[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from New 
York was here to comment on the second amendment that I received. I 
thought I had eight votes last year, but he has informed me that it was 
seven. I am going to yield the floor shortly so he can make his 
comments.
  Before he leaves, I want to pay tribute to the Senator from Michigan. 
This is an issue that, only as a consequence of the perseverance of the 
Senator from Michigan, is now beginning to surface and become visible 
to all of us. It is the sort of thing that illustrates why we need to 
be alert for abuse to a single individual.
  You hear all the time: Well, what is it that this Government is 
supposed to be doing for the people of the United States of America? 
The Government is supposed to be standing up for that one individual 
who has no power at all, who does not have enough money to fly to 
Washington, and does not know a Senator. This is not as a consequence 
of some friendship or as a consequence of someone's influence. It is 
merely as a consequence of the Senator from Michigan saying this is 
wrong and acting upon it, and I am very grateful to the Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as my gallant and distinguished friend, 
the Senator from Nebraska, has said, I will rise simply to suggest that 
any dealings, any treatment of tax matters on an appropriation bill is 
not appropriate.
  The Senator with very characteristic irony notes that when he last 
made this proposal, he had received seven votes. I would like to say 
that--at what cost I may learn at a future date--we made a terrible 
mistake in the budget reconciliation bill last year when we did not 
place a sufficient increase in gasoline taxes to make possible things 
that we need to be done--deficit reduction and the like. When the 4.3-
cent increase went into effect on October 1, the new price of gasoline 
was lower than when we agreed that we would do this come October 1. We 
have a moment to get some reality into our consideration of this issue. 
I believe the Senator from Nebraska probably could tell me more 
accurately, but I believe we have now reached a point where we import 
the majority of the oil we consume. Is that true?
  Mr. KERREY. That is correct. We import over 50 percent of our oil.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. We have crossed that point. Does that mean 
nothing? I think there is a leakage of reality here. Generations hence, 
there may be people looking back at us thinking how right the Senator 
from Nebraska has been. It took 1 week in the Finance Committee to get 
from 4 to 4.3. Even so, sir, I have to say we do not have an 
appropriate vehicle. When we do, I shall certainly return to the 
subject. I thank my gallant and courteous friend.
  Mr. KERREY. I ask the manager of the bill, can we dispose of this 
amendment merely with a voice vote at this time?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have been advised by the manager of the 
bill that he would be in favor of disposing of this matter by a voice 
vote. There are just three of us here, but let us proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1439) was rejected.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to address another amendment. 
I have indicated that I am prepared to set a time agreement on this and 
set a time for a vote. I am describing some of the detail of the 
amendment so both Members and the public can get an understanding of 
what is in this and what some of the justifications are.
  Proposal 1 of 57 is to reduce the P.L. 480 title I and title III 
programs by 20 percent. This simply reduces the funding for titles I 
and III of the Public Law 480, or Food for Peace Program by 20 percent 
for fiscal year 1994.
  The reason for this change is that according to the GAO, regarding 
titles I and III:

       Agency for International Development has no strategy for 
     assessing the impact of its programs on enhancing the food 
     security of people in recipient countries, nor has it 
     determined where food aid is an efficient means for 
     accomplishing this goal.

  This funding reduction would provide a strong incentive for program 
managers to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the program.
  Proposal 2 of 57: Reduce the World Bank appropriation to Senate 
level. This proposal would reduce funding for the World Bank to $27.9 
million for paid-in capital and $902.4 million limitation on callable 
capital. The administration recommended $70.1 million for paid-in 
capital and $2.27 billion limitation on callable capital; the House 
recommended $55.8 million for paid-in capital and $1.8 billion on 
callable capital.
  The reason for the change, Mr. President, is that from the report 
accompanying the Senate Foreign Ops appropriations bill:

       An internal review of the World Bank's loan portfolio 
     concluded that the number of projects judged unsatisfactory 
     at completion increased from 15 percent in fiscal year 1981 
     to 37.5 percent in fiscal year 1991. It also determined that 
     borrowers' compliance with loan conditions, particularly 
     financial conditions, was only 25 percent. It found that the 
     role of Bank staff has evolved from independent evaluators of 
     country-proposed projects to advocates of projects to move 
     money and gain promotions, with a resulting decline in 
     project quality.

  The subcommittee went on to express concern about overly generous 
salaries and benefits to World Bank employees.
  The World Bank underestimated the cost of its new headquarters 
building by over $100 million.
  Proposal 3, Mr. President, is to reduce the IDA to Senate level.
  The IDA is the soft loan window of the World Bank. The Senate 
recommended an appropriation of $957.1 million of IDA. The 
administration requested $1.25 billion and the House recommended $1.02 
billion.
  The reasons for change are:
  Concerns have been raised in the Senate Foreign Ops Subcommittee 
regarding IDA's performance in the areas of the environment, and 
population and poverty alleviation.
  The Senate Foreign Ops Subcommittee also cited the World Bank's 
inadequate policy on information disclosure and its failure to 
establish a public appeals panel as reasons to reject the 
administration's requested increase.
  Proposal 4 of 57: Reduce foreign military aid to Senate level. This 
proposal would reduce Foreign Military Financing grants to the Senate 
recommended appropriation of $3.124 billion.
  The reasons for change are:
  Foreign Military Financing [FMF] consists of both loan subsidies and 
grants. Both the House and Senate agreed on loan subsidy levels, 
however, the Senate recommended an appropriation of $3.124 billion for 
grants and the House recommended an appropriation of $3.175 billion. 
The conference report contains $3.149 billion. This merely reduces it 
from $3.149 billion to $3.124 billion.
  Proposal 5 is: Partially consolidate overseas broadcasting.
  I point out that some of these items might be duplicative of what the 
President is recommending in his rescission package. That rescission 
package was received on Monday of this week, and we have language in 
our bill that deals with duplications.
  So I do not want anybody to be alarmed that they may be hearing 
something that is picked up on some other area.
  No. 5 is: Partially consolidate, as I said, overseas broadcasting 
offices.
  This proposal would impose a series of fiscal constraints on Radio 
Free Europe/Radio Liberty, including a funding ceiling of $75 million 
beginning in fiscal year 1996.
  This is an issue that has been raised very eloquently and 
persuasively by Senator Feingold of Wisconsin.
  The reasons for change are:
  The fiscal restraints are designed to address management problems in 
the current operation.
  Consolidation of RFD/RL is justified in the wake of the end of the 
cold war.
  This issue was also addressed in the State Department authorization 
in a compromise reached by Senators Biden and Feingold.
  Proposal 6 of 57: Reduce mission operational costs at State 
Department. This proposal rescinds funds from the Agency for 
International Development, Department of States, and United States 
Information Agency.
  The reasons for change are:
  According to the Senate Foreign Ops Appropriations Subcommittee, 
there are concerns over the performance of these agencies in the areas 
of the environment, population and poverty alleviation.
  In addition, there is concern that there is inadequate policy on 
information disclosure within the World Bank/IDA.
  Proposal 7: Eliminate funding for spacelifter program. This provision 
prohibits the use of any funds for acquisition or operation of any 
space launch system not already in operation at the date of enactment.
  The reasons for change are:
  The Spacelifter launch system is estimated to cost DOD and NASA 
between $5 billion and $6 billion over the next 10 years.
  Development of this system should be spun off into the private 
sector.
  Proposal 8 of 57: Eliminate funding for the magnetic levitation 
[MagLev] prototype development. This proposal would rescind $20,000,000 
in fiscal year 1994 funding from nagnetic levitation research and 
analysis activities.
  The reasons for change are:
  Section 1036 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act [ISTEA] of 
1001 establishes a national magnetic levitation prototype program. 
However, the Office of Technology Assessment states: ``We do not 
believe that the technology is ready to jump to the full-scale 
operating demonstration that has been proposed in ISTEA. * * * We can't 
get to operational testing using U.S. technology at an acceptable level 
or risk starting today. The technology is just not ready yet.''
  The savings associated with this rescission are $20 million in fiscal 
year 1994 and $700 million over 5 years.
  The OTA has determined that the technology is just not ready to begin 
full scale testing.
  This technology is not in place to begin operations, and the funds 
designated to this prototype would be better utilized on higher 
priorities.
  Proposal 9 of 57: Means test unemployment compensation at taxable 
income exceeding $120,000. The U.S. Government currently provides 
unemployment insurance payments on a non-means-tested basis to 
individuals who have lost employment. The program does not look at the 
income or assets of the applicant. This proposal would end unemployment 
insurance program subsidies to wealthy individuals with yearly net 
taxable income over $120,000.
  The reasons for change are:
  Unemployment insurance has been applied to everyone regardless of 
their job title or status of being wealthy, middle-class, or poor, but 
this demonstrates inherent flaws in this program. The purpose of 
unemployment insurance should be that of preventing working people who 
lose their jobs from becoming destitute while awaiting their return to 
their jobs or until they are able to obtain new jobs. It is highly 
unlikely that persons making over $120,000 a year in net taxable income 
would be destitute within the same timeframe or under the same 
conditions as a person who is middle-class or poor.
  Proposal 10 of 57: Eliminate funds for the high temperature gas 
reactor. This proposal rescinds $12,000,000 in fiscal year 1994 from 
the gas turbine-modular helium reactor program and terminates the 
project.
  The reasons for change are:
  The Energy Department did not request funding for this project, and 
the program had been scheduled for termination by the Clinton 
administration.
  This program was recommended for termination by a National Academy of 
Sciences panel.
  In a 1991 study, the Electric Power Research Institute found that the 
high temp gas reactor would not be cost competitive with the advanced 
light-water reactor even by 2010. It is predicted that no utility would 
order a plant based on high temp gas reactor technology until, perhaps 
after 2010. Therefore, it is not a priority issue.
  The Senate voted to terminate the project during debate on the fiscal 
year 1994 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. However, 
conferees opted to approprite $12,000,000 to continue the development 
of the reactor.
  Proposal 11: Freeze funding for Defense Environmental Restoration and 
Waste Management Program for 1 year. This proposal would freeze DOE 
clean-up money for 1 year, and require DOE to present clear priorities, 
a timeline, and budget for clean-up projects.
  The reasons for change are:
  The Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management budget has 
grown by approximately 50 percent in the last 2 years alone.
  The Senate Energy Committee and General Accounting Office have both 
questioned the management of this program.
  This proposal still provides $4.8 billion in funding--a 30-percent 
increase over fiscal year 1992 spending levels.
  The Federal budget simply cannot support continued increases of the 
magnitude that this program has been allowed.
  The fiscal year 1995 budget includes carry over funding of $240 
million and productivity savings of $300 million. Our proposal cuts 
spending by $300 million.
  We cannot afford to carry over money from one year to the next; 
that's a luxury.
  Proposal 12 of 57: Sell the Alaska Power Administration. Under this 
proposal, the Secretary of Energy may sell the Snettisham Hydroelectric 
Project to the State of Alaska Power Authority, and the Eklutna 
Hydroelectric Project to the Municipality of Anchorage.
  The reasons for change are:
  The APA was originally created to encourage economic development in 
Alaska by making low-cost hydro-power available to industry and 
residential customers. The project can now be turned over to the local 
ownership.
  The APA is located in a single state and its sale is supported by 
Alaska's congressional delegation, DOE, and OMB.
  Proposal 13 of 57: Allow industry to cogenerate power at Department 
of Energy labs. This provision would allow the Department of Energy to 
install cogeneration at sites where it is determined to be cost-
effective.
  The reasons for change are:
  This proposal would grant DOE authority currently held by DOD.
  This would allow DOE the authority to utilize its sites in the most 
cost-effective way.
  Proposal 14: Halt strategic petroleum reserve acquisitions. This 
provision rescinds all unobligated funds in the SPR petroleum account 
on the date of enactment.
  The reasons for change are:
  The SPR was authorized in 1975 to reduce the vulnerability of the 
United States to interruptions in oil supplies. It currently contains 
over 570 million barrels of oil. Currently, United States obtains less 
than one-quarter of its oil from OPEC countries, and the rate at which 
we continue to fill the reserve can be slowed.
  This proposal would effectively impose a 5-year moratorium on 
acquisitions.
  Proposal No. 15: Eliminate weather office closure certificate 
procedures. This provision eliminates weather office closure 
certificate procedures and rescinds $20 million in funds from the 
National Weather Service.
  The reasons for change are:
  The overly burdensome regulations regarding weather office closure 
procedures requires the Secretary of Commerce to legally guarantee the 
performance of the replacement office technology before the old, 
antiquated office system can be closed. This results in duplicative 
systems, with multiple offices serving the same area for up to 2 years.
  Proposal 16 of 57: Reduce agricultural research buildings and 
facilities to requested level.
  The provision rescinds $56,874,000 of funds available under the 
heading ``Cooperative State Research Service--Buildings and 
Facilities'' in the Agriculture Appropriations Act.
  The reason for change is:
  Although the administration requested no funding for this account, 
House and Senate appropriators have earmarked $57 million.
  Proposal 17 of 57: Reduce funding for Economic Development 
Administration by 10 percent for fiscal year 1994.
  The EDA provides grants to State and local governments for public 
works, technical assistance, and job programs as well as loan 
guarantees to firms for business development. This reduction in the 
level of funding will provide program managers with an incentive to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs.
  The reasons for change are:
  In 1988, EDA gave money to 15 of the 35 cities with the lowest 
unemployment rates in the Nation.
  The EDA has broad eligibility criteria--once an area has been 
designated to receive funding, it will remain eligible for funding 
indefinitely, regardless of economic growth--which allows areas 
containing 80 percent of the U.S. population to compete for benefits, 
and for providing aid with little proved effect compared with other 
programs with similar goals.
  Most EDA projects are not required to calculate the benefit-to-cost 
ratio or even financial rate of return analysis.
  EDA duplicates the funding of other Federal agencies such as HUD, 
DOT, SBA, and Export-Import Bank.
  Proposal 18 of 57: Eliminate funding for public telecommunications 
facilities.
  This provision repeals the authorization for funding of the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration--public 
telecommunications facilities, planning, and construction account. $24 
million is rescinded for fiscal year 1994.
  More than 95 percent of Americans now receive public broadcasting, 
which fulfills the goals of this program, which was created in the 
1960's.
  Funds in this program are now being used as an operating subsidy or 
to upgrade existing station facilities and equipment, not the original 
purpose.
  Proposal 19 of 57: Impose a moratorium on the purchase of Federal 
buildings.
  The ``National Performance Review Report on Reinventing Government'' 
stated: ``Over the next 5 years, the Federal Government is slated to 
spend more than $800 million a year acquiring new Federal office space 
and courthouses. Under current conditions, however, those acquisitions 
don't make sense.'' The review recommended that the Government Services 
Administration Administrator place a hold on GSA's acquisitions for new 
office space and begin aggressive negotiations for existing and new 
leases to further reduce costs. GSA will reevaluate and reduce the 
costs of new courthouse construction.
  The reasons for change are:
  The Resolution Trust Corporation is disposing of real estate once 
held by failed savings and loans at 10 to 50 cents on the dollar, 
commercial office vacancy rates are running in the 10-to-25-percent 
range, and U.S. military bases are being closed. Thus, the Government 
has many potential sources for office space without buying any more 
buildings.
  The GSA is currently reviewing Federal construction building 
projects. GSA Director Johnson has said the Agency has prioritized 
projects which are running up against scheduled milestones.
  The GSA is working on implementing a tracking and management system 
for Federal building projects. Director Johnson has said in testimony 
before the Environment and Public Works Committee that he would like to 
come before the committee on a quarterly basis to report on a review of 
timely milestones for construction projects, the success at reaching 
those milestones on time, and the reasons for which any milestone 
deadlines were not met.
  Proposal 20 of 57: Streamline HUD operations.
  The ``National Performance Review Report on Reinventing Government'' 
stated that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has 
developed a strategy to close offices without cutting customer service.
  The reasons for change are:
  Roughly 10,000 of HUD's 13,500 employees work in field offices, but 
their workloads vary: The New York regional office monitors 238,000 
Federal public housing units; the Seattle office only 30,000 units.
  Management restructuring will streamline HUD's field operations. 
Under a 5-year plan, HUD will eliminate all regional offices, pare down 
its 80-field office system, and cut its field staff by 1,500 people.
  This will allow HUD to realign staff resources to better meet demand.
  Proposal 21 of 57: Reduce TVA non-power programs by one-third.
  The annual appropriation for the TVA provides Federal support for the 
TVA's stewardship of its lands, facilities, and natural resources, and 
provides recreational programs, promotes public use of its land and 
water resources, and operates the National Fertilizer and Environmental 
Research Center.
  The reasons for change are:
  TVA has badly mismanaged its energy production activities for the 
past three decades, leaving it with a negative net worth of over $1 
billion. As the current TVA administration restructures, all nonenergy-
related activities should be taken away from TVA permanently.
  The U.S. Government paid in 1992 nearly $100 million for economic and 
community development, recreation, and environmental programs for a 
portion of seven States. TVA previously represented an economically 
depressed region. Today, the differences between the TVA region and the 
rest of the country are minor at best.
  TVA economic development, recreation, and environmental programs 
duplicate dozens of other State and Federal efforts by agencies with 
superior expertise.
  Proposal 22 of 57: To freeze the Appalachian Regional Commission at 
fiscal year 1993 level.
  This proposal freezes funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission 
at fiscal year 1993 levels, which requires $59 million be rescinded 
from the fiscal year 1994 appropriation.
  The reasons for change are:
  ARC has spent nearly $6 billion and built roughly 2,500 miles of new 
roads, yet high poverty rates will persist in Appalachia.
  Some programs supported by the ARC duplicate activities funded by 
other Federal Agencies such as DOT and HUD.
  Although ARC allocates resources to poor rural communities, those are 
not worse off than many others outside the Appalachian region.
  Proposal 23 of 57: Improve management of VA hospitals.
  This proposal involves employing a prospective payment system at VA 
hospitals similar to that now employed in Medicare. Under such a 
system, each patient would be classified in a diagnosis-related group 
that would entitle the hospital to a fixed payment designed to reflect 
the average cost of efficient care for such a patient.
  The VA spends about $16 billion a year on medical care. The 
Congressional Budget Office has projected potential outlay savings from 
this strategy at $2.225 billion over 5 years, compared with the 
administration's more modest $1 billion reduction. But it may be 
prudent to accept the more cautious savings projection. It must be 
noted that prospective payment systems are complex, as is the problem 
of defining patient categories, especially regarding psychiatric care, 
which is prevalent in Veterans hospitals.
  The reasons for change are:
  It conforms to the prospective payment system, which is used for 
Medicare to VA hospitals.
  Because of moving to a PPS system, there is expected to be more 
efficiency in the VA health care system and thus a savings of $1 
billion. This amendment is not cutting $1 billion out of VA health 
programs.
  VA has been phasing in the PPS in its hospitals over the last few 
years, and the system has proven to be more cost-effective than the 
other methods of payment.
  Proposal 24 of 57: Reduce Legal Services Corporation by 5 percent.
  This proposal rescinds $20 million in payments for the Legal Services 
Corporation in fiscal year 1994. Fiscal year 1994 funding is now $400 
million.
  The reasons for change are:
  This reduction would leave the LSC budget at $380 million, a 7-
percent increase from fiscal year 1993's $357 million appropriation. 
This funding level will permit the LSC to continue its activities in 
the same manner as the previous year.
  President Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget proposes increasing the 
LSC appropriation from $400 million to $500 million; a 25-percent 
increase.
  Proposal 25 of 57: Improve the Marshals Service.
  This recommendation provides for the phasing out of political 
appointees and elimination of the position of deputy marshal in the 70 
judicial districts having the least population of all judicial 
districts.
  The reason for change is:
  The ``National Performance Review Report on Reinventing Government'' 
proposes improving the professionalism of the U.S. Marshals Service by 
selecting U.S. Marshals based on merit by the Director of the U.S. 
Marshals Service. In addition, some positions should be eliminated, the 
report says. The service has an annual budget of about $380 million.
  Proposal 26--Mr. President, before I do that, I do have the amendment 
now, fortunately, for my colleagues to read. I apologize for not having 
had the time. As I said earlier, we did sort of expect this to come up 
in a couple of weeks and we are trying to rush this up.
  I have indicated I am prepared to set a time, and what I am doing 
right now is going through each one of these individual items to alert 
colleagues as to what is in them and wait for a number of my colleagues 
who have worked on this proposal, to give them time to come to the 
floor to make comments.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a 
question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. The question would be, how much longer would the 
distinguished Senator intend to hold the floor?
  Mr. KERREY. I intend to just go through these. I am at number 26. I 
probably have another 20 or so minutes it will take on this. Then 
Senator Graham is coming over to speak, and Senator Lieberman and 
Senator Cohen.
  Mr. BYRD. They have to get recognition, and I might have a chance to 
speak in between. I am not hurrying the Senator. There is no attempt 
to. I do not mean, Mr. President, to hurry the Senator. I just simply 
want to know when he will finish so I can get the floor, if I get 
recognition. I have a few things to say in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that.
  Mr. President, I guess I have another 20 minutes here to go through 
each one of these items.
  The distinguished President pro tempore's question, I thought, was 
referencing how much more time we were going to need on the amendment 
itself, not this time.
  I will continue this list and then I will be glad to yield the floor.
  Proposal 26: Recapture Federal construction project funds from 
projects which have not commenced within 24 months of appropriations.
  Any funds appropriated for a Federal construction project that have 
not been obligated through a binding contract or a general construction 
contract by 2 years after enactment date of the appropriations, the 
funds shall revert back to the fund from which the appropriation was 
made and shall be available for reappropriation.
  Reason for change: It speeds up spending for Federal construction 
projects. It provides needed infrastructure to State and local 
communities quicker.
  Proposal 27: Reduce the fiscal year 1994 community development block 
Grant funding to the administration's request level.
  This proposal would return to CDBG funding to the administration's 
request level, which is still a 6.8-percent increase over fiscal year 
1993.
  Proposal 29: Reduce Executive Office of the President appropriations 
by 5 percent.
  This provision rescinds 5 percent of the funds for the Executive 
Office of the President, which includes OMB, U.S. Trade Representative, 
the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Economic Policy Council.
  Proposal 30: Reduce legislative branch appropriations by 7.5 percent.
  For fiscal year 1994, the legislative branch appropriations is 1.4 
percent below fiscal year 1993, but in the House, most of this savings 
was from the abolishment of select committees and in the Senate the 
decrease was a departure from increases in their funding in 1993.
  Proposal 31: Reduce Senate franking account by 20 percent.
  This reduces the Senate franking appropriation by 20 percent, or $100 
million.
  Proposal 32: Reform Members' future COLA adjustment.
  This provision reforms the method used to calculate annual cost-of-
living adjustments for Members of Congress to ensure that Members of 
Congress pay adjustment cannot exceed the percentage adjustment taking 
effect in that calendar year for other Federal employees under the 
general schedule.
  Proposal 33: Cap Senior Executive Service leave accrual at 30 days.
  This proposal would limit the amount of leave that SES employees may 
accumulate after the end of 1993 to 30 days.
  Proposal 34: This has been discussed a number of times. It is only a 
duplication of the crime bill. If other efforts do not pass, we 
reinforce the cut in the Federal work force by 252,000.
  This provision sets limitations on full-time equivalent positions 
that the Federal Government may fill for fiscal years 1994 through 
1998.
  Proposal 35: Freeze Federal agency overhead spending for 2 years, 
limit increases to inflation only for the next 3 years.
  This provision will apply to all Federal agencies, including the 
legislative and judicial branches, with the exception of defense 
agencies and postal services. Overhead cost include travel, shipping, 
phone, printing, and rent supplied and other capital assets.
  Proposal 36: Reduce travel accounts by 15 percent for specific 
executive agencies and the legislative branch.
  This provision would reduce the travel accounts for the legislative 
branch and certain executive branch agencies by 15 percent.
  Proposal 37: Terminate certain boards and commissions.
  This proposal would terminate the following boards and commissions 
and, Mr. President, there are approximately 15 on there that include: 
The Preservation of Jazz Advisory Commission; Mount St. Helen's 
Scientific Advisory Board; the Advisory Panel for the Dictionary of 
Occupational Titles; U.S. Army Medical Research and Development 
Advisory Board; the Secretary of the Navy's Advisory Committee on Naval 
History; the Scientific Advisory Committee on Effects; the Advisory 
Committee on Publications Subvention; the National Advisory Council on 
Educational Research and Improvement; Advisory Panel Decontamination of 
TMI-21, whatever that is; the Technical Advisory Group on Cigarette 
Fire Safety; the Advisory Commission on Swine Health Protection; and 
the Tea Tasters Board.
  Proposal 38: Eliminate reports for Davis-Bacon projects.
  This proposal would end the requirement for weekly payroll reports 
for construction projects covered by the Davis-Bacon Act and instead 
requires contractors to simply certify that they have complied with the 
law. Contractors would be required to keep records to prove their 
compliance for 3 years in the case a complaint is filed. The savings is 
$50 million in fiscal year 1994 and $250 million from fiscal year 1994 
to fiscal year 1998.
  Proposal 39: Eliminate Small Business Administration tree planting 
grants.
  This provision rescinds $16 million from the Small Business 
Administration fiscal year 1994 funds relating to the planting of trees 
on lands owned or controlled by State and local governments.
  Proposal 40: Phase in 10 percent reduction for arts and the 
humanities.
  Federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, National 
Endowment for the Humanities, the Smithsonian Institution, the National 
Gallery of Art, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should be 
reduced by 2 percent each year from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 
1998.
  Proposal 41: Terminate follow-through, public library construction, 
law-related education, and Law School of Clinical Experience programs.
  This proposal ends the programs and rescinds $47 million in fiscal 
year 1994 funds for these programs.
  Mr. President, these programs have largely achieved their purpose 
and, in many cases, the funds are being used for alternative use.
  Proposal 42: Eliminate operating subsidies for vacant public housing.
  HUD provides operating subsidies to public housing agencies to make 
up the difference between rental income and operating costs.
  Even though HUD has tried to stop payments for vacant public housing, 
Congress has insisted on continuing funding for these units.
  Some public housing agencies argue that the current operating subsidy 
formula does not provide adequate subsidies to cover costs. Therefore, 
they say, eliminating subsidies for vacant units will take away 
necessary funds.
  Proposal 43: Substitute vouchers for new construction of public 
housing.
  HUD provides capital grants to public housing authorities to build 
housing for families with incomes below 80 percent of area median 
income. After construction, HUD provides annual operating subsidies and 
modernization funds to keep the projects solvent and well maintained.
  Proposal 44: Reform thrift savings plan for new hires only.
  Currently, Federal agencies contribute 1 percent of individual 
earning into the Federal Employee Retirement System. In addition, the 
Government matches dollar for dollar up to the first 3 percent of 
earnings and 50 cents for each dollar thereafter up to 5 percent of 
earnings.
  The current thrift savings plan is more generous than most comparable 
private sector plans. We do not touch current employees. This is only 
for new hires. We do not break the contract that was signed several 
years ago. It seems to me a reasonable change to make.
  Proposal 45: Limit the COLA on Federal retiree pensions to the first 
$30,000 of benefits.
  Under this provision, all civil service and military retirees would 
receive a COLA on the first $30,000 of their nondisability civil 
service or military retirement annuity through fiscal year 1998.
  Proposal 46: Defer COLA's until age 62 for Federal civilian and 
military retirees. And, again, this applies to new hires only.
  The proposal defers COLA's for Federal civilian and military retirees 
until the retiree reaches the age of 62. This provision only applies to 
new hires and new enlistees, starting after January 1, 1994.
  Proposal 47: Terminate the honey program.
  This provision would terminate the honey price support program 
entirely beginning with the 1995 crop year.
  Proposal 48: Eliminate the Uniform Services University of Health 
Sciences.
  This proposal would eliminate all funding for the Uniform Services 
University of Health Sciences and terminate the program. The Uniform 
Services University of Health Sciences is a medical school run by the 
Department of Defense. According to CBO, the cost to DOD for each 
physician is $562,000 per person, four times as much as physicians 
obtain under the health professions scholarship program and 10 to 40 
times as much as physicians in other programs.
  Proposal 49: Require specific endings-stocks-to-use ratios for 
setting ARP's for feed grains.
  This provision would establish specific ending stocks for feed 
grains.
  Proposal 50: Collect 20-percent coinsurance on clinical lab services 
under Medicare.
  Medicare currently pays the full cost of clinical laboratory 
services. In the past, however, coinsurance was required. This proposal 
would reinstate a 20 percent coinsurance provision.
  Proposal 51: Collect 10-percent coinsurance on all home health 
services under Medicare, except for those beneficiaries with incomes at 
or below 150 percent of poverty.
  Home health services, in-home therapists and like services, are paid 
in total by Medicare. Costs for this program have been rising rapidly. 
This proposal would require a 10 percent payment by the beneficiary, 
costing on average $7 to $10 a visit. Those with incomes of 150 percent 
of the Federal poverty level or less would be exempt from having to pay 
the coinsurance.
  The reason for change is the trustees report projects the Medicare 
hospital insurance trust fund will peak at $128 billion at the end of 
1993 with a rapid declining balance until depletion in 1999. The trust 
fund would be technically insolvent at that point with expenditures 
running 40 percent higher than revenues.
  Proposal 52: Modified means testing of part B so that enrollees 
earning less than $50,000 pay basic premiums, which is 25 percent of 
program costs. The subsidy would gradually decline so those earning 
more than $100,000 would pay the full monthly premium of $146 a month.
  Proposal 53: Deny unemployment compensation to service members who 
voluntarily leave military service.
  This provision prohibits military personnel who voluntarily leave 
military service from collecting unemployment compensation.
  Proposal 54. Termination of annual direct grant assistance. This 
proposal terminates the annual direct grant assistance to the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
  Proposal 55 prohibits awards of Pell grants to prisoners. This 
provision prohibits the award of Pell grants to any individual who is 
incarcerated in any Federal or State penal institution.
  And proposal 56 is a 5-percent pay cut for Members of Congress and 
senior executive officials.
  This proposal would impose a 5-percent pay cut for Members and 
leaders of Congress, Federal officials paid on the executive schedule, 
and Senior Executive Service Federal employees.
  This proposal is not effective until January 1, 1995, because the 
Madison amendment prohibits a sitting Congress from changing its 
salary.
  The cuts in this package ask many Americans to sacrifice. We believe, 
therefore, it is only right that the leaders in Washington lead by 
example.
  Mr. President, the distinguished President pro tempore is not here. I 
know other Members are now gathering in the well perhaps to speak.


