[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield the remainder of our time on 
the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has yielded back 
the remainder of his time on the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, Is there any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining prior to the vote.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to run 
off that 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       vote on amendment no. 1561

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
amendment No. 1561.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] and 
the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 65, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Mathews
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--65

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Metzenbaum
     Riegle
      
  So the amendment (No. 1561) was rejected.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 1562

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1562. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] and 
the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] are absent on official business.
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--5

     Bumpers
     Faircloth
     Helms
     Kassebaum
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Metzenbaum
     Riegle
      
  So the amendment (No. 1562) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Mississippi, Senator Lott, is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1563

                  (Purpose: To improve the resolution)

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I have an amendment which I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1563.

  Mr. LOTT. Madam 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 located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, a summary of this amendment is this: It 
maintains the $26 billion in discretionary outlay cuts contained in the 
Exon-Grassley amendment that was added to the budget resolution in the 
Senate Budget Committee last week. But it specifies that all of these 
discretionary spending cuts would come from nondefense accounts.
  In addition, it adds $20 billion in mandatory spending cuts for 
deficit reduction. The amendment assumes that a number of the mandatory 
spending cuts contained in the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 
OBRA, which are currently scheduled to expire in the next 5 years, will 
be extended.
  Let me emphasize, it accepts the Exon-Grassley amendment but with the 
language specifying that it would come out of nondefense accounts, and 
then it takes the language that has been developed by the Senator from 
New Mexico, Senator Domenici, that would call for an additional $20 
billion in entitlement cuts. The assumption is it would be the 
extension of the 1993 OBRA agreed-to spending cuts.
  Here is my purpose. First of all, I have no doubt that the Senator 
from Nebraska, Senator Exon, and the Senator from Iowa, Senator 
Grassley, were certainly well-intentioned and were trying to be helpful 
in trying to find a way to reduce the deficit further in this year's 
bill. I think there were some surprises and, obviously, some 
consternation in the Budget Committee that the amendment was adopted. 
It was adopted on a bipartisan vote. I think it received nine 
Republican votes and four Democratic votes. It was adopted and there 
was no effort to reconsider it.
  Why was it adopted? I think because the members of the Budget 
Committee just felt as if there was insufficient deficit reduction 
effort in the President's budget request. Yes, he made some cuts in 
some programs. But he came around and added back some of those cuts in 
other areas of higher priority to him.
  In addition to that, the majority members of the Budget Committee 
added back money for some of the cuts which he had proposed. The money 
that the President had recommended be cut in urban mass transit 
operating assistance was put back in by the majority members of the 
Budget Committee. In LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, the President recommended just controlling the rate of growth. 
The committee, members of his own party, said, ``No, we don't want 
that. We are going to put that back in.''
  So the net result is there is very little spending reduction and 
deficit reduction in this year's budget resolution. As a matter of 
fact, over a 5-year period, there is about $127 billion in new spending 
initiatives in this budget resolution.
  So Senator Exon and Senator Grassley just felt as though we could do 
more. They came up with this amendment.
  Obviously, they are willing to take whatever cuts might come out of 
this. They understand the budget resolution is not binding on the 
appropriators who are going to make the decision of where the cuts 
would come from. But I do think that there have been a lot of questions 
raised concerning how much this will impact on defense.
  They would prefer that most of the cuts not come out of the defense 
area. They would prefer half of these cuts not come out of the defense 
area, but they recognize some of the cuts would come out of the defense 
area.
  There are a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle who feel we 
have already cut too much in the defense area and it is having an 
impact. Talk to members of the Armed Services Committee on both sides 
of the aisle, and they will tell you from what we are hearing now from 
our uniformed personnel as well as our new service chiefs, that we are 
getting into real problems in a number of areas.
  For instance, General Sullivan, Chief of the Army, testified just a 
couple of weeks ago that the 1995 budget is our 10th consecutive budget 
representing negative real growth. We cannot continue in that direction 
forever or we will not be ready for tomorrow at any level.
  It is affecting defense across the board. It is affecting the 
National Guard and Reserve units. Most of us just experienced 
reductions of numbers in National Guard and Reserve forces in our 
States, and some of the armories are going to be lost or some of the 
new armories that are needed are not going to be funded. We find that 
we probably do not have the airlift and sealift capabilities to do 
again today what we did in Desert Storm just 3 years ago. The C-141's 
that we used in the first place to take off, headed for the Persian 
Gulf with equipment that had problems--with cracks in their wings; all 
of them were grounded. Then we got that fixed and now a number of them 
are being grounded by engine flameouts. We have not made a decision 
about what to do with the C-5's.

