[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 102 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7652-S7659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report S. 1023.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1023) making appropriations for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Kohl, and I are 
bringing before the Senate today the Senate Appropriations Committee 
recommendation for the fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the 
Department of the Treasury, U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office 
of the President, and certain independent agencies. The bill we are 
presenting today contains a total funding of $25,206,539,000. This is 
$1,104,116,000 more than the fiscal year 1997 level, and $455,866,000 
less than the President's request. We are recommending a total of 
$12,321,339,000 in discretionary spending and $12,885,100,000 for 
mandatory programs over which this subcommittee has no control.
  Reaching this level has not been an easy task, and I certainly thank 
Senator Kohl, who has yet to arrive on the floor, for his hard work and 
continuing support and advice as we put this bill together.
  Mr. President, this bill includes $11,315,801,000 for the Department 
of the Treasury. As my colleagues are aware, the Department of the 
Treasury has a wide range of responsibilities directed not only at the 
revenues and expenditures of the Government, but law enforcement 
functions as well.
  The Treasury Department is responsible for 40 percent of all Federal 
law enforcement, and adequate funding for this function has been a 
priority for both Senator Kohl and myself. The subcommittee has done 
what we can to ensure that law enforcement agencies funded in this bill 
have the resources to do the job that we asked them to do in the so-
called war against crime. In addition, we have provided a total of $131 
million in the violent crime reduction trust fund. This is $12.7 
million more than requested by the President and $34 million more than 
provided in fiscal year 1997.
  This bill includes $121,124,000 for payments to the U.S. Postal 
Service to reimburse them for providing free mail for the blind and for 
overseas voters and for payment to the Department of Labor for 
disability costs incurred by the old Post Office Department.
  The Executive Office of the President and funds appropriated to the 
President total $485,225,000. This includes the Office of Drug Control 
Policy.
  As many of our colleagues know, the bill includes the 
administration's proposal for a 1-year moratorium on new construction 
projects through the General Services Administration Federal Buildings 
Fund. It is unfortunate, when we need so many renovations on 
courthouses, that the GSA calculation of rent income to the Federal 
building fund has been so inaccurate in the past years that we are at a 
point where there is just barely enough money to continue ongoing 
projects.
  There is also $12.7 billion in mandatory payments through the Office 
of Personnel Management for annuitants' life and health insurance, as 
well as retirement benefits.
  There has been considerable discussion over the past couple of years 
about the funding level for the Internal Revenue Service. Many of us 
are very disturbed that significant amounts of money, over $4 billion, 
was wasted on the tax modernization system. As a result, we have very 
carefully reviewed the budget request from the IRS. We believe that the 
IRS should have sufficient resources to maintain and even increase 
customer service levels, and there must be enough to continue efforts 
to collect taxes due. As a result, we have proposed appropriations at 
the level requested by the President for the three permanent accounts. 
However, we did not agree to the President's request for an advance 
appropriation of $500 million to set up an account for future computer 
modernization efforts.
  Although the IRS has developed and circulated a modernization 
blueprint, that is only a first good step. It was the judgment of the 
subcommittee that

[[Page S7653]]

there must be more detailed information before we agree to additional 
funds for future computer modernization.
  The most critical problem facing IRS is a century date change 
project. As a result, we have set aside $325 million for this effort, 
in addition to funds already appropriated in fiscal year 1997 and 
requested for fiscal year 1998.

  Mr. President, this bill is the result of long, hard hours of work on 
the part of the members and staff of this subcommittee. I want to thank 
them for all of their efforts. I believe we have put together a very 
worthwhile bill and hope we will have the support of the Senate.
  I now yield to our ranking member, my good friend, Senator Kohl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  As the distinguished Senator from Colorado has just indicated, we are 
bringing to the floor recommendations on the fiscal year 1998 
appropriations level for the Treasury, general Government agencies.
  First, I thank Senator Campbell for his dedicated work on this bill. 
He has worked long and hard on the difficult issues that he has just 
outlined for our colleagues. As a result of his efforts, I believe the 
committee has developed a balanced approach for dealing with the many 
programs and activities under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, 
while staying within the budget allocation.
  Since this budget allocation was $489 million below the 
administration's request, we have been required to make some 
substantial reductions. However, the subcommittee actions have resulted 
in a bill that is both fiscally responsible and I also believe very 
reasonable.
  Senator Campbell has discussed the major funding highlights, and 
rather than repeating those highlights, I will limit my comments to a 
few areas that I would like to emphasize.
  First, the funding provided for IRS activities. Tax processing, tax 
law enforcement and information systems is at the President's request. 
Additionally, $325 million has been provided for an information 
technology fund. While we continue to have concerns over the IRS 
modernization efforts, we believe that it is important to provide the 
IRS with the tools necessary to collect taxes owed. By providing full 
funding, we can be assured that the critical century date change and 
data center consolidation occur in a timely manner and allow the IRS to 
continue smooth operations into the year 2000.
  Second, the national media campaign proposed by the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy is not fully funded. I fully support, of 
course, the efforts to combat the drug problem in this country, and I 
support the efforts in leadership of Gen. Barry McCaffrey, but I am 
reluctant to provide billions of dollars for an untried and untested 
media program. So I supported funding at a smaller pilot program level, 
which would provide the administration and Congress with the evidence 
of the success that is necessary when we are committing such huge 
taxpayer dollars.
  However, Senator Campbell and I have come to a compromise position: 
funding the national media program for 1 year at $110 million, after 
which the program will be evaluated.
  We are also providing over $35 million for community-oriented drug 
prevention programs, such as a drug-free prison zone program and the 
initiation of the Drug Free Communities Act grants.
  Finally, I want to highlight that no funds are provided for the 
General Services Administration's Construction and Acquisition Program. 
The Federal buildings fund is experiencing a shortfall in revenue 
resulting from GSA miscalculating rent income and miscalculating 
construction completion dates. While I am concerned over the financial 
situation generating this shortfall, I believe it provides a good 
opportunity to review the principles applied to the Courthouse 
Construction Program. As a result, the report accompanying the bill 
contains criteria that the General Services Administration and the 
Administrative Office of the Courts must apply to future courthouse 
construction projects.
  According to these criteria, projects included in future requests 
must:
  One, meet the design guide standards for construction;
  Two, reflect the priorities of the Judicial Conference of the United 
States;
  Three, be included in the approved 5-year construction plan;
  And four, must be accompanied by a standardized courtroom utilization 
study.
  It is hoped that the application of these criteria will result in a 
well-justified Courthouse Construction Program in the future.
  Mr. President, that concludes my highlights of the bill's funding 
levels. We believe we have provided the best funding levels possible 
under the funding restrictions.
  Before I yield the floor, I also want to acknowledge the fine work 
done by the staff on this bill:
  Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, Lula Edwards, Frank Larkin, and Barbara 
Retzlaff, and others. I thank them for all their hard work in helping 
to bring this bill before the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Colorado.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following individuals be granted privilege of the floor for the 
duration of the consideration of S. 1023, the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act of 1998: Patricia Raymond, Tammy Perrin, 
Lula Edwards, Barbara Retzlaff, Frank Larkin and Jay Kimmitt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 921