                           Amendment No. 1440

   (Purpose: To provide a more effective, efficient, and responsive 
                              government)

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to send the amendment to the 
desk and now ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). There is an amendment pending that 
needs to be set aside.
  Mr. KERREY. This actually is the amendment, Mr. President. I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the 
consideration of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senators Graham, 
Brown, Lieberman, Robb, Gregg, Bradley, Coverdell, Feingold, Kohl, 
Cohen, and Durenberger.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself, Mr. 
     Graham, Mr. Brown, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Robb, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
     Bradley, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Cohen, 
     and Mr. Durenberger, proposes an amendment numbered 1440.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. While waiting for the managers of the bill, I would like 
to make a few observations. This amendment has 57 separate proposals. I 
would assure the author that there may be some that are extremely 
worthy, but there are several among the 57 that could cause much 
heartache for many of us here.
  First of all, there is a proposal in the amendment that was earmarked 
to finance the 100,000 new police officers that we hope to place on our 
streets, highways, and byways as part of the crime bill. If that 
proposal is adopted, then we will have to find additional funds if we 
are to carry out the Senate mandate.
  Second, throughout this Nation we have been spending much time 
debating the health program. There are 3 proposals among the 57 which, 
if adopted, would mean that the health program may not be appropriately 
financed because these 3 items would have picked up part of the tab.
  Third, there is an item in there on environmental cleanup by the 
Defense Department. This is an essential part of base closures. All of 
us have supported base closures as part of the military drawdown 
program. But before we can implement the program, these bases must be 
cleaned up before they can be sold or transferred. But if this 
amendment or proposal passes, we will not be able to do that.
  There is another small item in the amendment that denies those men 
and women who voluntarily separate themselves from military service 
from receiving unemployment compensation. But we provide those who are 
involuntarily separated, unemployment compensation.
  The voluntary separation was set up to save the Government of the 
United States money. If I were a man in uniform, I would not 
voluntarily separate myself if this became the law of the land. Why 
should I deny myself unemployment compensation when my brother, who is 
sitting next to me, involuntarily gets himself separated but he gets 
unemployment compensation.
  Mr. President, we could go through this list of 57 and pick out many 
others that could cause not savings but additional costs to the 
Government of the United States. And finally, if I may make this 
observation, while we are debating this measure, it should be noted 
that we have not received the estimate from the Congressional Budget 
Office. So as to the validity of these numbers that are set forth in 
the amendment, I do not know who can vouch for them.
  So with those words, if I may, may I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. KERREY. I would like to respond, if I could. The Senator from 
Colorado is here and would like to speak.
  Mr. President, I must say, as I said earlier, I am not standing over 
here full of optimism that this amendment is going to be agreed to. It 
is highly unlikely it is going to be agreed to. There are all kinds of 
procedural problems and so forth going to be cited and specific issues 
addressing specific pieces of the package.
  The point is, in fact, we have language in here dealing with the 
serious and legitimate concern raised by the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii having to do with the crime bill. If the crime bill passes, the 
money in this proposal would go for the crime bill as we have already 
indicated. So there is no tradeoff.
  As to health care, I must say, Mr. President, at some point we have 
to make the tough choices. And I hear it said, well, as soon as we get 
comprehensive health care, then we will do the tough choices. I am of 
the opinion we may have a tough time getting comprehensive health care 
reform passed because the American people do not believe we can make 
the tough choices.
  So I believe enacting this will actually increase the likelihood that 
we can pass something around here. We have open-ended entitlement 
programs running full speed ahead right now, and we have not 
demonstrated a capacity very often to say no to people, say it is time 
for you to pay a little in if your income is high, time for you to pay 
a little into the system.
  I do not think any of the proposals that we have in here are 
unreasonable. The two specific objections in defense sound to me as if 
they have merit, I must say, base closing and the voluntary release.
  Mr. President, the primary point that I am trying to make here with 
this effort, in addition to saying that we have to take the next step 
in deficit reduction by reducing spending, is we need a procedure to do 
this. We are going to enact a supplemental appropriations bill that 
spends $10 billion on top of $18 billion that we have done since 1988. 
We did one last year for the Midwest.
  When it comes to doing a dire emergency supplemental appropriation, 
boy, I am telling you we have a procedure to do it. We fast track that 
baby. We get it out there, in record time. We have a recess. We have to 
get out of here. We have to get this bill done and get it out of here. 
I am for it. I wish to do that, Mr. President. We need a similar 
procedure where we come to the floor and debate proposals to cut 
spending and vote on them. That is what we need. We need an 
opportunity.
  I listened to what the distinguished Senator from Hawaii is saying. I 
have great respect for him, and so when he points out some problems 
having to do with base closing and some problems having to do with 
military personnel and voluntary leaving, I listen to that. I harken 
when he calls having to do with these particular issues.
  But, Mr. President, what we need in order to cut the spending of the 
Government--I do not think there is a single person in here who does 
not, when pressed at a townhall meeting, say we need to cut spending 
someplace. We all have some list of things we want to do. What we need 
is an expedited procedure so we can come down to this floor and vote 
our conscience, vote what we want to do, talk about what we think ought 
to be in or out. Open the debate; let the American people see where we 
are spending this money; let the American people listen to our 
arguments; let the American people decide whether we are voting on 
their side or against them.
  Mr. President, I can point out on health care and I can point out on 
the reduction of force why I think this amendment is right.
  As to the two additional things cited by the distinguished Senator, I 
would be delighted to yield.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid] is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to my friend from 
Nebraska for allowing me to have the floor for a few minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Kerrey amendment or amendments be 
set aside and that the Senate return to the Reid amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a modification to the second-degree 
amendment to the amendment of Senator Reid to H.R. 3759 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment (No. 1436), as modified, is as follows:

       In title IV, Section 403; insert at the end the following 
     paragraph:
       (3) ``Any federal entity or official who makes available 
     funds under this Act other than for the purposes set forth in 
     subsection (2) above shall take reasonable steps to determine 
     whether any individual seeking to obtain such funds is 
     lawfully within the United States.''

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have worked long and hard since this 
matter was before the Senate earlier this day. We have met with 
Senators Feinstein and Boxer, Secretary Cisneros, and officials from 
the SBA and FEMA.
  We worked something out that I think accomplishes what the Senator 
from Nevada wanted to accomplish and what the Senators from California 
also feel should be accomplished; that is, that those people who are 
damaged, hurt, in any way as a result of the catastrophe in California 
will receive emergency aid.
  There are now about 300,000 such applications in the pipeline. That 
is the way it should be. Many of these applications have to be taken 
over the telephone.
  However, everyone agrees that any long-term assistance should only be 
given to those people who are legal residents of the United States. 
That is what my modification accomplishes. Every individual who is in 
need of temporary emergency assistance as a result of the earthquake is 
entitled to receive those benefits regardless of their legal status. 
That is what the bill provides and my amendment does not effect. 
However, any long-term aid would only be available to those people who 
are legally within the United States.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to be a cosponsor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens 
be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also state that I think this has been 
constructive for the Senate because while this amendment only applies 
to this supplemental appropriations bill, I would hope that in the 
months to come when other bills come before this body authorizing other 
programs--housing assistance, et cetera--that we would make sure that 
these same rules apply. They should apply to everyone in the United 
States. Right now, requiring Federal workers to take reasonable steps 
to verify the legal status of all applicants will only apply to the 
State of California. I hope we can revisit this issue in the near 
future and attempt to provide the taxpayers a little more protection 
from fraud.
  I would therefore suggest that this matter be approved at the 
earliest possible date so we will meet the criteria set by the chairman 
of the committee and the ranking member and move as rapidly as 
possible. I think it also alleviates the potential problem that could 
have occurred in California had this not been amended.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment, 
and ask that my name be added to it as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, essentially what this amendment does 
is to state that, if the aid provided goes on for longer than 90 days, 
the agencies that dispense aid must take reasonable steps to see that 
the individual is a lawful resident in the United States.
  We have met together, and I would like to thank Senator Reid and 
Senator Boxer for their cooperation. We have met together with the FEMA 
people; with the Small Business Administration people, Mr. Bowles; with 
Secretary Cisneros; with Senator Kennedy's immigration staff; and with 
the HUD-VA Appropriations Subcommittee staff, to draft an amendment 
which in fact is legal and enforceable and does not create gridlock in 
the preliminary screening for emergency aid in this particular 
disaster. And I believe that this amendment accomplishes the task.
  In essence, this amendment says that temporary aid can be given out 
for up to 90 days, but after 90 days, the individuals receiving ongoing 
assistance must be asked by the Federal agencies to provide 
documentation of their legal status. It is up to the agency to take 
reasonable steps to determine that these persons are lawfully within 
the United States.
  I hasten to add that this amendment does not allow an agency or an 
individual emergency aid provider to select which applicants to 
investigate because of the shade of their skin, their race, ethnicity, 
citizenship, national origin, the accent they have, or anything else. 
Antidiscrimination laws remain fully in place under this amendment, and 
an agency official cannot discriminate against or otherwise fail to 
take reasonable steps to determine the immigration status of all 
applicants. I want to make that crystal clear, Mr. President, because I 
think it is an important fact that protective language remains in the 
law.
  There is increasing concern about disaster aid going to people for 
section 8 vouchers of up to a year and a half. There is concern about 
people who are not here lawfully getting small business loans, or 
grants of long-term aid. There is concern about FEMA housing assistance 
that could last for up to 18 months.
  This amendment actually clarifies what is short-term emergency aid, 
and what is not, and it is a simple clarification. The clarification is 
90 days. That is ample time for emergency housing assistance.
  We also believe it is ample time for somebody to be required to 
demonstrate that they are here lawfully. This earthquake took place at 
4:30 in the morning. People that scrambled out of their home as best 
they could were in night clothes. Many of them did not have an 
opportunity to go to the safe or a bank, and most did not even have an 
opportunity to take a purse or a wallet. If a building is crumbling 
around them, they wanted to get out.
  Therefore, we believe that the 90-day period is practical. FEMA 
presently requires that an individual must come back in 90 days to 
receive ongoing rental assistance, so this amendment is not creating an 
entirely new burden. It will require that the agencies involved--the 
Small Business Administration, FEMA, and HUD--determine what they 
consider reasonable steps to be taken. Both Senator Boxer and I have 
asked to be made aware precisely what steps those agencies are taking 
to determine what are reasonable steps.
  I certainly am proud to support the amendment. I have talked with 
Congressman Dixon in the House of Representatives, and I am hopeful 
that when this bill goes to conference, there will also be support for 
the amendment. It is up to the agency dispensing that aid to take 
reasonable steps and to make a judgment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, certainly, I will.
  Mr. WARNER. Thank you. I will be brief.
  I see the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
awaiting recognition. But I have a large number of letters to respond 
to. I see both of my distinguished colleagues from California.
  Mr. President, I thank the two Senators from California and the 
distinguished chairman for bearing with me in asking a question.
  I have a large number of letters to reply to from my constituents. 
Mr. President, I wish unanimous consent that the following letters from 
my constituents be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Alexandria, VA,

                                                 January 25, 1994.
     Senator John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I just heard on the hourly news that 
     Mr. Clinton will be proposing emergency legislation today, 
     costing about seven billion dollars, for emergency aid to Los 
     Angeles.
       That's ridiculous!!!
       No one objects to the Federal Government sending in 
     military personnel to help temporally house and feed those 
     who are now homeless because of the earthquake. We won't ever 
     object to the those military personnel helping temporarily 
     with police duties.
       Most of us believe FEMA should offer communications 
     services. Also, they should help people obtain their own 
     financing for repair and reconstruction.
       But, we should not provide Federal funds to rebuild private 
     property!
       Those people live in California voluntarily. Insurance was 
     available, but many reported they didn't buy it because of 
     cost.
       Why should this Virginian provide the insurance with my tax 
     monies the Californians voluntarily elected not to for 
     themselves? That's wrong! know Clinton wants to ensure he 
     will continue to carry California...but please not at my 
     expense.
       We need to rethink this whole concept of emergency aid from 
     Washington. Just like those people living on the rivers in 
     the Midwest, they knew the risk.
           Regards,
                                                   Fred A. Morley.
                                  ____



                                               Free Union, VA,

                                                 January 23, 1994.
     Senator John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: The recent California earthquake, like 
     the floods in the mid-west last year are, of course, major 
     disasters. While we believe that the Federal government--
     meaning taxpayers in all 50 states--should provide assistance 
     in response to these two calamities, we strongly urge careful 
     consideration of the circumstances involved.
       California residents affected by the most recent 
     earthquakes have made the deliberate choice to live in a high 
     risk fault zone. The State of California has chosen to allow 
     them to do so. We believe these deliberate choices to accept 
     very high risk situations place the burden of financing 
     rebuilding, etc., on the State and the individuals concerned. 
     And not on citizens across the rest of the country who have, 
     one way or the other, chosen not to live in high risk areas. 
     In other words, we do not believe that Federal tax moneys 
     should be used to indemnify persons and jurisdictions who 
     have chosen to take unusual risks.
       We fully support a limited amount of first response 
     compassionate assistance. We do not wish to pay our tax 
     dollars to individuals or jurisdictions who have chosen to 
     accept risks that reasonable people might avoid. In other 
     words, we should not be asked to pay for other people's high 
     risk decisions.
           Sincerely,
                                               Jean & Howard Hart.
                                  ____



                                                   Vienna, VA,

                                                 January 25, 1994.
     Re earthquake relief.
     Senator John W. Warner, 
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       President Clinton is going to ask Congress for an 
     additional 6 Billion dollars for the disaster in California. 
     While my heart truly goes out to the people suffering and I 
     acknowledge a responsibility for temporary relief, I do not 
     believe that it is the responsibility of the government to 
     rebuild their lives.
       I understand that many of the people who lost their homes 
     and businesses did not have proper earthquake insurance 
     because they knew that in the case of an earthquake the 
     Federal government would bail them out. Why should they spend 
     their own money for insurance when the government will do it 
     for them. This is not only stupid on the part of the 
     government, but encourages people to neglect responsibility 
     for their own actions.
       The Congress must begin to show fiscal responsibility. How 
     in the world do you ever expect to get a handle on the 
     deficit and debt, which may very well cause a national 
     financial disaster, when you are so free and quick to spend 
     money you do not have. Congress must learn to ``Just Say 
     No!''
       California is an important state to carry in every 
     Presidential election. I am offended by what seems clearly to 
     be President Clinton attempt to build goodwill for the next 
     Presidential election.
                                                  R. Foster Caffi.
                                  ____



                                                 Poqwoson, VA,

                                                 January 24, 1994.
     The Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner. I begin by thanking you for your 
     responses to each of the problem areas I last wrote you 
     about, namely, gun control, welfare reform, and an approach 
     to a balanced budget. I know you are back from a vacation 
     period, and now must again take up such weighty matters.
       I wish to express my concern for the manner in which our 
     recent natural disasters are being handled, specifically the 
     fires and earthquake in California. I live in a flood plain 
     which requires that I buy flood insurance (I realize it is 
     government subsidized) before I can get a mortgage. At least 
     I am paying a significant portion toward the cost of 
     insurance. The people living at risk of floods in the 
     Midwest, fire, mudslides and earthquakes in California, 
     choose to do so without being required to insure against 
     these recurrent disasters. As a result, the taxpayers get a 
     double whammy, first in providing disaster relief, next by 
     the universal increase in insurance premiums. I feel that 
     these victims of flood, fire and earthquake should either 
     move or be required to insure against the natural disasters. 
     One Congresswoman from California brazenly stated that the 
     rest of the nation owed rebuilding costs to California 
     because of prior disasters and job losses due to the defense 
     build-down. I feel just as strongly about those who were 
     permitted to rebuild on the same foundations after their 
     shore homes had been swept away by Hurricane Hugo. I 
     sympathize over their terrible losses, but it is foolish for 
     the Nation to finance losses by the foolhardy. After all, 
     they should be accountable for taking the risk, and that is 
     what required insurance would force them to do. If the 
     Government keeps paying their rebuilding costs without 
     penalties of some sort, there is no incentive to take any 
     remedial action on their part.
       I feel priority should be given to welfare reform, which is 
     far more needed than health care reform at this time, and it 
     is certainly easier to achieve. The President is expending 
     precious political capital by pushing too many major reforms 
     at one time.
           Sincerely,
                                            Col. Marion R. Turner.
                                  ____