  We do not know what the future is going to be with airlift. We have 
not made the decision of what to do and what is going to be our major 
airlift aircraft.
  We face the same thing with long-range bombers. For years we have 
been arguing over B-1 and B-2. It seems as long as I have been in 
Washington that argument has occurred. But now we have a problem 
because this year the budget will cut one-half of the B-52 force that 
we have and retire it. We have not made the decision to upgrade the B-1 
in the way it would take to make it an effective B-1 bomber, and we 
have limited the B-2. So, again, we do not know what we will need 
there. But we have not made the decision on what we are going to have 
in the future regardless of how many would be required. And the list 
goes on.
  Now, ships: We are only going to be building four surface ships this 
year, I believe, and one more submarine. We talked about maintaining a 
Navy of 346 ships. When we got the budget, we found out it was 330. And 
at the rate we are funding ships, we are going to be down to 150.
  Now, if the world is utopia, great. We do not need bombers or airlift 
capability or sealift capability or ships or National Guard. But the 
world is not utopia. As I have talked to my constituents in Mississippi 
just the last few days, the first question out of their mouths has not 
been health care reform. It has not even been crime. It has not been 
welfare reform. The question has been, the last couple days: What is 
going on in North Korea? How dangerous is that situation? What is going 
to happen? Are we on the brink of war again? All of a sudden, people 
are beginning to say: Now, what was it you were saying about the 
defense budget just a few years ago or over the last 3 years? People 
are worried that maybe we have gone too far already with the defense 
cuts.
  Let me just give you this quote. The President stated in his State of 
the Union Address:

       As long as I am President, our military forces will remain 
     the best equipped, the best trained, and the best prepared 
     fighting force on the face of the Earth. We must not cut 
     defense further.