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 921.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN 
                   FISH.

       (a) Import Compliance.--Section 6(c) of the Atlantic Tuna 
     Convention Act of 1975 (16 U.S.C. 971d(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(8)(A)(i) Not later than January 1, 1998, the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Secretary of State, shall promulgate regulations to ensure 
     that fish in any form that are--
       ``(I) subject to regulation pursuant to a recommendation of 
     the Commission; and
       ``(II) presented for entry into the United States;

     have been taken and retained in a manner and under 
     circumstances that are consistent with the recommendations of 
     the Commission described in clause (ii).
       ``(ii) The recommendations described in this clause are 
     recommendations of the Commission that are--
       ``(I) made pursuant to article VIII of the Convention; and
       ``(II) adopted by the Secretary in the regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to this section.
       ``(B)(i) The regulations promulgated under this paragraph 
     shall include, at a minimum, a requirement that the fish 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) are accompanied by a valid 
     certificate of origin that attests that the fish have been 
     taken and retained in a manner and under circumstances that 
     are consistent with the recommendations described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(ii) A certificate described in clause (i) may be issued 
     only by the government of the nation that has jurisdiction 
     over--
       ``(I) the vessel from which the fish that is the subject of 
     the certificate was harvested; or
       ``(II) any other means by which the fish that is the 
     subject of the certificate was harvested.
       ``(C) The regulations promulgated under this paragraph may 
     limit the entry into the United States of fish in any form if 
     that limitation is necessary to carry out the purpose of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(D) Beginning on February 1, 1998, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall prohibit the entry into the United States of 
     fish in any form that does not comply with the regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to this paragraph.''.
       (b) Reports.--Section 11 of the Atlantic Tuna Convention 
     Act of 1975 (16 U.S.C. 971j) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and

[[Page S7654]]

       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) lists each fishing nation from which fish in any form 
     was prohibited entry into the United States pursuant to 
     section 6(c)(8);''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kansas, Mr. 
Brownback, for the purpose of offering a second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                 Amendment No. 922 to Amendment No. 921

(Purpose: To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost 
          of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 1998)

