[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of
Senate Concurrent Resolution 63, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 63) setting forth the
congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal
years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
The Senate continued consideration of the concurrent resolution.
Amendment No. 1574
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question now is the Gramm
amendment numbered 1574.
Mr. SASSER. How much time is remaining to the proponents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 41 minutes and 3 seconds,
and the opponents have 55 minutes 5 seconds.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
Gramm amendment be temporarily laid aside for the purpose of making a
motion.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SASSER. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Amendment No. 1574
Mr. SASSER. The pending business is the Gramm amendment, is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Gramm amendment
numbered 1574.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, does the Senator wish to be recognized?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I was just going to make a brief statement
during this gap. If you want to proceed with your matters, go ahead.
Mr. SASSER. If the Senator would be kind enough to let us dispose of
this amendment.
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas, in the amendment
that he offered here this afternoon, beginning at about 2:30 in the
afternoon, seeks to eliminate every one of the President's initiatives,
every single one of them, and he adds an $87 billion cut in
discretionary accounts on top of that; $187 billion in total
discretionary cuts which are essentially unspecified.
Now, in particular, he thus advocates eliminating the President's
proposal to fund the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act, education
funding, Head Start, the National Institutes of Health, the National
Science Foundation, and, Mr. President, the list goes on and on.
He claims that his cuts are totally out of nondefense accounts, but
there is no enforcement mechanism here at all.
And I say to my friend from Virginia [Mr. Warner], who I know has a
profound interest in protecting the defense discretionary accounts,
should this amendment pass, defense would have to take its chances
along with domestic spending on this 187 billion dollars' worth of cuts
in discretionary spending that the Senator from Texas is urging upon
us.
The Senator from Texas is making these very substantial cuts in
discretionary spending to pay for tax cuts. He is paying for tax cuts
that go up and down the income scale. He is giving each family a $500
tax credit.
Now, that sounds grand, and everyone is for that in the abstract.
But, Mr. President, he is giving a $500 tax credit to the family that
makes $1 million a year and if you make less than $16,000 a year under
his proposal the family gets nothing.
So this is essentially a tax credit that works an inequity. If the
Senator from Texas wanted to make this an equitable tax credit, he
would have kept the credit at a certain income level, saying people who
are making over so much--perhaps a $500 child tax credit to them is
meaningless--and he would have made it at the refundable at the bottom,
because that is where the $500 tax credit would do the most good down
there where people are just at the poverty line or slightly above it.
But that is not the case. But what our friend from Texas is asking us
to do is cut $187 billion off of discretionary spending to run the risk
of not being able to fully fund the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Act, cutting education funding, Head Start, the National Institutes of
Health, and, yes, making very substantial cuts, I would gather, in
defense spending. I would say to the Senator from Virginia, if this
passes, I think we can forget about a new aircraft carrier. I think
that is just something that will be by the boards.
The amendment also fails on a technical provision. In 1990, when we
had the summit agreement that culminated from weeks and weeks of
negotiations between the leadership here and the Bush administration,
the Republican participants in those summit negotiations adamantly
fought for placing a line of demarcation between discretionary spending
and tax law. Their view prevailed. Their view prevailed. And the law
now does not allow using taxes to pay for discretionary spending, or
using discretionary spending cuts to pay for taxes.
The Senator says we can change the law. But he knows very well how
unlikely that is under current law. If tax cuts are not offset with
entitlement cuts or tax increases, they cause a sequester in the
entitlement programs. If the Congress were to enact the tax cuts
proposed in the Senator's amendment, the 1990 budget law could call for
draconian sequesters in Medicare, veterans' burial benefits, the
commodity credit agriculture programs, the crime victims fund, the
unemployment trust fund, and the list goes on and on. Also hit would be
social services, block grants, family support payments to States,
veteran education readjustment benefits, the Agricultural Marketing
Service, rehabilitation services, handicapped research, and on and on
and on.
I know the Senator from Texas would say that is not his intent, but
these sequesters would be the foreseeable consequence, in fact, would
be almost the inevitable consequence of enactment of his proposals
under existing law.
This is not, I think, a responsible amendment. It is not seriously
crafted to comply with the current Budget Act. It is a meat-ax approach
to cutting discretionary spending. It does not protect the defense
accounts from these cuts. And being misconstructed, it results in
additional cuts of massive proportions in sensitive mandatory programs
like Medicare.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining to the opponents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 44 minutes 51 seconds. The
proponents have 41 minutes 3 seconds.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we set aside the
Gramm amendment, reserving 5 minutes from the time allocated to the
proponents for Senator Gramm and reserving 5 minutes to the opponents
for myself or my designee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, we have been following a regimen here of
trying to recognize one side and then the other side. The Senator from
Iowa [Mr. Harkin] has been on the floor seeking recognition.
I ask my friend from Iowa, would it be possible to agree on a 20-
minute time agreement here, equally divided?
Mr. HARKIN. That will be acceptable to me.
Mr. SASSER. May I inquire of my friend from Iowa, this is a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment which cuts funding for the strategic defense
initiative or ballistic missile defense? Is that an accurate
assessment?
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. It is a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution.
Mr. SASSER. The Senator from Iowa describes his amendment as one that
reduces funding for the strategic defense initiative, and that is it.
Mr. DOMENICI. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, is it?
Mr. SASSER. That is what he said.
Mr. DOMENICI. All right.
Mr. SASSER. Does it lower the caps or transfer the funding to some
other function?
Mr. HARKIN. The amendment is simply a sense-of-the-Senate resolution
that the spending for the star wars ballistic missile defense program,
as it is called, should be no more than last year's level.
Mr. SASSER. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a 20-minute time
agreement on the Harkin amendment evenly divided between the proponents
and opponents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1578
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise again to restore some greater
sensibility to the budget resolution before us. As I said on the floor
earlier this week, the resolution before us is generally good. I have
complimented the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from New Mexico
for bringing us a tough budget that keeps within the deficit reduction
package we passed last year. It is very tight and imposes some caps
that will be difficult to operate under, but such is life. That is what
we have to do here.
Again, as I pointed out yesterday, within this budget there is a $513
million increase for star wars. Last year--and I want to make this very
clear--last year we had a vote on the Senate floor to cut star wars
funding by about $400 million, and it passed 50 to 48. What I am trying
to do is keep the star wars funding at last year's level and not
increase it another $500 million.
So I say to those Senators, if you voted last year to cut the star
wars funding by $400 million, let us keep it at that level for next
year. My amendment still leaves within the ballistic missile defense
structure $2 billion--actually more than $2 billion--for theater
missile defense programs. We do not need to put $513 million, $\1/2\
billion, into x-ray lasers and other exotic space-based weapons because
we have other programs which I think have a higher priority.
We have spent $33 billion on star wars, and what do we have to show
for it? Not a thing. The Soviet Union is gone but the star wars budget
lives on.
This year, the administration has requested a shocking--and I can
think that word is appropriate--a shocking 18.9 percent increase in
star wars. For what reason? I do not know because there is no
significant threat out there for this type of long-range defense system
at this time.
Again, we have well over $2 billion, as I said, for theater missile
defense if my amendment is accepted. But remember what we were going to
get out of star wars? Remember the kinetic-kill vehicles? They thought
that word was too bad, so they changed it to space based interceptors
or SBI's. We spent billions on that and little to show for it.
How about particle beam weapons? Or Edward Teller's favorite: The
desk sized x-ray laser that would singlehandedly shoot down the entire
Soviet ICBM fleet? It is gone. But hundreds of millions of dollars
wasted on the x-ray laser and $33 billion total. Just think what we
could have in this country if we spent $33 billion on high-speed rail
or renewable energy systems or on better education. How about fixing up
some of our vocational schools to give them better equipment on which
to learn and new computers? That would have done something for our
country.
We cannot roll back the clock, we cannot turn it back and recapture
that money, but at least now we can say let us at least not increase
the funding level. Let us not increase it by $513 million this year.
And that is really what my sense-of-the-Senate resolution says. It says
that it is the sense of the Senate that funding for star wars should
not go over last year's level.
It is as simple and straightforward as that. That is why I did not
need any more time than the 10 minutes allotted to me to describe the
amendment.
Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 1578.
The amendment follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
``It is the Sense of the Congress that given the federal
budget deficit, the real reductions in discretionary spending
in this resolution, and the existence of many more worthy
programs competing for this funding, spending for the Star
Wars (Ballistic Missile Defense) must not exceed the fiscal
year 1994 appropriated level.''
Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, when our troops and our allies came under
attack from Saddam's Scud missiles, where was star wars? Star wars was
so focused on the impossible dream of stopping a massive nuclear attack
by long-range Soviet missiles, it neglected the very real threat of
short-range missiles launched by a tyrant like Saddam Hussein.
In fact, the only defense we had against Scuds in 1990 was the
Patriot missile. But the Patriot missile was not even developed by SDI.
No, it was too mundane, too down to Earth. In fact, it was too useful.
Prior to 1990, the star wars program spent virtually nothing on
developing theater missile defenses except for some architecture
studies. The Patriot was originally designed and built by the Army to
stop aircraft and Cruise missiles and they modified it before the gulf
war to have limited capability against ballistic missiles.
But the Army had only a small fraction of the funding lavished on
star wars throughout the 1980's. In fact, star wars funds effectively
diverted resources from theater missile defense based in the Army.
Things changed dramatically after the gulf war. The star wars program
suddenly adopted this long-neglected theater defense orphan. The
program grew from $130 million in 1990 to $1.64 billion this year, a
12-to-1 increase in just 4 years.
Again, as I said yesterday, the amendment that I offer in this sense-
of-the-Senate resolution would still leave enough money, all of what
the Pentagon requested for their Theater Missile Defense Program for
next year. But not a penny more for Edward Teller's desk sized x-ray
laser beams and particle beams and kinetic kill vehicles in an attempt
to stop a massive attack by long-range ballistic missiles.
Let us get our priorities in order. What this sense-of-the-Senate
resolution would say to the Appropriations Committee is that this body
wants to keep the funding for star wars at last year's level and not
increase it by $513 million.
Mr. President, I reserve whatever time I have left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute on this
amendment in opposition to it.
Mr. President, this is what happens when Senators decide to come to
the floor and act like appropriators. Every Senator could now line up,
come to the floor and say it is the sense of the Senate that something
they do not want funded in appropriations ought to be somehow or
another eliminated from a budget resolution where it does not appear.
Frankly, a sense of the Senate that says a program will be
terminated, in this Senator's humble opinion, should not be offered on
a budget resolution. But I am not saying the Senator is out of order
because we do this every now and then. But I hope the Senate
understands it for what it is. If they choose to adopt it, when the
time comes, it is not going to make any difference. If they choose not
to adopt it, it is not going to make any difference. The Appropriations
Committee and Armed Services Committee are going to decide, not this
committee, not this Senate at this time, whether we fund star wars at
the President's level or not.
I yield back any time I might have on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes thirty seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand what the Senator from New
Mexico said. He is right. But this amendment is intended to give some
guidance and direction. Again, this is not taking money out of this
bill. I did not do that. I would like to reduce funding, but because of
the time constraints, it is obviously impossible to do that.
But I do think it is important for appropriators--and I sit on the
Appropriations Committee along with the Senator from Tennessee and the
Senator from New Mexico--to give guidance. I think this would give some
guidance and direction to let the Appropriations Committee know what
the Senate feels. Do we believe there ought to be a $513 million
increase in star wars or do we not? Again, I think we have to make some
tough choices around here. Do we want some money to go into education
and job training, LIHEAP, things that were cut, or do we want to say,
no, we are going to put $513 million more into star wars?
Those are the kind of choices we face. I think we, as Senators, owe
our constituents the right to know how we feel and where our priorities
are. That is why I offer this amendment. I believe it will send a
distinct signal to the Appropriations Committee on what they ought to
do.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the amendment.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, may I inquire of my friend from Iowa, does
he wish a rollcall vote on this amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I suppose we probably should have a rollcall.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SASSER. Has the Senator yielded back all his time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. SASSER. And all time in opposition has been yielded back?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment of the Senator
from Iowa be temporarily laid aside, and we are anticipating, I am
told, an amendment to be offered shortly by Senator McCain.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while we are waiting, I will take a
minute off my time. I want to say to the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
Harkin], the Senator from New Mexico understands how strongly he feels
about this issue. He has expressed himself on the floor extremely well
today. Obviously, the Senate will vote on it. I just feel compelled to
state it as I understand sense of the Senates. That is the reason for
my explanation of his amendment. Nothing is intended to diminish his
enthusiasm for his position and his willingness to fight for it.
Amendment No. 1579
Offered by Mr. Sasser for Mr. Graham, for himself, Mr. Warner, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Levin, Mr. Mack, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Thurmond, Mr.
Coats, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Bond,
Mr. Lott, Mr. Helms, Mr. Ford, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gramm, and Mr. Lugar.
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress concerning the minimum
allocation program under section 157 of Title 23, United States Code)
Amendment No. 1580
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding Federal law
enforcement personnel)
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Graham of Florida
and Hatch of Utah, respectively, I send two amendments to the desk and
ask unanimous consent that they be immediately considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendments.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Sasser], proposes
amendments en bloc numbered 1579 and 1580.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
amendment no. 1579
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment for
myself and 19 other Senators. I am pleased that this measure has been
cleared by the distinguished chairman and ranking member and will be
accepted as part of the underlying measure.
The amendment expresses the sense of the Congress on two points:
First, that the minimum allocation program would remain exempt from
the obligation limitation on the Federal-Aid Highway Program.
Second, that the flexibility of the Minimum Allocation Program is an
enduring and critical component of the Federal responsibility to the
States receiving those funds.
In other words, Mr. President, leave current law as it stands.
Do not adopt the proposals in the administration's budget which would
pay for a part of the highway program by cutting available spending
authority from the 23 States who get the least from the Federal Highway
Program.
The administration proposes two things, Mr. President, which are
onerous to so-called minimum allocation States--those that receive
minimum allocation apportionments.
First, minimum allocation would be placed under the obligation
ceiling which governs budget authority for the core highway program.
Second, States would only be able to spend 67 percent of their
available minimum allocation apportionments in fiscal year 1995.
Why are these proposals bad?
The answers fall into three categories:
First, the faulty logic used to develop the proposals,
Second, the principle which is violated by their adoption, and
Third, the precedent their adoption would set.
The first reason the logic is faulty is that by fully funding the
highway program in this manner, we will leave many minimum allocation
States with less money to spend next year than they have in this one. I
will explain why that is true later in my statement.
Furthermore, the decision to cap minimum allocation obligations at 67
percent was based on the national average rate of obligation. Some
Sates obligate all or nearly all of their apportionments each year;
others obligate much less, and the average is 67 percent.
The fact is that the national average has absolutely nothing to do
with how minimum allocation is administered. Once States receive their
minimum allocation apportionments in October, it is up to them to
decide how and when to spend those funds.
Under the law, minimum allocation can be spent all in 1 year or
retained for up to 4 years before its obligation. In Florida, for
instance, the Department of Transportation had accumulated a balance of
over $200 million in unspent minimum allocation funds by late 1992.
Then the State obligated almost all of that money last year and will
spend its entire apportionment this fiscal year.
The administration proposal would not allow Florida or other minimum
allocation States to continue to spend their whole minimum allocation
allocation, even if they had projects lined up and ready to go, with
sufficient apportionments to put people to work completing those
projects.
It is very difficult for me to see how this proposal could enhance
the efficiency of the Highway Program when it will halt release of
upwards of $200 million for such ready-to-go projects.
And the only reason the average is 67 percent is that some States,
well within their rights under the law, have planned to save their
minimum allocation apportionments for the projects on which that
flexible pot of money will be most helpful.
Which brings me to the second reason we should oppose the
administration proposals--the principle of fairness they violate.
We have to remember why minimum allocation was created in the first
place--to recognize the fact that the highway formula shortchanges many
States, and thus to offer them some recompense for the disproportionate
contributions to the highway trust fund.
Since these States receive the least benefit from the overall Highway
Program, the minimum allocation apportionment was designed to have
broad flexibility: unlike most other highway funds, minimum allocation
apportionments are exempt from the annual obligation ceiling and do not
lapse until 4 years after they become available to the States. Thus
those dollars can be used to fill program gaps that are less likely to
exist in States which the formula fully funds.
The bottom line is, in the name of fully funding the Highway Program,
the administration proposal would leave minimum allocation States with
less money to spend in fiscal year 1995 than they have this year.
Florida, a State which ranks at the bottom on return on its highway
trust fund contributions, will lose over $40 million.
That result would be patently unfair and contrary to the goal of the
MA Program. We cannot allow it to happen.
