Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 6, 1997, beginning at 2:15 p.m. to hold a hearing and markup on the Governmental Affairs Committee request for additional funding.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, the Senate will be in a period of morning business to allow a number of Senators to introduce legislation and make statements. I understand the Rules Committee is scheduled to meet this afternoon to begin the markup of the Governmental Affairs Committee funding resolution. It is my hope that there will be an agreement reached on this for the consideration of the funding resolution. If an agreement is reached, the Senate may debate the resolution on Friday and on Monday, and, hopefully, complete action on the resolution early next week. It clearly, though, is our intent to take up the funding resolution for the Governmental Affairs Committee next week, hopefully earlier in the week, but at some point we clearly will want to bring it to a conclusion. We have had a lot of discussion, a lot of efforts to find a reasonable arrangement for the committee to go forward. I think we are close to accomplishing that. Also, I might say that there had been some thought that we would begin a discussion today, debate, if you will, on legislation involving the independent counsel, and we have some legislation pending in that regard. But in my discussions with the Democratic leader yesterday, he indicated that he thought perhaps we could come to some bipartisan arrangement to deal with independent counsel in the Judiciary Committee. I had hoped the Judiciary Committee could act on that today. I understand that perhaps there was an objection lodged to going forward today, and therefore it may be a week before the Judiciary Committee can act on that. But the Judiciary Committee, as I understand the independent counsel law, can act in a couple of ways. One, the full committee can act in a bipartisan way to begin a process of looking at whether or not an independent counsel is called for. Or a vote of the majority on the committee could also begin this process. We would like it to be bipartisan, and we will work to try to see if that can be accomplished. Since there was an indication that perhaps we could do that, I thought that the good-faith thing to do would be to make that effort in the Judiciary Committee before we begin debate on forcing that action here in the full Senate. Mr. President, there are a number of military nominations that the Armed Services Committee reported on Tuesday of this week. I am hopeful the Senate will be able to confirm all or at least most of those during today's session. Also, the Energy Committee has reported out the Pena nomination this morning, and it is possible that the Senate could take action on the nomination sometime next week. I will be working with interested Senators to see what problems might exist, to see what time they need to address their concerns. It looks like we will not be able to get a vote on the Pena nomination today, but I intend to call it up next week, at the very latest the middle of the week. As is also usually the case, I will notify our colleagues of the voting schedule as early as possible. I know they will be interested whether or not there will be votes this afternoon or tomorrow. We will get that information to all Senators as soon as we can work through some other scheduling issues with the minority. I thank all Members for their cooperation and their attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the introduction of legislation by Senator Glenn and remarks by Senator Santorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Under a previous order, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., the time will be equally divided between the two managers for closing remarks on Senate Joint Resolution 1. The Senate will recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences, and at 2:15, then, the manager of the Democratic side will control 1 hour of debate with Senator Byrd being recognized for 20 minutes, the following hour will be under the control of Senator Hatch, with the next half- hour being under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee. Debate will conclude, then, with 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader. At 5:15, a vote will occur on passage of Senate Joint Resolution 1. I remind all Senators again of this 5:15 vote and ask all Senators to be in their seats for this important rollcall vote. It has been traditional, when we have major votes on a constitutional question, that Senators come and take their seats and then stand in place and cast their votes. I thank our colleagues for their attention in this matter, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume of my 30 minutes, but I do want to reserve the closing 5 minutes for the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. So after 25 minutes, if I am still going, I hope the Chair will give me that notification. I should like to begin, Madam President, by expressing my appreciation to all the Members of the Senate. We have been debating this issue now for a month or more. It has been a good debate. Every Senator has had an opportunity to express himself or herself, and I think the debate for the most part has been good--troublesome to me sometimes and discouraging in some of the things I have heard said, but still the Senate has worked its will in terms of having the time that we needed to debate this very important issue and to offer amendments. I thank particularly the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch of Utah, for the great work he has done, for the long hours, in fact--yes, hours--he has spent in this