                                             Williamsburg, VA,

                                                 January 22, 1994.
     Hon. Herbert H. Bateman,
     Congress of the United States,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: This week my wife and I watched the 
     aftermath of the California earthquake and sent modest 
     contributions to the Red Cross and Salvation Army, as we have 
     in other disasters, out of heartfelt concern for the human 
     tragedies caused by nature. But, these predictable, repeated 
     natural catastrophies in certain states cry out for financial 
     preparation on their parts, rather than expecting the federal 
     government to pick up the bill each time.
       Elected officials fall over one another either pleading for 
     federal money or grandstanding for political benefits in 
     handing it out. Senator Boxer sums it up from Washington when 
     she says, ``We are going to put it back together.'' Who are 
     ``we''? We are the people who pay taxes and year after year 
     see FEMA and other agencies hand out billions and billions of 
     dollars to areas of the country where disasters are 
     absolutely predictable. With absolute certainty, hurricanes 
     are going to hit Gulf coast and Atlantic coast states. 
     Earthquakes and fires hit California every year. Tornadoes 
     damage property and kill people each spring without exception 
     in places such as Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri.
       The point is, states and citizens in high risk parts of the 
     country, are not setting aside the money needed to repair 
     infrastructure and give personal assistance to victims. They 
     wait for the federal government--citizens in other parts of 
     the country--to bail them out. People being what they are, 
     too few have the necessary insurance, either because they 
     don't have the money or would rather spend it enjoying 
     themselves. If they choose to live on earth faults, near the 
     ocean or in the path of tornadoes, they could all pay a small 
     tax earmarked for catastrophic funds administered by the 
     states or even local governments. It would be a form of self-
     insurance.
       I understand there is a bill in Congress to confiscate 
     money from insurance companies to create such a fund. That is 
     stupid, will raise the rates of those who do care for 
     themselves and act as a disincentive for people to have 
     disaster coverage. Everyone in high risk states could pay a 
     small sales tax specifically earmarked and managed for 
     disaster cleanup, relief and repair and not expect FEMA to be 
     passing out checks on the street corners afterwards.
       The federal government can still play a major relief role 
     after disasters with troops, supplies, experts and money, but 
     I feel that financial assistance in high risk areas of the 
     country should be matching funds, if states have provided for 
     themselves. If states had to have earmarked disaster funds to 
     get FEMA money, you would see them, including Virginia, start 
     to provide for themselves. How great it would have been if 
     Virginia had such a fund when Petersburg was hit by the 
     tornado. And, Virginia Beach and Norfolk will be hit by 
     hurricanes again.
       Congress should act to amend emergency relief statutes to 
     press states and local governments to have money available 
     when predictable disasters strike. Don't wait until ``The Big 
     One'' hits Los Angeles or San Francisco or until Miami or New 
     Orleans are wrecked again, again and again. Populations have 
     grown in pleasant, dangerous areas of the country. Deal with 
     it. FEMA should not be the national grab bag and punching bag 
     after disasters.
       California Members of Congress and other elected officials 
     will be seeking major new appropriations to put Los Angeles 
     back together again--an appropriate time also for a national 
     debate, the sense of Congress, on states establishing their 
     own disaster funds starting ASAP.
           Sincerely,
                                             Clifford R. Williams.
                                  ____

                                                   Midlothian, VA.
       Dear Senator Warner: As an elected public servant work with 
     me to help make America a better place. I feel the biggest 
     need is to eliminate the budget deficit. I am sharing how I 
     feel about Government help in times of disasters. Acts of God 
     and natural disasters are not the tax payers responsibility. 
     Put a stop to Federal money going to relief and rebuilding 
     thus eliminating that part of spending and adding to the 
     deficit.
       Individuals, local agencies and business need to be 
     responsible for what happens to them where they choose to 
     build, live and work. If I build on a fault line, a coastal 
     area, near a river that floods or am blown away by a tornado, 
     federal money should not bear the expense. People need to 
     take responsibility and know the government will not bail 
     them out for their poor judgement, back luck or both. These 
     are acts of God and natural disasters.
       However, the deficit is for all to help resolve. Please 
     work to stop money going to disaster relief which increases 
     the deficit. I am willing to help you if there is something 
     just an ordinary citizen can do.
       Please work to stop Federal money gong to disaster relief. 
     I would like a reply.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Loreva Sparks.

  Mr. WARNER. We had a disaster in our State last year, caused by 
tornadoes. Senator Robb and I and others interceded. We were not able 
to get full FEMA assistance. We are puzzled as to why it goes to 
California, but not there. I am very pleased to learn today that the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the President 
pro tempore, wants to constitute within this body a group of Senators 
to work on, presumably, some future pieces of legislation relating to 
disaster.
  I hope, I say to my colleague from West Virginia and the two 
distinguished colleagues from California, that a part of that study 
will relate to a question I have to answer, which is: How many times do 
the American taxpayers have to rebuild the same freeways that are 
collapsing as a consequence of the earthquakes? How many times do the 
American taxpayers have to rebuild a levee that has been taken out by a 
flood? How many times do we keep, for example, a military base open, as 
we did in Florida, when hurricane after hurricane practically destroyed 
the base?
  In other words, is there a point we reach when we have to recognize 
that there are geographical areas in this country that are highly 
vulnerable to disaster, and somehow recognize that we cannot go back to 
the American taxpayer time after time to rebuild the freeways, to 
restore the military bases, to rebuild the levees, but we have to 
recognize that we have to do something besides that rebuilding program? 
Could my distinguished colleagues comment on that?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am happy to attempt to comment. I 
think there are a number of different issues that he raises. One is the 
issue of rebuilding in disaster-prone areas.
  I think one of the things about an act of God is that very often they 
are unpredictable. It is true that the West is an earthquake-prone 
area, as are other areas in the United States.
  Mr. WARNER. The East is subject to hurricanes and tornadoes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, but the point I want to make is this: We are now 
having increased earthquakes. There is an increased probability of a 
major earthquake. Therefore, what it is prudent to do is for the local 
jurisdictions to begin to address their building codes and bring them 
to a higher level.
  That is controversial, because everybody will immediately complain 
that this increases costs. In fact, it does. But one of the things we 
learned in this earthquake--and in Loma Prieta--was that some of the 
freeways that stood when others came down, were the ones that had the 
most steel. The aqueducts that held were the ones that had the most 
steel.
  In California, there has been a trend to use more concrete because it 
is cheaper and it goes farther. Up to this point, everybody has felt 
that with the spiral rebar and the other techniques of steel sheathing 
of some of the concrete support posts, it was adequate. I think a 
number of these things are going to be reexamined in the future, and 
people are going to look differently at codes. I think this goes for 
wood frame construction in highly earthquake-prone areas as well. I 
think zoning laws, when it comes to permitting housing within 30-year 
major storm areas, where you know there is going to be housing flooded 
out periodically, is something that local jurisdictions have to cope 
with.
  There is one thing I really do believe, though, and that is that in 
times of natural disaster, people have an expectation that their 
Government is going to respond. I think their willingness to really pay 
taxes is, to a great extent, determined by, God forbid, anything 
happening of a major scope which is way beyond our ability, and 
Government can play a role in helping alleviate the problem. This 
earthquake, as I said this morning, was measured at 6.6. They are 
adjusting that to 6.8. These, again, are unpredictable acts of God. I 
hope I have answered the question in some small way.
  Mr. WARNER. It is a courageous answer to really an unanswerable 
question. But we have to answer this question, because time and time 
again the American taxpayers are asked to reach into their pockets to 
replenish the losses of others in a disaster. Our hearts go out to the 
people of California. It is not easy for me or for them to ask the 
question. We have a great deal of compassion. We saw the suffering. We 
saw the suffering, and we commiserate. But when it happens time after 
time at the same intersection, the same slab of concrete, and we see it 
on the television, it is a legitimate question to say how many times 
must we rebuild, no matter what the engineers may do to improve the 
codes.
  There is just a recognition that this is highly vulnerable. The 
beaches in my State are washed out periodically with the hurricanes. 
Yet, they go back and build the houses and expect to have the Federal 
taxpayer repay them.
  I see the other Senator from California, who might want to address 
this question. I yield to her.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Virginia 
for his comments, because I could not agree with him more. When I was 
in local government many years ago, developers would come before us and 
they would ask to build on a flood plain or on a marsh land. They would 
ask to build on areas where it was clear there was a danger, and the 
local zoning ordinance, many times, told them no, and there was 
litigation that sometimes ensued.
  I have to say this to the Senator, and I want to give him a little 
good news: Since the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, when I was a 
Congresswoman and represented that area, all of the seismic upgrades 
that took place in the State of California since that time--all of 
those held through this earthquake. I say to the Senator that even on 
the same freeway where they had retrofitted one side, it held, and the 
other side did not.
  But I think the Senator is right. I am happy to see that in this bill 
the Senator from West Virginia brings us, there is $15 million in there 
which is put in there to gather scientific evidence so that we will 
have some recommendations for seismic safety and ways that we can learn 
from this disaster. But I agree with the Senator wholeheartedly. We 
must learn from this.
  I wonder if the Senator needs further time. If not, I would like to 
have another 2 minutes. I know I have the floor, but I would like to 
respond to the Senator from Nevada and his modified amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will conclude by thanking the Senator 
from California and also the distinguished chairman for his foresight 
in saying now is the time to examine this question. I believe the 
Senator is prepared to give me some assurance that this issue that I 
raise of whether we should repeatedly call on the American taxpayers to 
go back and replenish, rebuild and restore in areas of known potential 
for disaster, will not that question be examined within the framework 
of the distinguished Senator's proposal?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator from California yield to me 
so that I may respond to the Senator from Virginia?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. BYRD. May I say to my friend from Virginia, Mr. Warner--and he is 
my friend and he is a very distinguished Senator--I should think that 
this would be one of the things that the task force would want to 
consider, and its recommendations would include something along the 
line that the distinguished Senator from Virginia is thinking of. That 
would be my hope. I think that is one of the purposes of the task 
force, and why the task force is being pressed by the amendments in 
this bill.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator has a very legitimate question and one that we 
should deal with.
  Mr. WARNER. It not only applies to the earthquakes. It is hurricanes 
and all types of natural disasters, including levees.
  Mr. BYRD. Of course. My people in West Virginia are asking the same 
questions the people from Virginia are asking the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the legislation before the Senate today, 
the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, was crafted by the 
appropriate committees in the Congress to predominately provide 
disaster assistance for the southern California earthquake.
  Mr. President, during the past few weeks my colleagues and the 
general public have seen on television and newspapers the terrible 
devastation caused by the powerful earthquakes. Unfortunately, Mr. 
President, very few people outside of Virginia are aware of a disaster 
caused by tornadoes which occurred as part of a major storm system on 
August 6, 1993.
  Mr. President, the tornadoes caused extensive damage to public and 
private property. The jurisdictions affected were: the cities of 
Colonial Heights, Petersburg, Newport News, Chesapeake, Hampton, 
Hopewell, and Virginia Beach, and the Counties of Dinwiddie, York, 
James City, Lancaster, Charles City, Chesterfield, Henrico, Lunenburg, 
Middlesex, Northampton, Nottoway, and Sussex.
  I had the opportunity to inspect some of the tornado damage 
personally, and I can assure you that the destruction left by the 
tornadoes has had a severe and continuing impact on every affected 
community. The financial damages continue to be enormous to every 
community. The hardest hit community was Petersburg, the second most 
fiscally stressed locality in Virginia. Preliminary estimates completed 
by the Department of Emergency Services totalled $49.6 million in 
losses. Insurance may cover some of the losses experienced by the 
larger commercial enterprises, but governmental assistance was 
desperately needed for uninsured, individual and public damages and for 
disaster recovery costs.
  Mr. President, at this time I would like to thank the mayor of 
Petersburg, Ms. Rosalyn R. Dance, and the city manager, Ms. Valerie A. 
Lemmie, for all the assistance they provided to me and my staff in 
reviewing the devastation caused by the tornadoes.
  Mr. President, on August 31, 1993, the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency denied the request made by the Governor of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia for disaster area designation. Following a request for a 
reconsideration, President Clinton granted a major disaster declaration 
for the city of Petersburg on December 22, 1993. While this declaration 
was appreciated, it was for individual assistance only. Because the 
declaration only applies to costs and losses of individuals, the needs 
of the city were not fully met. The need for individual assistance was 
satisfied 5 months ago by the combined effect of donated funds and 
labor, and local and State assistance. The opposite held true for 
public facilities and private businesses. No Federal funds were made 
available to support the city's efforts to restore the damaged parts of 
the city.
  Prior to this disaster, Petersburg had recognized that in order to 
revitalize its tax base, it needed to renew the city in terms of both 
business and residential development. The linchpin of this effort was 
the restoration of the historic area to draw business and tourism to 
the city. City officials in Petersburg estimated conservatively that 
the cleanup, restoration and rehabilitation of Old Towne and Pocahontas 
Island would cost the city $3.35 million, 7\1/2\ percent of the city's 
$44.7 million operating budget. The impact of the disaster on the 
economy of Petersburg while lesser in dollar amount, is no less 
significant on the economy of the jurisdiction than the earthquake on 
the financial condition of Los Angeles. Both areas need Federal 
assistance to overcome the disaster.
  Mr. President, the city of Petersburg in Virginia is not an area 
where mother nature strikes havoc often. There are regions in this 
country where mother nature repeatedly causes massive destruction. 
Reviewing the history of regions in this country, one can predict where 
Mother Nature may once again strike with a vengeance. Mr. President, 
how many times are we going to rebuild structures or complete areas of 
the country? Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues of the 
cost to the American taxpayer after Homestead Air Force Base in the 
State of Florida was rebuilt three times due to the destruction caused 
by hurricanes in that region. Eventually, the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission [BRAC] made a decision to close the base and 
finally save funds for the taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. President, I will be making a request to my chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Baucus, to hold a 
hearing concerning the distribution of disaster relief to areas of the 
country hit by acts of Mother Nature. Mr. President, I would like to 
know if the criteria for disaster declarations are still legitimate and 
are they being applied consistently? Is mitigation being emphasized by 
State and local officials?
  Mr. President, I am aware of Senator Byrd's resolution added to this 
bill calling for a bipartisan task force to study how to for future 
disaster relief. I fully support this task force. We must find ways to 
pay for disaster relief by means other than adding to our ever growing 
deficit. While exploring these funding options, we should also 
reexamine how these funds are distributed among all those in need of 
Federal assistance. I believe we need to determine the policy structure 
by which the President and the Congress, by law, allocate emergency 
funds for disaster relief. I want to make sure that the process of the 
allocation of taxpayers dollars for disaster relief is conducted 
according to the law and regulations.
  Mr. President, I want to make sure that the taxpayers' dollars are 
allocated in an equitable manner in order to assist fiscally stressed 
localities such as the city of Petersburg, when Mother Nature 
unexpectedly causes massive destruction to a locality.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Can we find out how much longer we are going to be on this amendment 
so that we can dispose of it?
  Mrs. BOXER. I advise the Senator that I have about 2 minutes worth of 
comments.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to add my thanks to the Senator 
from Nevada, Senator Reid, for working so hard with Senator Feinstein 
and myself, with our staffs, with HUD Secretary Cisneros, and the FEMA 
representatives, to come up with some language here that, in my view, 
does what I hoped it would do, which is to set forth very clearly that 
short-term emergency assistance will be given, will be rendered to 
those in need, no questions asked about showing your status and 
bringing your papers and the rest. When people are in trouble, we have 
to help them.
  But then when it gets to long-term assistance, we need to make sure 
we do everything possible, we have to make sure we do everything 
possible, that that aid only goes to those who are here legally. And 
that is what Senator Reid has achieved.
  I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would say one of the reasons I am very 
pleased with the way this has turned out is that my initial concern 
when I phoned Senator Reid yesterday was that his amendment would be 
quite different from that of the House. But the amendment that was 
attached in the House has the same thrust, and puts the burden on the 
individual to make sure they are not getting long-term assistance 
unless they can prove they are here legally. And there is the companion 
that says, not only do they have to have that, but we as the Federal 
Government need to reassure taxpayers that our agencies are making 
every reasonable attempt to make sure that the long-term aid that is 
beyond the 50 days goes to those who are here legally.
  I thank my colleague from Nevada. I thank the chairman of the 
committee. I thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein. I think we are 
moving forward with a good amendment.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Byrd, 
Kerrey of Nebraska, and Exon be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I do not believe there is any further debate on the second-
degree amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Reid amendment.
  I believe that all persons, legal or illegal, should be provided 
emergency disaster and medical assistance. When they are distributing 
blankets, food and temporary shelter, the providers of these 
necessities should not be checking the immigration status of persons 
who are in immediate and dire need of help.
  However, for long-term loans and grants for rent while homes are 
being repaired or for loans and grants for the costs of repairing 
homes, or for loans and grants for the costs of rebuilding businesses--
these should not be made available to illegal aliens.
  Small business loans and grants should not be awarded to persons who 
should not even be in the country and who are not hear legally.
  Therefore, I do support this amendment which very humanely allows for 
the provision of immediate disaster emergency and medical assistance to 
all persons, but which will reserve the long-term loans and grants--the 
big money big ticket items--for American citizens who have lost so much 
in the earthquake.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment No. 1438, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1438), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment 
was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays on the underlying first-degree amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 1436, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1436), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1440

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1440, offered by the Senator 
from Nebraska, [Mr. Kerrey].
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment by Mr. Kerrey, is that the 
amendment that is pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment should be taken very 
seriously by all Senators. Its authors claim that its adoption will 
produce in excess of $94 billion in budget savings over the next 5 
years. I hope to convince my colleagues that, despite the zeal and 
unquestionable sincerity of the proponents of this amendment, the 
overwhelming percentage of these claimed savings are nonexistent. They 
are nonexistent for a number of reasons. Some of the items for which 
savings are claimed were never appropriated in the first place. Other 
items for which savings are claimed in the pending amendment have 
already been rescinded. Still other items for which savings are claimed 
have already been voted on in the Senate and the savings set aside to 
pay for vital programs such as the crime bill.
  Mr. President, I now will turn to the specifics of the pending 
amendment. I have here a four-page table, which I received from Senator 
Kerrey's office. And I thank him for his courtesy in supplying the 
table. It contains a list of the 57 items proposed in the amendment to 
reduce Federal spending. However, there is a footnote on page 1 of the 
table which reads as follows:

       Projected savings are preliminary pending receipt of final 
     Congressional Budget Office estimates. Some of the proposals 
     contained in the Senate package may overlap with legislation 
     proposed by the President or approved by the Senate that have 
     not yet been enacted into law.

  This footnote is apparently intended to put the reader on notice that 
the authors' estimated savings of $94 billion may not be agreed to by 
the Congressional Budget Office and, further, to point out that certain 
items on the list of savings have, in fact, either already been 
proposed by the President and used by him in cutting his budget or have 
already been agreed to by the Senate.
  So the footnote is very up front about that.
  Then, if we turn to page 3 of this table, the second item listed on 
that page is item No. 34. It reads ``Cut Federal Workforce by 
252,000.'' Footnote 2 on page 3 reads:

       The Senate recently adopted an amendment to the Crime Bill 
     that allocated roughly $22 billion from a reduction in the 
     federal workforce to Crime Bill-related activities. The House 
     adopted an amendment to the President's FY 94 Rescission Bill 
     that utilized savings from a workforce reduction as well. 
     Neither of these measures has become law, however. Under this 
     Budget Cutting proposal, the $25.4 billion in anticipated 
     savings will be automatically reduced by the amount utilized 
     by the Crime Bill, if the Crime Bill is enacted into law with 
     the Senate amendment intact. The $25.4 billion in savings may 
     also need to be further reduced to the extent the 252,000 
     figure overlaps with previous Defense Department proposals.

  Now, that is in the footnote. And, again, the footnote is very much 
up front. It raises the warning sign: Stop, look, and listen. This may 
not be what it purports to be. Everything is not what it may seem.
  Mr. President, that footnote I just read from the table, which 
Senator Kerrey thoughtfully passed around, that footnote means that if 
the Senate-passed crime bill--for which most Senators here voted, 94 to 
4, and I was the author of the amendment, the chief author of it--is 
enacted into law as passed by the Senate, it will contain a violent 
crime reduction trust fund into which $22 billion will be deposited 
over the next 5 years to pay for the critical programs needed to reduce 
violent crime throughout the Nation. Included among these programs, as 
Senators are aware are: $8.9 billion to hire 100,000 additional police 
officers; $3 billion for regional prisons for State and Federal 
offenders; $3.5 billion for new jails, boot camps, and facilities for 
violent juveniles; $1.8 billion for new programs to curb violence 
against women; $1.2 billion for new drug courts and related antidrug 
programs for 200,000 young offenders; and more than $500 million for 
education for law enforcement officers, school programs, and antigang 
activities.
  The $22 billion which will be deposited into the Violent Crime Trust 
Fund under the Byrd-Sasser-Mitchell-Dole amendment is to be derived 
from a reduction in the Federal work force over the next 5 years, as 
proposed by President Clinton. The amendment to establish the Violent 
Crime Reduction Trust Fund passed the Senate, as I have already 
indicated, by a vote of 94 to 4. Among those voting for the amendment, 
and thereby to use these savings from Federal personnel cuts to pay for 
violent crime reduction, were both of the authors of the pending 
amendment, Senators Kerrey of Nebraska and Brown of Colorado.
  So, as footnote 2 on page 3 of the table says, if the Senate meant 
what it said when it voted 94 to 4 to use the savings from Federal 
personnel reductions to pay for new crime reduction programs, then the 
savings cannot again be used in the pending amendment to reduce the 
Federal budget. This means that the savings claimed in the pending 
Kerrey-Brown amendment from personnel reductions is not a savings at 
all. The Senate has already voted to use those savings to fight violent 
crime.
  The next item on the Kerrey-Brown cut list is item 35. That item 
reads ``Freeze Federal Agency Overhead Spending For Two Years, 
Inflation Increase Only For The Next Three Years.'' Now, get that?
  ``Freeze Federal Agency Overhead Spending For Two Years, Inflation 
Increase Only For The Next Three Years.''
  Let me read again. I want to be sure that I am reading what I see 
here.
  ``Freeze Federal Agency Overhead Spending For Two Years, Inflation 
Increase Only For The Next Three Years.''
  Watch closely, so closely that you see everything that the hands do.
  The savings claimed for this item are $2 billion for fiscal year 1994 
and $21 billion for the 5-year period 1994 through 1998.
  Mr. President, watch and listen closely.
  The authors of the amendment have grossly overstated the savings that 
would result from freezing overhead expenses of the Federal Government 
for 2 years and then allowing these costs to grow at the rate of 
inflation for the following 3 years. In fact, on February 10, 1993, 
President Clinton issued Executive Order 12837, which requires 
executive branch departments and agencies to reduce administrative 
expenses. How do I know this to be the case? Page 103 of the 
President's 1994 budget explains this Executive order and also has a 
table which lays out the agency-by-agency savings that will result. The 
Executive order instructs agencies to achieve savings that are 
calculated as fixed percentage reductions from the amounts of 
administrative expenses made available for 1993 adjusted for inflation: 
3 percent in 1994, 6 percent in 1995, 9 percent in 1996, and 14 percent 
in 1997-1998.

