```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7346-S7351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN FUND

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, and I would like to thank the junior 
Senator from Massachusetts for offering his amendment that would derail 
this misguided effort to eliminate the Presidential election campaign 
fund.
  It came as a surprise--and a disappointment--to many of us that when 
the Republican Party announced last fall their new Contract With 
America and declared their commitment to reforming the Congress and 
ending business as usual in Washington, that they did not even bother 
to mention campaign finance reform in their contract.
  Well, we are now out from under the first 100 days of the contract, 
and there is still no indication that the Senate will be turning to 
campaign finance reform anytime soon.
  But not only are we going to be prevented from taking a step forward, 
the budget resolution before us today would push us back--20 years 
back--to the days before Congress recognized how fundamentally flawed 
our system of Presidential campaigns was.
  Mr. President, what in the world is the logic behind this? As far as 
I know, even the most vocal opponents of the Presidential campaign 
system are not willing to suggest that we have had a single unfair 
Presidential election in the past 20 years. Nor has any general 
election candidate for President, to my knowledge, ever said in the 
past 20 years that their loss was attributable to the lack of financial 
resources.
  That is because the Presidential campaign finance system is based on 
simple principles. One principle is that money should not determine the 
outcome of elections. Another is that elected officials should not be 
spending inordinate amounts of time on the phone soliciting campaign 
funds.
  That is what the Presidential system is about. If there is a problem 
of inadequate funding of the Presidential campaign fund, then that 
should be addressed. We did it 2 years ago and we can do it again.
  But instead, this resolution is trying to fix a wristwatch with a 
sledgehammer, preferring to discard the one [[Page S7347]] Federal 
campaign system that has produced fair and competitive elections during 
the last 20 years rather than finding a targeted solution to ensuring 
the solvency of the Presidential fund.
  Finally, I have to ask why the Republicans are trying to do this 
under the camouflage of the budget resolution. If opponents of the 
Presidential system want to eliminate it, then let us have public 
hearings in the Rules Committee and have an intelligent discussion 
about it.
  If opponents of public financing are so convinced that the American 
people are also opposed to public financing, why are the opponents so 
reluctant to have a public debate on this issue on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate?
  There is not a single word in the budget resolution about what we are 
going to replace the Presidential system with.
  But again, I have not heard anyone in the nearly 20 years of this 
system's existence criticize it for being unfair to challengers, unfair 
to either party, or dominated by special interests.
  This is a system we need to emulate, not eliminate.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership on this 
issue and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since I was elected to the Senate in 1972, 
one of my central themes has been to get special-interest money out of 
political campaigns. The first testimony I every gave as a U.S. Senator 
was before the Senate Rules Committee in favor of public funding--
instead of special-interest funding--of political campaigns.
  Unfortunately, we have not moved forward as much as I would have 
liked or as much as I have repeatedly advocated. And, what little we 
have done is now on the chopping block.
  The Republican budget would eliminate the only positive step we have 
taken in the last 20 years to clean up our political campaign system--
getting special-interest money out of the general election campaigns 
for President and limiting the amount Presidential candidates can 
spend. Now, the Republicans are trying to let the special-interest, big 
money back in.
  The Republican budget would repeal the Presidential campaign check-
off system. It is a rather simple system. When you file your income 
taxes each year, you can check off the box at the top of the tax form 
to have $3 of your taxes go to finance Presidential campaigns. It is a 
voluntary system. No one has to check it off. No ones taxes are 
affected by the decision. And, the only money that goes to Presidential 
campaigns is the money that people check off voluntarily. In exchange 
for taking the money, Presidential candidates must limit how much they 
spend.
  A simple system. A voluntary system. And, yet the system has worked. 
No more special interest money in the general election, and no more 
runaway spending.
  In the last 20 years, very few people have accused Presidential 
candidates of being beholden to special interest. Less than 1 percent 
of the money in Presidential campaigns comes from PAC's--political 
action committees. And, once the Presidential primaries are over, the 
quest for money essentially ends. Candidates can spend their time 
debating the issues--not catering to special-interests.
  Meanwhile, spending has been held down. Consider this: in the 1992 
Presidential election, President Clinton and President Bush combined 
spent less in constant dollars then President Nixon spent all by 
himself in the Watergate election of 1972--before there were spending 
limits and before there was the Presidential check-off system.
  What has been the result of all of this compared to the old system? 
Cleaner campaigns, fairer campaigns, more competitive campaigns, 
campaigns more focuses on the issues, and campaigns with limited 
spending.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Kerry amendment, 
which I have cosponsored. It would keep the Presidential check-off 
system in tact. Now is not the time to return Presidential campaigns to 
the days of runaway spending controlled by special interests.