Chamber speaking in response to comments from other Senators, commenting on the amendments that have been offered. He has done an outstanding job. If for no other reason, I hope we would pass this amendment because of the great work and the commitment he has to this effort and to this constitutional amendment. I thank him for his great work. Also, Senator Craig of Idaho, Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, Senator Bryan of Nevada, a Democrat who has been involved, and 10 other Democrats who have been committed to this constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, who have had the courage of their convictions to stand up and support this constitutional amendment and make speeches in behalf of it. Senator Coverdell has done an outstanding job in working with the people from all over this country, through the land, who are interested in supporting this amendment. Senator Snowe has done a great job in helping make sure that we had Senators who were aware of the time who would come to the floor and make their statements. Many others have done a great job. I wish to recognize the work they have done because a lot of time, a lot of thought, a lot of great speeches have been made as we have come to the conclusion of this debate on the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Thomas Jefferson has been mentioned a lot here in the debate. As a matter of fact, as I just came from the majority leader's office, I was thinking about the fact that it was in that very room--yes, that very room--that the House of Representatives met in 1801 and took 36 ballots--36 ballots, would you believe it--to elect Thomas Jefferson of the United States over Aaron Burr. How close they came to making a mistake. I think that this, too, is of such historic significance. We should not make a mistake here today and not pass this amendment. We should vote for it. And the impact would be monumental--perhaps not as monumental as electing Thomas Jefferson, but certainly would have impact on the future of all Americans for years and years to come. It is historic. I am very proud that we have kept our word to the American people that we would fight for this amendment, that we would bring it to a conclusion, and that we would try to get it added to the Constitution so that we would have the guarantee, the additional leverage, the backbone that is needed to have in fact a balanced budget. So we have kept that commitment, and all Americans will have a brighter, more prosperous future when we pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I noted the comments earlier today that 55 people wrote the Constitution. Well, 55 Republican Senators, every Republican Senator, will vote for this amendment today, and a minimum of 11 Democrats. It is bipartisan. We do know that this needs to be done. We need to get that additional vote that would give us the 67, and I think maybe that is still possible before all is said and done on this constitutional amendment. Just yesterday, we had additional proof of the need for this constitutional amendment. Six Presidents, over 1,400 Members of Congress, and approaching 1,000 Senators over the years have made an effort to get a balanced budget agreement, but through 28 years and all these Congressmen and Senators--and I want to make sure I have the exact number on the Senators. I think that number is high. We have had well over 1,500 Congressmen and Senators who said we should have a balanced budget, but we have not had one. We have not achieved one in 28 years--good intentions by men and women, but it has not happened. It looks like we will not have it for at least a couple of more years, at the most not until the year 2002. And, yet, in the President's budget that was sent to us, we find deficits do not go down, they go up by over $25 billion in the next fiscal year. We find that, instead of having tax relief for working Americans, you have a net tax increase in the President's budget. And, worst of all, 98 percent of his so-called budget savings, or spending restraints, would come in the last 2 years, after the year 2000, after the turn of the century, after this President is gone--proof positive, once again, that there is not yet a sufficient commitment by the President to get a balanced budget agreement. Without this constitutional amendment, I still have my doubts as to when it will happen. Now, the Senator from North Dakota commented earlier about how he had voted for a budget that reduced the deficit. Look, if everybody will agree just to raise taxes and keep raising taxes, I guess you could reduce the deficit. Of course, at some point there is a point of no return. When I hear from my own son, who calls me and says, ``Dad, look, I am working hard, I have 55 people working for me, but 50 percent of everything I make is going to taxes, why is that? What are you going to do about it?'' You know, that has an impact on me. The solution to balancing the budget is not to raise more taxes, as happened in 1993; it is to control spending for the interests of our children and for all Americans. Social Security--when all else fails, bring up Social Security. I have heard it for years. I have been worried about it over the years, and I have cast some votes that made it clear that I do not want Social Security to be threatened or abused in any way. This amendment will not do that. In fact, the only thing that we could do that would threaten Social Security is that we not get a balanced budget. That is how we would get in trouble with Social Security. By the way, if it is so critical, if it is, in fact, something that should not be included in the budget, why does the President, year after year, including this year, include