  And yet the President's budget that was submitted calls for a 5.2 
percent additional cut in outlays for defense, down to $271 billion in 
outlays in this budget.
  Then if that is taken even further, if the Exon-Grassley amendment 
remains in the budget resolution and that is used as an excuse to cut 
defense even more, instead of being a 5.2 percent defense cut, it may 
actually get up to as much as 10 percent.
  The President said do not do that. And I believe the majority of 
Congress, and I know the majority of the American people, say do not do 
that. We are about to lose control of this. We are losing our 
readiness, our strength for the future of the military. In fact, just 
in the last couple of months, for the first time in many years at 
least, one branch of the services did not meet its recruitment goals. 
This is having an impact on morale, on the lifestyle of our families 
that have to tolerate a tough life in the military.
  So to use the Exon-Grassley amendment as a smokescreen or as an 
excuse or in fact an obligation to cut defense further, I believe, is 
very dangerous. I feel very strongly that should not happen. And that 
is why I included in this amendment the language which specifies that 
all of the discretionary spending cuts would come from nondefense 
accounts.
  Now, is that going to absolutely guarantee the appropriators do not 
do that? I guess they could say, well, we are not going to take any 
more than the $26 billion out of defense, but we are going to take more 
out of other areas of the mix. The net result would be that there would 
be an effort to cut defense even more. Such is not the intent of the 
Senate, in my opinion, and I know it is not the intent of Senator Exon 
or Senator Grassley.
  If the Senate votes for this amendment it will express itself very 
strongly that it supports further efforts for deficit reduction, but 
that it does not want defense to be get reduced further after a 37-
percent cut over the past 3 years.
  Now, I will address the next part of this amendment. Senator 
Domenici, a long-time member of the Budget Committee, is a very capable 
man when it comes to understanding the intricacies of the budget. This 
is not an easy thing to do and very few of us really do understand it. 
Senator Domenici realized there was this feeling that perhaps the Exon-
Grassley amendment would go further than Members wanted it to in a 
number of areas but particularly defense. He started working on an idea 
to have additional savings in the entitlement area.
  In fact, he has always said one of the mistakes we made in the past, 
and we are making this year as a matter of fact with this budget 
resolution, is we are trying to do all the cuts on the domestic 
discretionary side and keep ignoring the problem of the exploding 
increases on the entitlements. And there have been efforts by Senator 
Domenici and Senator Nunn and others to try to deal with that in a 
fairer way.
  In the Republican budget alternative that was voted on earlier today 
and received 42 votes, 60 percent of the cuts I believe came out of 
discretionary and 40 percent out of entitlements--or the reverse, 60 
percent out of entitlements, 40 percent out of discretionary, but it 
was an effort to get some of the savings out of both sides and not just 
let the entitlements continue to explode and increase year after year--
to try to get some balance there.
  So what Senator Domenici did in this case is he said we can get this 
additional $20 billion in spending cuts to be used for deficit 
reduction out of the entitlement category by simply continuing the 
existing restraints in the mandatory area of the 1993 Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act. And we have a list of the programs that that would 
actually involve. They are very small amounts of money in several 
categories. Again, it is not mandated nor can we require that this is 
the way the Finance Committee in this case would get the savings. But 
that is the intent. And it is a logical and an easy way to get 
additional spending savings.
  So what I thought we should do, instead of arguing over whether we 
should have just the discretionary spending savings or have some of it 
come out of the entitlement category, is to take them both because 
neither one of them are deep additional cuts.
  When I go home to my State, I have a lot of people who come up to me 
and say: When are you going to get serious about dealing with the 
deficits? Do you ever discuss the problems of a $4.7 trillion national 
debt and the tremendous amount of money that is going into the interest 
on the national debt each year? When are you going to do something 
about that?
  Well, as a matter of fact, over a 5-year period, this budget 
resolution would allow the national debt to go up another $2 trillion. 
So obviously we did not do enough. So instead of saying one or the 
other, what I am suggesting in this amendment is let us take them both. 
Take the $26 billion in the Exon-Grassley amendment and add to that the 
$20 billion in mandatory spending cuts out of the entitlement area, and 
then you would have a total savings of $46 billion, and it has the 
intended protection against the defense cuts.
  So I want to say again I think that really good work has been done by 
Senator Exon and Senator Grassley, and I am sure they are going to 
defend their language as it goes forward. I presume there will be an 
effort to knock their amendment out later on. But I think we should not 
question their motives, and I think we should listen to what their 
intent was.
  The same is true with Senator Domenici in his effort to find an 
alternative. He has done good work. He has come up with a good idea.
  So my suggestion here is that we take both ideas. It will not be 
devastating in either category, and it will provide ways to get 
additional savings.
  I urge my colleagues to look seriously at what I am proposing and 
pass this, and I think we would have a much more credible budget 
resolution when we complete our work.
  At this point I will reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor so that others may speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). Who yields time?
  If neither side yields time, time will be charged equally against 
both sides under the pending amendment.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on 
disposition of the Lott amendment, Senator Dorgan be recognized to 
offer an amendment stating the sense of the Congress regarding foreign 
producer taxes; that there be no second-degree amendment in order to 
the Dorgan amendment; and that upon disposition of the Dorgan 
amendment, Senator Domenici be recognized to offer an amendment 
regarding discretionary and mandatory spending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on the Lott 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that it be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no 
second-degree amendments on the Lott amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, we are awaiting Senators coming to the 
floor. While we are waiting, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Minnesota be allowed to speak for 20 minutes as if in morning 
business and that this time be charged against the resolution, equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, that will be 
the order.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator 
from Tennessee.

                          ____________________