The exemption, the flexibility. These items were core components of
the deal Members of Congress struck in 1982 when they created minimum
allocation, and they have been reaffirmed in two subsequent
reauthorizations of the Highway Program, in 1987 and 1991.
Which is why I am also gravely concerned about the precedent we would
set if the administration proposals were adopted.
Mr. President, in this age of tighter budget caps and constant
spending reductions, the instances are few when program restrictions
that are enacted in one year are lifted in the following year.
For instance, the last time we discussed the minimum allocation issue
on the Senate floor was during the appropriations process last fall.
The transportation bill included a provision which limited first-
quarter obligations of MA to 25 percent per State and 15 percent
program-wide. We were told that the provision was intended merely to
cover a one-time shortfall in available outlays.
The senior Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], who joins me today in
sponsoring this resolution, offered an amendment to strike that
language from the appropriations bill. Why? Because if you let
something like that be done once, it will be done forever.
Witness the results: The Warner amendment failed, the provision was
enacted into law, and the President's fiscal year 1995 budget again
proposes to limit minimum allocation obligations in the same fashion as
they were constrained in fiscal year 1994. And then some.
What is especially worrisome to me is that the 67-percent average
obligation rate is made up of States which are free to obligate
anywhere from zero to 100 percent of their apportionments. If the cap
is placed at 67 percent next year, then we know that the average
obligation rate will be lower next year, and I expect we'll see the
administration propose to lower the cap in fiscal year 1996. And so
will continue this ratcheting-down process until all States spend up to
their maximum allowable amount.
Meanwhile, the Highway Program will become ever more dependent on the
growing contributions of donor States.
The same is true for including MA under the obligation ceiling at
all. The administration says this will not make any difference for MA
States, because the Highway Program will be fully funded.
Even if the highway portion of ISTEA is fully funded, which it never
has been and probably will not be, the die will have been cast. MA will
remain under the obligation ceiling regardless of the funding level for
the core program. And the lower the ceiling, the greater harm if MA is
included under that ceiling.
With that explanation, Mr. President, I want to offer my sincere
appreciation to the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Sasser] and the Senator
from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman]. Both of their States are or have been
minimum allocation States, and I know they understand the need for
these equity programs to be preserved.
I also want to thank Senator Warner for his assistance in getting
this resolution cleared, and to express my gratitude to those Senators
who cosponsored the measure.
Collectively, we come before the Senate today to urge the Congress to
keep the Minimum Allocation Program exempt from the obligation ceiling
and to preserve the flexibility which is at the core of the program's
design.
I ask unanimous consent that my statement and others accompanying it
appear in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the amendment.
amendment no. 1579
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to bring to the Senate's attention
yet another attempt to tamper with the minimum allocation program.
I alert all my colleagues from donor States to pay careful attention
to this debate and the importance of the amendment by Senator Graham
and myself.
The administration's fiscal year 1995 budget request includes two
provisions which are onerous to minimum allocation [MA] States, by
putting MA under the obligation ceiling for all highway funds, and
limiting obligation authority for MA to 67 percent of a State's
allocation. In addition to setting a dangerous precedent, these actions
will cause many MA States to lose a portion of their highway funds.
Even if the highway program is fully funded, many States stand to lose
funds. The Commonwealth of Virginia may lose close to $25 million if
the 67-percent cap were applied in fiscal year 1994.
If donor States do not defeat this attack on the minimum allocation
program, the future of this program to guarantee that each State
receives a 90-percent return of their highway dollars is in serious
jeopardy.
Once again, this debate is concerned with providing fairness and
equity to donor States.
After extensive debate during the consideration of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991 and again on the fiscal
year 1993 Transportation appropriations bill, I regret that the Clinton
administration proposes to make legislative changes to the minimum
allocation program.
As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and as one
who worked with a bipartisan group of my colleagues representing so-
called donor States during ISTEA, I must object to any restrictions on
the minimum allocation program or a donor State's ability to utilize
these funds.
The amendment we offer today simply would express the sense of the
Congress that the minimum allocation program should remain exempt from
the obligation ceiling.
The amendment simply states that the flexibility of the minimum
allocation program should be an enduring and critical component of the
provision of Federal assistance to States for Federal-aid highways.
Senators representing donor States are concerned about any change
that may be proposed concerning the minimum allocation program and we
must ensure that the minimum allocation program remains an unrestricted
program for our States.
To understand the reason for this amendment today, it is important to
recall why the minimum allocation issue is so critical to donor States.
It is simply an issue of fairness and equity.
During the extensive Senate debate and a contentious conference on
ISTEA in 1991, the Congress recognized that the percentage of highway
funds returned to all States should be 90 percent.
The Congress also continued in ISTEA the statutory exemption for
minimum allocation which provides that it will be outside of the
obligation ceiling.
This exemption is necessary because of the specific purpose of the
program to reduce the inequity in the apportionment formulas between
donor and donee States.
To ensure that all States receive a minimum of 90 percent, the
Federal Highway Administration must be allowed to provide whatever
funding is needed to bring States up to the minimum level.
Minimum allocation has been the only guarantee since 1982 to give
States a reasonable expectation to the percentage of return they will
receive annually from the Highway Trust Fund.
This program is essential to enable States to plan effectively to
meet their highway needs.
I am committed to the principle of giving all States a minimum of a
90-percent return on the taxes their highway users pay into the Highway
Trust Fund.
Any effort--intentional or otherwise--to amend this program breaks a
hard-fought promise this Congress gave to over 20 donor States.
It is a promise that I will work to keep and I ask my colleagues to
consider the issue of fairness and support the Graham-Warner amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 1579
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by Senator Graham of Florida. This amendment is very important
to Texas, and I am pleased to join the Senator from Florida--and all of
the Senators from other similarly situated States--in support of this
amendment.
Under President Clinton's proposed budget, Texas stands to lose $14
million in its minimum allocation program funds. These funds will be
taken away from Texas, a State which in 1992 contributed $1.29 billion
per year to the highway trust fund but which only received $1.07
billion in highway funding in return--this is a return of only 89 cents
on the dollar. Since 1956, Texas has received only 85 cents on its
investments in the highway trust fund, one of the three lowest rates of
return in the Nation.
We understand the principle of supporting the national transportation
infrastructure in other States. For this reason, Texas has accepted--
for now--an inequitable funding formula system for highways. Despite
the importance of these national concerns, however, donor States such
as Texas should not be forced to sacrifice precious resources beyond
their ability to meet their own vital transportation needs.
Donor States have historically worked to bring some semblance of
equity to funding national highway needs. My predecessor, Lloyd
Bentsen, worked especially hard to achieve this equity in the highway
programs. He was instrumental in obtaining the provision which provides
a minimum guaranteed 85 percent of contributions for all States, and in
raising this floor to 90 percent of contributions in 1986. This
provision was hard won and well deserved.
However, true equity for donor States will only come with changes in
the funding formulas. The donor States made a valiant effort to achieve
this during consideration of ISTEA, but unfortunately did not succeed.
Instead, Congress approved the continuation of the minimum allocation
program at 90 percent and its all important exemption from the
obligation ceiling. This hard-fought compromise should not be forgotten
or undone.
Minimum allocation States such as Texas carry some of the most
significant highway infrastructure burdens in the Nation. In Texas, we
are working to build and preserve a highway network that will support
the flow of international trade through Texas to the United States-
Mexico border and beyond. Eighty percent of the truck traffic from all
over the United States bound for Mexico's growing market flow through
Texas. We are counting on all of our available Federal highway funds,
including all of our minimum allocation program funds, to assist us in
this tremendous effort. As it is, we do not have enough funds to meet
all of the transportation demands of our State and the Nation.
Texas is proud to serve as the gateway for our Nation's trade with
Mexico. We should not be penalized, however, by limiting our use of our
minimum allocation program funds when they are so desperately needed.
These are dollars that Congress--through ISTEA--intended to put to work
improving transportation in America. That's what we in Texas are doing.
In addition to placing the minimum allocation program under the
obligation ceiling, the President's budget proposes to limit to 67
percent that amount of budget authority for the State's minimum
allocation program authorizations in fiscal year 1995. By taking this
action, the spending authority of States receiving minimum allocation
program funds--as a portion of their total authorizations--will be
significantly lower than that for States which do not receive minimum
allocation funds. This proposal results in a $165 million reduction in
obligation authority for donor States--that's a $14 million reduction
for Texas along. This proposal will have severe impact on the Nation's
highway infrastructure since 22 States, including some of the Nation's
largest and most populous, currently receiving minimum allocation
funds.