  The table on pages 103 and 104 of the budget sets forth the 1-year 
and the 5-year savings which will result from the President's executive 
order. Total 1994 savings from all non-defense agencies will be $681 
million. That amount of savings will grow each year, as the percentage 
cut increases, to a level of $3.556 billion for 1998. The total 5-year 
savings, according to the table, will be $11.275 billion for non-
defense agencies. Let me repeat, savings in overhead costs for all non-
defense agencies will equal $11.275 billion over the next 5 years as a 
result of the President's executive order. Defense agencies have also 
been cut by the President's executive order as well, but those savings 
are not set forth in the table.
  What this means is that if we adopt the Kerrey-Brown amendment, we 
will have voted to overrule the President's executive order which cuts 
the overhead costs of Federal agencies and instead institute a freeze 
of overhead costs for 1994 and 1995, followed by a growth in overhead 
costs by the rate of inflation for the next 3 years, 1996, 1997, 1998. 
The result will be that for fiscal year 1998, the year in which the 
President's executive order would cut overhead costs by 14 percent, we 
will instead have voted to allow fiscal year 1998 overhead costs to 
grow by the rate of inflation. In other words, if we adopt the Kerrey-
Brown amendment, we will have voted to eliminate cuts in overhead costs 
that the President has ordered and to instead allow Federal overhead 
costs to grow by the rate of inflation for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 
1998.
  We will not have cut $21.0 billion from the Federal budget, as 
claimed by the authors. We will have voted to add to Federal spending 
on overhead expenses. Therefore, we must eliminate the $21.0 billion in 
savings claimed for this item in the Kerrey amendment.
  So far then, Mr. President, we have looked at the two largest items 
in the pending amendment and have found that neither item would result 
in any savings in the Federal budget. The first item was the $26.7 
billion claimed as savings in the amendment from cuts in the Federal 
work force.
  Ninety-four of us have already voted to use those savings from 
personnel cuts to fund programs to fight violent crime in America.
  Yet, the Senate-passed crime bill contains the Byrd-Sasser-Mitchell-
Dole amendment which would use these savings from personnel cuts to 
fund programs to fight violent crime in America. Therefore, that $26.7 
billion in savings virtually disappears--phew, gone. Ninety-four of us 
voted to make it disappear. Then, we find that the proposal to freeze 
Federal overhead costs for 2 years and then allow them to grow by the 
rate of inflation will not save any money at all because the President 
has already cut overhead, by Executive Order, far lower than would the 
pending amendment. Therefore, we must eliminate that $21.0 billion in 
budget savings from the pending amendment. Let us see--that is a total 
of $47.7 billion, $26.7 plus $21.0, in budget savings claimed in the 
pending amendment which, in fact, do not exist. So, what is left? Total 
claimed savings were $94.2 billion, and we have eliminated $47.7 
billion, leaving $46.5 billion of claimed savings for the pending 
amendment. So we have already eliminated half of it, a little over 
half.
  Now, let us look at items 50, 51, and 52. These three items all 
relate to savings that are claimed for changes in Medicare. The first 
item, No. 50, reads: ``Coinsurance on Clinical Lab Services under 
Medicare: Collect 20 Percent Under Medicare'', And how much is claimed 
for savings? Five-year savings of $7.1 billion are claimed for this 
item.
  Item 51 reads: ``Collect 10 percent coinsurance on Home Health 
Services under Medicare, only if over 150 percent of poverty.'' Five-
year savings of $7.1 billion are also claimed for this idea. Item 52 
reads: ``Modify means-testing of Medicare, Part B, under 
$50,000=current 25 percent, up to $100,000+=full $146 monthly 
premium.'' That proposal, it is said, would save $16.3 billion over 5 
years.
  In total, then, these three changes in Medicare would yield 5-year 
savings totaling $30.5 billion. According to Secretary Shalala, this 
proposal would devastate--would devastate--would devastate all major 
proposals to reform health care. This is so because all major health 
care reform proposals--including President Clinton's as well as the 
Chafee-Dole proposal--use Medicare savings to help finance the reforms 
that would be made. The Kerrey-Brown amendment would, instead, impose 
new Medicare costs onto the elderly totaling over $30 billion for the 
next 5 years, without providing any additional benefits. There has been 
speculation that the author may be willing to let these Medicare 
savings be reserved for use in connection with health care reform, 
instead of going toward deficit reduction. If that were done, then the 
deficit-reduction that would occur under the amendment would be reduced 
by another $30.5 billion.
  We would find, at that point, that of the $94.2 billion in deficit 
reduction claimed by the amendment, $78.2 billion would have 
disappeared--gone, gone with the wind. That is, the $26.7 billion in 
deficit reduction claimed for personnel cuts which will instead be 
needed to pay for the crime bill; the $21 billion in deficit reduction 
claimed from a freeze in overhead costs which, as I have stated, would 
overrule President Clinton's more stringent overheads cuts; and 
finally, if we reserve the Medicare cuts of $30.5 billion to pay for 
health reform instead of deficit reduction, then, in total, we have 
done away with $78.2 billion of the claimed deficit reduction in the 
Kerrey-Brown amendment, leaving approximately $16 billion remaining.
  But funds for a number of the remaining items in the amendment have 
either already been obligated or have already been rescinded and, 
therefore, cannot be rescinded again; or savings are claimed for items 
which were never appropriated in the first place.
  Example:
  Item 7. Eliminate Funding for Space Lifter Program. For this item, 
the amendment claims 5-year savings of $250 million. Yet, the fiscal 
year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act already rescinded these funds. 
Therefore, no additional savings will be generated by the adoption of 
the pending amendment.
  Item 11. Freeze Funding for Defense Environmental Restoration and 
Waste Management Program for 1 Year. Here again, the pending amendment 
claims $350 million in budgetary savings for an action which, in 
essence, has already been taken in the fiscal year 1994 Defense 
Appropriations Act. That act calls for $350 million in savings in 
fiscal year 1994 from those programs and, therefore, cut the Defense 
Environmental Restoration Account by $347 million below the budget 
request.
  I believe that, to this point in my remarks, I have amply 
demonstrated that a very large proportion of the savings claimed by the 
authors of the pending amendment do not exist. Instead, they either 
have been set aside for other purposes--such as the use of cuts in 
Federal personnel to pay for the crime bill--or should be set aside for 
other purposes, such as the use of Medicare savings to pay for health 
care reform or, in many instances, the savings claimed never existed--
never existed--in the first place, such as the list of items I have 
just recited.
  I believe that the Senate and ultimately the American people are ill-
served by misleading amendments such as this one. Amendments that are 
hard to resist because they sound so good. They are feel-good 
amendments. They claim to make huge cuts in the deficit on top of the 
real cuts that were already accomplished last August in the 
Reconciliation Act.
  Yet the devil is, upon close examination, always in the details and 
this amendment yields very little in savings.
  The urge to demonstrate budget cutting prowess can make one lose 
sight of the need for clear, objective analysis. Such analysis often 
makes it clear that, try as we might, we cannot have it both ways. We 
cannot vote to use billions of dollars in personnel savings to fight 
crime and at the same time claim to use those same savings in another 
amendment to cut the deficit. We cannot fail to give the President 
credit for cutting Federal overhead costs and then claim credit by 
proposing to freeze overhead costs. We cannot legitimately take credit 
for items which have already been eliminated, that are not there to cut 
such as the superconducting super collider.
  As I have stated on many occasions in the past, discretionary 
spending--other than the Reagan defense buildup--has not contributed to 
the massive increases in Federal deficits over the past dozen years. 
Furthermore, for the next 5 years, discretionary spending caps are 
already in place. We put those in place when we passed the 
reconciliation bill last fall. These caps will require some very 
difficult decisions on cuts in defense, in our investments in 
infrastructure, education, veterans, assistance to the elderly, food 
stamps, and a host of other important programs.
  We have already made these cuts. The Senate and the House have 
already said to the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which my 
distinguished friend, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], sits and 
is a very dedicated and effective member, the Senate and House have 
already said in that reconciliation measure: Your caps are being set 
here. That is all you get. You are going to be operating on a freeze 
level for the next 5 years. That means that you are going to get what 
was appropriated last year to spend this year, the next year, the next 
year, and the next year. You are not going to get anymore. We will not 
even give you inflation.
  That is what was said to the Appropriations Committee last year when 
we passed that reconciliation bill and before that when we passed the 
budget bill. I said to my friends in the Senate, ``You vote for this 
bill and you have already cut; you can go home and say to your 
constituents, I voted to cut. You may not believe it, but when you cast 
that vote, you have voted to cut and it is a real cut because you are 
saying to the Appropriations Committees, these are your caps for the 
next 5 years and you are not even going to get inflation. You will be 
dealing in each of the next 5 years with only the same amount of money 
you had last year.''
  That is a real cut. We took our cuts when that legislation was 
passed, and we took our cut then.
  The 13 appropriation bills for fiscal year 1994 came in under the 
budget authority caps by $12.8 billion. That is fiscal year 1994.
  Those 13 appropriation bills contained hundreds of specific cuts in 
programs and projects below the previous year's levels. In total, these 
specific cuts equalled $34,329,867,300. A large portion of the savings 
from these cuts went toward funding increases for investments in 
education (+$1.62 billion over 1993); transportation (+$2.69 billion 
over 1993); health research and health care (+$2.54 billion over 1993); 
rural development (+$1.67 billion over 1993); science and technology 
(+$1.68 billion over 1993); housing and community development (+$2.03 
billion over 1993); environmental cleanup (+$2.27 billion over 1993); 
and crime prevention (+$430 million over 1993).
  In all, Congress provided 69 percent of the President's 1994 
investment proposals even though the 1994 discretionary caps required 
Congress to cut the President's budget by more than $11 billion. The 13 
appropriation bills made the necessary cuts and came in below the 1993 
levels by over $4 billion and below our committee's allocation by $998 
million.
  Furthermore, the rescission bill now before the Senate--included in 
this package--contains further cuts in spending totalling $3.4 billion. 
That is, as Mr. Hatfield has already pointed out, $272 million in 
greater cuts than requested by the President. And much more than that 
below the House.
  So I urge Senators to continue to work within the existing system in 
order to make rational, real savings in Federal spending. That was done 
in the adoption of the 1994 budget resolution; and its implementation 
through the reconciliation act and the 13 annual appropriation acts.
  What a proud record. Our committee, the Appropriations Committee, may 
I say to my friend from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield, has lived within the 1990 
budget package, its allocations. Never have we gone over an allocation. 
Not in one subcommittee in our committee, not in one of the 13 
subcommittees have we ever gone one thin dime over the allocation. We 
have stayed within it, and in some instances below.
  That process resulted in historic deficit reduction measures which 
totalled almost one-half trillion dollars for the next 5 years. The 
rescission bill before the Senate today will trim additional billions 
from 1994 and later years.
  Caps on discretionary spending for the next 5 years have already been 
enacted, already been enacted.
  I daresay that no Senator in here can claim to have lived up to the 
Ten Commandments, not one of us can claim to be clean under the Ten 
Commandments. We have all broken the Ten Commandments, many times. We 
break them every week. Every week that we do not keep the Sabbath holy, 
we break one of the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai. But 
never have we broken the caps, the commandments that the Congress laid 
upon this Appropriations Committee in the budget resolution and in the 
reconciliation bill. We stand pure before the creator of those caps, 
the Senate of the United States. We have not sinned when it comes to 
keeping those reconciliation commandments, and we ought to be proud of 
that. And I am proud of it. I do not give myself the total credit. I 
give most of the credit to my colleagues, the subcommittee chairmen and 
the ranking members on that committee. Yet, Senators come to the floor 
with the pending amendment and want to impose further strictures and 
constrictions on this country, and the needs of this country.
  Those caps will not allow for any growth--none. By the end of that 5-
year period, fiscal year 1998, discretionary spending will be at its 
lowest level, as a percent of GDP, in 50 years.
  Oh, if I were only 26 again! Fifty years ago, I was only 26 years 
old. Those caps will not allow for any growth. By the end of that 5-
year period, discretionary spending will be at its lowest level as a 
percentage of GDP in 50 years.
  The place to seek additional deficit reduction is not in 
discretionary programs. It is not in anticrime programs; it is not in 
infrastructure programs such as bridge and highway improvements; it is 
not in education; it is not in environmental cleanup; it is not in 
water and flood control projects. These programs, in total, are already 
being frozen.
  Do Senators know what being ``frozen'' means? We should have learned 
in this past month of January and in the current month of February what 
being frozen means. These programs were frozen for the next 5 years.
  The place to find additional savings is in health care and welfare 
and entitlement reform and foreign aid spending. Why does nobody ever 
say anything about foreign aid? That is where the growth in spending is 
taking place. These entitlements are beyond the control of the 
appropriations process and are not subject to annual review by Congress 
at all. They have been on automatic pilot for years, and they have 
grown at astounding rates. The President is providing the necessary 
leadership in these areas. He opposes amendments such as the Kerrey-
Brown amendment. He knows that we have done enough to constrain 
discretionary spending. Let us give credit to ourselves and to the 
appropriations subcommittees and the Administration for the deficit 
reduction package which has already been enacted--nearly $500 billion. 
The Appropriations Committee have always done their part in living 
within the caps placed on discretionary spending. We will continue to 
do so in meeting the requirements of the next 5 years.
  Again, I say I do not question the sincerity or dedication or 
patriotism of Senators who are authors of the amendment, but I hope 
that the Senate will vote this amendment down. It is a bad amendment, a 
bad amendment.
  I thank the Senators for their attention and courtesy in listening. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Is there further debate?
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Kerrey-
Graham-Brown amendment.
  Let me begin my remarks by expressing thanks to the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the distinguished ranking 
member. Their willingness to review the matter is appreciated. Their 
staffs have been helpful in reviewing the items that are there. And I 
know that the distinguished chairman has concerns about this amendment, 
not only just as he has expressed but perhaps even to making a point of 
order. My understanding is the chairman has been kind enough to make 
sure the sponsors of the amendment at least have an opportunity to 
deliver this amendment to the floor and explain it and lay it out for 
the Senators so that we have a fair opportunity to be heard on it even 
though this may well be decided on a point of order. But for all of 
that I deeply appreciate his willingness and cooperation to deal with 
it.
  Mr. President, I also appreciate very much the distinguished 
chairman's willingness to examine the specifics of the amendment, as he 
has done. And let me express my agreement with a number of points he 
has made. He has pointed out that the measure specifically footnotes 
the fact that portions of the items included in the amendment have been 
included in other bills.
  That is precisely correct. And, of course, it is exactly why we 
wanted that laid out in the footnote. Specifically, the reduction in 
personnel is one of the items we have, indeed, voted on. Why even 
include it in this amendment? We had some discussion about that. But, 
frankly, the way it is set up is if, indeed, it is passed associated 
with the crime bill, that would be where the savings would be used and 
associated. But this amendment would have effect if, indeed, that 
measure is dropped from the crime bill. So the few items that this body 
has expressed itself in favor of, like that personnel reduction, that 
are not yet law, we thought it worthwhile to make sure they are 
included. If, indeed, they are dropped from the crime bill, we will 
have this as a backup. I think that is valid.
  But I appreciate very much the chairman pointing that out. It is an 
item that I think is important for Members to look at as we consider 
this measure.
  Let me also deal with an item that he covered and I thought in a very 
sage way in pointing to the controls with regard to overhead.
  For Members who may not have read this matter, we are dealing with an 
amendment which deals not with the personnel cost of overhead but with 
the support classes, specifically those are referenced as work classes 
in the Office of Management and Budget accounts 20's and 30's.
  There are several exceptions, as the amendment makes clear. It does 
not apply where you are dealing with research grants that are included 
in the support classes. But what we are dealing with is the support 
services. What are they? They are things like printing; they are things 
like telephone costs; they are things like travel.
  Why should we look at these items? Well, there are a couple of 
reasons, Mr. President. First of all, they amount to a whale of a lot 
of money. But, second, perhaps most important, this is an area where we 
can achieve extraordinary savings without harming the services that are 
so important.
  Let me point out one thing to Members as they look at this. We have 
broad agreement by Democrats and Republicans that we ought to have a 
reduction in Federal personnel.
  And, as a matter of fact, in a number of areas that is already 
underway. What has been reduced are the personnel accounts; that is, 
the cost of paying benefits. But what has not been touched in the 
analysis we have gone for is the rent that they pay. If you have fewer 
people, you have a need for fewer offices, fewer telephones, less 
printing, less Xerox, and there are fewer people to travel.
  So what has been agreed to by the Congress and by the executive I 
think in all the pronunciations on this is an effort to deal with the 
personnel accounts costs. But that is only part of overhead. The other 
part of overhead are the natural accouterments, things that go along 
with overhead that have not been adjusted.
  This amendment speaks directly to those categories. It speaks 
directly to the categories classified as both 20 and 30. This is a 
logical and easy thing to do. All the amendment suggests is that you go 
a couple of years without increasing them. That is not draconian. That 
is easy. As a matter of fact, to hold these overhead costs steady while 
you have a reduction in personnel, if anything, is too generous. The 
amendment does not go far enough. It is my own feeling that we ought to 
go much further. It is my own feeling that there are enormous savings 
that can be and should be achieved. Why would I say that?
  Let us take a look at what these categories have done. Since 1981, 
comparing 1981 to 1992, travel is up 86 percent; transportation of 
items up 73 percent; rental payments are up 164 percent. These are not 
categories that have been cut to the bone. These are categories that 
have runaway increases.
  Communications and utilities are up 58 percent; printing and 
reproduction up 53 percent; other services--a catch-all category--up 
101 percent. These are not areas where anyone can come forward and say 
we have been careful with the taxpayers' money. These are the ones that 
have had astronomical increases. What is proposed in this very modest 
amendment--that incidentally over 5 years will save the taxpayers of 
America $21 billion, according to the preliminary estimate from our own 
Budget Office--all we are asking is you hold it steady for a couple of 
years at the time you are reducing the personnel. Equipment is up 77 
percent; land and structures, up 45 percent.
  Mr. President and Members of this body, this is a modest, easy 
amendment that simply suggests you go a couple of years without 
increasing spending in an area where you are reducing personnel. If 
anything, we ought to be dramatically cutting back in these areas.
  The distinguished chairman mentioned the Presidential order that 
dealt with this area. I believe it is Executive Order 12837. That 
Presidential order was specifically studied by the General Accounting 
Office. I have the General Accounting Office report right here. I think 
it is important to look at this because I think the chairman is to be 
commended for bringing up the Presidential order in this area.
  But let me suggest to the Members that the Presidential order does 
not accomplish what I think the taxpayers are going to want. Why? Let 
me quote this GAO study. This is from page 1, ``Results in Brief,'' 
second paragraph:

       In implementing the order, OMB did not define 
     administrative expenses.

  Let me repeat that. In the order that is supposed to deal with the 
administrative expenses, the administrative expenses were not defined. 
There is no way to achieve the savings if you do not define the 
categories that you are putting the lids on.
  Instead, OMB's estimated administrative expense reductions based upon 
agencies' anticipated fiscal year 1993 obligations for certain services 
and supplies, allowed departments and agencies to allocate reductions 
among accounts and in objective classes.
  Mr. President, what is also apparent in the Presidential order is an 
ability for agencies to transfer money back and forth between the 
accounts. Not only did they not define administrative expenses, but 
they give them the ability to transfer the money back and forth.
  In addition, FASAB has observed that no cost accounting system is 
present to check the results.
  In other words, the order did not define the administrative expense 
categories and no accounting system exists to verify whether any 
savings are achieved or not, or whether the order is even followed or 
not.
  That is the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
  So, Mr. President, if some Members are under the impression that the 
Executive order in this area has dealt with the problem, that would not 
be correct. It is quite clear from the GAO study that the Presidential 
order does not deal with it. That is an independent body. It is quite 
clear from the FASAB analysis that no accounting system exists. This 
amendment solves the problem.
  It is not tough enough. It is not strong enough. We ought to save a 
great deal more than the $21 billion that is here. But, Mr. President, 
no conscientious person can look at this and end up saying that this is 
a hard or mean or cruel or overly restrictive measure. At a time when 
we are cutting personnel, to say you are going to hold those overhead 
costs level for a couple of years has to be one of the easiest things 
in the world.
  Mr. President, let me lay out what I think the real question here is 
today. I guess in the nearly decade and a half I have talked in both 
the House of Representatives and the Senate about dealing with the 
budget I have always heard the statement: Yes, let us cut the deficit. 
Let us reduce the deficit, but not my program. Let us cut the deficit, 
but not this year; let us cut it next year. Let us cut the deficit, but 
not in the Eastern part of the United States; in the Western part of 
the United States. Let us cut the deficit, but not discretionary 
spending; entitlement spending. Or let us cut the deficit the other way 
around.
  If you look back over the last decade and a half, you will find an 
interesting phenomenon. The budgets that were brought before Congress 
were ones that were not balanced the first year but were balanced the 
second year. And everyone said: Look, let us not balance it this year, 
but it will be balanced next year. This is the path towards doing it.
  Mr. President, the facts are very clear if you look over those past 
budgets. We have--and I say ``we''; I mean the Congress of the United 
States--never followed the plan. We have never kept overall spending 
within the budget or met the deficit targets. We have always exceeded 
the spending limit. Sometimes it is entitlements. Sometimes it is our 
estimate. We have lots of reasons and excuses. We have never done it.
  The budget plan that starts over, saying: We do not have a balanced 
budget this year, but we will have it next year, has changed. After a 
couple of years, it was balanced after 2 years. We will have a deficit 
this year and next year, but the third year out, we will have a 
balanced budget. It got to be where we had a balanced budget the fourth 
and fifth year out. Then, Mr. President, the budget that we passed last 
year was one of the first ones that I remember where even after 5 
years, with very creative and positive assumptions, we did not balance 
the budget.
  More tragically than that, we are even at the point now where the 
deficit in the outyears does not even begin to go down, where it may 
drop a year or two and then start back up. The implications of that are 
absolutely stunning to the future of this Nation. We have adopted a 
plan that not only consumes most of the savings of this Nation in the 
private sector in Federal debt, leaving us almost nothing in the way 
for capital formation for the entire Nation, but we have adopted a 
program that suggests we are going to have deficits that are rising on 
into the undetermined future. We are not even at the point of promising 
a deficit for 1 or 2 years, or a balanced budget in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 
or 10 years down the road. We are at the point of planning deficits 
that continue to increase. How are you going to handle that?
  Mr. President, I am convinced that if we are ever going to get a 
handle on this, we have to follow some steps. They are not exotic ones. 
They are ones everybody has talked about. What are they? First of all, 
if I have heard once, I have heard 1,000 times on this floor and in the 
House of Representatives that you have to have a bipartisan plan.
  Mr. President, this is a bipartisan plan. If you will look at the 
sponsors of the amendment, there are seven Democrats and five 
Republicans. It is bipartisan.
  Others say: Look, you have to be specific. You cannot come in here 
with vague proposals.
  Fair enough. That is responsible, reasonable. This plan has 56 
specific, well-drafted proposals with budget estimates that is brought 
before you. It is not a vague plan. It is not an idle plan. It is not 
one that is pie-in-the-sky. These are specific, exact legislative 
language proposals that achieve real savings. They are not estimates 
from pie-in-the-sky. These are estimates from our budget office.