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 922 to amendment No. 921.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) 
     (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of 
     Congress) during fiscal year 1998.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have put forth this amendment in 
working with the manager of the bill, the author of the first-degree 
amendment. I believe he has agreed to it being a second-degree 
amendment. And I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, to my knowledge, there is no opposition 
on the majority side. We are prepared to accept this by a voice vote.
  Mr. KOHL. Likewise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment No. 922.
  The amendment (No. 922) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Does the Senator have further comments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate now on the first-degree 
amendment, as amended?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 2 minutes on 
the amendment, my amendment that was just agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would like to say that the amendment that was just agreed to was to 
eliminate the cost-of-living adjustment for the Members of Congress.
  I think it is important that at this time when we are seeking to 
balance the budget, we not be seen as giving ourselves a pay raise, to 
be able to establish this as an important issue. I do not say that 
Members are overpaid, because I do not believe they are. But I do think 
we are moving forward to balance this budget, and we need to show 
leadership by not receiving this COLA. And that is why I put this 
amendment forward. I am very appreciative that the author of the first-
degree amendment, the manager of the bill, has agreed to it and that it 
has been accepted.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I also ask unanimous consent to have Senator Wellstone 
and myself added as cosponsors to the Brownback amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, several Senators have said they wish to 
speak on this issue. Senator Byrd has indicated he would like to. He is 
in a meeting and will not be here for a short period of time. But those 
Senators who would like to make comments on that, we will do that. And 
we will take something else up if he does not get here in a reasonable 
time.
  I would like to point out to my colleague from Kansas that this issue 
of so-called pay raises has always interested me. As I looked up some 
of the figures, I am sure that most of my colleagues are aware that 
they do not have to take the cost-of-living increase allowance. They 
can turn it back to the Treasury if they do not want it. They can give 
it to charities. There are all kinds of things they can do with it.
  But to put it in some perspective, since it seems to get an awful lot 
of discussion, particularly in election years, about Congress people 
and Senators getting an increase in salaries, I thought I would contact 
the Congressional Research Service and find out just how much 
taxpayers' money goes into salaries for Congressmen and Senators.
  They tell me that one-tenth of one penny--one-tenth of one penny--is 
the average amount a taxpayer pays to congressional salaries.
  I know some people think we are not even worth that much, so we 
probably did a good thing by passing this amendment on a voice vote. 
But I would like to point out a couple of things that might put it in 
perspective.
  For example, in Senator D'Amato's and Senator Moynihan's State, the 
great State of New York, the mayor of New York City earns $31,400 more 
than they do, the Senators of that State.
  In Dade County, FL, Senator Mack's and Senator Graham's State, the 
superintendent of the county gets $51,400 more than the Senators of 
that State or the Congressmen.
  The sheriff of Los Angeles County receives $88,400 more than anybody 
in the congressional delegation from California.
  I guess my message to the average voter would be, if you are really 
concerned about elected officials, you ought to look at all of them, 
top to bottom, and not just because Congress gets so much media 
attention whenever they deal with this COLA or so-called pay raise.

  Many of the other areas of the country--I do not have the numbers 
right in front of me--but if you track the increases from 1970 to 1998, 
in fact, the amount that congressional salaries have increased has been 
less than postal workers, Social Security recipients, military wages, 
private-sector employees, Federal employees, most civilian employees, 
and literally everybody else. But I would like to put that in context.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. We will have some discussion on this issue, I gather. 
And I wanted to say to my colleagues, that several days ago I sent a 
letter out to every colleague saying that I was going to have an 
amendment out here opposing the cost-of-living adjustment for members 
of Congress--and you are quite right, I say to my colleague from 
Colorado, this is not a pay increase. This was just a cost-of-living 
adjustment. I would like to explain a little bit about why I did this.
  Senator Brownback has now come out with the same amendment, so we 
will work together. And it does not matter to me who does the 
amendment. What matters is the effect of it all. But I think that I may 
have somewhat of a different framework than my colleague from Kansas, 
and so I want to spell out my reasons why I support this amendment. And 
I am not going to spend a lot of time on it.
  First of all, when I sent this letter out, I sent it only to my 
colleagues. I was not interested in this becoming a major public issue, 
although when we work this out on the floor, I suppose it is a public 
issue. The reason for addressing my colleagues is that I really think 
that if this amendment becomes a bashing of public service--and I know

[[Page S7655]]

some colleagues will interpret it that way--then it is a big mistake. 
If that is what the net effect of this amendment is, I made a big 
mistake.
  I think there are people here--Republicans and Democrats; Democrats 
and Republicans--who have a highly developed sense of public service. 
If this amendment, which is likely to be accepted, contributes to an 
across-the-board denigration of public service and all people in public 
service, then sending this letter out to my colleagues and saying that 
I would introduce this amendment would have been a mistake. But I now 
join in sponsoring this amendment.
  This amendment will not make some people feel better about it. The 
reason I introduced it, and I wish to make this very clear--is because 
this past year, in our deficit-reduction plans, as the Center on Budget 
Alternatives and Priorities points out, 93 percent of the cuts we made 
in discretionary spending affect low-income people and some of the most 
vulnerable citizens in our country.
  In the welfare bill that we passed, $55 billion of cuts 
disproportionately hurt legal immigrants--not illegal--many of them 
elderly, many of them living alone, many of them with a combined income 
of $525 a month--all their Federal assistance was eliminated. Only part 
of it was restored.
  And the other major area that suffered was in food nutrition 
programs--the vast majority of the cuts in the welfare reform bill 
passed last Congress were in the Food Stamp Program. Most of the 
beneficiaries hurt were working poor people, many of them children.
  So it just seems to me that if we are going to be making, in the name 
of deficit reduction, cuts in programs, and the disproportionate share 
of those cuts affect the most vulnerable people in our country, many of 
them children, many of them poor, I just cannot see how we can give 
ourselves a cost-of-living increase.
  I do not even know what we make--I guess around $130,000 a year. I 
put high value on the work we do here. But I just want to point out 
that a colleague asked me yesterday, after I sent this letter out, 
``Well, come on, Paul. Would there be a time where you would vote for 
this? Isn't this just what you do every year?'' Well, I do not offer 
this amendment every year. So I said, ``Absolutely, yes, but not in the 
context of what we have done as a Senate and a House.''

  I am sure some people believe we have done the right things here in 
Congress. No one has a corner on political truth. Maybe people felt the 
votes we have made, for deficit reduction and for cuts in different 
programs, were the right thing to do and had to be done. But it does 
seem to me that it is just not right, if we are going to call on many 
citizens to sacrifice for deficit reduction, and in particular, call on 
low- and moderate-income families to sacrifice all in the name of 
deficit reduction, and if we are going to make cuts in the most 
effective child nutrition safety program that we have ever had, then I 
just do not think this is a time for us to be giving ourselves a cost-
of-living increase.
  In some context, I can see how the argument over this cost-of-living 
increase can be said to be about apples and oranges. I really can. But 
the way I see it as a Senator, in the context of still calling for 
people to make sacrifices in our country, that there ought to be shared 
sacrifice. And I think, given the fact that we all do well financially 
in Congress, that it is a mistake to go forward with the cost-of-living 
increase. That is why I sent the letter to my colleagues 2 days ago and 
why I announced my intention to introduce an amendment.