We should not accept the President's proposal because it breaks with
the ongoing commitment our Government made with us, the donor States.
If Congress pursues such a radical departure from the agreement
underpinning the minimum allocation program, then we must
simultaneously revisit the equity of the highway formulas. Clearly, the
budget process is not the appropriate place for this. Therefore, we
must leave the minimum allocation program as it is until a more
appropriate opportunity to review all of the highway funding issues
presents itself.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Graham's
sense-of-the-Senate resolution and maintain our commitment to fair
transportation funding.
amendment no. 1579
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the
Graham sense-of-the-Congress resolution regarding the need to continue
the exemption of the minimum allocation program from the obligation
limitation on Federal-Aid Highway Program funding. This is merely a
restatement of the deal made during passage of the most recent highway
authorization bill, better known as ISTEA. The agreement on highway
funds distribution that we reached during debate on ISTEA ensured a
minimum allocation of 90 percent to States, like Michigan, that have
been donating more to the Federal Treasury in gas taxes than they have
been getting in highway funds in return.
This resolution is also a rebuttal to the administration's proposal,
included in the fiscal year 1995 budget request, to alter the terms of
that deal in a way that would hurt Michigan, and the other donor
States. We are already disadvantaged by the existing highway funds
distribution formula, and now, under the administration proposal, we
would stand to lose a significant portion of the funds that were
intended to address that inequity. If the administration's proposal had
been applied to the fiscal year 1994 allocations, Michigan could have
lost as much as $22 million.
Mr. President, my position is well-known. Michigan, and the donor
States, still deserve a fairer return on contributions to the Federal
Highway Trust Fund. But, with this resolution we send a strong message
to the Appropriations Committees that those of us from the minimum
allocation States are prepared to continue fighting to get a more
equitable distribution of highway funds. And, the Senate's acceptance
of this resolution is a clear direction to the Appropriations Committee
not to change the ISTEA deal.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, at a recent speech before law enforcement
officers in Ohio, President Clinton talked tough about crime saying,
``I care a lot about this problem.''
Alluding to his years as a State attorney general and Governor, the
President went on to say:
I know what it means to double the prison capacity of a
State, and to sign laws toughening crimes, and to * * * add
to the stock of police officers and to deal with all the
problems that are facing them. I know this is a tough
problem.
I also know it is a complicated one.
President Clinton had earlier announced that ``We will continue with
strengthened efforts by Federal law enforcement agencies--in concert
with their State and local counterparts--to disrupt, dismantle, and
destroy'' criminal organizations.
Within several days of these remarks, President Clinton delivered to
Congress a budget that cuts Federal prison construction by nearly 30
percent--a $78 million reduction, cuts Federal law enforcement
personnel, and cuts existing grants to State law enforcement.
The President's budget does not reflect the rhetoric of enthusiastic
support for crime control and law enforcement he espouses.
The fiscal year 1995 budget cuts 1,523 Department of Justice law
enforcement agency positions. According to the Justice Department
budget summary, the Federal Bureau of Investigation loses 847
positions, the Drug Enforcement Agency loses 355, the Department's
Criminal Division loses 28, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Forces lose 150, and Federal prosecutors lose 143 positions. Absent the
fiscal year 1995 budget cuts, there are still 431 fewer FBI agents and
301 fewer DEA agents today than there were in 1992.
At a time when violent crime and drug control are said to be national
priorities, these cuts will reduce the effectiveness of Federal law
enforcement, and the President's budget acknowledges this. The
administration's own budget figures reveal that Federal prosecutors
will be filing 527 fewer criminal cases in fiscal year 1995. The
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program, cut by over $12
million, will investigate, indict, and convict fewer criminals. Indeed,
former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann confirmed this in a
recent article he wrote:
With fewer Federal investigators and fewer Federal
prosecutors in the years ahead there will not be more Federal
law enforcement but less. * * * [Washington Post, February
27, 1994].
These reductions will only add to an already lagging Federal
anticrime effort under the Clinton administration. The Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts recently reported that in 1993, the number of
criminal cases filed by Federal prosecutors decreased by over 3
percent. This was the first decrease in 10 years. The Administrative
Office attributes this overall decrease in criminal filings to the
Clinton Justice Department's significant reduction in drug
prosecutions. Drug prosecutions in 1993 decreased by 7 percent--or 902
cases.
Existing State and local law enforcement block grants, which police
have been counting on, are also cut by over $400 million in order to
fund the crime bill's proposed police hiring program. The money to pay
for the police hiring program was supposed to come from savings earned
through personnel cuts not from existing law enforcement grants. Crime
emergency assistance grants have been cut by $222 million, the missing
children's program is cut by nearly $3 million, and regional
intelligence sharing grants have been cut by $14.5 million.
Earlier in the week, the Senate overwhelmingly approved an amendment
to restore budget authority for the Byrne grant program. I commend my
colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, for his work on this issue.
I was pleased to work with him in this effort.
The Hatch amendment builds on the Gorton amendment by taking steps to
ensure that Federal law enforcement resources will be restored as well.
It expresses the sense of the Congress that the present level of
Federal law enforcement personnel is inadequate. The Hatch amendment
affirms that, at the very least, steps should be taken to insure that
agent and prosecutor strength are restored to fiscal year 1992 levels,
when President Bush was still in office.
Ironically, when it suits the administration's purpose, they will
defend the preservation of Federal prosecutors and law enforcement
strength. In testifying against the balanced budget amendment, Attorney
General Reno recently stated that preserving adequate funding for the
FBI, DEA, and U.S. attorneys' office are what ``our Nation so
desperately needs to fight crime aggressively.'' She went on to state
that the effect of cuts on Federal law enforcement could be
catastrophic.
At this same hearing, Attorney General Reno discussed the importance
of adequate staffing for the Justice Department. She said:
I try, when I travel to different districts, to visit with
the U.S. attorney's offices. I ask one question when I go to
these offices to begin a discussion. If you were Attorney
General of the United States, what would you do to improve
the operation of this office? And consistently they said we
need more staff in the civil and criminal division.
The President's budget provides a substantial increase in overall
funding for the Department of Justice. Yet, instead of spending this
money on Federal criminal law enforcement agencies, a bulk of this
money goes to fund the Department's assorted civil branches. For
example, the Department plans to bring more civil suits--450 more
cases--and more antitrust suits--33 new positions are created. The
Department plans to bring more environmental and natural reosurce
cases--nearly 900 more cases given an increase of 78 positions.
There is clearly a need for fiscal restraint. Recognizing the need to
address the budget deficit, Attorney General Reno has expressed a
willingness on behalf of Federal law enforcement agencies and
prosecutors to do their part to regain control over our Nation's
financial well-being. But, in a budget of $1.5 trillion, priorities can
and must be met. We must ensure that the sacrifices we ask law
enforcement to make do not impair the Government's ability to meet its
obligations to our Nation's law-abiding citizens.
Cutting Federal criminal law enforcement positions is an unwise
choice, especially in light of our Nation's crime problem. It is also
certainly inconsistent with the President's stated drug strategy and
the bravado we are hearing from the administration.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Hatch
amendment.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, we have previously asked unanimous consent
that these amendments be considered en bloc. I now ask unanimous
consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with; that the
Senate agree to both amendments, and that motions to reconsider be laid
on the table with respect to both amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
So the amendments (Nos. 1579 and 1580) were agreed to, as follows:
Amendment No. 1579
At the end of title III, add the following new section:
SEC. 3. MINIMUM ALLOCATION PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
* * * * *
* * * established in 1982 to address inequities in the
funding formula for Federal-aid highways;
(2) the minimum allocation program was designed to provide
the greatest degree of flexibility practicable to States that
receive funding under the formula referred to in paragraph
(1) and includes an exemption of the apportionments from the
obligation ceiling;
(3) the minimum allocation program provides additional
flexibility by allowing a State a 4-year period during which
amounts apportioned to the State may be obligated;
(4) the budget of the United States Government for fiscal
year 1995 submitted by the President to Congress proposes to
include minimum allocation apportionments under the
obligation ceiling and also proposes to limit the authority
of States to obligate apportionments under the minimum
allocation program to 67 percent of the amount of the
apportionments; and
(5) States have planned transportation programs on the
basis of the provisions of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and the amendments
made by the Act, relating to minimum allocation that
confirmed core commitments to exemption and flexibility.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) the minimum allocation program should remain exempt
from the obligation ceiling; and
(2) the flexibility of the minimum allocation program
should be an enduring and critical component of the provision
of Federal assistance to States for Federal-aid highways.