  It was referred to earlier, I think, by the distinguished chairman 
that there were 57 proposals. There are 56. The distinguished chairman 
repeated, I think accurately, the summary that had been given to him. 
For those Members who have that previous summary, it is item 54 that is 
not included in the package. It does not effect the overall dollar 
totals, but item 54 is not included in that particular package.
  The third thing I hear is real numbers. If you have a real package, 
it has to have real numbers. This does. And where things have been held 
in other bills, we footnoted them, as the distinguished chairman was 
kind enough to point out with regard to the crime bill.
  Lastly, Members say it has to be thoughtful. We want people to think 
these through. Mr. President, Members of both parties have spent long 
hours in innumerable discussions looking through these items, combing 
them out. What is before you today is not from a rump session. This is 
the product of months and months of research, review and of paring 
down. The beginning list involved proposals that far exceed what comes 
before the body today. I am confident that the measures here are not 
only thoughtful, reasonable, and bipartisan in nature, but ones that 
most Members will find incredible that we have not already adopted.
  Let me give you an example: We have already talked about controlling 
the increases in overhead while reducing the number of personnel. That 
has to be as easy as pie. There is another measure, the Davis-Bacon 
reports. Maybe Democrats and Republicans would disagree about the 
Davis-Bacon Act, but one thing I cannot imagine anybody in this Chamber 
disagreeing about is eliminating extra and unnecessary paperwork. One 
of the items in the measure is a savings of $50 million in fiscal year 
1994, going on to $250 million over the 5-year period. What does it do? 
It eliminates an extra set of reports that are unnecessary and 
duplicative for the needs that are there.
  The savings of $250 million is a lot for the Federal Government. Mr. 
President, the savings in the private sector is even much larger. These 
are reports that are not necessary, that independent experts agree are 
duplicative, that are not even needed. Why have we not done it before? 
One of the reasons is because it is very difficult to get cost-saving 
measures to this floor. I thought the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska hit the nail on the head when he suggested we ought to have an 
expedited procedure to bring these matters to the floor. These are 
things everybody agrees with--or should. These are not controversial. 
These are opportunities to save the taxpayers money. They are only 
reasonable and thoughtful. The problem, of course, is we do not always 
have an opportunity to get them reviewed. I hope the Members will give 
this plan thought.
  Mr. President, the numbers from this budget are very real. Even if we 
follow the plan--which we have not done as a Congress--even if we 
follow it and deliver on those numbers, which we have not done, it 
means in the outyears the deficit continues to rise. It means economic 
oblivion in the long run for this Nation. There is not a Member of this 
Chamber that does not understand that and know that in their hearts. 
How can we as the Senate of the United States condemn our country to an 
ever-increasing deficit?
  I have to say I have heard on this floor some of the most eloquent 
speeches for reducing the deficit I have ever heard in my life. Some 
are by Members who vote every time to reduce the deficit, and some are 
by Members who have not yet been able to vote to reduce the deficit--in 
anything. What is lacking is not eloquence; what is lacking is not 
moving, passionate speeches for the need to increase savings or reduce 
the deficit; what is lacking is a willingness to vote to cut something.
  This measure is balanced. Twenty-eight percent of the cuts here come 
from discretionary spending, it is true. But 37 percent come from 
management reform.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BROWN. Thirty-five percent----
  Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will yield, my friend from Colorado says 
what we lack on this floor is a willingness to stand up and make cuts, 
cuts in the deficit; am I correctly paraphrasing my friend?
  Mr. BROWN. You are indeed.
  Mr. BYRD. How did my friend from Colorado, Mr. Brown, vote on the 
reconciliation bill which reduced the budget over a period of 5 years, 
by somewhere between $450 billion to $500 billion. How did my friend 
vote on that? There was his chance to cut.
  Mr. BROWN. I think it is fair and reasonable for the distinguished 
chairman to bring up the question of my voting record since I raised 
that. In the time I have been in Congress--10 years in the House and 3 
years I have been in the U.S. Senate--I have been in the top 1 percent 
of Congress every year. There may be years where we have slipped to the 
top 3 or 4 percent of Congress, but never a year have I been out of the 
top 4, 5 percent of either the House or Senate in voting to control 
spending and reduce the deficit.
  There are some reconciliation matters that I thought, long term, did 
not achieve deficit reduction, and I voted against those. But when the 
votes have been there to do it in a bipartisan manner, or to control 
spending, I have been there. And I think the distinguished Senator will 
find I have, perhaps, the most consistent record of the Members of this 
body.
  Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will yield further, the Senator says 
whenever the votes have been there in a bipartisan manner, he has voted 
to make the cuts. The reason one could not consider that vote on the 
reconciliation bill as a bipartisan vote is only because not a single 
Republican in either body voted for that reconciliation bill to make 
cuts in the budget deficits of somewhere between $450 billion and $500 
billion over the next 5 years--not a single Republican. That was not 
bipartisan. That reconciliation bill--making those cuts--was passed by 
the Democrats in both Houses.
  The distinguished Senator answers my question when he states he did 
not vote for the reconciliation bill--I believe I am correct that the 
Senator said this--and the reason he implied he did not vote for that 
reconciliation bill, which made cuts of almost $500 billion. May I say 
that the Appropriations Committee has borne the brunt of those cuts.
  I thank my friend for his courtesy.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the comments of the chairman. Let me say that 
in his observation that when it comes to raising taxes, I am not very 
good at it, he is right. I must say I am not unwilling to consider 
taxes if they are in a package that achieves meaningful cuts in 
spending. I also observe that that opportunity has never come before 
this body in the last 15 years. I continue to hope it will.
  If we are to simply say that the answer is more and more and more tax 
increases, this Member is not one that thinks that is what the American 
people want. I think what the American people want is some willingness 
to control spending. But the distinguished Senator's interest in a 
bipartisan effort to reduce the deficit, I applaud.
  Let me recommend the amendment that is before us right now. It is 
bipartisan and it is specific and it is thoughtful.
  What is more, let me suggest that, in at least this Senator's view, 
these measures are not only reasonable but they are extremely mild. 
With the train wreck that is coming in our budget affairs, I would 
guess in a brief period of time we will see all of these measures 
eventually adopted and many perhaps that are much, much more harsh 
because we failed to heed the signals in time.
  Mr. President, we should make no mistake about it. This is a real 
bill with real savings in a bipartisan manner that can achieve an 
enormous difference for us.
  The change that this achieves is simply this: If you look at the 
graph of the deficits, they, in the outyears, continue to climb and 
sentence this country to an ever-increasing annual deficit as we go 
into the future. This amendment can help turn that, so at least the 
line begins to turn down. If we fail to do that, whether it is this 
measure or another, we condemn our country to economic mediocrity, and 
we destroy, through an unwillingness to face the facts, the dream of 
prosperity and the dream of a better livelihood that has made America 
prosper and shine.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment.
  First, I wish to state to my colleagues and friends from California 
that it certainly is not my intention, by supporting the amendment, to 
add to the difficulty in passing the basic supplemental appropriation 
to fund the disaster relief in your State. I, as a Senator whose State 
was ravaged by Hurricane Andrew, am well aware of the serious distress 
of your people and of the urgent situation for quick congressional 
attention to your needs. I am pleased that we are here so early after 
the earthquake with the opportunity to provide for those needs.
  Rather, Mr. President, I am rising today because of a concern 
expressed, among others, in recent press accounts that the Nation's and 
the Congress' attention at deficit reduction has moved on; that that 
was 1993's fad, and we dealt with it in 1993 and now there are other 
matters which are dominating our attention.
  The fact that during these first few days of the 1994 session we are 
considering another step in the long road of deficit reduction, I hope 
will be seen as a clear signal that there is a strong commitment in the 
Congress to a continued recognition of the pernicious effects that 
constant increases in our national debt through annual deficits have on 
our Nation.
  This is certainly, Mr. President, a phenomenon that is not lost on 
our constituents. Many Florida residents have been contacting me over 
the past several months regarding the Federal deficit. They have been 
saying, ``Why is Congress spending more money instead of cutting the 
budget deficit?''; saying that Congress needs to make real spending 
cuts and to change our Nation's irresponsible spending habits.
  My constituents want us to know that the time has come to make 
sacrifices for deficit reduction and that they are prepared to play 
their part in those sacrifices. These Floridians who have written, and 
called over the past year, urging Congress to work harder reducing the 
budget, their voices are now being heard.
  Mr. President, I think it is important that we remind ourselves why 
we are concerned about the budget deficit, why it is not just the fad 
of 1993. We are concerned about the budget deficit, among other 
reasons, because it places a straitjacket on our future.
  The numbers in the President's recently announced budget of our 
national interest payments is indicative of what that straitjacket 
means. As recently as 1976, the last year of President Ford's 
administration, the total amount of net interest payments by the 
Federal Government was $26.7 billion. This year, we will pay an 
interest on the national debt of $212.8 billion.
  Mr. President, 75 percent of that $212.8 billion has been accumulated 
in the last 13 years. We have been on a deficit frenzy, a collapse of 
fiscal responsibility in the last 13 years, the likes of which this 
Nation has never experienced. That frenzy has placed a straitjacket on 
our future generations.
  Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record an article from today's New York Times, entitled ``Large Tax 
Burden for Young is Seen,'' in which the Times summarizes a portion of 
the President's budget with the first paragraph, reading:

       Deep in the four-volume Federal budget President Clinton 
     released on Monday is a detailed analysis of some bad news 
     that Government officials don't usually draw attention to: if 
     present trends continue, today's toddlers are likely to pay 
     in taxes half of what they earn in their entire lives, and 
     children yet unborn will probably have it even worse.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 9, 1994]

                   Large Tax Burden for Young Is Seen

                          (By Keith Bradsher)

       Washington, February 8.--Deep in the four-volume Federal 
     budget President Clinton released on Monday is a detailed 
     analysis of some bad news that Government officials don't 
     usually draw attention to: if present trends continue, 
     today's toddlers are likely to pay in taxes half of what they 
     earn in their entire lives, and children yet unborn will 
     probably have it even worse.
       The idea that the Federal Government is shifting wealth 
     between generations had been discussed for years before 
     becoming a prominent political issue during the 1992 
     Presidential campaign, when Ross Perot warned that by 
     allowing persistent budget deficits, Americans were 
     effectively spending their children's inheritance.
       But the most detailed Government examination yet of the 
     issue appears in a section of Mr. Clinton's budget that 
     examines the extent to which today's budget deficit imposes a 
     financial burden on young Americans.
       Administration officials say that one reason for pointing 
     all this out is to help build the case for the President's 
     health package, which they see as the key to holding down the 
     long-term growth of Federal spending. Another reason is to 
     illustrate that without last year's budget, which cut this 
     year's deficit, the burden on future generations would have 
     been even greater.


                      seeking short-term sacrifice

       The analysis builds its forecasts on the assumption that 
     nothing is changed, in the hope of building support for 
     policies of short-term sacrifice for long-term benefit.
       ``We were placing such a huge burden on future generations 
     that we needed to ask today's generation, as well as those 
     who benefit from Federal programs, to sacrifice a little 
     bit,'' said Barry J. Toive, a spokesman for the Office of 
     Management and Budget.
       The budget estimates that as health care and Social 
     Security costs continue to rise, young Americans in general 
     will pay significantly more of their lifetime income as 
     Federal, state and local taxes than their parents and 
     grandparents did. These taxes are rising even if Government 
     payments to individuals, like Social Security checks, are 
     deducted.
       ``This is really a catastrophe that we're preparing for our 
     kids,'' said Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a Boston University 
     economics professor who helped the White House's Office of 
     Management and Budget prepare the figures.
       So-called net taxes, calculated by subtracting Government 
     payments to individuals from taxes paid, will total 36.9 
     percent of lifetime income for today's teen-agers, according 
     to the Clinton proposal. This compares with 33.2 percent for 
     Americans born in 1950 and 23.6 percent for those born in 
     1900.
       In its last two years, the Bush Administration began 
     reckoning the lifetime tax burdens of the budget deficit, but 
     buried the results even more deeply than the Clinton 
     Administration, and the figures were little noticed.
       In a more speculative calculation, the Administration 
     forecast that the average net tax rate for future generations 
     would eventually reach 82 percent of their lifetime earnings. 
     Without last year's budget package, the burden would be 93.7 
     percent, the budget document said, while passage now of the 
     President's health care plan would lower the burden to 66.5 
     percent.
       These calculations of income distribution among 
     generations, known as generational accounting, have become 
     increasingly popular in academic circles and among 
     politicians who want to balance the budget, because it 
     highlights the long-term consequences of continued deficit 
     spending.
       But some economists maintain strong reservations about 
     these forecasts. ``This is a very useful procedure for use in 
     an academic setting,'' said Henry J. Aaron, the director of 
     economic studies at the Brookings Institution. ``It's not 
     good enough for government work.''
       Mr. Aaron said that the tiniest changes in the initial 
     assumptions could result in hugh changes in the final 
     results. Because these changes are hard to spot, and because 
     Government officials may have a strong incentive to tilt the 
     final results, the results are not reliable enough to be used 
     in Federal policymaking, he said.
       Alan J. Auerback, a University of Pennsylvania economist 
     who joined Mr. Kotlikoff and Jagadeesh Gokhale, an economist 
     at the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank, in helping the Office 
     of Management and Budget prepare its forecast, said that such 
     criticisms were misleading. Generational accounting is based 
     on current laws and demographics, and these do not change 
     quickly, he said, adding, ``It's pretty predictable that a 
     45-year-old today is going to be a 65-year-old 20 years from 
     now.''
       Still, the techniques sometimes produce odd results. For 
     example, the Clinton budget does not forecast that each 
     generation of living Americans will face a higher net 
     lifetime tax rate than the previous generation. Instead, it 
     estimates that Americans born in 1980 will face a peak rate 
     of 36.9 percent, while for babies born in 1992, the net rate 
     dips slightly to 36.3 percent.
       The reason is that the model assumes continued, 
     unrestricted growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending, Mr. 
     Kotlikoff said. So today's toddlers would be paying a lot of 
     taxes but would eventually receive a large chunk of the money 
     back from the Government as their medical bills in old age 
     become enormous.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Second, Mr. President, we are concerned about the deficit 
because of the uncertainty as to the future caused by the deficit and 
therefore a tendency to focus on short-term rather than long-term 
issues.
  One of the characteristics of the 1980's was a willingness to forgo 
long-term benefits for immediate gratification. A substantial 
contributor to that attitude of the 1980's was the fact that we were 
adding so enormously to our national debt through annual deficits that 
we were undercutting the willingness and the economic rationality of 
making long-term investments.
  One of the most positive things that has happened in the last 13 
years was the action taken by this Congress, through the leadership of 
President Clinton, to adopt his economic program in August 1993. And we 
are beginning to see some results of that program.
  Mr. President, I am also going to ask to have printed in the Record 
an article from the February 7 Washington Post, entitled ``Debating 
Deficits's Link to Economic Growth.''
  In that article, Mr. President, Mr. Robert Hormats, vice chairman of 
Goldman Sachs International, is quoted as saying:

       If you took a poll on Wall Street last year, probably 95 
     percent of the bond traders would have told you that this 
     administration turned out to be much more resolute on 
     reducing the deficit than people expected, and that's what 
     fueled the rally in the bond market.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 7, 1994]

               Debating Deficit's Link to Economic Growth

                           (By Clay Chandler)

       When President Clinton sends his $1.5 trillion spending 
     plan for fiscal 1995 to Congress today, he will be able to 
     boast of a historic turn in economic policy: The federal 
     budget deficit is projected to get smaller for the third year 
     in a row, something that has not happened since 1948.
       At the same time, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan 
     told Congress on Jan. 21 that the economy is in its best 
     shape in two decades.
       But how much will shrinking deficits really help keep the 
     economy healthy?
       Ross Perot transformed the deficit into a burning campaign 
     issue in 1992, pounding away at the idea that rising deficits 
     were destroying U.S. productivity and burying future 
     generations in debt.
       That notion has become one of the most deeply entrenched 
     public beliefs about the economy. It also is the underpinning 
     of one of the twin thrusts of Clinton's fiscal policy--
     getting the deficit under control while shifting government 
     spending priorities to programs intended to boost 
     productivity.
       Economists disagree about how much government red ink is 
     too much.
       Fiscal conservatives such as Harvard University economist 
     Martin Feldstein insist the five-year $496 billion package of 
     tax increases and spending restriction Clinton pushed through 
     Congress in August did not go far enough toward reducing the 
     deficit.
       Liberals such as Northwestern University economist Robert 
     Eisner say the legislation went too far and could deal a 
     ``body blow'' to the newly revived economy. ``And if Congress 
     pushes Clinton to further deficit reduction, it will be 
     really damaging.'' Eisner said.
       While supporters of the president's effort to get the 
     deficit under control are probably in the majority, experts 
     on both sides acknowledge that the evidence linking deficits 
     and economic growth is inconclusive.
       Some experts regard Clinton's budget-cutting venture as 
     being as much an act of faith as was President Ronald 
     Reagan's ``supply side'' tax cut in 1981. If Clinton's policy 
     succeeds, they say, it may do so for reasons that have as 
     such to do with psychology as with tried-and-true economics.
       The simple story taught in most economics texts about the 
     virtues of low deficits ``is just wrong,'' argues 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Robert S. 
     Pindyck, co-author of ``Investment Under Uncertainty,'' an 
     influential new book about business investment.
       The common explanation about how big deficits hurt the 
     economy goes like this:
       When the government increased its borrowing, it competes 
     for capital with companies and households in the private 
     sector, driving up interest rates. The government's need to 
     borrow crowds out private investment and discourages consumer 
     spending. Conversely, lower deficits result in lower interest 
     rates, which in turn spur investment and spending.
       ``A persistent and unresolved * * * deficit is widely 
     agreed by economists to be a problem,'' said Laura D'Andrea 
     Tyson, chairman of the president's Council of Economic 
     Advisers. ``If debt is growing relative to the growth of the 
     economy as far as the eye can see, that is clearly an 
     unsustainable path.''
       According to the most recent forecast by the nonpartisan 
     Congressional Budget Office, the deficit is expected to keep 
     shrinking in proportion to the nation's total economic output 
     through 1998, when it is forecast to be 2.2 percent of the 
     gross domestic product--half its current size and its 
     smallest as a percentage of the economy since 1979.
       CBO Director Robert D. Reischauer said the primary reason 
     the deficit is falling is because of the package Clinton got 
     through Congress in August. Clinton sold that package by 
     saying it would boost the growth rate of the economy over the 
     long term, even if it dampened growth somewhat in the first 
     year or two.
       Administration officials claim events since Clinton's 
     election in November 1992 prove their economic program is 
     having the promised effect. Long-term interest rates began 
     falling and finished 1993 nearly two percentage points lower 
     than they were on Election Day 1992.
       And as interest rates came down, the economy revived.
       Tyson noted that the economy moved from recovery to strong 
     expansion almost exclusively because interest-sensitive 
     sectors of the economy--residential construction, consumer 
     durables and business spending on plant and equipment--surged 
     in response to lower rates.
       Those sectors usually account for about a third of economic 
     growth. But by December, Tyson said, they accounted for 100 
     percent of the growth.
       Many economists, though, question the links in that logical 
     chain. Consider the connection between the deficit and 
     interest rates. Technological advances and the opening up of 
     global financial markets, many skeptics argue, have expanded 
     the pool of potential purchasers of U.S. Treasury bonds so 
     widely that incremental changes in the U.S. deficit hardly 
     make a ripple.
       ``U.S. borrowing is small in relation to the huge flow of 
     capital now sloshing around the world,'' said Rudolph G. 
     Penner, a KPMG Peat Marwick economist who has studied the 
     link between interest rates and federal budget deficits. 
     ``The many forces driving changes in interest rates are very 
     difficult to distinguish,'' said Penner, who supports efforts 
     to cut the deficit.
       Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs 
     International, said the administration deserves most of the 
     credit for the drop in rates. ``If you took a poll on Wall 
     Street last year, probably 95 percent of the bond traders 
     would have told you that this administration turned out to be 
     much more resolute on reducing the deficit than people 
     expected, and that's what fueled the rally in the bond 
     market,'' he said.
       And the relationship between low interest rates and 
     increased spending and investment--the second link in the 
     conventional argument for deficit reduction--is equally 
     complex.
       ``Business investment decisions are very different from the 
     way in which economists generally describe them,'' said David 
     A. Levy, director of the Jerome Levy Economic Institute of 
     Bard College in New York. ``In reality, investment is far 
     more a strategic rather than a financial decision.''
       A study of investment patterns of 5,000 U.S. companies from 
     1971 to 1990 by Steven M. Fazzari, an economist at Washington 
     University in St. Louis, found that sales, profits and cash 
     flow have a much larger effect on business investment than do 
     interest rates.
       University of Illinois economist Robert Chirinko said that 
     while he believes interest rate changes may have a strong 
     impact on housing construction, he doubts they have much 
     effect on consumption of durable goods, such as refrigerators 
     and televisions. His survey of economic literature dating as 
     far back as 1911 leads him to conclude that the relationship 
     between interest rates and investment is almost nil.
       ``On balance,'' he said, ``there really isn't any strong 
     evidence that changes in interest rates have much effect on 
     investment.''
       MIT economist Pindyck argued that Clinton's package of 
     spending cuts and tax increases may have stimulated economic 
     growth, but not in the way conventional economic theory would 
     suggest.
       The budget deal, he said, was psychologically reassuring 
     because it sent a signal that the new president had gotten 
     fiscal policy under control.