  Senator Brownback has now come out with an amendment. We will join 
together on this. The Senator can speak for himself, but I wanted to 
make my framework clear on why I am against a cost-of-living increase.
  If there is further debate on this, I have a more complete statement, 
but I have stated what I believe and there is no reason to speak at any 
greater length now.
  I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the temper of the times, but 
I think some of us who have been through this time and again have the 
duty to come forth and warn the Senate what it is doing.
  Since 1970 to this year, 27 years, in 17 of those years the Senate 
has denied itself the cost-of-living adjustment. The net result is that 
while Social Security recipients' pay, whatever you want to call it, 
their checks have gone up by 421.3 percent in that period, the pay for 
Members of Congress have gone up 214.4 percent.
  I will mention a lot of statistics here, Mr. President, so I ask 
unanimous consent the two documents I have, one entitled ``Increases, 
1970-1997,'' and the other, ``Percent Changes 1970-97,'' be printed in 
the Record after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the last time congressional salaries were 
given a cost-of-living adjustment--and this is not a pay raise--was in 
1993. The pay raise for Federal employees that year was 3.7 percent, 
the COLA's for Congress were 3.2 percent. In 1992, the cost-of-living 
adjustment for Federal employees was 4.2 percent, and for Members of 
Congress it was 3.5 percent.
  We are now in a situation where, in my judgment, if we don't take 
this cost-of-living adjustment for this year, I am sure we will not 
take it next year being an election year. That means we will not take 
it until 1999. Since that is the year before a Presidential election 
year, we will not take it then either. We will not take it in the year 
2000, which is a Presidential election year. I suggest we are going 
into the next century with this maladjustment, as far as congressional 
salaries.
  It does not make any difference to me. It does not make any 
difference to any of us. We are here. We made our commitment. What 
about those out there who should come and serve their country by being 
part of the legislative branch of this Federal Government? We have 
raised the salaries of the people who are Federal civilians downtown. 
We have raised the salaries of the Federal employees. We have raised 
the payments made to Federal retirees. We have raised Social Security 
recipients. We have not raised for Members of Congress, and I predict 
we will not do it unless we face up to the problem now.
  The problem is not ours. The problem is what is going to be the 
judgment of the people who want to serve in the Congress when they 
start looking at the income levels here in Congress compared to their 
own income levels.
  Now, Mr. President, in 1970--and I was here then--my wife and I had 
just bought a home here in Washington the year before for $65,000. At 
the time, our pay was $42,500. That house has now sold--we sold it some 
time ago--but I know that it sold for $450,000. Our pay here is 
roughly--not quite, but roughly--three times the salary we had then.
  What I am trying to make people in the Senate think about is, what 
will be the decision made by young people who are thinking about coming 
here when they look at the cost of living in Washington, DC, which is 
the highest now in our Nation--the cost of property here, the cost of 
renting a home or a condominium. I am talking about family people. When 
we came down here, we came down here with five children and had to have 
a home that five children could live in. There is no way a person can 
come here now at the salary level we have now and buy a home for that, 
where five children can live with their mother and father, unless they 
are extremely wealthy.
  What the Senate is doing, in my judgment, is setting the course to 
assure that the people serving in this body will either be 
multimillionaires or they will be the people who are not capable of 
earning over $100,000 anyway. Now, maybe I am being too tough about 
this, but I think it is time to get tough about this issue and have 
people understand that the cost-of-living adjustment is less than the 
Consumer Price Index increase--less. In other words, it means for 
people living here now, we are adjusting their salaries now with a 
cost-of-living adjustment, for the cost increase, really, for the 
period starting 18 months ago until 6 months ago, and we are trying to 
adjust it now for what the costs were back then. It is not a salary 
increase. This is for the cost of living in this area.

[[Page S7656]]

  Now, people talk to me, well, you can live in Minnesota or maybe you 
can live in Kansas, maybe you can live somewhere else for a lot less 
money. It happens to be, in my case, my cost of living in Alaska is 
just slightly higher than this. But as a practical matter, the 
judgments made by future generations will be: We, as a family member, 
cannot take that job.
  Now, we get a lot of demagogic type of letters--they come in from my 
constituents, too--``You are not worth that money; why don't you come 
home?'' The real question is, what would they do if the people were 
here that they believe should be here? The people would either work for 
nothing, because they are so rich they can, or the people that could 
not make the money that they would make here would come for the pay. 
Now, Mr. President, we have to make up our mind what kind of a body we 
want in the Congress. From my point of view, we want people with 
capabilities who can perform jobs that are needed to be performed.
  Take my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, the only accountant in 
this body--the only accountant in the Senate. What are we dealing with 
now? Massive, complex tax issues, complex problems of accounting. The 
people that are going to come here are going to be motivated by trying 
to do a job. The ones who cannot come here, despite that motivation, 
will be the ones who cannot afford to live a family life in this town 
at that salary.
  Keep in mind something else. We don't come here permanently. As a 
matter of fact, most people who would vote for this do not want us to 
come for more than two terms anyway. But as a practical matter, we all 
maintain a home in our home States. We have expenses there and we have 
expenses here. There is no one in the employment scene today that has 
that situation other than Members of Congress.