  This system is not broken. We should not break it.
                Amendment No. 1154 to Amendment No. 1153

(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate on use of the Presidential 
         Election Campaign Fund in regard to sexual harassment)

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

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1154 to amendment No. 1153.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying function 800 include the following: that payments 
     to presidential campaigns from the Presidential Election 
     Campaign Fund, as authorized by the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1974, should not be used to pay for or augment damage 
     awards or settlements arising from a civil or criminal 
     action, or the threat thereof, related to sexual harassment.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today--on C-SPAN--we answer the 
question: can we ever get rid of any government program?
  Even if the program is wasteful, even if it is a proven failure, even 
if we've been spending taxpayers' money on it against their will--will 
we put a stop to it?
  Even if the program is a complete boondoggle for politicians--in 
fact, politicians receive every dime from it--can Congress bring itself 
to kill such a program? Stay tuned.
  The Budget Committee, under the able leadership of Chairman Domenici, 
wisely chose to end the failed Presidential Election Campaign Fund 
program. Make no mistake: the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is 
not simply troubled or fraught with problems--it is an utter failure.
  It has not achieved any of its stated objectives. It does not limit 
special interests. It does not lessen the money chase. It does not even 
limit spending. On the other hand, it does distort the political 
process, by causing campaigns to employ battalions of lawyers to seek 
out and exploit loopholes. It does fork over millions of taxpayer 
dollars to fringe candidates like Lenora Fulani, and even criminals 
like Lyndon LaRouche.
  It was the reformers' dream. It has become the taxpayers' nightmare.
  From beginning to end, the Presidential system of spending limits and 
voluntary taxpayer funding is a hoax that 85 percent of American 
taxpayers are not falling for. The tax return checkoff mechanism, which 
feeds the fund, is itself a fraud. The checkoff appropriates money out 
of the Treasury. It gives a tiny minority--14.5 percent of filers 
checked ``yes'' on their 1993 returns--the power to appropriate tax 
dollars paid by all Americans.
  The system is not voluntary for the 85 percent of American taxpayers 
who choose not to check ``yes,'' but are forced to pay for the few who 
do. These checkoff dollars don't come out of the pocket of those who 
check ``yes''--anymore than appropriations bills come out of the
 pockets of the Senators who vote for them.

  Democracy would be aided--not imperiled--by the demise of the 
Presidential fund. Every year, Americans vote on this fund, via the tax 
checkoff. It is the largest single public opinion poll conducted 
annually in this country, on the popularity of taxpayer financing of 
campaigns.
  The high water-mark--28.7 percent checking ``yes''--was realized on 
the 1980 tax returns. It's been a downward trajectory since, even 
though the dollar checkoff has itself been eroded by inflation and 
presumably would be an increasingly inexpensive proposition. Therefore, 
to get more money out of fewer people, President Clinton's 1993 budget/
tax bill tripled the checkoff to $3. The result was a 23-percent 
decrease in the checkoff rate--fewer people than ever supporting it--
while the total amount diverted from the Treasury increased 258 
percent, from $28 million to $71 million.
  I can tell you there is no outpouring of support among Kentuckians, 
or residents of any other State, for this program. In fact, they are 
crying out that [[Page S7348]] they do not want their tax dollars 
paying for anyone's campaign. Not the President's. Not Lenora Fulani's. 
Not anybody's.
  And certainly they aren't interested in paying for a campaign that 
Lyndon LaRouche ran from his prison cell. Nevertheless, LaRouche 
received Federal matching funds for the Presidential campaign he 
conducted while serving a 15-year sentence for fraud. Having run in 
1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992, he's now planning another run in 1996--
courtesy of the taxpayers. Maybe the fifth time's a charm.
  And then there's Lenora Fulani--I'm hoping to make Ms. Fulani as 
famous as Senator Gramm has made Dicky Flatt; because no one knows who 
she is. Well, you may not know Ms. Fulani, but you're paying her 
campaign bills through the presidential fund.
  Lenora Fulani is with the New Alliance Party, another household word 
in politics. Ms. Fulani is the lucky recipient of over $3.5 million in 
taxpayer dollars over the course of three elections--1994, 1988, 1992.
  In fact, she's gotten so good at the game that she was the first 
candidate--ahead of George Bush, Bill Clinton, and all the rest--to 
qualify for matching funds for the 1992 campaign. Anyone want to bet 
there will be another Fulani candidacy in 1996? Who could resist 
millions of dollars in taxpayer largesse?
