David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I will not give this entire speech, much to the glee of my comrades in arms here this Friday afternoon, but I will summarize, basically, what this amendment is all about. Next Tuesday, February 28, this body, if it provides 67 votes needed to pass this constitutional amendment, the pending balanced budget amendment will go to be ratified or rejected by our 50 States. This is not just an event or happening that takes place every day or every week around this body. Fortunately, it is very rare. Fortunately, we are putting a high priority on this particular debate, focusing on this particular issue. The Senator from Tennessee eloquently a few moments ago stated what a good debate this has been. And truly, that is the nature, that is the soul of the U.S. Senate, to have debates like this on issues of great national interest such as the balanced budget amendment. Accompanying this amendment when it leaves this body--there will not be with it a budget plan, there will not be a report, there will be no study that accompanies this amendment, there will be no options for the States, there will be no notion, no inkling, of information that a State can use to judge the impact that the balanced budget amendment would have on the people of their respective States. Down there in the Tennessee State Legislature, they will call up this balanced budget amendment, as they will across the river in Arkansas, and they are going to be voting on this amendment, Mr. President. And they are not going to have anything to go by as to how it is going to affect the State programs or the Federal programs whereby we send money to the States for the States to use to provide services. There is going to be nothing. They are going to be voting in the dark. Already we have killed the people's right to know how this budget amendment will impact the people of our country. So my amendment is going to take a different route. My amendment at least is going to create, hopefully, a moral obligation that the people of the States, the people of Tennessee, the people of Arkansas, Missouri, Utah, and Massachusetts, can go to their State legislature and say, ``Send to the Congress the message of how this pain message of how this is going to occur whereby we get so many fewer dollars.'' I think, Mr. President, what we need today more than anything else accompanying this amendment, especially out in the States, are the facts. Right now, what they are going to be looking at are a few speeches made on the floor of the House of Representatives, a very short debate I might add, and then several days of speeches made in the U.S. Senate. Then, based upon those speeches and those statements and desires from constituents and phone calls and letters, then the legislators from the respective States are going to be voting yes or no. The first Republican House majority leader in 40 years was recently quoted as saying, ``We have the serious business of passing a balanced budget amendment, and I am profoundly convinced that putting the details out there would make that virtually impossible.'' He went on to say, ``If the American people understood what this means, it would make their knees buckle.'' Mr. President, I suspect the Republican House majority leader is perfectly accurate in this assessment. But I am sure that this is not the way to conduct the business of this country, because I truly believe that the people of our respective States have the right and should be encouraged to tell Members how they want this pain to be shared and how they want these Federal allocations to be made. My amendment is very simple. As part of the ratification process, each State legislature would be expected--not required, no mandate--but expected to submit to the Congress recommendations on how to cut Federal funds in that particular State. Various committees of the State legislature could hold hearings on the priority they place on Federal programs. Legislatures could deliberate, they could debate the impact of cutting these programs on their constituents. We feel that this is a solid amendment, Mr. President. We feel that this particular amendment is one that should be approved and adopted by this body. Some will say, well, wait a minute, would this not have to go back to the House of Representatives? Would this not slow the process down? Once again, Mr. President, we feel that an amendment like this would merely accelerate the States' knowledge of what was going to happen to them should their State ratify or reject the constitutional amendment to balance the budget before their State. So, Mr. President, I am not going to belabor this issue any longer. The point is that State governments have a huge stake in how we reach a balanced budget in Washington. And they have a right to tell Congress how to do it. I believe such an exercise would be helpful to each State in preparing for the impact of a balanced Federal budget. They will invest their time and energy into this process. And, their ideas on ways to cut spending would be invaluable to Congress. Mr. President, we are in a partnership with the States on this issue, and quite frankly, we need their help in our eventual task of reducing the deficit--whether or not this amendment ultimately passes. Now, it is curious to me how anyone would vote for legislation when he or she has no idea how it would affect his or her constituents? The answer to this question is, of course, that it is an extremely popular and painless way to make people happy while not cutting spending one dime. It is popular because it carries a simple and empty answer to all of our deficit problems. Mr. President, Mark Twain once said that ``for every problem there's a simple solution--and it's wrong.'' Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is a simple answer--and it is wrong. While I was home this weekend, Mr. President, I spoke with a trusted friend and long-time State legislator from my State. He told me ``once the people of this country understand what this amendment means, they'll drop it like a hot potato.'' Mr. President. I suspect my friend may be right. But the question is whether the people truly understand what they will be voting on. The calls from my State of Arkansas are mostly for a balanced budget amendment until I tell them about the massive spending reductions required to balance the budget. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, in Arkansas, we are looking at: Medicare--over $1 billion in lost benefits per year; Medicaid--$416 million loss in funding per year; Highway Trust Funds--$65 million per year in lost funding; and devastating cuts in veteran's benefits, education, job training, housing, and agriculture programs necessary to actually balance the budget. At first the callers don't believe me. They believe that Social Security moneys are protected in a trust fund, that Medicare is protected in a trust fund, and highway projects are protected in a trust fund. They believe these trust funds have billions of dollars in them, and that this amendment will not affect them. But this is simply not true, Mr. President, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proven this time and time again by refusing to exempt these programs from this amendment. When we balance the budget there is no assurance that these programs won't be drastically cut. In fact, it is very likely that they will. Mr. President, I know we must make heavy cuts in Government spending to reduce the Federal deficit. I have made the tough votes to reduce the deficit in the past, and I will in the future. But, as written, this constitutional amendment is a back door trick that may very well backfire on us. It could prevent any progress on the deficit in the future because we are not being honest. The amendment I offer today will help to harness the energies and ideas of the States, and make our task of reducing the debt a more democratic process. Mr. President, my friends on the other side of the aisle have unanimously deprived the American people of their right to know. Will they also shut off a State's right to tell Congress how to cut Federal funds in their own State? These are the same States who we listen to in formulating national policies promoting the general welfare of our American society on issues like crime and welfare. We should also listen to them in this process as well. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 307 be temporarily laid aside until Monday.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for yielding this amount of time to me. The other afternoon I was down visiting on the steps, the steps in the Senate where the pages sit. I gathered up four or five of the pages who diligently serve us around here and perform many, many wonderful duties for this institution and for us individually and collectively. I gathered them up and I said: Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to remember something. When I speak, or when a lot of us speak in the Senate, maybe from time to time you do not have to listen too carefully to what some of us have to say. But remember that when Senator Byrd of West Virginia speaks, you take time, and you listen, and listen intently to what he has to say, because you will learn something. You will learn something about this body, you will learn something about this country, you will learn something about the Constitution, and you will learn something about what makes the Senate one of the unique institutions in the world. I learn from the Senator constantly. I thank him not only for his message today but his continuing message on this issue, relative to the balanced budget amendment. When I was young and growing up in Camden, AR, I remember at birthday parties we used to play a game. In fact, when I raised my sons, they played the same game. Perhaps other Members of this body played a game called pin the tail on the donkey. One of us would be blindfolded, and we would be given the donkey's tail and someway or another we would try to go up to the wall or the board and find the proper place to attach the tail on the donkey. Sometimes, because we could not see it--we were blindfolded--we would not even be near our destination, or near our target. In the last several weeks, relative to this debate--not only in this Chamber but in the other body and on the talk shows, in the media, in the public, wherever--somehow or another I am reminded of that game once again, of pin the tail on the donkey. I think there is a lot of blame being passed around--the Democrats blame the Republicans, the Republicans blame the Democrats. We might blame this Senator or that Congressman, we or regulation as to why we got to this point and how we got to this point at this time in our country's history. We are in trouble. We are in deep trouble. And this morning I heard the distinguished majority whip, Senator Lott, as he quoted a statement that Senator Daschle had made 1 year ago in this debate on the constitutional amendment. At that time, Senator Daschle voted for that amendment, and Senator Daschle was quoted as giving the reasons why he was supporting that amendment. Mr. President, I invite the distinguished Republican whip to go back to 1982, to go back to 1986, and he can find some statements of this Senator from the State of Arkansas who at that time also not only spoke on this floor but back in my home State, as to why at that moment in our history, that window of opportunity, that I thought we had to support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I believed it then. I believed it in 1982. I believed it in 1986. Not long after those votes, I also voted for two extremely far- reaching, extremely strict, you might say, proposals that would have frozen spending across the board. In the early 1980's, I supported those particular freezes. But, Mr. President, something has happened since that period of time. Something has happened to have dramatically and drastically changed the economic and fiscal landscape of America. What has happened is very simple, and I will use the analogy that after the mid-1980's we let the horse get out of the barn. The horse got out of the barn, and today, we are being asked for support by our wonderful friends, like Senator Simon of Illinois, who believes with