(c) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) Federal-aid Highways.--The term ``Federal-aid
highways'' has the meaning provided the term in section 101
of title 23, United States Code.
(2) Minimum Allocation Program.--The term ``minimum
allocation program'' means the program of allocation of
funding to States under section 157 of title 23, United
States Code.
(3) Obligation Ceiling.--The term ``obligation ceiling''
means the obligation ceiling under section 1002 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
____
Amendment No. 1580
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) violent crimes reported to law enforcement continue to
increase with over 1,900,000 offenses being reported to law
enforcement each year;
(2) drug dealing and the violent crime that accompanies it
are at the heart of the Nation's current crime crisis;
(3) the problem of international drug trafficking is
increasing and foreign narcotics syndicates continue to make
the United States their primary target;
(4) drug abuse among our Nation's young people, after years
of decline, has recently increased;
(5) interstate criminal street gangs, which deal in illicit
narcotics and which are responsible for much violent crime,
are spreading into cities throughout the Nation;
(6) the Senate has passed a comprehensive anti-crime bill
which increases authorizations for Federal and State law
enforcement, increases penalties for violent crime, and
enhances Federal law enforcement's role in combating violent
street crime;
(7) the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1995
cuts the number of Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
Task Force, and United States Attorney personnel;
(8) absent the President's proposed budget cuts to Federal
law enforcement for fiscal year 1995, there are still 431
fewer FBI agents and 301 fewer DEA agents today than there
were in 1992 and, according to the President's budget, there
will not be a new FBI or DEA class until fiscal year 1996;
(9) an adequate Federal law enforcement and Federal
prosecutor presence is critical to our Nation's effort to
respond to the crime and drug problem; and
(10) President Clinton and Attorney General Reno have
publicly stated their support for enhanced efforts to fight
violent crime and drug trafficking.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of Congress
that--
(1) current levels of agent strength within the DEA and FBI
and the current number of assistant United States Attorneys
are inadequate to meet the Federal Government's obligations
to our Nation's law abiding citizens; and
(2) at a minimum, the agent strength for the FBI and DEA
should be restored to end-of-fiscal year 1992 levels, and the
number of Assistant United States Attorneys should not be
reduced.
Amendment No. 1578
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee would yield me 1
minute for a point of clarification.
Mr. SASSER. I am pleased to yield to the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I just wanted to clarify a point on the
sense-of-the-Senate resolution on which I just obtained the yeas and
nays.
I wish to make it clear that it does not in any way imply that we
should reduce function 050. It does not say that in the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. It just says that it is the sense of the Senate that
we should not fund Star Wars at more than last year's level. It does
not say it should be transferred outside 050. It may stay inside the
Defense Department and be used for some other, what I would consider,
legitimate purpose other than Star Wars.
I wish to make that point clear; that the sense-of-the-Senate
resolution does not imply or does not say that this money should then
be transferred from 050 for something else. It can all stay in defense.
The increase should not be used for Star Wars. I wanted to make that
clear.
I appreciate the Senator from Tennessee giving me a minute to make
that point.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Iowa, I am
willing to accept the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, and the
distinguished ranking member has indicated to me that he is willing to
accept it, also. If that is the case, it would not necessitate a
rollcall, if the Senator would acquiesce in that acceptance.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1577
(Purpose: To ensure equitable distribution of reductions in
discretionary spending among all budget functions)
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 1577.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title III, add the following:
Sec. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
OF REDUCTIONS IN DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.
The Senate finds that since the President's Fiscal Year
1995 defense budget request represents the tenth straight
year of real cuts in defense; and if the President's defense
budget request is approved, since 1985 real defense spending
will have been reduced by 45 percent by 1999; and President
Clinton, during his State of the Union address on January 25,
1994, promised no further cuts in defense spending. Then it
is the sense of the Senate that the annual levels of the 050
function should be reduced from the President's Fiscal Year
1995-1999 budget request only after other annual levels of
non-defense discretionary spending in the budget resolution
have been reduced, fairly and appropriately.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what the amendment is saying is that we
should not cut defense spending any more than we intend to cut
nondefense discretionary spending, in light of the fact that since 1985
we have cut defense spending in real terms by some 35 percent; by 1999
we will cut it by an additional 10 percent; that from now on, if we are
going to cut the budget, we should cut it fairly and equitably and not
have the burden of budget reductions, spending reductions be borne
solely by defense, which has basically been the case.
Mr. President, I refer to the President of the United States'
statement before the Congress of the United States just this year where
he stated, to significant applause on both sides of the aisle, ``The
budget I send to Congress draws the line against further defense cuts.
We must not cut defense further.''
I echo the words of the President of the United States. I do not
believe that just because we are going to cut spending, it has to come
out of defense. I believe that that burden should be borne throughout
the Federal budget, and I would suggest that that has not been the
case.
Mr. President, as the President knows, we have gone from a very, very
dangerous but predictable world to a much less dangerous but
unpredictable world.
A glance at the globe today indicates that there are potential
trouble spots which, unfortunately, may require the use of United
States military power, from Korea where we are facing a major crisis,
to China where there is clearly a situation of great tension, Bosnia
that we all know about, to the situation in the former Soviet
Republics, and the list goes on and on.
Mr. President, I am not asking that we not cut defense further,
although that is a frightening prospect to me given the lack of
readiness and the lack of capability that already exists in the
military. What I am saying is, if we are going to cut spending, and
indeed I believe we will because I believe that is the mandate that the
American people are giving us, at least those cuts have to be fair,
equitable, and divided up equally amongst discretionary nondefense
spending as well as defense spending.
I would like to see this Senate on record as making sure that as we
debate the appropriations bills that come to the floor, the sense of
the Senate has been expressed that those cuts be equitably distributed.
I would like to thank my friend from New Mexico for his indulgence in
helping me with this amendment. I also understand that it is the desire
at this time not to have a rollcall vote on this particular amendment,
although I do not doubt the judgment of the Senator from New Mexico. I
know there are many other amendments that are pending. So I ask my
friend from New Mexico what his desire is on this amendment, and then I
will finish my remarks and yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 2 minutes, Mr. President, out of the
time of the Senator from Arizona.
Did Senator McCain say that the Senator from New Mexico did not think
he ought to have a rollcall vote? I did not say that.
Mr. McCAIN. I must have been misinformed. I will request the yeas and
nays.
Mr. DOMENICI. We are trying to work something out where two
amendments like this would be accepted. We have not had the other one
accepted. I think the Senator ought to withhold on that.
Mr. McCAIN. If it is agreeable with the Senator from New Mexico, I
ask for the yeas and nays. We can always ask that they be vitiated if
necessary.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask a question? As the Senator from Arizona
proposes this, if the Exon amendment is applied, is the Senator saying
it would apply so that an equal amount would be taken off discretionary
as off defense or would not be disproportionately defense?
Mr. McCAIN. That is the intent of the amendment. Yes.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. Cohen addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside temporarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1582
(Purpose: To provide for the expedited consideration of
certain rescissions)
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], for himself and Mr.
Kerrey, proposes an amendment numbered 1582.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title II insert the following:
SEC. . EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED
RESCISSIONS.
(a) Proposed Rescission of Budget Authority.--The President
may propose, at the time and in the manner provided in
subsection (b), the rescission of any budget authority
provided in an appropriations Act.
(b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
(1) Not later than 3 days after the date of enactment of an
appropriation Act, the President may transmit to Congress a
special message proposing to rescind amounts of budget
authority provided in that Act and include with that special
message a draft bill or joint resolution that, if enacted,
would only rescind that budget authority.
(2) In the case of an appropriation Act that includes
accounts within the jurisdiction of more than one
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, the
President in proposing to rescind budget authority under this
section shall send a separate special message and
accompanying draft bill or joint resolution for accounts
within the jurisdiction of each such subcommittee.
(3) Each special message shall specify, with respect to the
budget authority proposed to be rescinded, the matters
referred to in paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 1012(a)
of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
(c) Procedures for Expedited Consideration.--
(1)(A) Before the close of the second day of continuous
session of the applicable House after the date of receipt of
a special message transmitted to Congress under subsection
(b), the majority leader or minority leader of the House of
Congress in which the appropriation Act involved originated
shall introduce (by request) the draft bill or joint
resolution accompanying that special message. If the bill or
joint resolution is not introduced as provided in the
preceding sentence, then, on the third day of continuous
session of that House after the date of receipt of that
special message, any Member of that House may introduce the
bill or joint resolution.