Social Security in his budget? This is absolutely a diversion, and it is unfair to the seniors in this country that we try to scare them by indicating in any way that this would affect Social Security. The reverse is true. I will take my stand and stake my defense of Social Security against anybody's record in this body. Americans support this constitutional amendment. That is why you hear all these diversions. That is why you hear, ``Well, but for this,'' ``Yes, but,'' ``Maybe, but I cannot do it unless you do that.'' The American people are overwhelmingly for this. Senator Cochran, my colleague from Mississippi, and I are for it and our constituents are for it; in my State, over 80 percent. So it is relatively easy for us. But we are also for it because we believe increasing debt is the wrong thing to do. Let me just read some of the excuses we have heard over the years. The truth of the matter is there are a few Democrats who do not want a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. They just do not want it. But they have said: ``Well, I would be for it except we want a Republican Congress to show their plan first,'' or, ``We want to wait until after Republicans have passed a budget plan,'' or, ``Only if you exempt Social Security,'' or, ``Yes, you must exempt emergency spending, you must exempt veterans, you must exempt housing.'' How about an amendment by Senator Wellstone to exempt all education, health, and welfare; exempt all college aid and training? They would exempt all law enforcement, exempt the Tennessee Valley Authority, and highways, bridges, dams, roads, buildings, ice skating warming huts, and pork. They would exempt 77 percent of the nondefense, noninterest budget, if you went through that. And the list goes on, one excuse after another. Anybody who is looking for an excuse not to be for a balanced budget, looking for an excuse not to be for a balanced budget amendment, they can find it, they can find something to hide behind. But the American people, I believe, see through that. They have watched for years. They know that it has not been happening. They are worried about the interest on the national debt. They are worried about the future of the economy in our country. They know this should be done. I do think that a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is an amendment that is worthy of going into the Constitution. Surely, Thomas Jefferson objected, back in the beginning of our great country, and would object now, to the debt we are building up-- trillions of dollars. If we do not get a balanced budget--in fact, even if we do get a balanced budget agreement--the debt will probably still go up by close to $1 trillion. When will it end? It brings to my mind the statement we have heard before, ``If not now, when? If not us, who? If we are not prepared to step up and pass this constitutional amendment now, we are admitting, based on what we have seen from the President's budget proposal this year, it is not going to happen any time soon. The deficits annually will begin to build up and to build up again, and so will the debt. We are stealing from the future of our children. They are the ones who are going to pay the price for this, and I feel very strongly that, if we put this in the Constitution with the protections that are there so that if we do have economic problems or if we have a national emergency, there is a way to get out. There is the three-fifths vote-- 60 votes. We get 60 votes around here quite often. We want to make it tough. If you make it so easy that you can just have a vote and it will all just be wiped aside, you know Congress will do that. Congress has proven time and time again they will do that. In the past, we have tried to pass statutes that would guarantee that we get a balanced budget, and it has not happened, because what has happened? We come along and we say we are going to exempt all these various and sundry things. Or, if it really gets tough, like we did with the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, we just move the date. We just pass another statute. As long as it is just a bill, as long as there is a way to avoid the tough decision, I fear the Congress will take advantage of that. We have proven here in this body, in the past 6 months, we can work together. We can be bipartisan. We can be civil to each other. And, when we work in a bipartisan way, when we put our minds to it, we can produce results. Last year, there we were passing these issues, many of them that had been in the making for years, like telecommunications and welfare reform, health insurance reform. We did not pass them by narrow margins. We passed them by wide margins. Once we made up our mind we would, we did it in a bipartisan way. That is one of the lessons I learned. I am glad this is bipartisan. But I note also we must get one more of the 34 Democrats in order to pass this constitutional amendment. A second lesson I have learned recently is good intentions just have not worked. It is not enough. You need this additional leverage. So, I urge my colleagues here today, be proud of what we have done. Make sure we are going to live up to the commitments that we have made to the American people. Join the American people. I want us all to have the courage of our convictions and be prepared to vote yes or vote no, if that is what we think is right. But I do think we also should take some lessons from our constituents. They have it figured out. They support a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget overwhelmingly. Why can we not get it through this institution? I believe the House will take this issue up in the next month or so, and I believe they will pass it. Some