  As these fringe candidates proliferate, I can imagine the 
Presidential fund enlisting Ed McMahon to notify all those who qualify 
that they have won the grand prize: an all-expense-paid Presidential 
election campaign--not from Publishers Clearinghouse, but from the 
American taxpayers.
  Some proponents of taxpayer-financed campaigns say it is 
inappropriate--even hypocritical--for those who have participated in 
the Presidential system to oppose it. That is absurd. If that were the 
case--that participating in the system is tantamount to endorsing it--
then what should be said about all those from the other side who run 
for the Senate under a system they want to replace with taxpayer 
financing and spending limits?
  Mr. President, playing by the rules as they exist does not, nor 
should it, preclude anyone from trying to change them for the better. I 
haven't seen anyone from the other side volunteer to abide by spending 
limits because they think they're such a great idea. Is that what is 
being suggested?
  In the same way, Presidential candidates must participate in the 
system as it is, not as they would like it to be. That being the case, 
every single candidate running for President but two has decided, quite 
logically, to accept the funding--because not to do so would cede a 
huge financial advantage to other candidates.
  Not surprisingly, the only two major candidates who have turned down 
this generous subsidy were extremely wealthy: millionaire John Connally 
in 1980 and billionaire Ross Perot in 1992.
  So the notion that you are precluded from reforming a program that 
you have almost no choice but to participate in is absolutely 
ludicrous, and should be ignored.
  But there is another argument against reforming the Presidential 
system that should not just be ignored--it should be condemned.
  Common Cause--which has perfected the art of hysterical, money-
grubbing direct-mail appeals--issued a letter on May 11 in which it 
said that opposition to taxpayer financing of Presidential campaigns is 
an endorsement of corruption. It went on to charge that a vote for the 
budget resolution--as is--is a vote for corruption.
  Over the years, Common Cause has dished up so much disinformation on 
campaign finance reform, under the guise of good government, that even 
the Democrats ignore them--or barely tolerate them. They have become a 
parody of their former selves--just another self-interested Washington 
lobby, adding to the cacophony of government-bashing, while making a 
tidy sum in the process. But this goes beyond the pale.
  The Presidential Election Campaign Fund is a failed relic from the 
post-Watergate reform era. In fact, most of the proposals that were 
enacted in that era were struck down by the Supreme Court as wholesale 
trampling of constitutional freedoms. So the fact that this system was 
conceived in the wake of Watergate is not necessarily an impressive 
pedigree.
  But since the proponents of taxpayer financing like to invoke 
Watergate, I'd like to read directly from the report prepared by the 
Senate Select Committee on Watergate, which was charged with making 
legislative recommendations to deal with the issues raised by this 
scandal.
  Recommendation No. 7, which appears on page 572 of that report, reads 
as follows:

       The committee recommends against the adoption of any form 
     of public financing in which tax moneys are collected and 
     allocated to political candidates by the Federal Government. 
     * * * [t]he committee takes issue with the contention that 
     public financing affords either an effective or appropriate 
     solution. Thomas Jefferson believed `to compel a man to 
     furnish contributions of money for the propagation of 
     opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and 
     tyrannical.'
       The Committee's opposition is based, like Jefferson's, upon 
     the fundamental need to protect the voluntary right of 
     individual citizens to express themselves politically as 
     guaranteed by the first amendment. Furthermore, we find 
     inherent dangers in authorizing the Federal bureaucracy to 
     fund and excessively regulate political campaigns.
       The abuses reexperienced during the 1972 campaign and 
     unearthed by the Select Committee were perpetrated in the 
     absence of any effective regulation of the source, form, or 
     amount of campaign contributions. In fact, despite the 
     progress made by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 
     in requiring full public disclosure of contributions, the 
     1972 campaign still was funded through a system of 
     essentially unrestricted, private financing.
       What now seems appropriate is not the abandonment of 
     private financing, but rather the reform of that system in an 
     effort to vastly expand the voluntary participation of 
     individual citizens while avoiding the abuses of earlier 
     campaigns.

  That is what the Watergate Select Committee had to say about the 
matter. So you can call taxpayer financing of campaigns a Common Cause 
reform, but don't call it a Watergate reform, because the Senate 
committee in charge of formulating a response to the crisis rejected 
the idea, flat-out.
  The fact that the Presidential Election Campaign Fund slipped 
through, thereby putting the Government in the business of bribing 
people to forfeit their constitutional rights, is an unfortunate legacy 
of those tumultuous years. But just because the fund has barely 
survived for two decades--teetering on the brink of bankruptcy before 
President Clinton bailed it out 2 years ago with taxpayers' money--does 
not justify its perpetuity.
  It is the myopia of big-Government liberals that prevents them from 
seeing that anything could possibly replace a Government program. So we 
need to answer the question: What would exist after the Presidential 
fund's demise?