  Mr. GRAHAM. What Mr. Hormats is saying is that once people have some 
confidence that we are about to deal with this deficit issue on a 
sustained and serious basis, it had an almost immediate effect in terms 
of building up the confidence of people to make long-term decisions. 
One of the consequences of that was a lowering of interest rates. Our 
failure to demonstrate a continued resolve toward that direction is 
likely to unravel the benefits that we have already gained.
  We have seen within the last few days another slight uptick in short-
term interest rates. We need to send a strong signal now that indicates 
that we have not lost our commitment to continue deficit reduction so 
that that small tick will not become an avalanche of increasing 
interest rates, increasing inflation, lowered economic growth, and 
lowered standard of living for our people.
  Finally, I think the reason we need to be concerned about the deficit 
is because it is fundamentally immoral for one generation of Americans 
to pass its economic responsibility to the next.
  The great American Thomas Jefferson was not a member of the 
Constitutional Convention. He was not in the country at the time the 
Constitution was being written. But had he been there, he would have 
advocated that our Constitution contain a prohibition on Federal 
Government borrowing.
  President Jefferson felt that it was unethical for one generation to 
use a future generation's income to finance its current spending.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Florida 
yield on that point?
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator yields.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Would the distinguished Senator tell me why Jefferson's 
position was as the Senator stated and yet, in 1803, Jefferson promoted 
the Louisiana Purchase, which amounted to $15 million in those days, 
and which money the U.S. Government had to borrow? The Government 
borrowed that $15 million, or a large portion of it, when Mr. Jefferson 
was President. He bought 827,000 square miles of territory for $15 
million, which would be something like 2\1/2\ cents an acre, extending 
from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border and from the Mississippi 
River to the Rockies.
  Jefferson was President, and he did one of the most wise things that 
was ever done in the history of this country when he purchased 
Louisiana on his ``watch'' and went in debt to do it. Now, he passed it 
on to the future generations of his day, the burden of paying for the 
Louisiana Purchase. What $15 million in that day would amount to in 
this day, I have not researched that, but it would certainly amount to 
a tidy sum.
  How does the distinguished Senator square what he has just said about 
Jefferson, namely, that Jefferson was, if I may paraphrase, 
constitutionally opposed to putting future generations in debt, opposed 
to spending money in his generation and having the debt carried over 
for posterity to pay--how does the Senator from Florida square that 
statement with the statement that I have just made--which is supported 
by history: 827,000 square miles of territory for $15 million, which 
amounted to 2\1/2\ cents an acre? How does the distinguished Senator 
square those two situations? It seems to me to be an anomaly that 
Jefferson would say, ``I am opposed to putting posterity in debt for 
Government expenditures that benefit the generation of today,'' when 
Jefferson turned right around and did just that.
  And why--let me ask the Senator another question, Mr. President, if 
the Senator will allow me. Why did Jefferson not--why did Jefferson not 
recommend a constitutional amendment to provide against borrowing by 
the Federal Government, if the borrowing could not be paid off in his 
generation or during the same administration for that matter? Why is 
there no record of Jefferson having ever proposed such a constitutional 
amendment during his administration? Why did Jefferson say one thing 
but do another? Why did he say that the government should not borrow 
money for the benefit of the citizens of his day, while, at the same 
time, incurring a debt to be paid by posterity? He did it in the case 
of the Louisiana purchase. And I am glad that he did it, and I would 
imagine that the able senior Senator from Florida, the very able and 
distinguished Senator from Florida, is glad that Jefferson did it. He 
added an immense amount of territory to the United States when he 
incurred the debt.
  I would be interested in knowing how the distinguished Senator from 
Florida squares those two seemingly anomalous statements, the statement 
by President Jefferson, and the statement by Robert Byrd, based on 
history?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I cannot answer the question. I wish the distinguished 
former President of the Senate while he served as Vice President were 
here today in order to be able to respond to that question.
  I will say that the influence of President Jefferson and his 
essential philosophy that one generation should not ask another to pay 
its bills casts a long and pervasive shadow over American fiscal 
affairs. I am going to use in a moment, in discussing another aspect of 
this issue, a chart which outlines what has happened over four 
generations of one American family in terms of the national debt. But I 
will just use the first statistic on this chart, which happens to be--
--
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Is the Senator going to use that example again of 
Jefferson's saying that he was opposed to the Federal Government's 
going into debt for an investment of that nature when the debt would 
have to be paid off by another generation?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I am going to use it because----
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator is going to use it, will he 
also say that Jefferson went into debt for the Louisiana Purchase and 
that Jefferson admitted that he was embarrassed by having said one 
thing and done another?
  Mr. GRAHAM. The influence of the Jeffersonian philosophy is 
illustrated in the fact that, on the day that my father was born--which 
was in February of 1885, in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War--
the total debt that the country had accumulated over the first almost 
century since the adoption of the Constitution, was $1.6 billion, most 
of which had been accumulated during the Civil War. That $1.6 billion 
is about what we have added to the national debt since we convened here 
2 days ago. It took 100 years to do what we are now doing in 
approximately every 48 hours.

  So I would say that is the best testimony to the fact that the words 
of Jefferson had a long, pervasive, and positive impact on the attitude 
of the American people as to generational economic responsibility.
  We showed some of that generational economic responsibility in August 
when the Congress passed President Clinton's budget. It signaled a 
dramatic ebb to a 12-year wave of spending. For the first time in more 
than a decade we forced ourselves to take the difficult but honorable 
road to reduce spending and start cutting our annual budget deficit; to 
raise taxes, yes, to pay our bills today.
  But passing the President's economic package was only the first step 
in what is going to be required. As the Senator from Colorado and 
others have mentioned, the deficit reduction line drawn as a result of 
the adoption of the President's plan in August of last year 
substantially improved the projection of the Nation's economic 
condition had we not taken that action. The red line on this chart, 
which starts with a deficit of $319 billion, flattens out and then 
spirals up to $639 billion by the year 2003, is what we had as our 
national future, had we not taken such action.
  As a result of the steps that we took, as projected by the President 
in August of last year, we have made a substantial reduction in that 
trend line. However, there is one disturbing similarity between what 
would have been and what we hope now might be, and that is that after a 
period of reduction and then stagnation, in about the year 1997--by 
1998 the deficit is going up again and the budget which the President 
has recently submitted, which contains some revisions from his August 
1993 trend line, has again that constant that in 1998 the deficit 
starts to rise again.
  We hope that trend line would be altered by the enactment of 
significant health care reform. The expectation was over the balance of 
this decade we would see sufficient savings from health care reform 
that this trend line, rather than going up, would continue to head 
towards that destination of a balanced Federal budget.
  We received some bad news on that front yesterday. I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Washington 
Post of today entitled, ``Clinton and the Analysts: A $133 Billion 
Difference of Opinion.''
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Washington Post, February 9, 1994]

     Clinton and the Analysts: A $133 Billion Difference of Opinion

               (By Steven Pearlstein and David S. Broder)

       President Clinton has put forward a credible plan for 
     restructuring the nation's health system, but implementing it 
     in the next few years will cost more than he thought and 
     could overwhelm the frail institutions of government.
       That was the carefully stated but unambiguous judgment 
     delivered yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office, a 
     nonpartisan policy analysis organization that enjoys unusual 
     respect in Washington.
       The CBO credited the administration with coming up with a 
     framework that appears to reconcile what many had considered 
     irreconcilable: extending health care to all Americans while 
     at the same time slowing the growth of medical costs, which 
     threaten to consume 20 percent of the nation's economic 
     output by the end of the decade.
       But the budget office implied what many of the country's 
     leading business organizations said last week when, one after 
     another, they declared that the Clinton plan was simply too 
     much too fast.
       The headline-grabbing news in the CBO report was that the 
     Clinton plan would not reduce the budget deficit by $59 
     billion over the next five years, as the administration had 
     estimated, but increase it by $74 billion. That $133 billion 
     difference of opinion may have more political than economic 
     significance: Both predict that the Clinton plan would begin 
     saving money for the government, business and consumers by 
     the year 2000.
       But the administration has based its economic policy on 
     lower deficits and lower interest rates, so the CBO report 
     struck at a vulnerable point. Clinton has bragged that he was 
     cutting the deficit by $500 billion in five years; at one 
     blow, CBO wiped out more than one-quarter of those claimed 
     savings.
       Still, there were nuggets of good news for the 
     administration in the CBO analysis.
       The Clinton plan, it concluded, would not significantly 
     slow the economy or result in the loss of jobs, as many 
     critics have charged.
       What few minimum wage jobs would be lost at restaurants and 
     small manufacturing firms, it concluded, would likely be 
     replaced in an expanded health care sector. It predicted that 
     the job market would improve because some working mothers and 
     older workers would drop out of the work force, knowing that 
     their medical costs would be covered.
       The CBO also predicted that most employers would eventually 
     enjoy lower health insurance premiums under the Clinton plan, 
     passing on most of the $20 billion savings to their workers 
     in the form of higher wages.
       But there were also ominous warnings in the budget office's 
     final chapter--innocuously titled ``Other Considerations''--
     that the myriad old and new government agencies required to 
     implement the plan may not be up to the task.
       The proposed National Health Board, it warned, would need 
     ``a large, skilled professional staff'' to perform ``many 
     difficult tasks . . . on extremely tight schedules.'' Ditto 
     for the proposed regional health alliances, which are 
     required by the plan to ``combine the functions of purchasing 
     agents, contract negotiators, welfare agencies, financial 
     intermediaries, collectors of premiums, developers and 
     managers of information systems and coordinators of the flow 
     of information and money between themselves and other 
     alliances.''
       ``Any one of these functions could be a major undertaking 
     for an existing agency with some experience, let alone for a 
     new agency that would have to perform them all,'' CBO said.
       The congressional analysts also said that they--like many 
     others who have pondered the subject--were of two minds on 
     the wisdom of the standby price controls of the Clinton plan.
       On the one hand, they conceded that the premium caps might 
     plausibly squeeze some waste and inefficiency out of the 
     system. On the other hand, they might have the unintended 
     consequences of reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, 
     denying some medical services to some consumers, and creating 
     a political brouhaha.
       The only solace, they concluded, is that any other method 
     of restraining health care spending would ``likely generate 
     similar stresses.''
       Much has been made of the CBO's judgment that the Clinton 
     health plan so intimately involves government in the nation's 
     health system that the cost of the entire thing ought to be 
     included in the government's set of accounts.
       Critics argue that it only proves their point that the 
     Clinton plan is just another big-government, bureaucratic 
     nightmare.
       But the CBO was making a more subtle point: Putting health 
     care expenditures on the budget won't really make the plan 
     more or less expensive. But only by exposing the true costs 
     of health care to public scrutiny and political debate each 
     year is there a chance of keeping the medical insurance 
     guarantee from becoming another runaway entitlement program.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will quote one paragraph from this 
article.

       The headline-grabbing news in the CBO report was that the 
     Clinton plan would not reduce the budget deficit by $59 
     billion over the next five years, as the administration had 
     estimated, but increase it by $74 billion. That $133 billion 
     difference of opinion may have more political than economic 
     significance: Both predict that the Clinton plan would begin 
     saving money for the government, business and consumers by 
     the year 2000.

  One effect of the economic significance of that is that we cannot 
depend on health care to keep this trend line going down. To the 
contrary, according to the CBO report, health care is going to 
contribute to an escalation of the deficit by the end of this decade.
  That, Mr. President, underscores the importance of the amendment that 
we offer today, and that is that this amendment gives us some hope of 
keeping that trend line aimed in a downward direction for the balance 
of this decade toward the goal of a balanced Federal budget.
  Our amendment is not an easy one. It asks for considerable sacrifice. 
It begins with the premise that Congress should first cut its own 
spending before cutting that of others. In that spirit, we have 
proposed reducing the legislative branch appropriations by 7.5 percent 
and the congressional franking budget by 30 percent. We have proposed a 
5-percent pay cut for Members of Congress and for senior executives and 
congressional officials, those whose salaries are generally in the 
range of $96,000 to $171,000.
  The bill also includes $5.9 billion in proposals to streamline the 
Federal Government, many of which are based on the Vice President's 
report on reinventing Government.
  Some of the cuts in this amendment will be difficult for the citizens 
of my State. Among them is a provision to provide for a Federal cost-
of-living adjustment in fiscal years 1994-1999 for all civilian and 
military retirees only on the first $30,000 of their pension income. 
This cost-of-living adjustment would not affect Social Security 
recipients.
  The plan also includes Medicare savings that would affect some of 
Florida's senior citizens. For example, the amendment would impose a 
10-percent copayment on the beneficiaries of Medicare home health 
services whose incomes exceed 150 percent of the Federal poverty level.
  Our plan would also phase out the Medicare part B premium subsidy for 
individuals with incomes over $100,000 and reduce it for those who earn 
more than $50,000 a year. This proposal requires a small sacrifice from 
1 in 10 senior citizens, those most able to pay. It would save the 
Government $16.3 billion over the 5 years of this amendment.
  Each of the 18 Senators sponsoring this deficit reduction package 
disagrees with some of its provisions. Because I know how hard many of 
Florida's senior citizens struggle to get by, I found the Medicare and 
cost-of-living reductions especially hard to swallow, but we agreed to 
work together, despite our differences, for the sake of the national 
interest in serious deficit reduction.
  Our plan is similar to a plan which was proposed in the House of 
Representatives last November. It lost by just six votes. That narrow 
defeat, despite intense lobbying against the plan, is evidence that 
Congress is serious about deficit reduction. We in the Senate are 
committed to this plan. We spoke with the President last November in 
the White House urging him to support our spending cuts.
  Still, as the Senate debates these hefty and worthwhile spending 
cuts, we must not see them as a panacea for our deficit reduction. 
These cuts are just one stride in the right direction. We must make 
sure they are accompanied by other deficit-reduction measures.
  Mr. President, the next major battleground will be health care. In 
spite of the disappointing news that we received yesterday, we must 
continue the effort to restrain what has been the fastest growing 
segment, not only of our Federal Government's budget but also the 
budgets of most States, local communities, families, and individual 
Americans.
  No deficit-reduction plan can work unless we curb the steep increases 
in health care costs through comprehensive health care reform. We must 
accept the fact that every dollar cut from the Federal budget is going 
to cause discomfort to someone, but we must realize at the same time 
that the last 12 years of deficit spending have caused more pain to 
more Americans than these spending cuts ever will. That pain would be 
particularly felt by future generations, to whom we are leaving a 
heritage of national debt approaching $5 trillion.
  Mr. President, I alluded earlier to a chart that I wanted to use to 
illustrate the impact of this on one American family, the family of my 
father, Ernest Graham. My father was born in Croswell, MI, in February 
1885. At that time, the national debt, almost 100 years after the 
adoption of the Constitution, was $1.6 billion, which amounted to $28 
for every living American man, woman, and child in February 1885.
  I was born in 1936, at which time the national debt was $33.8 
billion. When I was born, every American had an indebtedness of $264. 
Twenty-seven years later, my first child was born.
  In January 1963, when Gwen was born, the national debt was $310.3 
billion, or $1,640 per individual American. I am going to come back and 
talk a bit about the difference between the $264 that I owed on the 
date of my birth in November 1936 and what my daughter owed in January 
1963.
  I have the good fortune to now have three grandchildren. When my 
first grandchild was born in October 1990, the national debt was $3.2 
trillion, or $12,900 per citizen.
  When my second grandchild was born in January 1992, the debt had come 
to $4 trillion, or $15,700 per person.
  And when my third grandchild was born in October 1993, the debt was 
$4.4 trillion, or $17,010.
  A point that I would like to make is that it took 27 years, from 1936 
to 1963, for the debt to go up approximately $1,300 per person. It took 
less than 10 months for the debt to increase $1,300 per person between 
January and October 1992.
  Mr. President, that is what we are leaving to our next generation of 
Americans. Only by making responsible cuts in spending, by a commitment 
to the goal of balancing our Federal budget, by passing significant 
health care reform can we look our children and grandchildren in the 
eye knowing that we are no longer supporting ourselves at their expense 
and at their economic security and personal future.
  I believe that we have brought to the Senate today a responsible set 
of fiscal proposals. They are responsible today in terms of our 
obligation to meet the needs of our people. They are even more 
responsible for our children and grandchildren because, to the extent 
of this proposal, we are not going to be asking them to pay our bills.
  Mr. President, the time is now for us to adopt a principle that each 
generation of Americans should be prepared to pay its own bills and 
that we will demonstrate by example, beginning last year and continuing 
this year and into the future until we have accomplished that 
objective, that we are prepared to make the hard choices to balance our 
Federal budget.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my friend from Florida says that each 
generation should be prepared to pay its own bills. That sounds good, 
and why should not one subscribe to that? I do not believe that the 
Senator really means that, under all circumstances, such a rule should 
apply. I do not presume to be able to get inside the mind and heart of 
the Senator, but I cannot believe that a man of his intelligence, 
wisdom and experience really, really believes that such a position 
should be inflexibly adhered to.
  This Senate, with my helping to lead the fight, in 1992 by a vote of 
84 to 10 passed a disaster relief bill containing $4.4 billion for the 
victims of Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki in Florida, Louisiana and 
Hawaii, as well as those of Typhoon Omar on the territory of Guam. That 
money was not offset. That money had to be borrowed, and it added to 
the deficit, just as the money that is in the bill now before the 
Senate, which provides relief for the victims of the California 
earthquake and also additional moneys for the victims of last year's 
floods, will be added to the deficit.
  I suppose that the Senator is saying, in effect, that if we cannot 
pay off in our generation the money for all these disasters, then we 
should not appropriate the monies. The Senator also said something to 
the effect that his illustrious father, was born in 1885, at a time the 
national debt was somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion.
  But the Senator did not go on to say that, in 1898, we fought a war 
with Spain over the Philippines, and that we subsequently fought World 
War I, World War II, the Korean war, the war in Vietnam, and the war in 
the Persian Gulf, all of which added to the national debt, and 
moreover, that we suffered a Great Depression, during which the 
distinguished Senator was born in 1936. I was 19 years old in 1936.
  I know what we went through in that Depression. We had to borrow 
money to get the country off its back. Millions of people in this 
country were walking the streets and the back alleys looking for work, 
and could find none. Veterans were selling apples on the streets. Coal 
miners were wrapping burlap sacks around their feet to keep from 
freezing in the wintertime. Thousands of coal miners could not find a 
job. Those who worked, worked for less than $2 a day, sometimes 2 days 
a week, sometimes 3 days a week, sometimes none. Schoolteachers could 
not get their checks cashed for full value, but had to take a 20, 25 
percent discount to get their checks cashed.
  That was the Great Depression. I lived through it. I saw it. I knew 
something about it, having grown up in a coal miner's home. The Senator 
from Florida was just born in 1936. The Roosevelt administration had to 
borrow money to get the country going again. There come times when a 
great Government like ours has to borrow money, and anyone who believes 
otherwise simply is not looking the facts in the eye. This country has 
gone through depressions and panics and recessions and wars, and it has 
had to borrow money.
  Let the record show that there are many reasons for the national 
debt's having increased from the year 1885, when it was less than $2 
billion, other than just profligate spending, and, admittedly, the 
country has also done some of that. But the Senator from Florida voted 
for disaster relief for his people when they were in dire need. I voted 
for it and would do so again to help him. Now we have a bill before 
this Senate that provides relief for the victims of the California 
earthquake and additional relief for the people in the midwest who were 
stricken in the floods last year, all of which monies will be added to 
the deficit. The money for Hurricane Andrew was added to the deficit. 
These moneys that are being appropriated in this bill as emergency 
items will likewise be added to the deficit.
  Some will say, ``Well, the Federal Government ought to balance its 
budget like I balance mine at my house.'' Well, that sounds good. But 
how many people have to borrow money to pay for a house? How many 
people are able to go into the car dealer and slap the money down on 
the barrel head and say, ``Here is your money. Give me my car. Give me 
the keys.'' How many couples are able to get married and say, ``I have 
my house paid for? This is my furniture; it is all paid for. I am not 
in debt for the television set, not in debt for the kitchen cabinets, 
not in debt for the gas range. Everything is money on the barrel 
head.'' How many newly married couples can say that? The average family 
in this country could not get along if it did not borrow money and go 
in debt.
  Then there are those who say, ``Well, the States balance their 
budgets.''
  I do not believe it. The States generally have two budgets. They 
function on an operating budget, most of them, and then also on a 
capital budget. They have to borrow money to pay for roads, veterans' 
bonuses, bridges, school buildings, and so on and so on.
  I hope the able Senator will retire with me tonight, he in his home 
and me in mine, and go back and read about Jefferson and how he put the 
country into debt to the tune of $15 million to make the Louisiana 
purchase. How much would that be today? Jefferson went in debt to the 
tune of $15 million, and thank God he did. He saddled the taxpayers of 
this country beyond his own administration to pay off that debt, $15 
million for the Louisiana Purchase, 827,000 square miles stretching 
from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border and from the Mississippi 
River to the Rockies. How many States are included in that vast amount 
of territory, all of that territory for 2\1/2\ cents an acre? If 
Jefferson would have waited until such time as he could have paid the 
money down for it, he would never have gotten such a bargain and we in 
the United States today would not enjoy the fruits of Jefferson's wise 
action.
  That money was borrowed. So, let us not stand up on this floor and 
point to Jefferson, that great man from Monticello who believed that a 
government was not supposed to borrow money, but should only expend 
such money as could be accounted for in one's own generation. Jefferson 
went in debt for 827,000 square miles of territory, and I thank Heaven 
that he did it.
  I have referred to the distinguished Senator from Florida. He may 
wish to react to what I have said or ask me a question or have me take 
my seat, whatever.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would just respond to this extent. First, as I stated 
in my opening remarks, I am very appreciative of the way in which this 
Congress, specifically the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, dealt with the crisis that we faced in Florida after 
Hurricane Andrew. For that I am extremely appreciative.
  I do not believe, however, that the action we are proposing today is 
inconsistent with that statement of appreciation. In some ways, it 
might be considered as an appropriate response of gratitude. The some 
$90 billion plus that this amendment will reduce in Federal spending 
over the next 5 years equals and exceeds the generosity of this 
Congress, not only to my State as a result of hurricanes but also to 
States like South Carolina, Hawaii, and, today, California for the 
disasters that nature has directed at them.
  I recognize that there are tides in the life of men and women and 
tides in the life of nations. There are times when a nation is faced 
with a major threat to its security, a war. There are times when a 
nation is faced with an unusual economic circumstance--the Great 
Depression of the 1930's--in which it must take steps in order to 
protect itself and its people.
  Mr. President, that indicates that there must be some other times in 
that cycle when, to use the Biblical admonition, you have 7 years in 
which you can begin to store away grain for those difficult times.
  Frankly, I would suggest that this period of our Nation's life, 
February 1994, is one of those good times. We have just received a 
report of surging economic growth in this country, approaching 5 
percent growth in our Nation's product in the last 90 days. We do not 
have a great national war to face us. Our young men and women are at 
home engaged in peaceful activities. I think this would be a prudent 
time for us to begin to make a further downpayment on our economic 
future.
  Mr. President, I admire many qualities of our chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, only one of which is his enormous command of 
history with a sweep that begins before the Greeks and carries us to 
and beyond the present day. We each did draw our own lessons from what 
those personalities and events of history would be. I would hope that 
one of those lessons would be that in a time as we are today, there is 
an opportunity to being to prepare to strengthen our Nation for its 
future, and to begin the process of rebuilding our fiscal house to face 
the possibility of the future storms, hurricanes, and earthquakes.
  Thank you.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I still have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator applauds the amendment that he supports. He 
speaks of the $90-some billion in savings that he claims would accrue 
from the adoption of his amendment. The Senator was not on the floor, I 
guess, when I blew that amendment apart by pointing out that it would 
do no such thing, and would result in no such savings. A good many of 
those alleged savings have already been captured. Some of the money 
were never appropriated that this amendment takes credit for saving.
  I thank the distinguished Senator for his reference to history. But I 
am afraid that his amendment would not achieve the savings that it is 
purported to save. With all kindness, all that I can say about the 
amendment is that it is a phony amendment. It does not make those 
savings. I will not go through it again. The record has been made. I 
have already explained in great detail why the amendment does not do 
what it purports to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Kerrey 
amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill.
  This amendment makes a number of broad proposals to cut programs, 
reduce cost-of-living adjustments, and eliminate or reduce pay 
increases currently covered in law. Many of these proposals are 
restatements or variants of the Vice President's National Performance 
Review.
  The proposals fall under the jurisdiction of several different 
committees of the Senate. The Senate has structured process under which 
legislative proposals are reviewed and considered. We must not, in the 
heat of debate on a dire emergency supplemental appropriations, approve 
legislation which has not had the benefit of deliberate review.
  Mr. President, my colleague from Nebraska implies that one cannot 
oppose this amendment and support a balanced budget amendment. I 
disagree. I have long supported a balanced budget amendment, but I also 
support giving that proposal a full debate within the rules of the 
Senate. It seems to me that offering this amendment to the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill may be viewed as an attempt to gain 
quick approval of a complex set of program cuts. If these cuts are 
sound proposals and will realize the savings described by its sponsors, 
then they will stand the test of review and debate in the appropriate 
committees of the Senate.
  The Senator from Nebraska said that this proposal has been public 
knowledge for several months. Mr. President, there are any number of 
proposals floating at any given time. Some are serious efforts and 
others are only attempts to determine support for an idea. I have not 
carefully reviewed this amendment. It was not submitted to the Senate 
for consideration until a few hours ago.
  After a quick review, I find that there are reductions to military 
retirement cost-of-living adjustments. Mr. President, this proposal 
will impose a triple hit on military retirees. This group has already 
seen their retirement reduced by past pay freezes and caps. Last year, 
we delayed their COLA's which amounts to a surtax of $2,000 to $3,000 
dollars per retiree. This amendment will further reduce the retirement 
benefit which these people have earned. The amendment will affect 
thousands of military retirees and the Armed Services Committee must 
have the opportunity to consider the impacts and alternatives.
  Mr. President, the amendment proposes to close the Uniformed Services 
University of Health Sciences. This was also proposed in the National 
Performance Review. The Armed Services Committee is planning a hearing 
to examine this issue in detail. The Surgeons General of the military 
services all oppose closing this unique institution. I have received 
letters from a large number of distinguished physicians urging me to 
oppose any effort to close the university. These are civilian doctors, 
many of whom chair departments at prominent medical schools across the 
country. The Congressional Budget Office provided initial cost data on 
the university to the Vice President's National Performance Review task 
force. In a subsequent analysis, CBO has revised the cost data and as a 
result the savings to be realized are substantially reduced. So far 
reviews of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 
have ignored the less tangible benefit to the university. This military 
medical school is similar to our military academies in that the 
graduates are highly trained military medical professionals. They learn 
much more that just medicine, they are trained in the unique aspects of 
medicine in a military environment. Additionally, the university 
provides the Department of Defense a state of the art medical research 
facility which can focus on areas of concern to the military. Civilian 
medical research centers tend to concentrate on problems which have the 
potential for application to the larger civilian community. We should 
not close this national resource as part of a budget reduction plan 
without affording the Armed Services Committee the opportunity to 
determine the advisability of such closure.
  Mr. President, I have only cited 2 of the 57 proposals in the 
amendment as examples. I chose these two because they fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee where I am the ranking 
minority member. We should not abdicate the standing procedures of the 
Senate in a rush to enact budget cuts which may or may not realize the 
projected savings.
  Mr. President, I told the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday that they cannot allow their 
budgeteers to make decisions which may yield short-term savings but 
may, in fact, incur long-term cost. I think this amendment falls victim 
to a similar fate and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues in 
commending the chairman of the committee for presenting to the Senate 
in graphic clarity the shortcomings of the Kerrey amendment.
  I was especially impressed by the way he presented the case in which 
he demonstrated that of the $94 billion, $78 billion has already been 
invested, either because the funds have not been appropriated, and 
therefore savings cannot be made, or that funds have been reduced in 
other accounts. Third, they have been set aside for programs such as 
the crime bill or the health program.

