But the
supposedly untapped funds are actually an accounting figment.
That is what we will have to say about Social Security in 2002
because the money will not be there. Let us cut out this charade, stop
the fraud, and be honest with each other. Let us get truth in
budgeting.
I reserve the remainder of our time.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to Senator Ford.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota. I think
everyone should have listened to my friend from South Carolina. He has
been there from year one. He knows the history of it. He understands
it, and he says it straight.
I listened to my good friend from New Mexico, chairman of the Budget
Committee, one of the smartest financial wizards in the Senate. I
believe, honestly and sincerely, that he knows how to operate to be
sure that Social Security funds are not used. He says he only wants to
use them for calculation. He does not touch the fund, the taxes; he
does not touch anything. If you do not touch them, why use them? If you
do not touch them, why use them?
We have a contract with the people of this country. Social Security
is doing better. There are 8.4 million new jobs, all of them paying
into Social Security. Things are beginning to look a little better. But
if we take Social Security funds to balance the budget, then we are
deceiving the American public.
I voted for a balanced budget every time except the last time
because, before that, it excluded Social Security funds. This last
time, it included Social Security funds. You had at least seven more
votes--we would be in the seventies on the balanced budget amendment
had you said we exclude Social Security moneys.
So when you say you are not using them, you will not spend them, you
are not going to touch taxes, there ought to be a way, and there should
be a way, that we can pass a balanced budget here without using those
funds.
[[Page S4053]]
I hope my colleagues will listen to Senator Dorgan and Senator
Hollings and that we approve this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
I suspect my time has expired. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator from New Mexico have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I told Senator Dorgan I would use our
time up and he could close. Senator Simpson has arrived. He is never
without something to say on this subject. I yield half of my remaining
time to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator. It will not take 2 minutes. It does
not take too many minutes to explain that there is no Social Security
trust fund. To come to this floor time after time and listen to the
stories about the Social Security trust fund is phantasmorgia and
alchemy. There is no Social Security trust fund. The trustees know it,
we know it, everyone in this Chamber knows it.
What you have is a law that says if there are any reserves in the
Social Security system, they will be invested in securities of the
United States, based on the full faith and credit of the United States.
Therefore, they are. They consist of the bills, savings bonds, and they
are issued all over the United States. Some here own them, and banks
own them. The interest on those is paid from the General Treasury, not
some great kitty or some Social Security piggy bank. This is the
greatest deception of all time.
The sooner we wake up and realize that the trustees of the Social
Security system, consisting of three Members of the President's
Cabinet, consisting of Dona Shalala, Robert Rubin, and Robert Reisch,
Commissioner Shirley Chater, one Republican and one Democrat, are
telling us this system will be broke in the year 2029 and will begin to
go broke in the year 2012--there is no way to avoid it unless you cut
the benefit or raise the payroll tax. Guess which one we will do at the
urging of the senior citizens? We will raise the payroll tax one more
time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have a letter dated January 19 signed
by Senator Exon, Senator Daschle, and Senator Dorgan with reference to
a proposed balanced budget that they wanted the Republicans to join
them in with some common ground.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Office of the Democratic Leader,
Washington, DC, January 19, 1996.
Hon. Robert Dole,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: We are disturbed by several remarks you
made yesterday at your news conference on the status of
budget negotiations. It is unclear to us why your public
comments concerning the budget continue to grow more
pessimistic even as the gap between our two plans continues
to narrow.
We believe a workable solution to balancing the budget is
indeed at hand. Since our House counterparts appear less
willing, or less able, to discuss alternatives, we ask that
you take the initiative and join us to build support for a
``common ground'' balance budget. This budget would be based
on the $711 billion in reductions to which all parties in the
budget negotiations have already agreed. (Please see the
attached chart outlining those areas of agreement.)
Democrats and Republicans have made a great deal of
progress over the past few weeks in narrowing the gap between
our two plans. The biggest remaining gap, of course, it the
difference between our two tax cut proposals. The current
Republican plan calls for $115 billion more in tax cuts than
does the plan offered by the President and Congressional
Democrats. Your plan pays for these additional tax breaks by
cutting $132 billion--above and beyond what Democrats have
agreed to--from programs that are essential to working
families.