  Now, I voted--it was a voice vote--but I voted against it and I would 
vote against it on a recorded vote because we were taking an action to 
deny Members of Congress, for the fifth time, a cost of living, which 
is a structural change. What it will mean is, downstream someone will 
have to have the courage to make the adjustment. Incidentally, we have 
had three times when that happened. In 1977, the Congress made a 28.9-
percent change. That was a salary increase, but it was to make up for 
the fact that in 6 of the previous 7 years Congress had not taken the 
cost-of-living adjustment. Again, in 1982, we took a 15-percent change. 
It was because in 3 of the previous 4 years Congress had not taken a 
cost-of-living adjustment. In 1987, we again took a change. It was 
because, again, we had in 2 of the previous 4 years not taken the cost-
of-living adjustment. Again, in 1991, we had a 27.1-percent increase.
  What I am saying is, you kid yourself as much as you want, the time 
will come when Congress will have to recognize that this structural 
change in the salary, vis-a-vis the salaries of comparable jobs in the 
economy, that the salary increase must come. So instead of recognizing 
this as a cost-of-living adjustment and treating it as such and 
providing that we take a minimum amount--and by the way, in most 
instances we have taken less than was available. For instance, in 1979, 
the Federal employees got a 7-percent increase, Federal retirees got 
11.1, Congress gave itself 5.5. We kept the cost of living down each 
time. But when we did it, we did not have the total structural impact 
of denying it altogether.
  Now, the structural situation will be, if I am right, that we will 
not have a cost-of-living increase next year or the next 2 years. We 
will go into the 21st century with a salary level of 1993. In that 
year, again, we had a 3.2-percent COLA and Federal employees had 3.7 
percent. If you look at my charts that are included in the Record, 
using the CPI in this period of 27 years, which has been 315.7 percent, 
we have taken a 214.4-percent total cost-of-living change. Social 
Security recipients had 421.3 percent; postal workers, 370 percent; the 
military, 360 percent; Federal retirees, 328 percent; private-sector 
employees, 265 percent; Federal civilians, 334 percent. We are at least 
100 percent structurally below the comparable salary base in this 27-
year phase.
  What does that say to young people about serving in the Congress? 
Even if it is on a two-term basis limit, to be here for 12 years and 
take a structural level of 15 years to start with and serve with people 
who will not take the cost-of-living adjustment while you are here 
anyway, I think this is destroying the system that we have today of 
citizens who commit themselves to be part of a great democracy. We have 
not done this to the people who work downtown for the President. 
Presidential salaries have changed and so have the salaries of the 
executives on a Presidential appointment level.
  We have, by the way, impacted the Judiciary, and I think that is 
something other people will talk about and I will talk about later, 
too, because the Federal Judiciary, while it does have a better system 
in the sense there is no contribution for a Federal judge for his or 
her retirement, as we contribute, it is lifetime pay. When they retire, 
they get the full amount of their salary, not a percent as we do based 
on the number of years we have been here. But as a practical matter, 
with the three branches of Government, the only part, through self-
flagellation, that destroys the future of the body is the Congress 
itself. It is a great mistake. It is a great mistake. I think we all 
make sacrifices to come to this job, anyway.
  I can tell the Senate that when I came to the Senate, I was making 
more than three times my salary as a private lawyer in Alaska. Many 
people come here and take a reduction in income. There are others who 
come here and it makes no difference, because of either their great 
wealth or their inability to earn the same amount of money before they 
got here. Many people take a sizable decrease in income to come here. 
But what we are telling the younger people now--and we are trying to 
attract younger people. When I came here, the average age was almost 
70; today, I think it is down to almost 50. We are still trying to 
attract younger people. This is a dynamic society and we should do 
that. But can you do that, Mr. President? Can you look a young man or 
woman in the eye and say: You can move to Washington, you can afford to 
live there and serve for 2 years in the House or 6 years in the Senate, 
or maybe two terms. You can keep your family there, and you can keep 
your house at home, and you can be able to return to your life when you 
finish the service, without having lost your future as far as your 
career is concerned.
  This is not right. It is not right. I have made this speech before 
and it doesn't seem to make any difference to anybody. But I am 
compelled to do it again because I have served here longer than any 
Member of our side of the aisle on the committee that has jurisdiction 
on this subject. I cannot believe we would continue to make this error. 
I believe that Members have left this body--and there are some leaving 
it now --not because they have served too long, or they don't like the 
job, or they haven't done a good enough job, but they cannot plan for 
their future. At one time, I had five children in college. At that 
time, thank God, there were jobs they could get during the summer, and 
we were able to help them and they all got through. But, today, a 
Senator with five children, with the cost of housing, and five going to 
college, why, that person would have to vote from the poor house, Mr. 
President.
  This job ought to pay what it is worth to society. This is the job of 
the continuity of the American system. We serve for 6 years. We 
volunteer for that job and we are the institutional memory of the 
American democracy. I am alarmed that there are not enough people on 
this floor that realize that. I am truly alarmed at the number of 
people that, for political reasons, or other reasons, or campaign 
promises, would harm the future of the Senate, would harm the democracy 
by telling the American people that you will either turn the Senate 
over to the very, very wealthy or those who could not earn as much 
anywhere else.
  Now, the time will come when we will face up to this. It will 
probably be in 2001. As I add it up, roughly, the percentage of pay 
increase then to recover the structural balance will be in the vicinity 
of 35 percent. How many people are going to want to do that in their 
first term? How many people are going to want to do that, who are just 
up for election? I have just mentioned two-thirds of the body then.
  So I say the demise of the American democracy is here. That is why 
the