(B) The bill or joint resolution shall be referred to the
Committee on Appropriations of that House. The committee
shall report the bill or joint resolution without substantive
revision and with or without recommendation. The bill or
joint resolution shall be reported not later than the seventh
day of continuous session of that House after the date of
receipt of that special message. If the Committee on
Appropriations fails to report the bill or joint resolution
within that period, that committee shall be automatically
discharged from consideration of the bill or joint
resolution, and the bill or joint resolution shall be placed
on the appropriate calendar.
(C) A vote on final passage of the bill or joint resolution
shall be taken in that House on or before the close of the
10th calendar day of continuous session of that House after
the date of the introduction of the bill or joint resolution
in that House. If the bill or joint resolution is agreed to,
the Clerk of the House of Representatives (in the case of a
bill or joint resolution agreed to in the House of
Representatives) or the Secretary of the Senate (in the case
of a bill or joint resolution agreed to in the Senate) shall
cause the bill or joint resolution to be engrossed,
certified, and transmitted to the other House of Congress on
the same calendar day on which the bill or joint resolution
is agreed to.
(2)(A) A bill or joint resolution transmitted to the House
of Representatives or the Senate pursuant to paragraph (1)(C)
shall be referred to the Committee on Appropriations of that
House. The committee shall report the bill or joint
resolution without substantive revision and with or without
recommendation. The bill or joint resolution shall be
reported not later than the seventh day of continuous session
of that House after it receives the bill or joint resolution.
A committee failing to report the bill or joint resolution
within such period shall be automatically discharged from
consideration of the bill or joint resolution, and the bill
or joint resolution shall be placed upon the appropriate
calendar.
(B) A vote on final passage of a bill or joint resolution
transmitted to that House shall be taken on or before the
close of the 10th calendar day of continuous session of that
House after the date on which the bill or joint resolution is
transmitted. If the bill or joint resolution is agreed to in
that House, the Clerk of the House of Representatives (in the
case of a bill or joint resolution agreed to in the House of
Representatives) or the Secretary of the Senate (in the case
of a bill or joint resolution agreed to in the Senate) shall
cause the engrossed bill or joint resolution to be returned
to the House in which the bill or joint resolution
originated.
(3)(A) A motion in the House of Representatives to proceed
to the consideration of a bill or joint resolution under this
section shall be highly privileged and not debatable. An
amendment to the motion shall not be in order, nor shall it
be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(B) Debate in the House of Representatives on a bill or
joint resolution under this section shall not exceed 4 hours,
which shall be divided equally between those favoring and
those opposing the bill or joint resolution. A motion further
to limit debate shall not be debatable. It shall not be in
order to move to recommit a bill or joint resolution under
this section or to move to reconsider the vote by which the
bill or joint resolution is agreed to or disagreed to.
(C) Appeals from decisions of the Chair relating to the
application of the Rules of the House of Representatives to
the procedure relating to a bill or joint resolution under
this section shall be decided without debate.
(D) Except to the extent specifically provided in the
preceding provisions of this subsection, consideration of a
bill or joint resolution under this section shall be governed
by the Rules of the House of Representatives.
(4)(A) A motion in the Senate to proceed to the
consideration of a bill or joint resolution under this
section shall be privileged and not debatable. An amendment
to the motion shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order
to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed
to or disagreed to.
(B) Debate in the Senate on a bill or joint resolution
under this section, and all debatable motions and appeals in
connection therewith, shall not exceed 10 hours. The time
shall be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
majority leader and the minority leader or their designees.
(C) Debate in the Senate on any debatable motion or appeal
in connection with a bill or joint resolution under this
section shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be
equally divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the
manager of the bill or joint resolution, except that in the
event the manager of the bill or joint resolution is in favor
of any such motion or appeal, the time in opposition thereto,
shall be controlled by the minority leader or his designee.
Such leaders, or either of them, may, from time under their
control on the passage of a bill or joint resolution, allot
additional time to any Senator during the consideration of
any debatable motion or appeal.
(D) A motion in the Senate to further limit debate on a
bill or joint resolution under this section is not debatable.
A motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution under this
section is not in order.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``appropriation Act'' means any general or
special appropriation Act, and any Act or joint resolution
making supplemental, deficiency, or continuing
appropriations; and
(2) continuity of a session of either House of Congress
shall be considered as broken only by an adjournment of that
House sine die, and the days on which that House is not in
session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a
date certain shall be excluded in the computation of any
period.
SEC. . EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED REPEALS
OF TAX EXPENDITURES.
(a) Proposed Repeal of Tax Expenditure.--The President may
propose, at the time and in the manner provided in subsection
(b), the repeal of any provision in an Act that would result
in a tax expenditure.
(b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
(1) Not later than 3 days after the date of enactment into
law of an Act containing a provision described in subsection
(a), the President may transmit to Congress a special message
proposing to repeal any such provision contained in that Act
and include with that special message a draft bill or joint
resolution that, if enacted, would repeal such provision.
(2) Each special message shall include, with respect to the
provision proposed to be repealed, a budget analysis of such
provision.
(c) Procedures for Expedited Consideration.--Each special
message transmitted pursuant to subsection (b) shall be
considered in accordance with the procedures provided for
special messages in the preceding section of this resolution.
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``tax expenditure'' shall have the meaning given such term in
section 3(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am sending this amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska.
Two weeks ago the Senate debated the proposal to amend the
Constitution to require a balanced budget. I regret that the proposal
was rejected narrowly. I understand that my colleagues were somewhat
reluctant to incorporate budget policy and procedure into the
Constitution. But today we are proposing a change in the budget
procedure that does not amend the Constitution, and does not amend any
Federal statute. It merely amends House and Senate Rules of Procedure.
For this reason I hope that some of my colleagues who could not
support the balanced budget amendment, will be able to support this
proposal that we are offering this afternoon.
The amendment would establish an expedited procedure for House and
Senate consideration of rescission requests made by the President.
Under current law, Congress is not required to act on any requests by
the President to rescind or cancel funds already appropriated by the
Congress. If Congress chooses to ignore the rescission request, they
simply wither on the vine.
In light of the looming and repeated deficits, however, I think the
Presidential requests to rescind spending deserve to be acted upon, and
Congress should not be able to simply ignore the requests.
So under the expedited rescission proposal, Congress would be
required to vote on the President's rescission requests within 20 days
of their proposal to Congress. This would also, I might add, not only
apply to appropriation rescissions but to tax expenditures.
Wasteful Federal spending is not restricted to appropriations
measures. Federal resources can be wasted in the Tax Code as well, and
the President ought to have the authority to reach this type of waste
as well.
Every dollar that is expended through a wasteful tax provision is a
dollar that could be better spent through a productive tax provision.
Mr. President, last year the House of Representatives passed, by an
overwhelming margin, a bill to create an expedited rescission
authority. The proposal I am offering today is quite similar to the
House version, except that we add tax expenditures. Unfortunately,
during the consideration of this bill in the House, the House rejected
an amendment by House minority leader Bob Michel to permit the
President to propose rescinding tax expenditures, as well as
appropriated matters.
Also last year, during consideration of 1994 budget resolution, I
offered an amendment with Senator Campbell to express the sense of the
Senate that expedited rescission procedures should be adopted. I was
pleased that a motion to table that amendment was rejected by nearly a
2-to-1 margin.
Today, we have an opportunity to fire with real bullets. The
amendment we are offering today would amend the current House and
Senate provisions to make this expedited rescission a reality. I am
pleased to have Senator Kerrey join me in offering this amendment. It
was through Senator Kerrey's leadership earlier this year that we had
an opportunity to vote on a substantive list of specific spending cuts
that went well beyond the rescissions proposed by the President.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I hope that those
supporting last year's sense-of-the-Senate amendment will support this
amendment today when it really counts.
I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAHAM). The Senator from Nebraska is
recognized.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of this
expedited rescission amendment. As the distinguished Senator from Maine
just said earlier this year, the Presiding Officer and I, and several
other Members, attempted to amend a rescission bill that was sent to
the Congress by the President last fall that had been referenced to the
Appropriations Committee. And we found that amending that rescission
bill was extremely difficult. In this particular case, it got merged
with a supplemental appropriations bill. Thus, as we came to the floor
to offer our amendment to the rescission bill, many were concerned that
we were slowing down a dire emergency supplemental appropriations.