Spefically, your plan cuts Medicare by $44 billion more
than the Democratic plan. It cuts Medicaid by $26 billion
more. It cuts domestic investments in areas such as education
and the environment by $52 billion more. And it raises taxes
on working families by $10 billion.
The Democratic plan, by contrast, allows us to balance the
budget in seven years using CBO numbers, provide a reasonable
tax cut of $130 billion for working families, and still
protect Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment.
We should act decisively to balance the budget immediately.
If balancing the budget is the goal, we can reach it now by
banking the ``common ground'' savings on which we all agree.
We ask you to return with us to the White House to resume
budget negotiations with the Administration before the
current continuing resolution expires next Friday, January
26. If you will agree to return to the table, reduce your tax
cut, and adopt the ``common ground'' reductions to which we
have all agreed, we can reach an agreement immediately. We
can balance the budget in seven years--and provide America's
families with tax relief--without eviscerating the programs
on which their economic security depends.
Sincerely,
J. James Exon,
Tom Daschle,
Byron L. Dorgan.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note that the proposed balanced budget
is in the unified budget manner using the Social Security trust funds
in calculating the balance.
I just want to close by saying that we can go on with these arguments
as long as we want. The truth of the matter is seniors should know
that, if you can get a unified balanced budget by the year 2002 which
helps the American economy grow, prosper, and which brings interest
rates down, it is the best thing you can do for the Social Security
trust fund. That is exactly what it needs.
There is no chance of success unless the American economy is growing
and prospering. For that to happen you have to balance the unified
budget. If you want to say 4 years after that you will balance without
the use of the funds, fine. You put that on a line and show it.
I say to my friend, Senator Hollings, that we are engaged now in
trying to write some language for a balanced budget constitutionally
which would put it in balance in the unified way by a certain time, and
under the ideas that the Senator from South Carolina has, by 4 years
later to try to put that in the constitutional amendment. We are
working with the Senator and others. We hope to have it done very soon,
at which point when it clears with the Senator from South Carolina and
others, we will be glad to give it to the leadership to see what they
want to do with it.
I thank the Senator for his comments. Even though they were not all
directed to agreeing with me, we are working on the same wavelength.
I yield the floor and yield any time which I may have.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes twenty-one seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me use the remaining time.
I guess now we have heard the three stages of denial. Let me rephrase
the three stages of denial.
One, there are no Social Security trust funds;
Two, if there are Social Security trust funds, we are not using them
to balance the budget;
Or, three, if there are Social Security trust funds and we are using
them to balance the budget, we will stop by the year 2006.
All three positions have been given us in response to our position on
this floor--the three stages of denial.
I watched the debate on the floor of the House of Representatives the
other night. A fellow had a chart, and he talked about the income tax
burden by various groups of taxpayers. He said, you look at the folks
at the bottom level here. They are not paying higher income taxes. We
have not increased their income tax burden. He strutted around and
talked about how wonderful that was. He did not say with his chart what
had happened to those folks in the last decade with respect to payroll
taxes. No, their income tax has not increased. Their payroll tax
skyrocketed because this Congress increased the payroll tax, determined
to want to save the payroll taxes in the trust fund and build that
trust fund for the future.
That is why people are paying higher payroll taxes. In fact, this
year, $71 billion more is collected in receipts in the Social Security
system than will be paid out. The question is, What is that for? If
there is no trust fund, what is that for? Did the Congress increase
payroll taxes so they could take the most regressive form of taxation
and say to people, By the way, we will use that to finance the
Government? Is
[[Page S4054]]
that what they did? That would not have gotten one vote in the House
nor the Senate, even by accident.
You all know it is wrong. There is not one person in here in a silent
moment who would not admit that it is wrong to increase these payroll
taxes and promise workers that you are going to take their money, put
it in a trust fund and save it and say, ``By the way. It is either not
here, or it is here and we are misusing it, or, by the way, if we are
misusing it, we will stop in 2006.'' What on Earth kind of debate is
that?
Let us decide what is wrong, and when we see what is wrong, let us
fix it.