people have their doubts about that, but I still have confidence they will. And when they do, we will take another look at considering this issue if, in fact, it does not pass this afternoon. But this is an issue that will not go away. In fact, if you look at the Constitution, the last amendment that was added to the Constitution was actually pending for, I think, 200 years; the 27th amendment to the Constitution. It was language for years and years. Finally the State of Michigan ratified it and it became the 27th amendment. I hope we do not have to wait that long for this amendment, but we are going to pass this amendment and, if we do or we do not, I am going to work with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. We are going to try to find a way to get a balanced budget agreement. But I believe that this additional requirement in the Constitution will guarantee that we will do that job. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a joint resolution to the desk and ask for its first reading.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the second reading of the resolution, and I object to my own request at this time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12 noon on Wednesday, March 5. I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and that there be a period of morning business until the hour of 1 p.m. with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each, except for the following: Senator Brownback for 30 minutes and Senator Gramm of Florida for 15 minutes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, March 5, the majority leader may turn to the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 5, the waiver resolution with respect to the Barshefksy nomination. I further ask that there be one amendment in order to the resolution, to be offered by Senator Hollings, regarding trade agreement negotiations which shall be considered under a 3-hour time limit equally divided in the usual form; further, no other amendments or motions be in order other than a motion to table the amendment. I further ask that there be an additional hour equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee for debate on the resolution, and, upon the disposition of the Hollings' amendment and the expiration or yielding back of any debate time, the resolution be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of Senate Joint Resolution 5, as amended, if amended, without any intervening action or debate. I further ask consent that upon the disposition of Senate Joint Resolution 5, if it passes, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Charlene Barshefsky to be the U.S. Trade Representative, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, and, following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, following morning business tomorrow, the Senate will consider Senate Joint Resolution 5, which is the waiver resolution of the Barshefsky nomination. Under the order, there will be 3 hours of debate on one amendment and 1 hour of debate on the resolution. Following the disposition of the amendment and the resolution, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the Barshefsky nomination. Senators can therefore expect several rollcall votes, probably at least two or three, tomorrow, in Wednesday's session. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation as we have worked for a couple of weeks to get this agreement.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after final consultation with the Democratic leader, we hope to enter into a unanimous-consent agreement with regard to the consideration of the nomination of Ms. Barshefsky to be the U.S. Trade Representative. We expect to take that up tomorrow, probably beginning at 1 o'clock, on the amendments that are applicable to that nomination. I want to notify all Members that this is the last vote of the day. Mr. President, if no Senator seeks recognition at this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand there is a joint resolution due for its second reading.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this joint resolution at this time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 4. I further ask that immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 p.m. tomorrow in order for the weekly party caucuses to meet.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will, under previous order, as I just stated, resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1. From 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., time will be equally divided between the two managers for closing remarks on Senate Joint Resolution 1. Mr. President, following the weekly recess for the lunches, the Senate will resume consideration of the constitutional amendment at 2:15 p.m., with the manager on the Democratic side controlling the first hour of debate, with Senator Byrd being recognized for 20 of those minutes. The following hour will be under the control of Senator Hatch. The Democratic leader or his designee will control the next 30 minutes. Debate on Senate Joint Resolution 1 will conclude with 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee, and at 5:15 p.m. the Senate will vote on the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Injunction of Secrecy be removed from the following treaty submitted to the Senate on March 3, 1997, by the President of the United States: Agreement with Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders (Treaty Document No. 105-3). I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time, that it be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until 5 p.m. for the introduction of legislation and submission of statements.