[[Page S7657]]

Constitutional Convention argued about who should determine what 
Members are paid. They were talking about citizen legislators then, not 
people who came here and stayed 7, 8 months a year. They are talking 
about people who could go home, people who lived within the original 13 
States. My home is closer to Beijing than it is to Washington, DC, and 
this is a 50-State Union now. My colleague from Hawaii lives almost as 
far away. If anyone wants to look at costs, they ought to look at the 
cost of representing those two States. But the main thing is, we think 
about the structural salary level for the future. I am not going to be 
around here that long--maybe longer than some people think. But, Mr. 
President, we will witness the decline in the value of the Congress and 
the American society if we don't have the guts to stand up to the 
demagogs and tell them that pay for the Congress ought to be sufficient 
to attract the most capable people in our society. The capability is 
what counts.
  I am disturbed that, once again, we will deny the economic cycle that 
causes an adjustment being necessary, and we will say, as soon as we 
balance the budget in 2002, if I am hearing right, it may be 2003 
before it is changed. That would be 10 years. How many people will 
decide not to come because of that, Mr. President? How many brilliant 
minds will be denied the American Congress because of that? I think it 
is wrong.
  I am going to speak at length when the time comes, and I am going to 
show what has happened to other countries when they followed and 
pursued this course and how they have deteriorated. The deterioration 
of America is something that we should worry about in terms of 
democracy. My predecessors used to go take the train across the country 
and then take a steamship up to Seward in our State and a railroad up 
to Fairbanks and go home once a year. I go home 15 to 30 or 35 times a 
year. It is a different society.
  I am telling the Senate, unless we are willing to recognize this 
different society and the dynamic society that needs people who are 
family people, who must make sacrifices to start with, but should not 
have to make this kind of sacrifice, to accept a structurally 
imbalanced salary caused by the inability of each successive Congress 
to face up to reality.

                               Exhibit 1

                                               INCREASES, 1970-97                                               
                                                  [In percent]                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Members                                     
                               Year                                   of      Federal     Federal       Social  
                                                                   Congress  employees    retirees     Security 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\----------\3\----
1970 (Jan.)......................................................         0        6.0         5.6        15.0  
1971 (Jan.)......................................................         0        6.0         4.5        10.0  
1972 (Sept.).....................................................         0       10.9         4.8        20.0  
1973.............................................................         0        4.8         6.1   ...........
1974 (June)......................................................         0        5.5        12.1        11.0  
1975 (June)......................................................       5.0        5.0        12.8         8.0  
1976 (June)......................................................         0        4.8         5.4         6.4  
1977 (June)......................................................      28.9        7.1         9.3         5.9  
1978 (June)......................................................         0        5.5         7.4         6.5  
1979 (June)......................................................       5.5        7.0        11.1         9.9  
1980 (June)......................................................         0        9.1        14.2        14.3  
1981 (June)......................................................         0        4.8         4.4        11.2  
1982 (June)......................................................      15.0        4.0         8.7         7.4  
1983 (Dec.)......................................................         0          0         3.9         3.5  
1984 (Dec.)......................................................       4.0        4.0           0         3.5  
1985 (Dec.)......................................................       3.5        3.5         3.5         3.1  
1986 (Dec.)......................................................         0          0           0         1.3  
1987 (Dec.)......................................................      18.6        3.0         1.3         4.2  
1988 (Dec.)......................................................         0        2.0         4.0         4.0  
1989 (Dec.)......................................................         0        4.1         4.0         4.7  
1990 (Dec.)......................................................   \5\ 7.9                                     
                                                                    \6\ 9.9        3.6         4.7         5.4  
1991 (Dec.)......................................................  \5\ 29.5                                     
                                                                   \6\ 27.1        4.1         5.4         3.7  
1992 (Dec.)......................................................       3.5        4.2         3.7         3.0  
1993 (Dec.)......................................................       3.2        3.7         3.0         2.6  
1994 (Dec.)......................................................         0   \2\ 4.23         2.6         1.8  
1995 (Dec.)......................................................         0   \2\ 3.22         2.8         2.6  
1996 (Dec.)......................................................         0   \2\ 2.54         2.6         2.9  
1997 (Dec.)......................................................         0   \2\ 3.33         2.9   ...........
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
  Totals \4\.....................................................     214.4      334.3       328.2       421.3  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects COLAs paid to CSRS retirees.                                                                       
\2\ Reflects Washington, D.C. pay adjustment.                                                                   
\3\ Benefit increases are actually paid in checks issued the first of the following month.                      
\4\ Totals reflect compounding, hence they sum to more than the annual increases.                               
\5\ Representative.    \6\Senator.                                                                              