  I was also impressed by his recollection of history at the time of 
our founding, and that brought to mind a little footnote in history 
that I am constantly reminding myself of. When Gen. George Washington 
became President of the United States in 1789, he did so by giving up 
his command of the Continental Army, which at that time came to 30,000. 
And with 30,000 men from the 13 colonies, he was able to defeat the 
formidable British forces. But then when he became President, these 
forces returned to their homes.
  The following year, he addressed the Congress of the United States 
and requested that funds be appropriated so that the United States 
could have a standing army--not a large army, but an army of less than 
2,000 men--to guard our borders, to protect our shores from enemy 
infiltration, because the President was still concerned about the 
ambitions of the British. But then the Congress, as we are doing today, 
began debating the President's proposal; and when the dust settled, the 
Congress appropriated funds to pay for a Continental Army made up of 80 
men--25 stationed at Pittsburgh, headquarters of the Continental Army, 
and 55 at West Point, to begin the military academy.
  Historians now tell us that the British watched this with great 
surprise, that the victors suddenly dismantled themselves. So we had 
another war. The British felt that we were not eager to do battle, so 
we were faced with the War of 1812. In that war, Mr. President, I am 
certain you remember that this building was demolished.
  I cite that to suggest that there are times when funds will have to 
be appropriated through borrowing. But, if I may, I would like to get 
back to the amendment and, if I may, I would like to address proposal 
No. 48: Eliminate the Uniformed Services University of The Health 
Sciences. According to this table, projected savings, 5 years, $300 
million.
  First, the CBO has not come out with any numbers. The numbers that I 
have seen would suggest that this is more than double what it should 
be.
  Mr. President, in the mid-1970's, there were many in the Congress and 
throughout this land who were quite concerned with the condition of our 
military. That is when words such as ``hollow army'' came to be. For 
example, it may surprise Americans to realize this today, but during 
that period over one-third of our naval vessels were considered not 
ready for combat, not because the vessels were old and decrepit, some 
were brand new, Mr. President. They were not ready for combat because 
we did not have personnel--personnel capable of running the ships.
  In recruiting, we were having a terrible time. I am certain you have 
heard of the five categories in the military personnel system: Category 
1, the genius; category 2, the college grad; category 3, the high 
school grad; category 4, less than that; category 5 would be the 
retarded. Up until recently, we have not been able to attract 
volunteers into our services in which we have been able to get a 
multitude of categories 3 and 2, college grads and high school 
graduates, and less than 1 percent category 4. Admittedly, there are 
positions in the military where category 4 may suffice. But in the 
1970's, over 30 percent of our volunteers were category 4.
  Thank God we were not involved in a major war at that time, because 
we would have had to depend upon category 4's to stand in harm's way in 
our behalf, men and women who would have had difficulty reading 
instruction sheets and understanding what those words meant.
  In the same sense, during that period a study was conducted and it 
was shown that we were in a very dangerous position, very simply 
because we did not have adequate medical support. We were not able to 
recruit and retain physicians. It was not that simple. The report 
showed that we could not go into any war because we did not have the 
appropriate medical personnel. How can we send men and women out into 
combat without medical forces? But that was a condition. As a result, 
we established two programs: One is the scholarship program and the 
other is the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences.
  In Desert Storm, 60 percent of the physicians who served our men and 
women there were graduates. I will just give you a set of statistics 
here, because recruiting and retention are very important.
  The class of 1981: Retention percentage of physicians, graduates of 
this medical school, was 92.4 percent; 92.4 percent of the men and 
women who went through this school system are still in uniform--92.4 
percent.
  Let us take the same year for the Air Force academy, in which we 
spend more money than for physicians, because we need pilots. The class 
of 1981: 54.5 percent are still in service.
  There are those who would wish to close this up, because they say 
that the cost of training is higher than most of the medical schools in 
the United States. There are 126 medical schools. Of that number, 
according to the calculation of those opposing this medical school, 
two-thirds of the 126 can do the business with less money. But, Mr. 
President, this is the only medical school that trains our men and 
women in military medicine, men and women who make military their 
career, men and women who serve longer than other physicians.
  I commend those who go through the scholarship program, but it is 
estimated that only about 6 percent of those who go through the 
scholarship program serve until retirement.
  Our studies indicate that from the medical school of the Uniformed 
Services University of Health Sciences, over 41 percent will serve 
until retirement. That is an extraordinary record. It is an 
extraordinary record.
  Then, add to this a little item: the second and third year students 
of the medical school are called upon to serve at Bethesda and at 
Walter Reed at no additional cost to the taxpayer. Without this medical 
school, we would have to make that up by hiring doctors.
  Yes, Mr. President, all of our medical hospitals have civilian 
doctors and we have to pay them twice or three times what we pay the 
military doctors.
  Add to this another dimension: Of the 126 medical schools, only one 
does not receive special grants from NIH or places like that. All 
medical schools, those in your State and your State, receive grants 
from Government sources. That brings down the cost of operations.
  But when you add the fact that this program has addressed very 
effectively the problems of recruiting and retention, that alone is a 
major savings to the Defense Department.
  We have a career corps of men and women who are at all times ready to 
serve.
  So, Mr. President, if you are thinking about savings, then item 48 is 
not a saving. You cut this out and it will add to the cost of running 
the Defense Department.
  I could go on, Mr. President, to suggest other statistics. I will 
just end with one.
  When you include all the graduates from day one of this Uniformed 
Services University, 97 percent are still in uniform--97 percent.
  It may not impress you, but, Mr. President, I think we should ask 
ourselves how many of us are willing to tell our sons and daughters, 
``You should make the military your career.'' It is not easy, Mr. 
President.
  After all, in Desert Storm none of us had a son or daughter in Desert 
Storm because 1 percent of America has stepped forward, volunteered, 
and told us, ``We are willing to stand in harm's way for you.'' Now, if 
they are willing to stand in harm's way, then the least we can do is to 
provide them with the best.
  All of us here in our own way support the Defense Department, even 
those who vote against defense spending. I watch with interest my 
colleagues who constantly vote against the Defense Department stand up 
and they would be the first to say, ``Send our troops to Bosnia.'' 
``Send our troops to Somalia.''
  It costs money, Mr. President. In fact, we have $1.2 billion in the 
emergency supplemental bill that we are considering at this moment to 
pay for the cost of Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq. It is not cheap.
  If we want these men and women to step forward, then I say, Mr. 
President, the least we can do is to provide them with the best.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate most of 
the afternoon in my office. I commend all my colleagues. I think it has 
been a good discussion.
  I commend the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who I know is 
realistic and sincere about wanting to move forward, but I am troubled 
by some aspects of his amendment.
  In particular, we have already voted on one-third of the savings to 
pay for the crime bill.
  And it is not just in the crime bill. As I understand the last count, 
this spending cut was from seven different bills. So I think this would 
be the eighth.
  A lot of us certainly want to cut spending--and I know the Senator 
from Nebraska is one and the Senator from Colorado is one and certainly 
other cosponsors are--but I do not believe it is realistic, because I 
think we are going to use that money for the crime bill. Maybe the 
Senator has better information.
  There are a lot of things in this bill I support. In fact, I think 
about 19 of the provisions are identical to a bill that I will 
introduce tomorrow with 17 cosponsors that would cut spending by $50 
billion over 5 years. There are two things that distinguish the bill 
that we are working on--and we hope to have bipartisan support; I would 
certainly ask my colleagues to take a look at it --that are different 
from the amendment that is pending.
  We do not double or triple count the savings. It is an amendment we 
have worked on with Senator Hutchison, Senator Roth, and others on our 
side. As I said, we certainly welcome colleagues on both sides. So we 
do not count things that have already been approved for other purposes.
  It does lock in the savings for the deficit reduction. And I am not 
certain the pending amendment does.
  Because the pending amendment fails to lock in the savings for 
deficit reduction, there is absolutely no guarantee that these cuts 
will not be used to finance spending increases elsewhere in the budget.
  Finally, I think when it comes to entitlements, I think I agree with 
the Senator from Nebraska on part B Medicare. I have been talking about 
it for years. If we cannot do something about this, we cannot do much 
else. We should at least take a look at part B Medicare.
  The President has created a bipartisan commission to study 
entitlements. The Senator from Nebraska will be chairman of that 
commission and the Senator from Missouri, Senator Danforth, will be 
vice chairman of that commission. I know that they are going to take a 
hard look. If it is up to Senator Danforth and Senator Kerrey, there 
are going to be some very difficult choices made on entitlements.
  I read today that the next generation is going to have a tax rate of 
82 percent--82 percent--if you were born after 1990, I think it was. We 
are talking about a big, big tax bite. Who knows whether it is accurate 
or not. But it is 82 percent. The bottom line is we are not going to 
reduce that amount unless we deal with entitlements.
  So I think the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Missouri 
certainly have their work cut out for them. We are prepared to move 
ahead with that commission.
  I am not certain what will happen, but we will offer an amendment. If 
this amendment passes, it may not be necessary to have another 
amendment. But we have a supplemental amendment just to pay for this, 
for all the discretionary.
  And we believe it is responsible. We believe it could have some broad 
support. It is $6.617 billion in fiscal year 1994 budgetary authority 
and $1.9742 billion in fiscal year 1994 discretionary outlays. We 
delete the emergency designation because if you pay for it, you do not 
need the emergency designation and it fully pays for the supplemental 
with spending cuts. I will be talking about that amendment later in the 
event this amendment should fail.
  So I hope we might defeat this amendment and move on to another 
amendment that some of us are prepared to offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, indeed the double 
accounting problem is one we footnoted. The Senator from Colorado dealt 
with that earlier. We included it only because it has not been enacted 
into law. We were not trying to hide anything from anybody. We fully 
disclosed that $26 billion might end up being double counted depending 
on what ends up happening. We indicate with our amendment, if the crime 
bill passes, this $26 billion will be used as we have all--or most of 
us have--voted earlier.
  I am going to make, really, some closing statements, I hope. I think 
Senator Lieberman wants to make some statements. Then I am prepared to 
go to a vote.
  The distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, the President 
pro tempore, is an accomplished fiddler. I have heard him and know this 
to be the case.
  He is also an accomplished whittler. I just saw him do that to our 
amendment, cutting it down to size substantially, not only with the $26 
billion that the Republican leader just mentioned but some other items. 
I would like to just take a few minutes to put a little wood back on 
this proposal.
  First of all, I disagree with Secretary Shalala's statement that the 
proposals which we have, having to do with Medicare, kill all the 
health care proposals we have in the Senate to date. First of all, I 
assume the only proposal the Secretary is concerned about is the 
President's. So I just strongly disagree with that, because until and 
unless we demonstrate to the American people we have the ability to say 
``no,'' we are not going to be able to get their confidence. At least I 
do not see the confidence coming from the State of Nebraska.
  Maybe the confidence is coming someplace else in this body, but not 
to me until we demonstrate that we have the capacity to say ``no.'' We 
cannot provide an unlimited blank check on health care. We cannot do 
it. My demand, what I want right now, and what I suspect most people 
want, is in excess typically of what we can afford. I have to have some 
constraint. Right now, we have precious little. And this amendment 
deals with it--$30 billion.
  It does not feel good; it is tough. We have had lots of people 
calling and writing and saying they object to those proposals and other 
pieces that we have, having to do with the COLA's in particular. But it 
is very real. As to the overhead, I think the Senator from Colorado 
dealt with that very effectively. The $21 billion in here is for 
administrative savings having to do with nonpersonnel items.
  It still leaves us--let us assume we pass the crime bill, an 
assumption that frankly we cannot, honestly, be 100 percent certain of. 
But let us assume we do. It is still a $68 billion package. It still, I 
think, demonstrates why we have a problem with deficit reduction.
  If $90 billion is the total we are able to do, I understand, in order 
to balance the budget--and we are going to have a big debate on the 
balanced budget amendment--to balance the budget takes $600 billion 
over 5 years. We are talking about $90 billion.
  So I just say, with all due respect, this amendment is a relatively 
modest proposal that requires us to say ``no'' to people; to put some 
constraints and restraints on our desire to please, our desire to make 
people happy.
  Finally, let me say, Mr. President, one of the things that is really 
becoming obvious to me is that we do need a debate, an honest debate 
about should we be borrowing money or not. I listened with great 
interest to the exchange between the distinguished President pro 
tempore and the Senator from Florida about Thomas Jefferson and the 
Louisiana Purchase and $15 million, I believe it was, that Thomas 
Jefferson laid down for that. The question was, did we get our money's 
worth? I will say we did. First of all, had Thomas Jefferson not 
purchased that, the current President of the United States would be 
saying ``Vive la France'' instead of ``God bless America,'' since 
Arkansas was included in that purchase. We got a bargain, obviously.
  I have 56 items to cut. I do not have the Louisiana Purchase on here. 
Included in my 56 items is not Hope, AR. I am not buying any real 
estate in these deals. I am not buying anything that I consider to be 
so overriding a value that I am willing to say to my children we are 
going to borrow money to do it.
  I do not expect, as I said, given the opposition we have seen last 
year to Penny-Kasich and the opposition to this proposal, that this 
amendment is likely to pass. I hope it does, frankly. But I suspect 
there will be all sorts of reasons cited to have to vote against it.
  One thing this amendment illustrates is we do need a changed process 
in the Senate. I mean this with all due respect to people who have been 
around here a lot longer than I have. Understand, earlier I said I wish 
we were not attaching this thing to the dire emergency supplemental 
appropriation. We are doing that because the rescission bill was merged 
with the dire emergency supplemental, and we are ready to vote on this 
thing as soon as I stop talking, and the Senator from Connecticut is to 
speak in closing.
  But understand, when we want to supplementally appropriate money in 
this situation, we have an expedited procedure to do it. We move a bill 
to the floor and appropriate the money, as we ought to. California 
needs the money. But imagine if we had an expedited procedure dealing 
with budget cuts. If the Senate Budget Committee reported an emergency 
and dire supplemental cutting amendment and had us come to the floor 
and debate it, I think it would be a very useful exercise, a very 
important way for us to make spending reductions and exercise our 
constitutional authority and responsibility. I think we need a 
mechanism that permits us to come in the full Senate and debate where 
it is we would cut, and defend those things we think ought to be 
included.
  The Senator from Hawaii, a great patriot in this country and a man 
who understands the need to keep our defenses strong in a whole range 
of ways, gave a very eloquent defense of a particular project that, by 
coincidence, the President himself has on his rescission bill. But it 
was a very eloquent and I must say persuasive argument for this 
particular item. We need that kind of debate.
  The people, I think, want us to. They do not want us to come back and 
say: I will give you one more procedural reason why we cannot cut 
spending. I have no procedural reasons I will be able to cite that can 
stop me from appropriating money, but when it comes to spending less, I 
have all kinds of procedural excuses.
  I as well want to pay a high compliment to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and the ranking member. They have been very 
patient. They have been very forthright in what they want to do. And 
they have been very fair in accommodating our need to express our 
views.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I believe that an additional $94 billion in spending cuts, on top of 
the spending cuts required to comply with last year's deficit reduction 
package, would jeopardize our recovery.
  As every resident of my State knows, the economic recovery has yet to 
filter down to our State and our region. This package would undermine 
the economic progress that other States have recently experienced, and 
that Connecticut dearly hopes to see soon.
  Two weeks ago, Congressional Budget Office Director Robert Reischauer 
testified that there has been a cumulative improvement in the deficit 
of $670 billion for the 6-year period from 1993-98. The deficit 
reduction package enacted last year is the largest single reason for 
the dramatically improved deficit picture. An improving economy is 
another.
  The fiscal 1995 budget submitted by President Clinton on Monday 
reduces discretionary spending by $7 billion below the level of outlays 
enacted last year. That's the first time in a quarter of a century that 
discretionary spending has declined below the previous year's level.
  When I questioned Dr. Reischauer about the impact of additional 
spending cut proposals, he stated that if too ambitious a package of 
deficit reduction were undertaken too soon, we might very well 
jeopardize the kind of economic growth we are currently experiencing.
  I also oppose this package because it would compromise health care 
reform, and in the process our long-term hopes of reducing the deficit 
and the national debt.
  How would it do so? By using the same health care savings the Clinton 
administration proposes to fund health care reform for deficit 
reduction.
  This package would take $30 billion in health care savings out of the 
hands of health care and use it instead to reduce the deficit.
  CBO predicts that Medicare and Medicaid costs will climb steadily by 
10 percent or more every year over the next 10 years--raising health 
care costs from 3.7 percent of GDP in 1994 to 6.3 percent in 2004.
  Controlling health care spending is by far the best hope we have of 
reducing our long-term deficit problems. And this amendment perversely 
affects our ability to do so by compromising our efforts to reform our 
current system.
  I am very pleased with the level of honesty we have witnessed over 
the last year on economic and budget issues. For the first time in my 
memory, OMB, CBO, and the blue chip financial economists are using the 
same economic predictors and assumptions. The administration is using 
no rosy economic scenarios.
  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of this amendment.
  Here's the most obvious example. The largest single cut in the 
package--$26.7 billion--more than one-fourth of the entire package--is 
the same well-worn Federal work force employment cuts recommended by 
the President and Vice President in the National Performance Review.
  The Vice President recommended a 252,000 person reduction in the 
Federal workforce and the administration has stated its desire to use 
any associated savings for deficit reduction. The administration wants 
to incorporate the savings from these cuts as a means to meet the 
spending caps required by last year's deficit reduction package.
  The authors of this amendment, however, say that they are proposing 
an additional $94 billion in spending cuts and providing the specific 
cuts necessary to achieve there goal.
  But, they're double counting cuts the administration recommended, and 
plans to use just to meet our present deficit reduction plans.
  As many of my colleagues know, there is another problem with this 
well-worn personnel savings. While the administration proposes to use 
the savings accruing from their recommended personnel cuts for deficit 
reduction, this body voted overwhelmingly to use this money for a 
different purpose.
  Last November, the Senate approved an amendment to the crime bill to 
use these same personnel savings to fund a violent crime reduction 
trust fund.
  I received a letter from the six lead sponsors of this amendment this 
morning. Each of them voted to support the use of the personnel savings 
for the establishment of the violent crime reduction trust fund.
  So what is it--deficit reduction as the administration recommends, 
double-counted deficit reduction as the sponsors of this amendment 
recommend, or crime reduction as 94 members of this body recommended by 
supporting the violent crime trust fund in November?
  In my view, we should use the funds for a violent crime trust fund--
that's why I voted for the Byrd crime amendment in November, and one of 
the reasons I'm voting against this amendment.
  If we use the personnel cut savings for crime reduction--as I believe 
we should, we will need to find other spending cuts to meet the 
spending cuts required by the deficit reduction package. I will work 
with my colleagues and the administration to accomplish this goal.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the concern of my colleague 
from Nebraska regarding the need to reduce the federal budget deficit. 
Reducing the deficit is a high priority for President Clinton in his 
fiscal year 1995 budget proposal. Nevertheless, I disagree with many 
provisions of this amendment, particularly the Medicare cuts, and I 
urge rejection of the amendment.
  The Kerrey plan contains three Medicare proposals, all similar to 
proposals in the President's Health Security Act. The three Medicare 
proposals include a coinsurance on clinical laboratory services, a 
coinsurance on home health services, and means-testing of Medicare Part 
B premiums.
  These Medicare reductions are proposed outside the context of 
comprehensive health reform. It would be unwise to adopt this approach 
to Medicare in the midst of our concerted effort to achieve 
comprehensive health reform. Such reform that is urgently needed to 
provide Americans with the health security they need and deserve.
  The $31 billion in proposed Medicare savings in the Kerrey-Brown plan 
is almost one third of the total savings in the proposal. If these 
savings are taken now, it will be more difficult to finance any 
significant health reform without broad-based tax increases or even 
deeper cuts in Medicare.
  It is not only the President's Health Reform Plan that stands to lose 
if these savings are taken now. A number of other health reform 
proposals now before the Senate call for savings from almost identical 
Medicare cuts.
  In large part, it is health care spending that is driving the Federal 
deficit. That spending spiral can only be controlled through 
fundamental change in both the private and public health care sectors. 
Tightening government spending without simultaneous reforms in the 
private market will only increase cost-shifting to the private sector 
and create new problems for the millions of elderly Americans who 
depend on Medicare for health care.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment 
introduced by my friend and colleague from Nebraska and my friend and 
colleague from Colorado. I do so after having spent a lot of time over 
the last several months working with them and other Members of this 
body from both parties, focused on this question of how we can reduce 
the Federal deficit.
  A number of us feel that while the budget plan passed by Congress 
last August achieved some deficit reduction, some spending cuts, there 
was a lot more that we could do before we could rest and say we had 
worked as hard as we could to bring this Federal Government back into 
fiscal balance.
  A lot has happened since then, since last summer. Here we are in 
February of 1994. I must say that pushing forward efforts to further 
reduce the deficit, may seem counterintuitive; these efforts may seem 
out of sync; they may seem to be going against the current. Because, 
after all, people can say, and correctly so, the Federal deficit 
projections are way down: more than $100 billion below what had been 
projected for this coming fiscal year, fiscal year 1995. The budget the 
President submitted just a few days ago has a projection of a $176 
billion deficit.
  The President has made some tough decisions in that budget. I commend 
him for it. He made some choices. He has a proactive program of 
investment in our future, creating jobs, and helping to support the 
less advantaged children in this country. And he did not do what many 
before him have done, which is to simply add those expenditures onto 
everything else. He made choices. As a result of the budget bill we 
passed last summer, and he had to cut in some areas to come up with the 
funds to support those choices and still stay under the budget caps we 
had set.
  Today, we are considering an emergency supplemental bill. This bill 
also contains about $3.4 billion in rescissions. Those of us who 
support additional cuts in the budget felt that amending this 
rescission bill was truly the most appropriate vehicle on which to 
offer our additional cuts.
  Why do we go forward? Mr. President, we go forward because there is a 
lot more to do before we can rest. There is an old expression, the day 
is short and there is much work to be done, and, boy, is that ever true 
when it comes to the deficit.
  Go home to your folks--I have done it in Connecticut--and tell them 
that things are moving in the right direction when it comes to the 
deficit, but do not anybody expect a round of applause when you say to 
the people of America: ``Our deficit next year, if all goes well, is 
only going to be $176 billion.'' That is a lot of money that we owe. 
What is more, it is not just we who owe it today. It is our kids and 
our grandkids who are going to pay.
  There have been a couple of references on the floor today to a table 
that appears in the President's budget. This table estimates the impact 
of Federal deficits on our children and grandchildren. It is 
astounding. The most modest estimates say that when the kids grow up, 
they are going to be spending 50 percent of their earnings paying 
taxes, a lot of it having to do with interest on the Federal deficit.
  One estimate, as the Republican leader said a while ago, goes as high 
as 82 percent of their income. That is irresponsible. We got into this 
hole--and it is a deep national hole. It saps our national strength and 
deprives us of the ability to meet some of the pressing needs that we 
have today. You do not need to be a Nobel Prize-winning economist to 
figure out how we got here. We got here because we spent more than we 
were taking in.
  There are only two ways to get out of the hole: One is to raise 
taxes, and the other is to cut spending. Last year we raised taxes, 
substantial taxes, on those who make the most in this country. I 
certainly do not want to raise any more taxes. I see how hard people 
are working in this country. I see hard-working husbands and wives 
working hard at two and three jobs just to make enough to make ends 
meet, just enough to be able to pay the mortgage, just enough to send 
their kids to college, just enough to afford health care. I do not want 
to take any more from them in increased taxes. It is not fair; it is 
not right.
  So the only reasonable alternative that we have now to deal with this 
enormous Federal debt is to cut spending.
  I have been here for about 5 years now, Mr. President. It does not 
take long to figure out that we have created a monster in the Federal 
Government. It does a lot of good things, but it is enormous: A budget 
of $1.5 trillion--it is hard to imagine that amount of money. It is 
hard to imagine a billion dollars. It is hard for some to imagine a 
million dollars. But $1.5 trillion? How can we achieve any comfort 
about our ability to manage the expenditure of that amount of money?
  I am privileged to serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee of 
this Senate. We worked hard on Government oversight, we worked hard to 
get people out there--inspectors general, chief financial officers--to 
go over Federal expenditures to make sure that we are eliminating 
waste, fraud and abuse, but there is a lot of work yet to be done. That 
is what this amendment represents: The result of months of effort by 
the Members of this Chamber of both parties and their staffs who worked 
with, I think, real commitment to see whether we could find some more 
in the way of cuts to further reduce the Federal deficit, knowing that 
our work is not done.
  We have come up with this package. It is $94 billion. It is real and 
it is up front. We have been criticized for using money we spent in the 
crime bill--$26 billion used in the crime bill, but the crime bill is 
not passed. We said right here very clearly that if the crime bill 
passes, take it out. Let us reduce $94 billion to $68 billion. That is 
a pretty significant accomplishment right there.
  Look down these, one after another. We have gone over every agency. 
We whittled away. We made hard choices. Frankly, there are things in 
here I wish I did not have to support cutting. But unless each of us 
accepts some cuts that we do not like, we will never get this problem 
under congtrol. We cannot afford to keep adding new ideas and programs 
without looking carefully to see which ideas and programs we can do 
without.
  We have gone over in some detail--and I challenge my colleagues to 
take a look at the detail--we have made some tough cuts here and we 
have begun with ourselves, beginning with our own salaries, beginning 
with our own retirement plans, beginning with our legislative 
appropriations, beginning with our mailing privileges. We have cut all 
that. We have asked some of public employees here. We have changed some 
of the rules in the future for new hires as to when they receive 
COLA's, at what age. We have cut unnecessary programs.
  I must say, in response to my distinguished friend from Hawaii and 
the Senator from South Carolina, these cuts are very light on defense 
and they are because the defense budget has been dramatically cut in 
recent years, to the point where I worry about our ability to protect 
our national security in the years ahead. You are not going to find any 
irresponsible defense cuts in this package.
  Mr. President, $94 billion. We hear a lot from our constituents about 
the balanced budget amendment. I have previously been reluctant about 
the balanced budget amendment. But unless we prove that we can make 
cuts like the ones that are in this amendment--the balanced budget 
amendment, blunt an instrument as it is, begins to look like an 
alternative that we have to consider.
  So I hope our colleagues will look at this bill. I appreciate what my 
friend from Nebraska has said about the process here. We do need a dire 
emergency spending cut proposal, just as we have this dire emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill. The truth is our deficit is a dire 
emergency.
  The Senator from Nebraska and I last year actually put together a 
proposal which would have created a base closure-type commission 
process for cutting Federal programs based on the theory which too 
often is proven real around here: That every program has a constituency 
once it exists and every constituency finds its way to Congress. So it 
is tough to cut any program. It is part of the reason why we created 
the base closure model. Every base has a constituency and every base 
exists in somebody's district.
  So the Senator from Nebraska and I made a proposal: Let us create a 
commission with outside experts. Let them go through the Federal 
Government and decide what should be cut, make its recommendations to 
the committees of Congress and then bring it before us on an up-or-
down, take-it-or-leave-it vote.
  Maybe that amounted to a dire emergency spending cut proposal, but it 
did not make its way very far through the process here, I am afraid. It 
got whittled down. There is a shell of that proposal that actually sits 
on the Senate calendar as a way to possibly accelerate our handling of 
the recommendations of the National Performance Review.
  So, Mr. President, I guess I will say this finally. I am not sure 
this amendment will be adopted, but I am proud to have been part of the 
effort that led to it. I hope our colleagues will take it as the 
serious proposal that it is. I am confident that a lot of the parts of 
this amendment, while they may not be adopted on this floor, are going 
to come back and be adopted. And that is the way it ought to be. I hope 
that our colleagues will also take it as a statement by this group, 
this small group, of deficit warriors that we are going to keep 
working, and we are going to keep trying to find additional ways to cut 
spending. We are going to continue our work to bring credible, 
responsible cuts to the Senate floor. We are making some progress on 
deficit reduction, but in the interests of our children and 
grandchildren, let alone the health of our economy and country today, 
we have a long way to go before we rest. That is what this amendment, 
its 56 components, which are real, and the $94 billion in cuts that it 
contains, represents.