all of his heart that this constitutional amendment is the way to get this horse back in the barn. Mr. President, I respect my friend from Illinois. I respect my friend from New Hampshire. I respect my friend from Utah--in their belief that a constitutional amendment, where we would balance the budget in the next 7 years is the proper way to get the horse back in the barn. I truly believe it is wrong to attempt to amend the Constitution to bring the horse back in the barn. I think what we are doing, if I may use this analogy, is we are attempting with a constitutional amendment to lasso an elephant with a piece of thread. It cannot be done. The trouble is not in the Constitution. This is not where the trouble is. It is not in the Constitution that was passed in Philadelphia over 200 years ago. The trouble is in us. That is where the problem lies. The problem is in me, Senator Pryor from Arkansas. In 1981, I voted for then-President Ronald Reagan's proposal to increase spending and to decrease taxes. There were 11 Members of the U.S. Senate who voted against that package, and I wish I could say today I had been one of those 11, or that I had made number 12. I was not. I bought on to the idea: We have a new President, let us give him an opportunity to show us what he can do. And I supported President Reagan's package. In retrospect, I was wrong. So I would like to stand here today and take blame. I will take the blame for making a mistake that helped cause these massive deficits and this gargantuan, absolutely awesome national debt. So here we are, almost on the eve of voting whether or not we want to refer to the States an amendment to cause, demand, and mandate a balanced budget. Last Friday morning, I happened to be in this body, fortunately enough, as the Senate was opened with a prayer by Rev. Richard C. Halverson, Jr. I thought the prayer was timely, and I thought it was poignant. I would like to quote, if I might, Mr. President, from that prayer of Dr. Halverson. Once again, in the urgency of this hour, we beseech Thee for divine assistance. We pray for a hedge of enlightened restraint around this ``necessary fence'' of the Senate. For through this body, regulations must pass that will either strengthen or weaken our country. Dr. Halverson's ``necessary fence,'' of course, is a reference to James Madison who called the Senate, this body, this institution, ``a necessary fence to protect the rights and property of its citizens against an impetuous public.'' Mr. President, James Madison feared that the Congress from time to time might act impetuously to please the public. Reverend Halverson continued in his prayer last Friday morning, and once again I quote. As pressures mount for instant solutions to complex problems, grant those who hold this ``senatorial trust'' the calm resolve to be not driven by public restlessness, nor drifting in stubborn idleness, but drawn by Thy vision of righteousness--which upholdeth the Nation. That was an insightful prayer, Mr. President. I hope that Dr. Halverson's prayer are the words that set the tone for this debate. The public is restless. They are demanding instant solutions. They are demanding action, and one instant answer is this very imperfect balanced-budget amendment is before us today. It is like a bottle of snake oil because it promises to solve all of our budget problems. But what it delivers are loopholes and false hopes. It gives politicians the easy and the temporary cover to go back home and to say we have voted to balance the budget. There are loopholes, Mr. President, throughout this proposal. And their inclusion assures that false hopes will be created and this is just what our country and just what Americans do not need right now. Loophole No. 1. Right at the top of this balanced-budget amendment is the three-fifths loophole. Section 1 says that three-fifths of the House and three-fifths of the Senate can vote to completely waive the balanced-budget requirement for a year. I believe the framers of the Constitution placed provisions in the Constitution which they held inviolate. For example, in the first amendment of the Constitution, it does not say that ``Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion unless three-fifths of each House passes legislation specifying otherwise.'' The 13th amendment, for example, does not provide that slavery or involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States unless three- fifths of each House passes legislation specifying otherwise. Mr. President, the reason that the three-fifths requirement sounds ridiculous is because it is ridiculous. I do not believe that we should pass this amendment. I do not believe we should pass it with or without this particular loophole. But if the supporters of the balanced budget amendment think it is the panacea to all of our problems, why create a three-fifths loophole? Why not, if we are going to require a balanced budget? Why do we not require a balanced budget, period? This is the second loophole, Mr. President. That loophole is the definitions game. Section 6 of the balanced budget amendment provides that estimates of outlays and receipts may be used by Congress when drafting legislation to enforce and implement the provisions of this amendment. Nowhere in this amendment before this body today, and nowhere in the Constitution, are the words ``outlays or receipts'' defined. Why would the word ``outlays'' need to be defined? Because outlays are the moneys that the Government spends. And without an airtight definition of what constitutes spending we had better realize that clever lawyers are going to find many ways to circumvent the intention of this amendment, whatever it may be. The same goes for the definition of ``receipts.'' Take the example of sales of Government assets. If someone were to propose that we sell Mount Rushmore, would the money collected when we sold Mount Rushmore represent a receipt under this amendment? It might and it might not. How about user fees? Will moneys collected from new user fees be considered a receipt? They might. But they might not. It is no wonder that Judge Bork has recently said that we had better anticipate not only hundreds but perhaps thousands of lawsuits and other forms of litigation in this particular area. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator will yield me perhaps 5 additional minutes?

Mr. PRYOR. The Senator is very generous. I thank him. Mr. President, what we are doing today is looking at a possibility of adopting perhaps the greatest sea change in the relationship between the judiciary, the executive branches of Government, and the legislative branches of Government that we have ever concerned ourselves with. The definitional games are going to be played necessarily on what is or is not an outlay or what is or is not a receipt. But the definition games will not be limited to just these issues. And I can say, in my opinion, there are not going to be any winners in this definitional game under these false promises. Mr. President, there is a third loophole. There are many loopholes. But No. 3 is, I think, one of the more serious--determining what an estimate is. Who makes those estimates? If one estimator's ``estimate'' comes out one way, the budget may be in balance. If we use another estimator's estimate, we will no doubt have different estimates and then be out of balance. More lawsuits will ensue. It sounds like estimators, not Congress, would control the measure of our outlays and receipts, and ultimately, the decisions effecting our lives. The point is that estimates can differ, and they can differ drastically. Estimates can be flat wrong. Human nature being what it is, estimates can also be manipulated. In any case, do we really want something as unreliable as economic estimates to become the underpinning of the United States Constitution? I do not believe, notwithstanding that the people of our country want us to balance the budget, that they want to underpin the U.S. Constitution with something this illusory. The estimation game is one more loophole through which runaway Government spending is going to continue. It will take the decisionmaking process out of the hands of the people and the Congress, and place it in the hands of the economists and the estimators who seldom agree on anything. The fourth loophole, Mr. President--Let us assume that all of our numbers, estimates, statistics and forecasts are correct, and we are struggling to meet the requirement of a balanced budget. Then what Congress will do is probably start playing budget games. Is there not one of us who has been here for any length of time who has seen the game of putting certain functions of Government on budget or off budget? Mr. President, I predict under this constitutional amendment, if it were a part of our Federal Constitution, that we would spend the majority of our time not balancing the budget, but figuring out which Government programs were on budget and off budget, which programs raise money, and which programs cost money. And we will have many, many heated debates on what should and should not be included in that budget. The temptation to take deficit programs ``off budget'' is going to be great. For example, today under section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act, we forbid the use of Social Security trust fund surpluses to offset the Federal deficit. However, under this constitutional amendment, we are going to apparently use Social Security surpluses for that purpose. Many, many experts are predicting that in the year 2013, Social Security will begin to run its own deficit. At that point, the temptation will be to put Social Security off budget in order to meet the balanced budget constitutional requirement. Nothing in this amendment prevents this chicanery, and we all know it will occur. Will this inspire confidence? No. Will it balance the budget? No. Mr. President, there are big questions about this amendment. I have discussed just a few loopholes and gimmicks. This amendment to the Constitution deserves as much time as necessary to clear the air. I am almost out of time. But I want to simply state that I think this has been a splendid debate. I think that we have not, in any way, caused anyone to truly believe that we are attempting a filibuster on this side of the aisle. We have had very few quorum calls. We have had, in my opinion, a debate that is one that will go down in the record books. I truly believe it is one of the better debates that the U.S. Senate has ever engaged in. Once again, Mr. President, I do not feel that our situation today with regard to these awesome Federal deficits is the fault of the Constitution. It is our fault and it is our obligation to cure those problems by making the hard decisions, the tough decisions that all of us know we have to make to balance the budget.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I see two very bad things happening if we turn down the Johnston amendment. I think the Johnston amendment is sound. I think if you could take a poll of the country today and ask the people if they want the courts to implement a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States, if they want an unelected lifetime appointed Federal district judge from wherever to raise the taxes necessary to implement a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or in the Constitution, most people would say no. I say that if we fail to support, this afternoon, the very fine, clarifying amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, there could be a disastrous effect.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I do not object and I yield the floor and thank the Senator.

