[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.

                          ____________________