  Mr. President, I ask that when the votes are taken, they be taken by 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1441

          (Purpose: To rescind funds provided in P.L. 103-139)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the 
form of a substitute for the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1441.

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

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       ``Sec.   . Of the funds provided in P.L. 103-139 to the 
     Department of Defense, $18,620,000,000 is rescinded only from 
     Title III and Title IV: Provided, that none of the funds 
     provided in this or any other Act shall be available for 
     research, development, testing and evaluation or procurement 
     of the F-22 aircraft program, the F-18 aircraft program, the 
     C-17 aircraft program, the JSTARS aircraft program, the 
     Comanche helicopter program, the DDG-51 ship program, the 
     CVN-76 program, the TRIDENT II D-5 missile program, the 
     Ballistic Missile Defense program, the New Attack Submarine 
     program, and the B-2 aircraft program.''.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, first I would like to commend the 
leadership of Senator Kerrey and Senator Brown and their associates for 
raising this issue, because I do not believe that we can ever 
overdebate or overdiscuss the spending priorities of this country.
  Mr. President, as I listened to some of the explanations on the floor 
about the deficit and how to conquer the deficit, I am reminded of the 
Reagan years. I used to be invited, as chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, down to the White House with the Republican leadership and 
often with the bipartisan leadership, and we would discuss the various 
problems relating to the deficit, because the President of the United 
States, Mr. Reagan, had run on a ticket of reducing the deficit and 
getting control of the deficit. And that was sort of the Republican 
gospel at that time, in 1980.
  But in every one of those meetings, when we got into the President's 
budget and his proposals to increase military spending, which was one 
of the highest increases in modern history--perhaps our entire 
history--when we got that linked back to the deficit, there was sort of 
an attitude or a viewpoint that it was only the nonmilitary, nondefense 
discretionary spending that created the deficit.
  Therefore, the full focus of trying to reduce the deficit was on the 
proposals made by the Reagan administration to abolish the Department 
of Education, to abolish the department of environment and energy, and 
all these others that had to do with programs that were of lesser 
priority. It was to abolish programs relating to education, to abolish 
programs relating to transportation, and all of the human focus 
programs because that was what was causing the deficit, the 
nonmilitary, nondefense discretionary spending. The whole focus of the 
Reagan administration was on escalating the military, diminishing the 
nonmilitary discretionary funding.
  Now, today, it is interesting that in this pending amendment that I 
have substituted, look at the items listed in this amendment. We are 
going to reduce the number of dollars spent for public television, the 
matter of veterans' medical care, cuts in legal aid to the poor, public 
library construction, on and on--nonmilitary, nondefense discretionary 
spending programs, again the Reagan philosophy. That is sort of deja 
vu.
  One item in the 050, military spending, has to do--and that is in the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water, not the Defense Subcommittee--with 
reducing the defense environmental cleanup.
  Now, maybe because I come from a State that has a strong tradition of 
environmental concerns and values, and because I come from a State that 
borders on the worst mess that we have in this whole country, namely 
Hanford, we are vitally concerned about cleanup, environmental cleanup 
of toxic materials. And the one even closely related to the military in 
my view is the wrong cut to make in this matter of defense 
environmental cleanup.
  Now, Mr. President, let us get a baseline of comparison for what we 
are really proposing to do. First of all, let us look at the 
allocations by categories in our current fiscal year and the first full 
year of the Clinton budget: 17.8 percent of this is allocated for 
defense purposes; 16.5 for nondefense discretionary; 50.3 percent for 
mandatory spending, entitlements primarily; 14 percent for net interest 
on the debt; about 1.4 percent for international, which includes 
foreign aid and the conduct of foreign relations.
  So, in effect, what we see here is one of the smallest of the 
baselines being given the full focus on reducing Federal spending.
  I am not saying that there are not programs in the nondefense 
discretionary area that we could not cut. I could enumerate a number of 
the jobs programs we could abolish or consolidate. I had a study made 
by the GSA recently of the overlapping, duplicating of veterans' 
programs and job training programs. It is phenomenal what we do in 
duplication for the same constituency, providing similar programs.
  This administration has also suggested that we consolidate some of 
those educational programs. It is not a question of either/or. It is a 
question of where we gain a balance in terms of our long term and our 
short term. I feel that some of these programs that are being reduced 
in this particular effort to reduce spending, even though they are 
exclusively in the nondefense, nonmilitary area, are investments for 
the long term, the long range, the long view.
  I think also, Mr. President, we have to understand that in our 
current military budget spending, even though it has been coming down 
from the high Reagan years, we are still in a defense posture and a 
military strategy of carrying on two wars simultaneously, at the same 
time having a reserve behind that ability to carry on two simultaneous 
wars. The strategy is still based upon the existence of the Soviet 
Union, the threat, the competition of the Soviet Union.
  To further illustrate this, Mr. President, let me take figures from a 
chart here from the Institute for International and Strategic Studies. 
Let me just read the national military budgets of nations of our world 
today. I will not read all the statistics, but I wish to place this in 
the Record with unanimous consent to do so at this point in my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               MILITARY BUDGETS OF MAJOR ALLIES, PARTNERS               
                 [1993 figures, in billions of dollars]                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Defense 
                          Country                               budget  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan.......................................................        39.7
France......................................................        35.8
United Kingdom..............................................        35.2
Germany.....................................................        31.2
Russia......................................................        29.1
Italy.......................................................        16.5
Canada......................................................         9.6
Netherlands.................................................         7.3
Spain.......................................................         6.5
Turkey......................................................         5.0
Greece......................................................         4.4
Norway......................................................         3.3
Belgium.....................................................         3.0
Denmark.....................................................         2.2
Portugal....................................................         1.5
Luxembourg..................................................         0.1
Iceland.....................................................         0.0
                                                             -----------
    Total...................................................       230.4
                                                             ===========
United States--fiscal year 1995.............................       263.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Military Balance, 1993-1994, Institute for International and
  Strategic Studies.                                                    


  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if you took Japan, France, United 
Kingdom, Germany, Russia, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, 
Turkey, Greece, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Luxembourg, 
Iceland, the total of all those countries' defense spending is $230 
billion.
  We are looking at, for fiscal year 1995 in the United States, $263 
billion. I think it has to be clearly seen in this statistic that we 
are carrying a global burden, a global leadership. I am not suggesting 
we bury our head in the sand and resort to isolationism. But can we not 
legitimately say in effect more of our Western allies, more of the NATO 
countries, more of the world, should carry whatever military 
requirements we have for stabilizing the world?
  Seventeen countries, and $230 billion, and these are in order. It 
starts with Japan, number one, $39.7 billion, and it goes down to 
Luxembourg with $100 million.
  But the point is that it includes the world, major expenditures of 
the world. Yet, we are spending almost $30 billion more than the 
aggregate of those 16 or 17 countries.
  It seems to me again that I am not suggesting that we are going to 
cut out all military spending. What I am suggesting in this amendment 
is that we rescind, in this fiscal year 1994 budget, $18.62 billion.
  That $18.62 billion, what I am suggesting that we rescind, because it 
has an immediate impact of saving $18 billion in this fiscal year 1994, 
if you want to project out to the 5 years to parallel the Kerrey-Brown 
amendment, it will raise to $96 billion, just about the same figure 
they are proposing to save, $94 billion. This amendment as a substitute 
is to propose to save $96 billion. What do we rescind both today, in 
terms of our commitments in 1994, and for the 5-year outlay paralleling 
the two amendments? The B-2, the F-22, the C-17, Jay Stars, Trident II, 
the D-5 missile, the destroyer 51, the aircraft carrier 76, the new 
attack submarine F-18, Comanche helicopter, and ballistic missile 
defense.
  I again want to point out that we have much military. I am not 
abolishing the whole military budget. I am taking those highly 
sophisticated weapons that were devised and designed at the time the 
Soviet Union was a major threat to the peace of the world and to the 
United States. Those geopolitics have been totally changed. We should 
update our military posture and strategy in the world of today, not the 
world of the Soviet Union and the bipolarization of communism or the 
American system of democracy or other Western powers.
  So it is that when we look at the way we reduce the deficit, this is 
not an argument between the Senators from Nebraska and Colorado and 
their associates and me or my view as to cutting Government spending. 
That is not at issue. What is at issue is what are your priorities? And 
we have a very clear listing of the priorities that have been created 
by this amendment. And I respect those priorities. I may not agree with 
them, but it is the right of any Senator to have his or her priorities. 
My substitute is simply another set of priorities that I have.
  I think it also illustrates that probably if we went around this 
body, we would have 100 different sets of priorities, at least in part. 
I see the Senator from Minnesota. I am sure that he and I would have 
closer priorities maybe than some other Senators. But, nevertheless, we 
would probably have our differences even as we sought to find ways to 
cut Government spending.
  So we are talking about priorities. I do not think that any of us can 
do other than understand the simple fact that whatever our priorities 
may be, whatever we support, Federal spending, all of those spending 
programs, add to the aggregate deficit. The Bonneville Power 
Administration: Whenever we put money into that budget, it represents, 
when you look at the totality of the budget, an added dollar to the 
Federal deficit.
  I think it is very interesting. A while ago, the Senator from 
Nebraska and the Senator from Florida were talking as supporters of 
this piece of legislation. I thought to myself, we were all three 
former Governors. And I have recollections that when the Senator from 
Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey, was the Governor of Nebraska, and the Senator 
from Florida, Mr. Graham, was the Governor of Florida, that we would 
receive resolutions and visitations from the National Governors 
Conference. Most generally, those Governors conferences were asking the 
Federal Government to help them and support them in fighting crime, in 
highway construction, in building the infrastructure--all of these 
things that are fundamental not only to those individual States, but 
collectively to the Union, to the Federal system.
  So they were asking for those moneys to be appropriated by the 
Federal Government for those State efforts or those State programs.
  I happen to be one of the few Senators that voted against revenue 
sharing proposed by President Nixon because my view was by making the 
Governors go through the back window to the Federal Treasury, from the 
standpoint that you separate the tax collecting responsibilities from 
the tax spending responsibilities, that you have not strengthened 
federalism, you have weakened federalism because you make the States 
more dependent upon the central Government. That is another story; that 
was another day.
  I am only saying that there are many requests we have from States 
today to help support the programs at the State level.
  I supported those appropriations to those disasters to Florida and to 
the Midwestern States, including States that are represented by Members 
of this body today. And I would do it again. But let us not forget that 
every dollar we appropriate for a disaster under an emergency clause 
adds to the Federal deficit. But the priority we placed on that of 
saving lives and helping people who have been victimized is a high 
priority. So, again, I focus on the point of priorities.
  Is it impossible to ever get a collective judgment, a consensus of 
where we should reduce governmental spending? Of course, we can. I can 
remember, Mr. President, when we got the consensus on the Persian Gulf 
war. Is it not amazing how we can get consensus to fight wars and we 
struggle oftentimes with consensus to deal with those issues at home 
that involve peace?
  Nevertheless, 99 Senators out of 100 voted for a war resolution in 
the Persian Gulf. We had two choices. Mr. Bush and the Republican 
resolution had a date specific to go to war. The Democrats proposed a 
resolution that did not have a date specific, but only under certain 
contingencies and conditions.
  Interestingly, as that war evolved, we could have gone to war sooner 
under the Democrat resolution than under the President's and the 
Republican resolution; 99 consensus votes. And I think that we, in good 
faith and common purpose of judgment, could fashion this through the 
systems of our committees. And even though it may appear difficult, 
sometimes discouraging, the Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, already outlined how we have been 
reducing that spending out of the combination of budget resolutions and 
restraints and restrictions that we put on ourselves in the 
Appropriations Committee.
  But when you look at this amendment that involves revision of taxes, 
changes of formulas, and all of the magnitude of actions that are truly 
legislation on appropriations--but again, is that not one of those 
things noted more by the breach than the observance? I am always amused 
at the times when people talk about the Appropriations Committee 
intervening.
  But, again, I repeat, that so often we have been asked to do so 
because the authorizing committees have not done so. I think that is 
part of the accommodation of this body, one I would not want to change. 
We should be collaborative. When the Senator from New Mexico was 
chairman of the Budget Committee and I was chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, we often went toe to toe. I have no better 
friend in the Senate than the Senator from New Mexico, but we worked 
out things that elevated the velocity of our words, and sometimes with 
what people might have seen as antagonism--but not really. So I think 
we have just proven it between the Budget Committee and Appropriations 
Committee. We can move together in concert, and I think this body can, 
too.
  I support this whole goal set forth by this amendment. I believe it 
is a worthy goal and one we all subscribe to. I think the question is 
one of priority and process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I see my friend from Minnesota standing. Did 
he wish to have the floor?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would appreciate probably 5 or 10 
minutes at most to make a few observations about some of what I heard 
on the floor and also regarding the remarks of the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, shortly, I hope to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota for that purpose.
  For the moment I have a parliamentary inquiry. What is the amendment 
now pending before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hatfield amendment No. 1441 is the pending 
business.
  Mr. BYRD. Further parliamentary inquiry. Is that a substitute 
amendment for the amendment by Senators Kerrey, Brown, and others?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It is a substitute 
amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Therefore, the Hatfield amendment is an amendment in the 
second degree?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall shortly move to table the underlying 
amendment by Senators Kerrey and Brown. The tabling of that amendment 
would carry with it the second-degree amendment, the substitute 
amendment by Mr. Hatfield; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________