This sense-of-the-Senate resolution says there is a very serious
problem. This problem is not a nickel and dime problem. It might be an
inconvenience to some. But this problem is $600 billion to $700 billion
in the next 7 years. This is big money. This has to do with the future
of Social Security. This has to do with very important financial
considerations in this Government.
My point is, let us balance the Federal budget. Yes; let us even put
a requirement to do so in the Constitution. But let us not enshrine in
the Constitution a provision that we ought to take money from workers
in this country, promise them we will save it in a trust fund, and then
misuse it by saying it becomes part of the operating revenue of this
country.
I have heard all of the debate about what is wrong with what Senator
Hollings, I, Senator Ford, and others have said. I have not heard one
piece of persuasive evidence that the payroll taxes are not being
systematically misused when we promised that it would be saved in
trust, and in fact they are used as an offset to other operating
revenues to try to show a lower budget balance.
That is why I say to those who say that they produce a balanced
budget, show us a document that shows even when they say it is in
balance. It is $108 billion in deficit. But they say we will fix that
because we will take the $108 billion out of Social Security and pledge
to you it is in balance.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment
of the Senator from North Dakota.
The failure to formally segregate the Social Security trust funds is
not the only reason I oppose the balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution, but it is certainly one of the reasons.
Even if there were no other reasons, the assault on Social Security
is reason enough to oppose the proposed constitutional amendment.
And make no mistake, Mr. President.
The unwillingness to formally exempt it from the proposed
constitutional language is nothing less than an assault on Social
Security.
The opponents of this exemption want those funds, pure and simple.
Mr. President, it is unlikely that we will hear a plain statement to
that effect here on the floor.
Other reasons will be provided.
But the bottom line is that the opponents of exempting Social
Security in a constitutional amendment want to be able to tap into
Social Security revenues for the rest of Government.
To a certain extent, we already have that.
The so-called unified budget includes the Social Security surpluses
with the on-budget deficit to reduce our apparent budget deficit.
I do not single out one party; both Democrats and Republicans have
used that technique.
To date, it has been a bookkeeping maneuver.
But in a few years, when the Social Security Program begins to draw
on the surpluses that have built up over the past several years, the
free ride will stop, and many of the favorite spending programs of the
advocates of the constitutional amendment will be at risk.
Programs which have been so successful in escaping the budget
scalpel, including our bloated defense budget and the billions in
wasteful spending done through the Tax Code, may finally be asked to
justify themselves a little more carefully.
Mr. President, it is precisely that moment that those who oppose
excluding Social Security from the constitutional amendment are
anticipating.
I fear that many would prefer to put Social Security on the block
rather than ask these other areas to bear their fair share of reducing
the deficit.
Mr. President, some may argue that current law provides adequate
protection for Social Security, or that if the balanced budget
amendment is ratified, Social Security can be protected as part of
implementing legislation.
We should recall, though, that many of those who make that argument
also maintain that mere statutory mandates are insufficient to move
Congress to do what it needs to do.
They argue that only constitutional authority is sufficient to
engender the will necessary to reduce the deficit.
Using the reasoning of the supporters of the balanced budget
amendment, the willpower needed to resist the temptation to raid the
Social Security cookie jar can only come from a constitutional mandate.
Those who oppose giving this extra, constitutional protection for
Social Security often suggest that there is no practical need for the
protection because Social Security will compete very well with other
programs.
Let me respond to that argument with two comments.
First, Social Security should not have to compete with anything.
As many have noted, it is a separate program with a dedicated funding
source, intended to be self-funding.
Second, any assessment of the political potency of any particular
program must be reappraised when we enter the brave new world of the
balanced budget amendment.
One prominent Governor was reported as suggesting that areas many
claim are untouchable should be subject to cuts.
Specifically including Social Security in that list, this Governor
worried that
Otherwise, the states are going to bear a disproportionate
share. We're the ones who are going to have to raise taxes.
And in a moment of revealing honesty, another Governor argued that
Social Security must be asked to shoulder the burden of reducing the
deficit.
Reports quote him as saying that to take Social Security off the
table, and then impose a burden on other spending systems is not going
to be acceptable.
There can be no more revealing statement of intent by many of those
who oppose constitutionally separating Social Security than this
statement.