It was difficult for us to get that rescission bill to the floor and
for us to get our amendment considered in a very clean and
straightforward fashion. Not only do I believe the expedited
rescission, as this amendment offers, will give us a chance to consider
the rescission bill in an expedited fashion, but I believe it will give
Congress the opportunity to debate in a much more open and meaningful
fashion those things that we think we would like to cut--things we
would like to cut in addition to what the President is offering, both
on the direct spending side and on the indirect spending side through
our taxes.
All of us that have supported spending reduction have been extremely
frustrated. It seems that the majority shifts when it comes time to
vote for spending reductions, and we always fall a few votes short--
sometimes 4 or 5, sometimes 10 or 15. What this amendment would do
would be to change the budget process and make it clear that there is
going to be an opportunity every year, because it is likely that every
year the President is going to introduce a rescission bill, and that he
will say: Here are some things I want to rescind.
This would force the Congress to consider the President's rescission
legislation in an expedited fashion and, as I said, Mr. President, give
the Congress an opportunity to debate in an extended fashion those
things we would like to offer on the expenditure side and the tax side
to further reduce this Nation's deficit.
So I applaud the work of the Senator from Maine on this amendment. I
am pleased to join as a cosponsor. I believe this amendment, if agreed
to, if held in conference, and if it becomes part of this Nation's
budget law, will give us the mechanism that many of us have been
looking for, which will permit us to come to the floor and have an open
and very meaningful and constructive debate about in what areas we
believe spending reduction needs to occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If no one yields time, time will be deducted equally from both sides.
Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. COHEN. How much time remains on this bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine controls 52 minutes 20
seconds. The opposition controls 60 minutes.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the present
business be laid aside so that I might offer another amendment.
Mr. SASSER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. The distinguished
President pro tempore, I think, may wish to speak in opposition to the
enhanced rescission amendment that is being temporarily laid aside. We
will reserve our full 60 minutes when it is laid aside.
Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I inquire from the
Senator from Nebraska how long his next amendment will take, because in
the sequence, I had expected that I might be the next person to offer
an amendment.
Mr. KERREY. I will take no more than 5 or 10 minutes to offer it. I
do not have extended comments.
Mr. SPECTER. Might I inquire of the managers if my amendment would
then fall next in line?
Mr. DOMENICI. I said to the Senator that he was next if they did not
have an amendment. They do have one now. There is a Cohen amendment,
and then Senator Kerrey's, and then yours.
Mr. SPECTER. I thought that was a Cohen-Kerrey amendment.
Mr. COHEN. It was, and now it is going to be a Kerrey-Cohen
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SASSER. Reserving the right to object, to further my inquiry, we
will be reserving 60 minutes on the opponents of the enhanced
rescission amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct. There has been 3 minutes 51 seconds
charged against the opponents, and an equal amount having been charged
to the proponents.
Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I just want to be sure
that after the 5 or 10 minutes have elapsed, this Senator will have a
chance to offer my amendment before any time is used in the balance,
and I will be relatively brief, in the 10- to 12-minute range on my
amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that will be the order of
proceeding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I did not
hear the Senator.
Would the Senator kindly repeat the unanimous consent request?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
My unanimous consent is on the sequences which we have discussed
following the Kerrey-Cohen amendment, that this Senator be permitted to
offer my amendment that will be relatively brief, in the 10-, 12- or
15-minute range.
Mr. SASSER. I thank the Senator.
Senator Robb is on the floor, and he is eager to get his amendment
before the Senate. I assume after the amendment of the Senator from
Pennsylvania is disposed of then Mr. Robb's amendment can be called up.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask that it be added to the unanimous
consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the unanimous consent
requests that have been made.
The Senator from Nebraska asked the pending business be set aside for
the purposes of his offering an amendment. The Senator from
Pennsylvania asked unanimous consent that upon the completion of the
amendment that will be offered by the Senator from Nebraska he be
recognized for purposes of offering an amendment. The Senator from
Virginia has asked that upon completion of the amendment offered by the
Senator from Pennsylvania he be recognized for purposes of offering an
amendment.
Is there objection to that unanimous consent series of requests?
If not, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Amendment No. 1583
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Federal
courthouse construction.)
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] for himself and Mr.
Cohen, proposes an amendment numbered 1583.
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FEDERAL COURTHOUSE
CONSTRUCTION.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) The President's fiscal year 1995 budget includes a
request for 11 courthouses with a total estimated cost of
over $1,000,000,000;
(2) while there may be significant need for new Federal
courthouses, the need for programs that prevent youth
violence before children get to courthouses is greater;
(3) There should be a moratorium for fiscal year 1995 on
the construction of any new Federal courthouses which have
not already been specifically approved by Congress; and
(4) priority should be given to programs for children and
families like Head Start and grants for maternal and infant
health care.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I had the amendment read. It is self-
explanatory.
I simply am arguing this is not a priority expenditure. I understand
that these courthouses are important. I began this quest to knock these
courthouses out and have a moratorium on it when I opened up the
newspaper last year on a day that I happened to be trying to find
$50,000 to keep a boys club in Omaha, NE, open. All we needed was
$50,000 to get the job done.
I pick up the newspaper and I find out that an $85 million new
courthouse is being built in Omaha, NE. I said at the time it does not
make any sense to me that we are allocating $85 million to build a
place where we are going to sentence young people and not provide
$50,000 as a place where young people can go, hopefully so they will be
able to avoid that courthouse.
It is just one more example of how I think our priorities are wrong.
We hear constantly we cut the domestic discretionary expenditures to
the bone. The private sector is willing to build many of these things
for us. I think it is an unnecessary expenditure.
I hope that the majority of the Senate will support this rather
simple and straightforward amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KERREY. I yield whatever time it takes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska yields what time is
required to the Senator from Maine.
The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. COHEN. I thank my friend for yielding. I also will be very brief.
Mr. President, I think the Senator from Nebraska has proposed a very
sound and sensible sense-of-the-Senate resolution and points out the
fact that we have had a chaotic situation in our Federal building
program.
Last year, I requested that the Governmental Affairs Committee's
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, on which I serve as
ranking minority member, hold a hearing on this subject. The findings
were troubling. We found that the Federal Government was leasing a
number of buildings that we would have been better off buying.
Furthermore, the Government was constructing new buildings when in fact
existing buildings could have been purchased to meet the Government's
needs at a significant savings over new construction. For this reason,
I asked the then-designee General Services Administrator Roger Johnson
to temporarily suspend the construction and leasing program for new
Federal office space and courthouses. This was to provide the new
Administrator, with an opportunity to review all of the projects for
cost effectiveness and to ensure that these projects were in the best
economic interest of the taxpayer. By agreeing to my request the new
Administrator, who I think has done an outstanding job, stated this
morning, that the Government will save about $1.2 billion. The
moratorium also forced the GSA to consider its construction program in
terms of the government's priorities.
I think this amendment extends our oversight of Federal property
management a step further. It is important that we get our house in
order on this matter as the need for Federal property will undoubtedly
continue to grow. Under the Senate crime bill, we will certainly be
building more prisons. We also know we need funds for more police on
the streets. It only stands to follow that we will need more
prosecutors, and ultimately we will probably need more courthouses.
The evidence is clear that we are not satisfying our property needs
in the most cost effective and appropriate manner. For example, often
the Federal Government will construct new office space and courthouses
in areas where there are already millions of square feet of vacant
office space that is both appropriate and available for Federal use.
This new construction often exacerbates an already high commercial
office vacancy rate by displacing Federal workers from existing space.
In many cases, the Government continues to build when it would be more
appropriate, and certainly more cost effective, to buy existing
buildings and renovate, or even lease where the cost of buying or
leasing is significantly less than the cost of new construction. Yet
for reasons that defy the law of supply and demand, the Government,
unless we begin to pass legislation like the amendment offered by
Senator Kerrey and myself, will continue to construct unnecessary high-
cost buildings and continue depressing existing real estate values and
not engaging in a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. President, the vast majority of the Federal construction projects
managed by the GSA are Federal courthouses. These dollars directed
toward courthouse construction is growing rapidly. In 1991, Congress
appropriated over $564 million for 13 new court construction projects,
which represented 42 percent of the total appropriated to the General
Services Administration for new construction. The FY 1994 appropriation
for GSA building projects included funding for 16 new Federal
courthouses amounting to $781 million or about 84 percent of the $943
million appropriated last year for new building construction. This
year, the President is asking for an additional $1 billion to construct
11 new Federal courthouses.