                Percent Changes 1970-97 in--                            
Indexes for:                                                    Percent 
  CPI (projected)...........................................       315.7
  ECI (projected)...........................................       311.4
Wages or pensions for:                                                  
  Postal workers, wages.....................................       370.6
  Social Security recipients................................       421.3
  Military, wages (excl, fringe benefits)...................       360.3
  Private sector employees, wages...........................       265.1
  Federal retirees..........................................       328.2
  Federal civilians (GS), wages.............................       334.3
  Members of Congress, wages................................       214.4
                                                             ===========
    Amounts Congressional Salary would be if Adjusted by                
          Percentage Change in Above Categories:--                      
                                                                Amount  
CPI (projected).............................................    $176,700
ECI (projected).............................................     174.800
Postal workers, wages.......................................     200,000
Social Security recipients..................................     221,500
Military, wages (excl. fringe benefits).....................     195,600
Private sector employees, wages.............................     155,200
Federal retirees \1\........................................     182.000
Federal civilians (GS), wages \2\...........................     184,600
Actual 1997 Congressional salary............................     133,600
                                                                        
                                                                        
\1\ Reflects COLAs paid to CSRS retirees.                               
\2\ Reflects Washington, D.C. pay adjustment.                           

  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as I said earlier, I sent a letter out 
to my colleagues a couple of days ago and now this amendment has been 
introduced. I spoke earlier about it, and I will again. I want to 
respond to some comments--if the word ``demagog'' is going to be used, 
I want to respond.
  I said earlier that if the net effect of this amendment is to 
encourage the denigration of public service and people in public 
service, then I am mistaken in offering this amendment--the Wellstone-
Brownback amendment. Several days ago, I felt that I needed to get 
started on this and announced I would do it when this bill came to the 
floor. I then went on to say that in the context of what we have been 
doing here in the Congress, and the sacrifices that we have asked of 
all Americans, especially low- and moderate-income people that I 
believe it is wrong for the Members of Congress to receive a cost-of-
living increase. We have made a lot of cuts in programs. Again, in the 
104th Congress, more than 90 percent of the budget reductions in 
entitlement programs came from programs affecting low-income people. If 
we are going to argue that that has to be a part of the sacrifice, I 
don't see how we can then go forward with a cost-of-living increase. We 
will still be making more than $133,000 next year without the increase.
  But, Mr. President, my colleague from Alaska has come to the floor 
and has made several arguments that I have to address. First of all, 
Mr. President, my colleague suggests that if young people know they can 
only make $133,000 a year, why would they want to serve in the Senate 
or House? He goes on to suggest that the only people are going to come 
here are either millionaires or people who could not make $100,000 a 
year.
  I was a teacher. I didn't make anywhere near $100,000. By my 
colleague's standard, 95 percent of the people of the United States of 
America are the people who can't make $100,000 a year, because they 
clearly don't. Let's not assume that because someone was a teacher or a 
wage earner, and didn't make $100,000 a year, that somehow they don't 
have that much value. What in the world does that comment mean? You 
know, with all due respect, I think most people in the country would 
think $133,000 a year is a darn good salary, because 95 percent of the 
people in this country don't even make $100,000 a year. Maybe we just 
need to get a little bit more real about this for a moment.
  I didn't want to get into this argument, but if that's the kind of 
argument that is going to be made, I would like to make it clear that, 
having been one of those individuals that falls into my colleague's 
category of not being able to make $100,000 a year, I think that this 
is an argument that is way out of whack with reality.
  I doubt whether, if you took a poll, most of the people in the 
country would believe that a salary of $133,000 a year is a 
disincentive for somebody wanting to take this job. I don't believe 
that. I don't believe that most young people in this country would not 
run for the U.S. Senate because they are only going to be able to make 
$133,000 a year. I don't believe that for a moment. When some of my 
colleagues say that this would be a reduction in salary, the vast 
majority of the people in the country would not view it that way. That 
argument just doesn't make sense to me. As I said, I didn't want to get 
into these arguments, but if the word ``demagog'' is going to be used, 
then I do want to respond.
  Second of all, Mr. President, if we are going to start talking about 
the financial pressures that we as Senators feel

[[Page S7658]]

with our income, for those of us who aren't independently wealthy, and 
talking about our need for two homes or to send children to college, 
that's a valid point. A lot of people feel that pressure. The median 
income in our country is around $36,000 a year. There are a lot of 
people with two or three children. There are a lot of people trying to 
figure out how to afford to send their kids to college. There are a lot 
of people who are trying to get affordable child care or to figure out 
how to buy a home or pay rent. And by the way, when we talk about 
trying to pay rent, I note that we have also been cutting low-income 
housing assistance. So when I hear this argument that the only people 
that are going to come here are millionaires or people who can't make 
$100,000 a year, there is an implication that these aren't the people 
you want to have come here. I think it would be good if we have lots of 
those people here. I sure didn't feel like I was not of value to this 
body because I didn't make anywhere close to $100,000 a year before I 
came here.