Mr. PRYOR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Utah please repeat the first part of the request for unanimous consent? If he does not mind? I apologize.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, would that be presuming that this will be the final vote of the evening, on the Hollings amendment?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair for recognizing me this morning. Mr. President, we, in the U.S. Senate, are often very fortunate to be witnesses to history as it is being made, and we often talk of the need to have a vision for America, for the country, for our Government, for our world and for our people. But very few of us ever, in and among ourselves, make history--very few of us. We often fall short of articulating a true vision, settling instead to seize upon symbols as a substitute. With that in mind, Mr. President, this morning I rise to pay tribute today to a former Member of this body who has repeatedly made history in his lifetime and who dare to articulate a vision throughout his lifetime. That man is J. William Fulbright, a native son of Arkansas, who served with the with distinction in the Congress for 32 years, 30 of those years as a Member of this body, the U.S. Senate. He loved this body. Senator Fulbright died early this morning, and I would like to take a few moments of the Senate's time to remind the people of this body and the people of this Capitol and certainly the people of this land of the significant impact this remarkable human being had on the lives of Americans. J. William Fulbright was born in the year 1905 to a family that became quite prominent in northwestern Arkansas. His father was a banker, a successful businessman, while his mother ran the Northwest Arkansas Times, the newspaper in Fayetteville. In fact, Mr. President, the public library in Fayetteville, AR, bears the name of Roberta Fulbright Library. Fayetteville, Bill Fulbright attended Oxford University on a Rhodes scholarship, an experience that we will see later having a profound effect upon his life and his philosophy and, yes, upon his vision. After earning his law degree from George Washington University, he joined the antitrust division in the Justice Department where Senator Fulbright, or Bill Fulbright at that time, helped to prosecute the landmark Schechter case, the ``chicken case,'' as we call it, which helped establish the boundaries of Federal authority to regulate interstate versus intrastate commerce. It was a landmark case. In 1936, Bill Fulbright returned to his native State of Arkansas to teach law at Fayetteville and there, 3 years later, he was appointed president of the University of Arkansas. At age 34, he was the youngest university president in America, and he gained national attention at that time for his efforts to raise the educational standards of not only the University of Arkansas but all educational institutions in America. In 1943, Bill Fulbright won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, and he was appointed to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He wasted little time making history. In the spring of that year, he introduced a resolution that, even by today's standards, was remarkable for its brevity and its directness. Yet, it was powerful as a vision of young Bill Fulbright. The resolution read as follows, and it is one sentence: Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses itself as favoring the creation of an appropriate machinery with power adequate to prevent future aggression and to maintain lasting peace, and as favoring participation of the United States therein. Mr. President, this was the Fulbright resolution. It became known as that and soon it passed overwhelmingly by both Houses of the Congress. This Fulbright resolution is credited as being one of the very major stepping stones that led to the creation of the United Nations. And with this resolution, a very young Bill Fulbright brought an official end to longstanding American policies of isolationism and made our country formally commit to becoming a willing, ongoing partner in global affairs. Bill Fulbright did not stop there. The very next year, he served as a delegate to an international conference, at which officials from 17 nations sought to find a way to reconstruct the educational institutions of the world in the wake of the ravages of World War II. Congressman Fulbright then was unanimously named as chairman of this Congress, and he presented a four-point proposal that became the foundations for the U.N. Economic and Social Council. In April 1945, Mr. President, delegates of 50 nations gathered in San Francisco to draft a charter of the United Nations Approval by the U.S. Senate became critical at that point, so critical that President Harry Truman came to this body and stood in the well of the U.S. Senate and pled with his former colleagues in the Senate on July 2, 1945, to persuade this body to adopt this charter. President Truman briefly sketched the history of the U.N. effort, and he mentioned the passage of the Fulbright resolution. President Truman said that this resolution had played a major part in shaping certain proposals, and the Senate approved the charter by an 89 to 2 vote. It took effect October 24, 1945. I might add, Mr. President, that this year in June in San Francisco, 50 years later, there will be a commemoration, or a birthday, an anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. By this time, Congressman Fulbright had become Senator Fulbright, after winning a Senate seat in the 1944 elections. He did not rest upon his laurels, and despite being named to the Banking and Currency Committee instead of the Foreign Relations Committee, he did not abandon his interest in global relations. During his very first year in the Senate, Senator Fulbright sponsored legislation that became one of the major accomplishments of his distinguished legislative career. This bill established a program that exchanged scholars, students, and educators between the United States and other countries, and the program eventually was called the Fulbright Scholarship Program. It drew heavily from Senator Fulbright's experiences as a Rhodes scholar and from his belief and deep feeling that academic exchange would contribute to better understanding among all countries. Foreign students coming to the United States received money for travel and sometimes received an allowance, modest as it might be, while tuition and books were provided through scholarships from American colleges and universities. While he fervently believed in the value of such exchange programs, Senator Fulbright also knew full well that his plan had a number of hurdles to overcome--financial, governmental, partisan. The U.S. Treasury was not in a position to directly finance such a venture at a time of massive war debts. Meanwhile, the State Department voiced its reservations, as had Senate Republicans. But Senator Fulbright was undaunted, and he persevered. He came up with a very novel way of financing this venture by combining the need to fund it with the problem of disposing of surplus U.S. equipment overseas that had been left behind. Under Senator Fulbright's plan, any country that purchased part of the U.S. surplus would then be eligible to participate in the exchange program. He won the support of the State Department by giving the State Department greater control over the program disbursements. He won the support of the Congress by getting an endorsement from former President Herbert Hoover. President Truman signed the Fulbright Scholarship Program into being August 1, 1946. It was another tribute to the vision and to the brilliance and to the perseverance of J. William Fulbright and his fervent belief that education and communication hold the power to save man from himself. Bill Fulbright's career was not without controversy, Mr. President. He certainly did not shrink from it. He once suggested that President Truman resign from office, but soon he suggested that President Truman was absolutely correct, even a year later, and he defended Harry Truman in the wake of President Truman's firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and bringing him back from the Far East. He sparred repeatedly with Joseph McCarthy, a former Member of this body, defending against McCarthy's attacks on the Fulbright Scholarship Program and then defending himself from McCarthy's attacks and charges that he, Senator Fulbright, might be subversive because Senator Fulbright's first wife belonged to and was active in, of all things, the Red Cross. Ultimately, Senator Fulbright led the way in getting the Senate to condemn Senator McCarthy in 1954 for his red-baiting tactics. In doing so, he helped deliver this body out of one of its sadder chapters in history. In 1959, Mr. President, Senator Fulbright became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and by the time he left the Senate in 1974, he had held the title of chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee longer than any previous Senator. Yes, he was controversial. He was a controversial chairman, and he dared to insist that cold war relations should not be dictated solely by militarism. He warned all of us in 1961 that our efforts in Vietnam were doomed to failure as long as we placed our stress on military rather than long-term economic and educational assistance, a warning that now seems prophetic. He placed his reservations aside to support the Gulf of Tonkin resolution when he felt that American soldiers were threatened and then had the courage to publicly call that action his most humiliating experience. He became one of the country's most vocal critics of that war even though it cost him his long-time friendship with Lyndon B. Johnson, and many believe it ultimately might have cost him his seat in the Senate. J. William Fulbright did not believe that his return to private life meant the end of his need to articulate a vision for his beloved America. He continued to write books and to give lectures about how he felt government could be run more effectively, how countries could better deal with one another, and about the arrogance of power. Those of us who were fortunate to know him and even to be close to him a man of continued brilliance, of foresight and wisdom, and he continued to command our respect. Mr. President, when the Fulbright Program was threatened, when it was endangered by cuts, he took to the phones in recent years to galvanize support. He roamed the Halls of the House of Representatives and the Senate for his beloved Fulbright Program. After all, all over the world, many leaders of the free world had been called Fulbright scholars. We will miss this great man, Mr. President. I first met him when he was speaking at the Ouachita County Courthouse in Camden, AR. The year was 1944, and he was seeking his seat in the Senate. I was 10 years old at that time, but I could still take you to that corner in Camden, AR, where I first had the opportunity and the privilege of meeting J. William Fulbright. I just knew that I had met a great person. And through these many years, I was never quite able to ever bring myself to call him ``Bill.'' To me, he was and he will always be Senator Bill Fulbright. He spent his life attempting to end the obsession with war. He spent his life attempting to educate us that using war as the solution for our conflicts was a course of action that would bring us nothing in the end but sorrow. We will miss this great man, this great Senator, and this great person who has contributed so much to peace in the world and understanding among all men. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR. A good story.