  Why, a system in which private citizens voluntarily contribute 
publicly disclosed and limited donations to the candidates of their 
choice--in other words, the system contemplated by the Watergate Select 
Committee.
  Perhaps now, 20 years after Watergate, Congress can finally get it 
right.
  Of course, I expect the professional government-bashers like Common 
Cause to say that reverting to a privately funded
 Presidential system is somehow a guarantee of corruption. They have 
been calling the privately financed congressional system corrupt for 
years. In their view, the only clean money is the taxpayers' money.

  You see, they have this theory that your hard-earned money is dirty 
and corrupting until it's been laundered by the Internal Revenue 
Service. It's a very interesting theory, to say the least.
  However, we have already pumped nearly a billion dollars of the 
taxpayers' money into the Presidential system, and it has not achieved 
any of the purported goals of that system. The congressional system, on 
the other hand, doesn't use a dime of taxpayers' money for political 
campaigns, and if there are instances where it has bred corruption, 
then--as chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee--I would like to hear 
about them and we will investigate them to the fullest.
  If the issue really is corruption, then contribution limits and 
public disclosure are the best preventive measures--not another 
taxpayer-funded Government program.
  But I think the charge of corruption here is just a convenient smoke-
screen to maintain the status quo and to let this failed and wasteful 
system continue in perpetuity. [[Page S7349]] 
  I think the real issue before us is whether this Congress, faced with 
a $4.7 trillion-dollar debt, will step up to the challenge of 
eliminating any Government program, even one with as dismal a record as 
the failed Presidential system.
  As I said at the outset: despite the expenditure of millions of tax 
dollars, this system has not curbed special interests. It has not ended 
the money chase. It has not reduced the emphasis on fundraising. It has 
not even limited campaign spending, as misguided a goal as that is.
  In fact, this Government program is an utter embarrassment: the 
Federal Election Commission can't even finish its audits of candidates 
until they're ready to run again. Every candidate except one has been 
cited for inadvertent violations. Accountants and lawyers are blowing 
open new loopholes every election that hold the entire system up to 
ridicule.
  And what is the money being spent on? Convenient balloons. Negative 
ads. Consultants. Opposition research. Just the things that American 
taxpayers are telling us they want more of.
  Will Congress step up to the plate and put at least one wasteful 
Government program out of business? Will Congress let the taxpayers off 
the hook--just once? Will Congress get rid of this exclusive perk for 
politicians?
  Inquiring taxpayers want to know.
  It's time to pull the plug on the taxpayer-financed Presidential 
system. It should surprise no one that this Republican Congress, in 
pursuant of a balanced budget, should seek to abolish a proven failure 
like the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This is one entitlement 
program on which the sun should have set--a long time ago.

                    second-degree--sexual harassment

  However, if the Senator from Massachusetts prevails in his quest to 
continue taxpayer-financing of Presidential campaigns, then at the 
least we should take some steps to reassure taxpayers that their money 
is used for legitimate campaign purposes. The Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund should not be used to quash scandals such as allegations 
of sexual harassment. Such abuse of taxpayer funds itself impairs 
public confidence in Government.
  The second-degree amendment that I am putting forth simply states:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying function 800 include the following: that payments 
     to presidential campaigns from the Presidential Election 
     Campaign Fund, as authorized by the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1974, should not be used to pay for or augment damage 
     awards or settlements arising from a civil or criminal 
     action, or the threat thereof, related to sexual harassment.

  Mr. President, this is not a hypothetical. It came to light--2\1/2\ 
years after the fact--that President Clinton's 1992 taxpayer-funded 
Presidential campaign used $37,500 to settle a sexual harassment suit 
against one of the then-candidate's top aides.
  This expense item was discovered during the course of an audit of the 
Clinton campaign which resulted in a recommendation that the campaign 
repay to the Treasury a record $4 million. The Commission ultimately 
scaled back the repayment. Along with items including $180,000 in 
questionable petty cash disbursements, $70,000 for lost rental cars, 
computers and other equipment, was the $37,500 to settle what the 
campaign termed an ``employment dispute.''
  The Clinton campaign had listed the expense as consulting fees. How 
much of it was in fact for consulting and how much was for keeping 
quiet, is unclear. The Washington Post reported on February 15 of this 
year that ``. . . given the dearth of information the campaign 
provided, the FEC has ordered it to repay $9,675 in Federal funds that 
were used in the payment.''