Given the growing support of State-based approaches to problems--a
development I applaud--as well as the resurgent influence of States on
Federal policy, how can anyone confidently predict that Social Security
will remain untouched while we cut programs in which States have a
significant interest.
Mr. President, Social Security is fiscally and politically a special
program.
Apart from the fiscal problems of not excluding Social Security, the
special political nature of the program makes it worthy of protection.
Social Security is singular as a public contract between the people
of the United States and their elected government.
The elected government promised that if workers and their employers
paid into the Social Security fund, they would be able to draw upon
that fund when they retired.
But the singular nature of Social Security, and the special regard in
which it is held by the public, does not flow from some transitory
nostalgia.
Social Security has provided real help for millions of seniors.
According to the Kerrey-Danforth Bipartisan Entitlement Commission,
the poverty rate for senior households is about 13 percent, but without
Social Security, it could increase to as much as 50 percent.
For almost half of the senior households below the poverty line,
Social Security provides at least 90 percent of total income.
For those seniors, and for millions of others, the Social Security
contract is very real and vitally necessary.
Anything other than partitioning Social Security off from the rest of
the budget risks a breach of that public contract.
Mr. President, some may try to characterize the proposed exemption
for Social Security in a possible balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution as pandering to senior citizens.
With that assertion is the implication that somehow there is
something wrong with older Americans who want their Social Security
benefits.
[[Page S4055]]
But, Mr. President, I do agree with those proponents of the balanced
budget amendment who argue that no one will touch the benefits of
today's retirees.
Today's retirees are not at risk if the balanced budget amendment
passes without exempting Social Security.
However, there are three generations that are very much at risk.
The first is my own generation--the baby boomers.
If Congress has the ability to monkey around with Social Security
benefits, under cover of a constitutional mandate, I can guarantee you
there will not be anything left when the baby boomer generation reaches
retirement age.
There are a lot of Americans in that generation, and they also have a
right to the benefits that they paid for and were told they were going
to get by participating in this system.
Mr. President, a second generation is very concerned about the future
of Social Security.
They are young adults in their late twenties and early thirties--the
so-called Generation X.
They are skeptical of there being any Social Security system on which
to rely when they retire.
They see today's retirees, and the huge group of baby boomers ahead
of them, and they are concerned that the system into which they are now
paying will not be around when they need it.
Mr. President, there is a third generation--the generation of my
children.
They do not understand all of this debate.
But some are aware of the big Federal deficit we have.
And some are coming to realize that as they graduate from high school
and go into the work force, they will be the ultimate victims of our
fiscal irresponsibility if we do not protect Social Security.
For those three generations, the future health of the Social Security
system is a real concern.
One of the most important results of the Kerrey-Danforth Entitlement
Commission was to highlight this issue, and as I have mentioned on
other occasions, I for one am willing to consider some of the proposals
put forward by that commission to help ensure the long-term health of
Social Security.
Mr. President, if we are ever to address the long-term solvency of
Social Security in an honest way, especially in the context of a
constitutional balanced budget requirement, keeping Social Security
separate is vital.
Just as a Social Security system that is enmeshed in the rest of the
Federal budget poses a temptation when the system is in surplus, so too
will it become an enormous drain on resources if it starts to compete
for general revenue.
Providing a constitutional partition will serve both to protect
Social Security, and to highlight the need for long-term reform.
Mr. President, those who advocate a balanced budget amendment to our
Constitution frequently argue that it is needed if we are to protect
our children and grandchildren.
How ironic if in the name of helping those children and grandchildren
we deny them the protection of Social Security.
We risk taking away the same rights and protections that so many of
us hope to enjoy.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3672, as modified.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment of
the Senator from Wyoming, as modified. On this question, the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith]
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
Hampshire [Mr. Smith] would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 6, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]
YEAS--92
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--6
Bradley
Hatfield
Nunn
Pell
Robb
Thompson
NOT VOTING--2
Heflin
Smith
So, the amendment (No. 3672), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3667, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The business is now amendment No. 3667.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I make a motion to table and 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the Dorgan amendment No. 3667, as modified. The yeas
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith]
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--42
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Sarbanes
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Smith
#
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3667), as modified,
was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________