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I thank my distinguished and good friend from Utah for allowing me to speak at this time. I want to compliment my worthy friend and colleague from Arkansas for delivering one of the eloquent, forceful, and thoughtful speeches of this debate on amending the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. Although we always marvel at this great constitutional system that we have, somehow or another, we cannot help tinkering with it. We love to mess with our Constitution. Over 10,000 proposals in our some 200 years of history have been introduced in the Congress to amend the Constitution. But over this same 200-year period, we have adopted only 17 since our Bill of Rights containing the first 10 amendments was enacted. These relatively few amendments which have actually survived the amending process suggest how very difficult it is to amend the Constitution, as our Founding Fathers intended it to be, and also just how high the stakes really are. Efforts to make our Government budget more responsible date back not just 2 or 3 years ago, but they date back to the early days of our forefathers. And these efforts have taken on various forms from reorganizing our budget process to amending the Constitution. Today's debate, whether to authorize a constitutional amendment to be sent out to the States to balance the Federal budget, has been unfolding, Madam President, since 1982 when the Congress first attempted and failed to write a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. After this first attempt, proponents have pushed and failed to authorize the amending process in 1986, 1990, and 1994. I have participated in each of these four very difficult debates, and I have argued at length, not only here but in my home State of Arkansas, on the merits and the demerits of amending our Constitution with such an amendment. In these debates, the U.S. Senate, and my friends on each side of the aisle--all of us together--have struggled during this debate to overcome our differences. But what is so striking today is not our differences, but our common goal, a goal that every Member of this body agrees with: The goal of achieving a balanced budget. No one quarrels with this debate. No one quarrels with this notion. No one quarrels with this goal. It is the one unifying idea that binds us. At the same time, it is the course of this particular devise of achieving our common goal, a constitutional amendment, which fractures us so very deeply, and there is a fundamental reason for this. Americans have shaped their lives through laws, and for more than 200 years, the Constitution has been at the very core, the very center of our Nation of laws. It is the world's oldest written charter in continuous effect. When we change the Constitution, Madam President, we alter who we are as a people. We change our lives by changing the way we govern ourselves. So before taking this ominous step of changing who we are as a people, we have an obligation to fully explore the consequences of amending our Constitution. These consequences are neither obvious or simple. By this, I mean that by solving one problem, we may be creating a whole new set of problems. Certainly the consequences of balancing the budget will create a wide range of hardship and difficulty for some Americans--some of which will be foreseen and some of which will not. So before we launch into this long and complex process of changing our Constitution of changing our lives, along with those who will follow, the American people deserve and expect our honesty and they deserve our leadership. Madam President, I have been carrying around with me for the past several weeks a report from the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. We call this effort in the Senate the Kerrey-Danforth commission, cochaired in a bipartisan manner by Senator Bob Kerrey and Senator John Danforth. Senator John Danforth, of course, is no longer a Member of this body. I want to congratulate the authors of this report and I hold it out to my colleagues and the American people as an effort of true leadership and honesty in explaining today's budget dilemma in which we find ourselves. Finding No. 3 in this report, on pages 10 and 11, tells us a story we just cannot run away from. It is found actually on this chart, Madam President, and it starts in 1963, when mandatory spending, which is comprised mainly of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military retirement, civil retirement, and interest on the debt, amounted to 29.6 percent of our Federal outlays. We see those combined, net interest on the debt and entitlements, on the chart as mandatory spending of 29.6 percent of our Federal outlays. Madam President, we see in the blue-green area of the pie chart what happened also in 1963 in the area of discretionary spending. The remaining portion represented some 70 percent of the total Federal outlays, while some 30 percent was mandatory. Chart No. 2, Madam President, shows the story when 30 years later, in 1993, mandatory spending is now at 61 percent, that is, entitlements of 47 percent, and net interest of 14 percent. Add the two and we find 61 percent of our budget is comprised of mandatory expenditures and discretionary spending shrunk to only 39 of total Federal outlays. The third chart is revealing, Madam President, because the third chart indicates what is going to happen in 8 years. Eight years from now, only 1 year after this proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget will go into effect. If we continue as we are at this time, we are going to see mandatory spending increased to 72 percent. That is net interest on the debt, 13.8; entitlements, 58.2, and discretionary spending, Madam President, down to the very small percentage of 28 percent. Now, what does all this mean when we actually put ourselves in this straitjacket of a constitutional amendment over the next 7 years to balance the Federal budget. Two weeks ago, Dr. Robert Reischauer was before the Senate Finance Committee. He was testifying before our committee, and I asked him what does this mean if we are to balance the budget? His answer, and I quote, Madam President, I do not think that you can find them out of discretionary spending, especially if you listen to the concerns that many of your colleagues have about defense spending and think that defense spending is over one-half of discretionary spending. Clearly, the major portion of the answer has to lie in the entitlement area or in the tax code. And there is no escaping that. Clearly, Madam President, the major portion of the dollars needed to be cut to balance the budget has to come from entitlements or the Tax Code, and there is no escape from that fact. In the next question, I asked Dr. Reischauer before the Senate Finance Committee, if we exclude Social Security, which we should, from a balanced budget amendment, then what is going to be left for us to find the funds to balance the budget? Dr. Reischauer responded by citing among others Medicare, Medicaid, civil service, military retirement, veterans pensions, and veterans compensation, student loans, farm price support systems, AFDC, food stamps, and SSI. The point is, Madam President, the consequences of a balanced budget will definitely be felt by all Americans, present and future, who depend on these programs which Dr. Reischauer cited in his testimony a few days ago. Now, how will these Americans be affected? This is the question that we in Congress must do our dead level best to be honest with the American people about. With no plan set forth to impossible, absolutely, totally impossible to tell the people even our best guess of the consequences of balancing the Federal budget. Madam President, I do not wish to blame any one person or any political party or any sponsor of this particular amendment before the Senate today for not having a specific plan because the cuts would be extremely painful, extremely unpopular, and standing alone both Democrats and Republicans have much to lose by offering such a plan at this time. In the absence of a plan at this date, a number of studies and reports are now coming out, that are now being issued which break down in very real terms the effect of actually balancing the budget with across-the-board spending cuts. Madam President, I can say that those findings from these reports are sobering. CBO estimates that the balanced budget amendment would require a cut of $1.2 trillion in Federal spending over the next 7 years. What does that mean? The Treasury Department has now reported that a balanced budget amendment for the State of Arkansas would require reducing Federal grants and other annual spending in the State by some $3 billion--$416 million lost per year in Medicaid, $65 million lost per year in highway funding, $225 million a year in lost funding for education, for job training, environment and housing, and $1.1 billion per year in lost benefits for the elderly. These are enormous, unthinkable numbers that mean little when we say them, but what does it mean to actual people? It means that seniors will see massive reductions in health care benefits along with the hospitals and the doctors who serve them. In turn, the cost of the public health care burden is going to be shifted to private employers and their employees. It means millions of requests by seniors for rides to the doctor's office, grocery store, and pharmacy will go unanswered. It means millions and millions of home delivered meals will not get delivered, will not go to the homes of the elderly persons who are disabled. Some now claim that these findings are meant only to spread fear and to scare people about the balanced budget amendment. However, Madam President, I think that the people making this claim are missing the point. Sometimes being honest in budgeting is a very, very frightful proposition, but it is my responsibility, it is our responsibility collectively to explain in advance the best way we can--what we are going to do and how we are going to do it--even if it scares us all. I know, Madam President, that the President has received a lot of criticism in the last few hours about the submission of his budget that he sent to the Congress yesterday. Here is the budget. ``A Citizens Guide to the Federal Budget'' is the first booklet. We have all of the appendices to the budget that he has proposed. We have an ``Analytical Perspective of the Budget of the United States Government.'' We have ``Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government,'' and then finally the document that most of us hopefully have seen, the ``Budget of the United States Government,'' in a form that I think most of us hopefully can comprehend. What this says, Madam President, is our President has kept faith with his part of the contract. He has submitted a budget. It may be controversial. As my colleague Senator Bumpers just said, we may not be willing to accept $180 billion deficits into the outyears. But be that as it may, this is at least a good faith effort to let the people of America know where we stand with the budget, and to know what our plans are with the budget. However, as we look around the Senate Chamber today, on the eve of a very critical vote on the balanced budget amendment, the right-to-know amendment, offered by the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, and several colleagues, we find that there is absolutely not one scintilla, not one scintilla of a plan offered by the proponents of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, to show us how that budget is going to be balanced, to show us if it is going to require new revenues, or to show us the number of dollars that we are going to have to cut spending. Madam President, here is a blank piece of paper. There is nothing on it. And, thus far, this is about all we have from the proponents of this amendment to tell us how they plan to balance the budget. Our colleague, Senator Domenici, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and chairman of the Budget Committee, has been very straightforward from the outset of this debate. But should not we be just as straightforward about the consequences to millions of Americans who are going to be impacted by these cuts? We should know the plan of action. We should know how they propose to balance the budget. No one who is a part of this debate is suggesting we do nothing to balance the budget. That is not an option. We all want to balance the budget. The price of doing nothing is too high. What is at the core of this debate is the right of Americans to see the direction we are heading to achieve this goal before we take this drastic step of amending our 200-year-old Constitution. Without this direction, I believe such a proposal is going to do more harm than good. During this debate an amendment to exclude Social Security from this balanced budget amendment is going to be offered and I am going to be supporting that amendment. The Social Security System is a 60-year-old contract with the American people. It has worked. It has worked well. And if changes need to be made, I am willing and ready to consider them. We made some changes back in 1983 that put our Social Security System back in a very good financial posture. But I will consider them on their own merit, not as a part of any across-the-board spending cut because I think our contract with the elderly people of our country as they pay into Social Security is a separate contract which they started some 