  Mr. President, the confidentiality clause in the agreement between 
the claimant and the Clinton campaign impeded the audit and with 
repayment of part of the money the Federal Election Commission has 
reportedly closed the investigation. Considering that taxpayer funds 
intended for Presidential campaigning are involved, perhaps the matter 
should be revisited. In any event, the Senate should make clear that 
taxpayer funds drawn from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund 
should not be used to coverup charges of sexual harassment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator McConnell's second-degree 
amendment is a sense of the Senate that Presidential campaign fund 
moneys should not go toward settling sexual harassment suits.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I simply would like to say to the manager, 
we are prepared to accept this. We can save the Senate time and proceed 
to the underlying amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to have a vote on this.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 1154 offered by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell]. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 1154) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, we will proceed to the vote on 
the adoption of amendment No. 1153, as amended.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is the pending amendment the Glenn 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it is the Exon for Kerry amendment No. 
1153.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not need to say anything. I am going to sit down.

                 Vote on Amendment No. 1153, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1153, as amended.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--44

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg [[Page S7350]] 
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the amendment (No. 1153), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                           Amendment No. 1155

          (Purpose: To restore the IRS compliance initiative)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Glenn and Mr. 
     Simon, proposes an amendment numbered 1155.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 79, strike lines 1 through 3.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would restore the budget 
structure of the IRS compliance initiative which now is established in 
last year's budget resolution with bipartisan support. The initiative 
was established off budget because of its return of $5 for every $1 
spent. This budget resolution would change that structure, placing the 
IRS initiative under the spending caps.
  The amendment strikes that language to ensure that the compliance 
initiative will be fully funded at $9.2 billion over 5 years and 
delinquent taxes brought to the Treasury.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not object to the statement, but 
frankly I hope we will exchange statements in the future. That 
statement is a little more editorialized comment than I thought we 
would have, but nonetheless it has been done.

                           Amendment No. 1156

  (Purpose: To retain the budget resolution's prohibition against off-
   budget funding for the IRS and add a Sense of the Senate that the 
         Senate should pass the ``Taxpayers Bill of Rights 2'')

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute on behalf of myself and Senator Grassley to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself and 
     Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 1156.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       In lieu of the language proposed to be stricken insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 209. REPEAL OF IRS ALLOWANCE.

       (a) Section 25 of House Concurrent Resolution 218 (103d 
     Congress, 2d Session) is repealed.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the revenue levels 
     contained in the budget resolution should assume passage of 
     the ``Taxpayers Bill of Rights 2'' and that the Senate should 
     pass the Taxpayers Bill of Rights 2 this Congress.
       (c) It is the sense of the Senate that funding for tax 
     compliance efforts should be a top priority and that the 
     assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution include the administration's full request for the 
     Internal Revenue Service.

  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment repeals the special off-
budget treatment of the IRS compliance initiative. The budget 
resolution already provides full funding of the initiative within the 
discretionary caps.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Ohio.

                Amendment No. 1157 to Amendment No. 1156

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the 
second degree and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1157 to amendment No. 1156.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       In the pending amendment, strike lines 1-3.

  The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority leader is recognized.

                      Unanimous-Consent agreement

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have had discussion with the distinguished 
Democratic leader. I would like to enter into a unanimous-consent 
agreement. I understand the amendments have climbed to 50, so there 
will be 50 votes. We started at 31, got down to 20, and now it has 
gotten up to 50.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the only first-degree amendments in 
order to the budget resolution be those submitted by 5:15 this evening.
  Is there objection to that?
  Mr. FORD. What about second degree?
  Mr. DOLE. This only applies to first degree.
  Mr. DASCHLE. We have been discussing this agreement. This would not 
preclude second-degree amendments. The sponsors of the amendments would 
have to turn them in to the managers prior to 5:15. I think it is a 
good suggestion and I hope we can accommodate it.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Which one are we voting on now?
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment strikes language 
in the Grassley-Domenici amendment which would restructure the IRS 
compliance initiative placing it within the budget caps.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment returns the 
situation to where it was before I offered my amendment, which means 
that if this amendment is adopted, the IRS will continue to have 
special off-budget treatment of their budget instead of it being 
included in the budget like others.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the second-degree amendment.

    Vote On Motion To Table Amendment No. 1157 to amendment No. 1156

  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the second-degree amendment. Mr. 
President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 1157) was agreed to.

[[Page S7351]]

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                           Amendment No. 1156

  The VICE PRESIDENT. The question recurs on amendment No. 1156 offered 
by the Senator from New Mexico.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1156) was agreed to.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The adoption of the Domenici amendment renders 
the underlying amendment moot.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. I am authorized to make an announcement by the majority 
leader that there will be no further votes until 5 p.m.

                          ____________________
```