  When I hear the argument made that people would not want to serve, 
that young people would not want to serve, and people don't want to run 
for office because they would only be able to make $133,000 a year 
without this cost-of-living increase, I frankly think it is not a 
credible argument. I think 99.999 percent of the people in the country 
think they could get along on our salaries. The third point, Mr. 
President, that I want to make is that if we are going to talk about 
the squeeze that we feel at $133,000 a year, then how come in some of 
the decisions that we have made about sacrifice, cuts in health care 
programs, nutrition programs, housing programs--which basically affect 
and end up lessening opportunities for low- and moderate-income 
families--how come we then don't have the same concern for those 
families?
  If we are worried about how, on $133,000 a year, we can send our kids 
to college or afford housing, why aren't we as worried about middle-
income and working families? I think this is a slippery-slope argument. 
We had better get to work thinking about the couple who work, in their 
early thirties and who make, combined, $35,000 a year. We had better 
start thinking about them because if all of a sudden we are going to be 
talking about how we just can't make it on $133,000 a year, then surely 
we must understand how people--middle-income and working families with 
incomes of $35,000 to $38,000 a year--feel a terrible squeeze. It is 
just an inconsistent argument for us to make.
  Mr. President, if I am wrong about why we should not have a cost-of-
living increase, I have made a big mistake and apologize. But if not 
having a cost-of-living increase this year and staying at $133,000 is 
the reason why people are not going to run for office, which my 
colleague from Alaska thinks is the case, he is right, and I am wrong. 
But I don't think that is the major reason why people aren't running.
  I think that one of the major reasons people are not running for 
office is it costs so much money to run for office. If we really want 
more women and men from all sorts of different social and economic 
backgrounds to run for office in our country, it doesn't have much to 
do with whether or not we make $133,000 or $134,000 a year. Most people 
think that is a fine salary. It has much more to do with the fact that 
people know that they have to raise millions and millions of dollars. 
Either they themselves are millionaires and they have the money--and we 
have some people in this Senate who are independently wealthy, who are 
some of the best Senators. That is a fact. I don't think that is the 
issue. The issue is all of this money that people have to raise.
  Give me a break. Don't tell me that the reason people do not run for 
office and young people aren't interested in public life is because 
they are now finding out they are only going to make $133,000 a year. I 
think that is ridiculous.
  I think the reason many people don't run for office is twofold: 
First, it costs so much money. It is obscene, and a lot of people do 
not have the stomach for it. They don't want to do it. And I don't 
blame them. I think they wonder how we have the stomach for it. I think 
they think that maybe we are a little off. Or second, and just as 
important--and I could sure draw from some examples, but I will not 
because I might be violating Senate etiquette if I do--is why in the 
world when we have this search-and-destroy, slash-and-burn politics, 
where people do anything to win--that anybody wonders why people do not 
want to run for office? Does anybody here, Democrat or Republican 
alike, really believe that the reason younger people, and not such 
young people, do not run for office is because they can only make 
$133,000 a year? Don't you think it might have something to do with our 
failure to clean up this mess, to come together and pass some kind of 
good campaign finance reform bill? And don't you think it has a lot to 
do, Republicans and Democrats alike, with the way in which we have let 
all of these handlers move in and run our campaigns, putting attack ads 
on television which try to destroy candidates? Don't you think this is 
what makes most people in the country just a little bit skeptical about 
whether or not they would want to run for office and serve? I would 
just suggest to my colleagues that this situation is far more the issue 
than a cost-of-living increase.
  Finally, I will just go back to the first point I made today. I was 
just responding to what was said by my friend from Alaska--and to the 
concern about demagoguery on this issue. I admire people who come out 
here and say, ``I disagree.'' I am quite often on the side of something 
that is not popular. But I do believe that the arguments so far that 
have been given in opposition to this amendment don't make any sense. 
They really do not make any sense.
  I believe that it is important that people be able to make a decent 
income. We should vote, at the right time, for a cost-of-living 
increase, and not try to do this through the back door. People believe 
this is the right way to do an increase. But I don't see how we can do 
it in the context of the decisions that we have made and the sacrifice 
that we have called for from the people in this country that have been 
most affected by the decisions. I don't see how, if we are going to 
make the argument that people feel an economic squeeze at $133,000 a 
year, while most of the cuts we make in discretionary programs hurt 
low- and moderate-income families and their children in the name of 
sacrifice and in the name of deficit reduction, that this is the right 
time for us to go forward with a cost-of-living increase.

  That is the purpose of what I called the Wellstone-Brownback 
amendment, or whatever we wish to call it--it's name doesn't matter.
  Obviously, this amendment is going to be accepted. Is my 
understanding correct that this amendment is going to be accepted?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just say before I yield the floor that I 
thought it would be done in a short period of time. Are other 
colleagues going to come out and speak--I understand they are. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Senator Byrd has said he wishes to speak on it. He is 
in a meeting now, however.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will yield the floor for now. If 
other colleagues are going to speak, I will want to come back--I think 
they may want to take part in this discussion--only because I want to 
be clear why I am doing this and why I think it is the right thing for 
Congress. Other people may have very different arguments to make, and 
if anyone else is going to use the word ``demagogue'' then I am 
certainly going to come back out here to debate on this amendment.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Wellstone, 
for his comments.
  Just to clarify where we are, the Brownback-Wellstone-Campbell 
amendment has been accepted by a voice vote.
  I ask unanimous consent, if there are no further comments right now, 
that the pending amendment be set aside to offer two technical 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 923

       (Purpose: To move a section to a new location in the bill)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

[[Page S7659]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 923.
       On page 71, lines 13 to 18, move Sec. 514 to page 93 and 
     insert after the period on line 3.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by the 
minority.
  I ask for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator 
from Colorado.
  The amendment (No. 923) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 924

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 924.
       Page 49, strike all on lines 11-13, and on line 14, strike 
     the words ``the private sector for'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof the words ``the General Accounting Office shall 
     conduct''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment has also been cleared by 
the minority, and I ask for its immediate acceptance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The amendment (No. 924) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak as if in morning business for a period not to exceed 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________