60 years ago. And this is a contract of 60-year standing that I plan to honor and I hope our colleagues in the Senate will honor. The Democratic Joint Economic Committee has recently estimated that if both Social Security and Medicare were included in across-the-board spending cuts, the average senior citizen in America would lose some $2,000 a year in Social Security benefits; some $1,500 a year in Medicare benefits. The consequences of this debate to retirees, to widows, to the disabled are too important to subject them to broad brush budget cuts. And I will not support a constitutional amendment that allows this to happen. In last week's debate it was pointed out the balanced budget amendment does not require a balanced budget. This is true. Section 1 of the proposed amendment that is before this body at this time allows for three-fifths of both the House and the Senate to waive the requirement for a balanced budget. So, if the amendment as proposed does not require a balanced budget, what does it do? That is the question today. One, this proposal gives the President and two-fifths plus 1 of either Chamber a procedural lock on deficit spending and debt ceiling limits. Let us place to one side the argument that we are frustrating the democratic process by allowing minority rule of our economic order. That point has been made repeatedly. I think it has been made well. Madam President, let us take another look at the amendment and compare that, to see how this proposal fits into the framework, the overall global framework of the Constitution. Compare it to, say, the first amendment. The proposed amendment before us is going to allow, if adopted, a supermajority to waive the requirement of a balanced budget. In this respect, this amendment is truly a first. It is a first in the 200-year history of our constitutional Republic. We have never had such an amendment. This is the first time. Let us compare it, if we might, to the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Madam President, nowhere in this language of the Constitution in the first amendment does it even suggest about providing that: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion unless three-fifths of to suggest so would be ludicrous. When we take the oath of office to protect and defend this Constitution, do we do so unless three-fifths of each house of Congress passes legislation specifying otherwise? Of course not. If the proponents of a balanced budget amendment believe it is so important to our way of life, why is this procedural loophole included? This is not the only loophole. Let us look at section 6, which provides that the ``estimates of outlays and receipts may be used by Congress when drafting legislation to enforce and implement the provisions of this amendment.'' This may be the biggest loophole of all. The amendment will be enforced by ``estimates,'' agreed to by Congress. Even on our best, our luckiest days, estimates are just that, good faith estimates, but often they differ greatly. They change over time. And estimates in the wrong hands for the wrong reasons can be very, very destructive. Do we really want to introduce this notion into our Constitution? I think not. It is just one more example of why the balanced budget amendment will not balance the budget. And what happens, finally, Madam President, if Congress does not balance the budget? What happens if this straitjacket that we have placed ourselves in is such that we cannot abide by those rules? Would the Federal courts be called upon to enforce them? Are we going to be like Kansas City when the Federal judge, who was unelected, appointed for life said: I will raise the taxes, I will run the schools? Many have grave doubts whether the courts should assume this role. This is the role for the Congress. This is a role for the President. Further, even Federal judges today are very skeptical that the courts would assume this particular role. Judge Robert Bork has predicted that ``hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits would arise from such an amendment.'' No tinkering with our Constitution is going to substitute for the courage it will take actually to balance the Federal budget. The introduction of gimmicks and loopholes and uncertainty into the Constitution will not give us the courage or the political cover to reach this goal. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights--are housed just a few blocks from here. In fact, this morning I was sitting in my office and I was thinking about this vote that we are going to have tomorrow, Wednesday, at high noon; a vote whether to require that the public and the Congress have the right to know basically the glidepath or some of the numbers as to how we are going to achieve a Federal budget, if we support this constitutional amendment. I got to thinking about the Declaration and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We talk about them all the time in this body. I remembered I had not seen those documents since I was about 16 years of age. So I called up the Archives. I said, ``Would it be possible for me to come down on short notice and have explained to me how we protect and look after these very sacred documents?'' So I got in the car. I went to the Archives. I found that on each day at 10 o'clock sharp every day, except Christmas, on display we find the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. These founding documents of our country are in cases shielded by tinted glass and inert gases. Each evening these cases are lowered into a recessed, reinforced vault. If the Capital of our country were attacked, the vault would continue to protect its contents long after the city above ceased to exist. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence for this country would survive long after all of us were gone. The scene at the National Archives, I think, reinforces the reverence we have for these documents. This scene, I think, demonstrates the degree of respect for the Founding Fathers who wrote these particular documents. While I was standing there this morning--and I took several members of our staff, Madam President, to the National Archives to see the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights once again--I watched the people as they walked in. As they approached these documents, they approached them with reverence, with quiet, and deep respect for the environment in which they were in. There was a couple. I started visiting with them quietly. They were from Washington State. I introduced myself. They introduced themselves. They said that this was their very first trip to Washington, DC. They said that they thought they would never have the opportunity to be so close to the reason that this country has become so great and so powerful as it is today. It makes me shudder to think that we would, in effect, remove this Constitution from its specially protected environment in the National Archives and inscribe on its parchment something that we believe is a bad idea. The reverence inspired by the Constitution comes from the impression that it is permanent and that it is enduring. A bad idea cannot endure, and we should not discolor the Constitution with it. We should not taint it. We should not stain this magnificent document with such an untried extreme as this particular amendment presents. Madam President, can we balance the budget without this amendment? Madam President, I see my distinguished friend from Utah rising. I want him to know, if he will allow me about 2 or 3 more minutes, I am going to sit down and let him conclude today's activities in the Senate, if that would be permissible with the distinguished manager. Can we balance the budget without a constitutional amendment? The answer is ``yes.'' Is it going to be easy? The answer is ``no.'' The 1990 and 1993 deficit reductions which were passed represent over $1 trillion in deficit reduction. I voted for them. We did this without a balanced budget amendment. We can do it again, and we can do it by keeping the Constitution intact. It is very difficult, and some may not have liked it. It was uncomfortable. It caused heartburn. But I think very few would disagree with the fact that we reduced the deficit of the U.S. Government, and once again, we did it by keeping the Constitution of our country intact. Some Democrats lost their seat in this Congress to vote on the 1990 and 1993 deficit reduction bills. But these individuals did it anyway because they knew that their first obligation was to their country, to their children and to their grandchildren, and they knew they must make tough choices. Many who support this balanced budget proposal have never voted for a tough deficit reduction package. To vote on this amendment does not in any way ensure that they will in the future. Whatever the outcome of this debate might be, Madam President, I hope that I will be able to continue to make the tough votes to reach this goal. I support a balanced budget. But I will not support a bad idea to achieve it. To our colleagues in the Senate who have just arrived here--and I note that all 11 have signed a letter recently, dated January 18, 1995. The new freshmen Members of the U.S. Senate which have come from 10 of our great States in this Union, have all supported this balanced budget amendment. I would like to say a word, Madam President, in closing to those fine new colleagues of ours. That is this: This is going to be the easiest vote that they have ever cast. This is an easy vote for them. It is an easy vote for anyone in this body because it says that we are going to propose an amendment to the Constitution that requires a balanced budget, but it ultimately does not require a balanced budget; that we are going to propose an amendment to the Constitution that says we are going to let the next Congress basically balance the budget. We are going to let the next President basically balance the budget. And what we will be doing in the meantime is sending out press releases and stating what a great thing we have done by supporting a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Madam President, I hope our colleagues will rethink this position. I know they realize--because they are not only good people, they are smart people--we did not get ourselves as a country, as a Nation, into this predicament in 7 years. And let us be honest, we are not going to get ourselves out of it in 7 years. Madam President--and I say to my wonderful friend of long standing from Utah who has been eloquent in his like to conclude my statement this afternoon by quoting a paragraph from a 1993 book that has just come out. It is called ``Amending America,'' written by Richard Bernstein and Jerome Agel. Up here on the top on the cover, I say to my colleague from Utah and the distinguished occupant of the chair, it says: ``If We Love the Constitution So Much, Why Do We Keep Trying to Change It?'' A paragraph from page 185 in the book states this, which is relative to the debate in 1992 on the constitutional amendment: In June 1992, Stanley Collender, the director of Federal budget policy for Price Waterhouse, pointed out another problem with enforcing the amendment. Under present law, no person would have standing to bring suit to compel Congress to obey this amendment. If the courts could not enforce it, then the amendment would have no teeth and its failure would breed contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, again, echoing the disaster of constitutional prohibition. Mr. Collender concluded, ``This whole effort is nothing but a scam.'' Madam President, I am not calling this effort a scam, but I do call it misguided, and I truly believe that there is another way to attack the national debt and our deficit, and at the same time keep our revered and respected Constitution intact. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, for having the patience to sit and listen and for managing this legislation.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Pryor and Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 258 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am very sorry my colleagues and chief cosponsor of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, Senator Grassley of Iowa, has been detained. He is at the White House. I think later in the day he will speak on this subject matter. Mr. President, over the past several years, there has been extensive debate over ways to achieve tax fairness for middle-income Americans. Proposals are most often costly, and very, very partisan. But there is one legislative package helping taxpayers, Mr. President, that transcends political boundaries and costs very little--we call it the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II. So, as the debate once again heats up on ways to achieve tax fairness for middle-income Americans, I want to draw attention to this legislation which will help bolster taxpayer confidence in dealing with the Government by ensuring taxpayers are treated fairly by the tax collector--the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. President, many of my colleagues in the Senate today were not here in 1988 when Congress passed, and President Reagan signed into law, the first Taxpayer Bill of Rights. That bill was the first ever comprehensive piece of legislation enumerating the rights of taxpayers. For example: The right of the taxpayer to be informed of their rights; The right of the taxpayer to rely on written advice of the IRS; The right of the taxpayer to representation; and The right of the taxpayer to recover civil damages and attorneys fees from the IRS. I might note that this particular legislation, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which was signed into law in 1988, was the very first piece of legislation throughout recorded American history that gave the taxpayers of America their due rights. Mr. President, these basic, commonsense provisions were codified by the first Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The battle waged by a strongly bipartisan coalition for their codification was hard fought and their ultimate enactment was a giant first step for the American taxpayer. But the time is overdue to more fully develop and expand these rights. Mr. President, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II is the next natural step which builds on the first effort in 1988. In 1992, I first introduced the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II with a considerable bipartisan backing of 52 of my colleagues. The bill passed Congress twice that year but was ultimately vetoed because it was included as part of two large tax bills with which President Bush did not agree. Since these two bills were vetoed, the Senate has not had the opportunity to consider the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II. However, Mr. President, I believe the time is now to enact this legislation, and I am committed to work along side my friend and colleague Senator Grassley to push taxpayer rights forward and in the coming months to look for additional ways to ensure the IRS treats taxpayers with respect. Today, Senator Grassley and I come to the floor, once again, with a strong bipartisan contingent in support of this bill--20 cosponsors--12 Democrats and 8 Republicans--a bill which builds on the foundation laid by the original Taxpayer Bill of Rights and is the next natural step in requiring the IRS to achieve higher standards of accuracy, timeliness, and fair play in providing taxpayer service. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights II achieves these new standards through 27 provisions, including: First, expanding the authority of the taxpayer advocate to prevent hardships on taxpayers. Second, create the right in small taxpayers to an installment agreement, and further, rights when installment agreements are denied or terminated. Third, require the IRS to abate interest when it has made an unreasonable error or delay, and enable the courts the power to review the interest abatement determination. Fourth, increase the rights of taxpayers to recover civil damages against the IRS when it has acted negligently or recklessly. Fifth, strengthen the code so a taxpayer may recover out-of-pocket costs incurred in a case in which the IRS position was not substantially justified. Sixth, and, prohibit the IRS from issuing retroactive proposed regulations unless the Congress provides otherwise. These are some of the examples of the 27 provisions that Senator Grassley and our 20 cosponsors in the Senate in a bipartisan effort will bring to this body for action later in this session. Mr. President, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II contains many more commonsense provisions designed to safeguard the rights of taxpayers, and I believe, will work to instill some confidence into our system of taxation. Mr. President, joining me later in the day, as I have mentioned, is my friend and colleague, Senator Grassley. We worked very hard on these provisions in the past, and we look forward to our work in the future. Let me name one other individual who has worked very, very hard in this field and that, of course, is Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Senator Reid came from the House of Representatives to the Senate. Mr. President, one day I was presiding in the chair when the Democrats had control of the Senate. I noticed over to my far extreme right that Senator Reid of Nevada was making his very first maiden speech in the Senate. And it was about taxpayers' rights. I, too, had been interested in this issue. I called for a page to come up, and I handed the page a note. I said, ``Harry Reid, I want to work with you on this provision that you are so concerned about.'' Ultimately, Senator Reid, Senator Grassley, Senator Levin, and many of us worked through the course of that year in developing the Taxpayer Bill of Rights I, which was in fact signed into law. So it has been a great pleasure and honor to have worked with these fine Members of the Senate, I must say in a very bipartisan way. As the Finance Committee continues its march of progress, let us say during the next several months, I look forward to the development now of Taxpayer Bill of Rights II and working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, I think there are other Senators who seek recognition.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to pay tribute to a good friend and a favorite son of my home State of Arkansas. I am referring to Gerald ``Jerry'' Hamra, a man known as much for his charity and his devotion to family as he is for his success in the competitive world of fast-food franchising. Jerry Hamra grew up as the son of a clothing salesman in Steele, MO. He likes to joke about his upbringing and his Lebanese heritage by referring to himself as ``the rag merchant's son.'' Today, as chairman of the board and CEO of Wendy's of Little Rock, Inc., Jerry owns 33 Wendy's hamburger franchises in Arkansas--not bad for a rag merchant's son. I once asked Jerry what led him to get into the hamburger business. He told me ``I didn't have any choice--I had just gone belly up in a swimming pool franchise business and I needed the work.'' That statement belies the savvy and business acumen that we in Arkansas have come to equate with Jerry Hamra. Jerry first came into Little Rock in 1974 and opened his first Arkansas-based Wendy's in 1975. It was the beginning of a remarkable success story. He has been recognized time and again by Wendy's International for his commitment to excellence. In 1990, he received the business' highest honor when he became the first franchisee to be inducted into the Wendy's Hall of Fame. Those of us who have known him for so long also know that the success of Jerry Hamra, the businessman, is directly linked to the life of Jerry Hamra, the human being. Jerry once told me that his priorities are ``God, the list.'' His concern for people dictates his outlook on business. He is a big believer in hard work, and his pet peeves are a wrong order and an unclean facility. But on the opposite side, his favorite way of dealing with employees is to find a way to compliment them. Jerry is also known for his love of children--other people's as well as his own. Locally, he is what you might call the pied piper of hamburgers. He always carries coupons for free burgers in his back pocket and passes them out to children wherever he sees them. But he has also shown that generosity and compassion for children on a much larger scale. In 1987, Jerry donated and dedicated the therapeutic pool at Arkansas Children's Hospital, the only one of its kind in Arkansas. In 1992 he was named Citizen of the Year by the Arkansas chapter of the March of Dimes. Jerry Hamra is truly known in Arkansas as much for his benevolence and his many kindnesses to other people as he is for anything he has accomplished in the business world. He once told me he was so charitable because, as he put it, ``Arkansas has given me so much, I can never fully pay it back.'' Well, on behalf of all Arkansans, I want to tell Jerry how grateful we are that, 20 years ago, he chose Arkansas as his home. Jerry is currently battling cancer, and I want him to know that he and his fine family are very much in the thoughts of the Pryor family and of countless people across the State of Arkansas. I know my colleagues join me in wishing Jerry a speedy recovery and continued success.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to support S. 245, the Health Care Fraud Prevention Act of 1995. Health care fraud and abuse in our health care system is draining billions of dollars a year from American families, businesses, and government. The Department of Justice and other experts have estimated that as much as 10 percent of our national health care bill is lost to fraud and abuse. Every dollar stolen from the health care system--be it from Medicare, Medicaid, or a private health care plan--means one less dollar for patient care or for lower insurance premiums. With health care costs still escalating, the last thing we need to be doing is allowing criminals to steal from the system. Fraud also tarnishes the good names of honest health care professionals and companies. While the vast majority of providers are honest and hard working, the crooks cast a cloud over the entire health care system. Mr. President, there are too many examples of fraud in our health care system. For example, seven New York physicians were recently excluded from the New York Medicaid program for their part in a scheme that stole over $8 million from the program. As part of this Medicaid fraud scheme, indigent individuals with no legitimate medical need for prescription drugs would enter the doctors' clinics and obtain prescriptions for expensive drugs. They, in turn, would resell the prescriptions to people on the street. In exchange for the prescriptions, the ``patients'' would subject themselves to unnecessary medical tests and procedures for which Medicaid could then be fraudulently billed. In other cases, it is not so clear that there has been fraud, but rather that a health care plan has been taken advantage of. As an example, I received a letter from a constituent of mine, Jennie H., not too long ago. Jennie wrote that Medicare had paid a medical supplier $2,136 for 300 adult incontinence pads that were delivered to her mother. That works out to almost $7.12 for each pad, far more than what they would cost at the drug store. Much studying has been on the health care fraud problem in recent years. In addition to the report issued last year by my friend from Maine, Senator Cohen, the incoming chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, reports by the General Accounting Office, the HHS inspector general, and congressional committees have also documented the extent and range of the problem. They have detailed abuses ranging from the billing of services never provided to the illegal sale of controlled substances. This is a subject about which I too have long been concerned. When I was chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I held several hearings on fraud and abuse in the health care system. In addition, the health care bill reported out of the Finance Committee last year included an antifraud provision that I helped develop. Mr. President, now is the time to take action against health care fraud. While I would have preferred to see the health care fraud problem addressed as part of health care reform, it is clear that we cannot wait for that to happen. Each day we wait to give crime fighters the authority and tools they need to combat fraud in a coordinated and effective manner means millions of wasted health care dollars. The bill which I have joined Senator Cohen in sponsoring today represents a balanced, bipartisan approach to combating health care fraud and takes the best provisions common to the bills debated last year, such as the President's proposal. It establishes an improved, coordinated effort to combat fraud and abuse. It expands certain existing criminal and civil penalties for health care fraud to provide a stronger deterrent to the billing of fraudulent claims and to eliminate waste in our health care system. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, in less than 2 months the Secretary of Defense will forward to the 1995 Base Closure Commission his so-called ``hit list'' of military base closings. Although it is an excruciating exercise, I think we would all agree that closing obsolete military bases is a painful necessity. With the end of the cold war, the Pentagon estimated that 30 percent of our domestic military bases must be shut down. Due in large part to the efforts of Senator Sam Nunn, of Georgia, and former Senator Alan Dixon, of Illinois, Congress created a bipartisan Base Closure Commission to help us make the necessary choices of which bases to close. I believe the base closure process is sound. It serves as a model of how to make difficult and politically sensitive budget-cutting decisions. The Base Closure Commission successfully completed base closure rounds in 1988, 1991, and 1993. As this chart to my left indicates, these three rounds of base closings eliminated some 70 military bases throughout America. Some areas and some States were hit harder than others. On March 1, 1995, the Commission will begin its very important deliberations once again, and before the year is through, the Commission will seek congressional and Presidential approval to close dozens of additional bases. We have been told that this list will be longer and painful. In fact, it has been said that this base closure round will possibly be equal in size to the first three rounds combined. To be certain, base closings hurt. In communities that lose a base, thousands of jobs are terminated, businesses close down, millions of dollars in annual revenue disappear from sight. Mr. President, I am personally aware of that pain caused by base closure announcements. The 1991 Commission closed Eaker Air Force Base, a B-52 base located in Mississippi County, AR. They also took away a majority of the work at Fort Chaffee near Fort Smith, AR. Most of our colleagues in the Senate have witnessed the departure of the military in at least one community in their State. My colleagues from California lost eight major military bases in 1993 alone, as this map so indicates. We have seen communities react with anger and frustration to the news of base closings. We have witnessed their fear about surviving such a tremendous economic blow. For most base closure towns, the military was the largest employer, as in the case of Eaker Air Force Base in Blytheville, AR. Mr. President, I visited this base in 1992, 1 year after the closure announcement, to see how the local townspeople were coping with the impending loss of the Air Force. What I found was a community that desperately wanted to beat swords into plowshares. I found also a community that was receiving virtually no help whatsoever from the Federal Government. In fact, this community claimed that Washington was their largest roadblock to a speedy recovery. The citizens of Blytheville needed the Air Force's cooperation and the Federal Government's resources. What they received instead was bureaucratic lip service and endless red tape. The same was true in other communities across America. The problems were so severe that the former majority leader, Senator George Mitchell, decided to create a special task force to devise a strategy for easing the impact of defense budget reductions and for making a smooth transition to a post-cold war economy. Senator Mitchell asked me to become the task force chairman. With 24 Democratic Senate colleagues, we began studying what the Federal Government's role should be, if any, to help in our Nation's ongoing transition from swords to plowshares. Our 1992 task force concluded that the end of the cold war had caught our country by surprise, and that we were late in devising a national strategy for helping our cold war workers, communities and companies find a new direction. We also found that the United States of America was better prepared to handle a much larger transition in the years following World War II. As early as 1943, 2 years before the war had ended, President Roosevelt made the decision to begin planning for the war's end and the difficult conversion to a peacetime economy. He had created the War Demobilization Office and charged this new entity with devising a national strategy. From this office emerged the GI bill and many other initiatives that helped our country grow and prosper in the years that followed. In 1992, however, 3 years after the Iron Curtain began to crack, our Government still had no comprehensive strategy for beating swords into plowshares. History, Mr. President, should have taught us better. The lesson learned after World War II, and in other periods of defense downsizing, was that our Government has a duty to provide comprehensive transition assistance to those affected by reductions in our Nation's defense expenditures. Some might say, Mr. President, that this is not the function nor the role of Government. I would submit, however, that our Government should become a partner in this endeavor and not an obstacle to economic recovery. To compensate for our slow start and to finally allow our Government to become a partner instead of an obstacle, [[Page S1133]] our 1992 task force recommended sizable increases in defense reinvestment funding and programs. That same year a Republican task force, commissioned by then-minority leader Senator Dole and chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman, drew similar conclusions. This bipartisan agreement allowed Congress to quickly pass sweeping legislation to begin easing the pain of defense cutbacks and to help our cold war veterans beat swords into plowshares. In the area of base closures, I am very pleased to report that success stories are just beginning to arise in many communities across our country. I would like to highlight a few. At Chase Field in Beeville, TX, 1,500 jobs have now been created since the base closed in 1993. Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, NH, has created 1,000 new jobs since it closed in 1991. England Air Force Base in Alexandria, LA, has created over 600 new jobs due in large part to the J.B. Hunt Trucking Co.'s decision to use the old runways to train truck drivers. I might add as a personal note, Mr. President, that the J.B. Hunt Trucking Co., proudly, is an Arkansas-based firm. Each of these communities is learning that the loss of a military base can often bring opportunities for growth and renewed economic activity. They worked hard to achieve these results. They deserve tremendous credit. In each of these cases, however, our defense reinvestment programs are helping these communities rebound. Congressionally approved funds for planning grants, worker retraining, environmental cleanup, infrastructure, aviation improvements, and other necessary measures are helping these towns prepare for their future and replace lost military jobs. Without this assistance, base closure communities would not be able to rebound and find new work. But Congress and this administration provided the necessary support for our defense reinvestment programs. These are good investments, and they are just now beginning to bear fruit in base closure communities across our country. The same can be said of our technology reinvestment programs that are focusing today on boosting American competitiveness in the private sector by integrating our military and civilian technology sectors. These programs are vital to our economic security, and as a result, are vital to our national security. They are certainly worthy of congressional support. I am so deeply concerned by the recent statements by some of our colleagues in Congress who are suggesting these programs are pork, that they are a waste of money, and that they are in some way damaging our ability to fight and win future wars. I truly hope, Mr. President, that our 11 new colleagues in the Senate do not share this view. I would like to caution my new colleagues, and the Senate as a whole, against turning a cold shoulder to the men, the women, the communities, and the companies that fought and won the cold war. We have only begun to see the results of our wise investments. Mr. President, we are about to enter the base closing season once again. When the Commission submits its final list, workers and communities in our States will suddenly be thrown into economic downturn and in some cases economic despair. When this occurs, these defense reinvestment programs will not appear wasteful. Rather, they will be a helping hand to our communities' economic recovery efforts. It is my sincere hope that this base closure round, with the pain and economic trauma that it is expected to bring, will once again underscore the importance of helping beat swords into plowshares. Mr. President, last evening I had a visit with Senator Sam Nunn, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We have decided, Mr. President, to invite Defense Secretary Bill Perry to come to Capitol Hill shortly following the Clinton administration's budget submission to brief any and all interested Members of the Senate on the importance of funding these defense reinvestment programs. Secretary Perry strongly believes that these programs are worthy of our support, and I am proud to join with Senator Nunn in setting up this forum in which Secretary Perry can come forward and answer our questions about these particular programs and why they should be supported in Congress. I encourage my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to attend this particular briefing, the time and place of which will be announced soon. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I yield the floor. I see no other Senators on the floor; therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to support S. 245, the Health Care Fraud Prevention Act of 1995. Health care fraud and abuse in our health care system is draining billions of dollars a year from American families, businesses, and government. The Department of Justice and other experts have estimated that as much as 10 percent of our national health care bill is lost to fraud and abuse. Every dollar stolen from the health care system--be it from Medicare, Medicaid, or a private health care plan--means one less dollar for patient care or for lower insurance premiums. With health care costs still escalating, the last thing we need to be doing is allowing criminals to steal from the system. Fraud also tarnishes the good names of honest health care professionals and companies. While the vast majority of providers are honest and hard working, the crooks cast a cloud over the entire health care system. Mr. President, there are too many examples of fraud in our health care system. For example, seven New York physicians were recently excluded from the New York Medicaid program for their part in a scheme that stole over $8 million from the program. As part of this Medicaid fraud scheme, indigent individuals with no legitimate medical need for prescription drugs would enter the doctors' clinics and obtain prescriptions for expensive drugs. They, in turn, would resell the prescriptions to people on the street. In exchange for the prescriptions, the ``patients'' would subject themselves to unnecessary medical tests and procedures for which Medicaid could then be fraudulently billed. In other cases, it is not so clear that there has been fraud, but rather that a health care plan has been taken advantage of. As an example, I received a letter from a constituent of mine, Jennie H., not too long ago. Jennie wrote that Medicare had paid a medical supplier $2,136 for 300 adult incontinence pads that were delivered to her mother. That works out to almost $7.12 for each pad, far more than what they would cost at the drug store. Much studying has been on the health care fraud problem in recent years. In addition to the report issued last year by my friend from Maine, Senator Cohen, the incoming chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, reports by the General Accounting Office, the HHS inspector general, and congressional committees have also documented the extent and range of the problem. They have detailed abuses ranging from the billing of services never provided to the illegal sale of controlled substances. This is a subject about which I too have long been concerned. When I was chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I held several hearings on fraud and abuse in the health care system. In addition, the health care bill reported out of the Finance Committee last year included an antifraud provision that I helped develop. Mr. President, now is the time to take action against health care fraud. While I would have preferred to see the health care fraud problem addressed as part of health care reform, it is clear that we cannot wait for that to happen. Each day we wait to give crime fighters the authority and tools they need to combat fraud in a coordinated and effective manner means millions of wasted health care dollars. The bill which I have joined Senator Cohen in sponsoring today represents a balanced, bipartisan approach to combating health care fraud and takes the best provisions common to the bills debated last year, such as the President's proposal. It establishes an improved, coordinated effort to combat fraud and abuse. It expands certain existing criminal and civil penalties for health care fraud to provide a stronger deterrent to the billing of fraudulent claims and to eliminate waste in our health care system. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I might, I want to compliment our distinguished friend from Idaho for his long- time commitment to the goals and to the premises that this piece of legislation represents. But I think, Mr. President, it needs to be said that this is a far-reaching, a very, very far-reaching piece of legislation. It is the most far-reaching piece of legislation that this body, the 104th Congress of the U.S. Senate, has yet considered. Mr. President, I sat through, the other morning, a very extensive debate in the Committee on Governmental Affairs relative to this particular piece of legislation. And in that committee, there were two issues that very much concerned me, two issues that I am afraid, at least for the moment, at that time were disposed of. One of those issues was a vote taken by the committee relative to a committee report. That committee report, by the way, as the Senator from Idaho has now demonstrated, has been filed. We have that particular report from the Committee on Governmental Affairs. However, the committee at first voted not to accompany this bill with a committee report. I want to compliment my friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who has in the last 2 days--in my opinion, justifiably so--requested, before this measure be considered, a committee report from the other committee of jurisdiction, which is the Committee on the Budget. In my opinion, even though I am a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Budget Committee report is more meaningful to this particular bill than the Governmental Affairs Committee report. The Budget Committee has now made its report. It has been given to the Senate, but only in the past few hours. This morning, we received this particular report on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. We now have the report. I must say, and tell my colleagues that it is no news that since 10 o'clock, we have been in a meeting with Mr. Greenspan, Alan Greenspan, relative to the financial and economic crisis in Mexico. That has consumed most of our morning. We have been in recess most of this Friday morning, I might add. I do not know how many people have had the opportunity, I respectfully submit, to look at this particular committee report. Finally, I think the issue of a sunset of 3 years, which was left unresolved by the Committee on Governmental Affairs, is an issue that I think needs to be addressed as we proceed with this bill. A measure of this far-reaching impact and consequence is a measure which, in my opinion, at this time needs a careful consideration of a sunset provision, where all of this measure would sunset at the end of 3 years, in order to afford the Congress --the House and Senate--the mayors, Governors, and all of us who are involved in this vast restructuring process, the opportunity to see if we have made the right or the wrong decision, and to see if we need to make changes in this particular concept that we have brought to this great country of ours. So with that being said, Mr. President, I have reserved the right to object, and I have not entered an objection. I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia; and I see the distinguished Senator from Michigan, who has been very much involved in the formation of this particular legislation. I yield the floor at this time. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I respond to my friend from Wyoming by saying that I have been here for some time and I am enjoying all these speeches so much. I have no preference as to when I speak. So I would love to listen to the Senator from Wyoming, to hear him talk about our friend, Bennett Johnston.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this is indeed a sad day. It is a sad day for the U.S. Senate. It is indeed a sad day for the State of Arkansas to be losing one of our colleagues from this Senate, but of equal importance to be losing, Mr. President, one of our neighbors, the Honorable Bennett Johnston as our colleague and friend from our neighboring State of Louisiana. We have often said, Dale Bumpers and I--and I am sure he will eloquently address this momentarily--Senator Bumpers and I have often said in our State that we have three Senators, that we are very fortunate, and that the third Senator is the Senator from Louisiana, who on every project, Mr. President, on every issue has stood shoulder to shoulder not only with Senator Bumpers and myself and our predecessors in this body but also with our State and its people in the projects that we pursued on many occasions. Senator Johnston in his eloquent, and I must say brief, remarks, talked about two principles, one of honor, that the people had honored him. And all of us know Senator Johnston well. I know that honor was bestowed upon Senator Johnston and that he treated that honor basically as holding that honor in trust for the people of his State and the people of this country. The other characteristic that he addressed was power, that the people of Louisiana had bestowed upon him as a U.S. Senator a great power. Mr. President, I can say without reservation that of the some 20 years that I have known this fine gentleman, I have never seen nor have I ever heard of this fine man ever once abusing that power or of taking that power for granted. Mr. President, Bennett Johnston will go down in the annals of this great U.S. Senate as one of the great doers and one of the great builders that this body has ever produced. The Senate has been a better place because of him. His life and his example and his family all mean so much to all of us. Mr. President, I notice that the distinguished Presiding Officer, the new Senator from Pennsylvania, is seated today presiding over the U.S. Senate. I know that he faces a middle aisle that some say divides the Republicans from the Democrats. I have a feeling, Mr. President, that Senator Bennett Johnston, our friend and neighbor from Louisiana, has never seen that middle aisle as a line of demarcation, nor as a line of division, but merely as a line of invitation to join hands and join parties, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, on those issues that face this country and those issues that must make us a better people. Bennett Johnston, in my opinion, has been able to bridge that gap and to cross that aisle in friendship, in principle, in camaraderie and comity, as well as any Member that I have ever seen in the U.S. Senate. He is a wise and a good man. It has been my extreme pleasure and honor to serve in this body with Bennett Johnston, my friend and colleague from the great State of Louisiana. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to fill in a little time, if my colleagues do not object--but when the minority leader comes to the floor, I will cease my remarks. I would like to make just two or three more points, Mr. President. I think that what the Senator from Nebraska is doing, the concept that he is laying out is absolutely sound. I think it is responsible, and I think that it is something we have to do prior to the vote on a balanced budget amendment. There may be a lot of different thought in this Chamber as to what the outcome of this debate might or might not be. Second, I think we need to know some more basic things about a balanced budget amendment. I think we need to know how we are going to achieve a balanced budget, and if some Senators say, ``Oh, we have 7 or 8 years to figure that out; we'll just vote the balanced budget amendment in and we will feel good; we will write a press release; we will go back home and we will boast that we have voted for a balanced budget amendment,'' that does not take a lot of creativity, nor a lot of courage. I think what we have to ask ourselves is this: How are we going to achieve a balanced budget if we adopt the balanced budget amendment? What will be the implementing legislation that will be called for? What is going to be the issue with regard to rescission? What is going to be the answer with regard to impoundment? Are we going to basically exclude or include Social Security? Are we going to exclude or include veterans benefits? These are the types of issues, Mr. President, that I think we need to know before we stake out the course of this afternoon, saying it is a congressional decision, that it is essential for The Senator from Pennsylvania stated there is no disagreement among anyone, I think, in this Chamber of whether we need a balanced budget. That is different from a balanced budget amendment, I say respectfully, and I certainly agree with my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania. But we have a lot of things going on here. We have the Contract With America. Some of it has already started to roll. Things are happening very quickly. We are going to have a markup on Monday, I believe, in the Governmental Affairs Committee, on an issue that may or may not change the relationship between the Federal and State governments. That is a voluminous piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that I will probably vote for. But, Mr. President, I do not think we are taking enough time to really look and analyze some of these far- reaching pieces of legislation before we cast our vote. But a constitutional amendment to the Federal Constitution to require a balanced budget I think should be voted on when we have the facts, when we know how we are going to achieve and how we will implement that balanced budget that all of us may ultimately support. Mr. President, those are the comments that I have. I see other Senators may be coming to the floor desiring to speak. So with that I will yield the floor, and I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas had thought that the Senator from Nebraska was posing a question, and I was rising to answer that question. I would like to answer, if I may, by saying I think the Senator is certainly moving in the right direction. Right now, on Friday afternoon, before we have really geared up the Senate, before we really place our feet and our positions in concrete on whether we support or reject the idea of a constitutional amendment, it is in the spirit of good legislative wisdom and in keeping with the legislative philosophy of the Senator from Nebraska, I am sure, that this change be made, and if that change is made, I will enthusiastically--enthusiastically--support the requirements of specificity that the Senator from Nebraska is addressing in his amendment.