This growth in courthouse construction concerns me not only for the
reasons I expressed earlier, but because some of these projects may not
be needed. Last fall, GAO issued a report which said that projections
for court space needs by the Federal judiciary are seriously flawed. As
a result of the faulty projections, the administrative office of the
United States Courts may have overestimated the Federal judiciary's 10-
year space needs and the Government may be building three million
square feet of courthouse space that we do not need. According to GAO's
cost projections, this also means that GSA could be overbilling the
taxpayers $1.1 billion for the judiciary's over-estimated space needs.
Given that, according to GAO, the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts did not project long-range space needs that were sufficiently
reliable to form the basis for congressional authorization and funding
approval of new construction, for court space, I think this amendment
makes an enormous amount of good common sense, and I hope our
colleagues will join in supporting it.
I yield back the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I do not know. Is there opposition to this
amendment?
Mr. President, I will just yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, time will be charged
equally on the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, could I have the floor momentarily to ask
unanimous-consent that a study be printed in the Record, a GAO report
about the long-range planning needs for the Federal judiciary for
space?
There being no objection, the study was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Executive Summary
Purpose
Between 1979 and 1988, the federal judiciary's caseload
increased by 99 percent, thereby creating a need for
additional court space. Initial estimates from the long-range
planning process, established by the judiciary in 1988 to
project its future space needs, indicated that need for court
space will continue to grow for the next 30 years. In 1991
Congress appropriated over $546 million for 13 new court
construction projects, or about 42 percent of the total
amount appropriated to the General Services Administration
(GSA) for new construction projects. Concerned about the
judiciary's continuing requests for more space, the Ranking
Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, House Committee on Public Works and
Transportation, asked GAO to evaluate the reasonableness of
the methodology used by the judiciary to project long-range
space needs and to assess the reliability of the projections.
Background
In 1988, to anticipate future space requirements, the
Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking
body of the judiciary, directed each of the 94 district
courts to develop a long-range plan for its space needs. It
also directed the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
(AOC), the administrative body of the judiciary, to provide
the districts with the necessary planning guidance. By
establishing a long-range planning process, the judiciary
became one of the first government organizations to develop a
mechanism for anticipating space needs. GSA uses the 10-year
space projections provided by the judiciary as the basis for
requests to Congress for new construction and expansion of
court space in existing facilities.
The Judicial Conference also requested independent
authority from Congress to acquire its own judicial
facilities. The judiciary believed that such authority would
provide greater control and flexibility because it would no
longer be dependent upon the executive branch for space.
Congress has not acted upon this request.
AOC developed an on-going, long-range planning process
based on the basic assumptions that (1) caseloads should
determine staffing needs, which, in turn, should dictate
space needs; (2) local district representatives should
determine actual space needs rather than depending primarily
upon statistical estimation methods; and (3) each district is
of equal importance and, therefore, space needs should not be
prioritized among districts.
Under its long-range planning process, AOC annually
categorizes the 94 districts into 1 of 4 groups on the basis
of the district's total caseload. For each group, the average
ratios of key personnel to specific caseloads are computed.
AOC then develops 5-, 10-, 20-, and 30-year projections for
each district for four different caseloads--bankruptcy
filings, criminal and civil cases commenced, and the number
of people under court supervision, AOC uses the ratios of
caseload to key personnel to convert the projected caseload
to staffing needs for each time period. Staffing needs are
then converted to space needs using the U.S. Courts Design
Guide, a planning document that was developed for use in the
design of court space.
Because the judiciary believes that final space projections
should reflect the knowledge and experience of local
representatives, AOC's team conducted 3-day planning sessions
in each of the 94 districts. The planning sessions were
attended by local representatives from each of the court
components, court-related agencies--the U.S. Attorneys'
office, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the U.S. Trustees--and
GSA. The local representatives reviewed and modified the
initial staff and space projections and compared their
current space assignments to the Design Guide to identify
immediate, unmet space needs (deficits). The initial
projections served as a starting point for discussion, and
the representatives' modifications became the final
projections of staff and space needs for the district. Agency
officials reported that they do not plan to continue to
routinely schedule on-site sessions after completion of all
94 districts.
As of September 1, 1992, AOC had completed space
projections for 60 of the 94 districts. In order to determine
the estimated total impact of AOC'S planning process, GAO
projected AOC's findings for the completed districts to the
total 94 districts. GAO estimated that for all 94 districts,
the total space requirements for courts and related agencies
would increase to about 36.9 million square feet over a 10-
year period, a 97-percent increase.
Because of the continuing requests for additional court
space, GSA officials raised concerns about the methodology
used by AOC to project future needs. When they communicated
these concerns to Congress, GAO was asked to evaluate the
methodology that AOC was using for long-range planning and to
assess the reliability of the results produced.
results in brief
GAO found that AOC's process for projecting long-range
space needs did not produce results that were sufficiently
reliable to form the basis for congressional authorization
and funding approval of new construction and renovation
projects for court space. GAO's analysis indicated that AOC's
projections of caseloads were higher than those generated
using a standard statistical method in 76 districts and were
lower in the remaining 18 districts. When GAO used an
estimate of $31 per square foot, which represented the
judiciary's average cost for all court space, the difference
translated to a net cost in constant dollars of approximately
$112 million annually, or $1.1 billion over the 10-year
period.
GAO identified three key problems that have impaired the
accuracy and reliability of the judiciary's projections.
First, AOC had not treated all districts consistently. One
reason for this was that it did not routinely revise district
plans that were completed earlier to reflect changes made to
critical factors, such as the space allocation per individual
staff. Also, the procedure used to convert caseload estimates
to staffing requirements did not reflect differences among
districts that affect space needs. Second, based on AOC's
assumptions regarding the relationship between caseloads and
staff needs, many districts' baselines to which future space
needs are added did not accurately reflect their current
space needs. AOC used as the baseline for a district the
amount of space it occupied plus any deficit identified by
the local representatives. As a consequence, when a district
occupied more space than the caseload warranted, future
estimates of needs were overstated. Third, AOC's process did
not provide reliable estimates of future space needs because
the methodology used to project caseloads was not
statistically acceptable. In addition, because of the amount
of subjectivity involved in the process, it is likely that if
the process were repeated for any district, even without any
change to the caseloads, the estimate of space needs would be
different.
GAO recognizes that it is difficult to project future space
needs with precision. The projection of such needs is not an
exact science, and in the final analysis, it is reasonable to
expect some variation between the estimate and what is
actually needed. Space estimates are particularly challenging
for the judiciary because there are numerous factors that
cause changes in the workload, and therefore space needs,
which are beyond its control. However, by modifying the
process, more reliable assessments of future space needs
could be obtained that would provide a better basis for
decisionmaking by GSA and by Congress.
GAO Analysis
Districts Have Been Treated Inconsistently
AOC's method for projecting space needs has treated
districts inconsistently. The process began in 1989, but all
94 districts are not scheduled for completion until 1994.
Since 1989, AOC has made a number of changes in the way space
is allocated but has not routinely revised the completed
plans to reflect the changes. As a consequence, those
districts whose plans were completed early received lower
space allocations than did those completed later.
Another problem was the use of data from different time
periods when future space needs were projected. AOC used 40
years of historic data to project future caseloads. Because
the process has required 5 years for the completion of plans
for all districts, the time period used to make caseload
projections has not been the same for all districts. For
example, some districts' estimates were based upon historic
data for 1949 through 1989, while others included 1952
through 1992. The increase in the number of bankruptcy
filings that occurred during 1990 and 1991 was not reflected
in the early projections, thereby resulting in underestimates
of space needs for bankruptcy courts.
Another problem related to AOC's method of grouping
districts into one of four ``growth models.'' It used the
districts' total caseloads, including civil and criminal
cases commenced, bankruptcy filings, and number of persons
under supervision, as the basis for determining the growth
model. The average caseload, number of key personnel, and
ratio of other staff to key personnel were then determined
within each growth model. These data defined the
relationships between caseloads and staff needs that were
applied within each growth model when future space needs were
calculated. This method gave equal weight to all cases and
ignored differences among districts' caseloads that directly
affected space needs, such as case complexity and length of
trials.
Baselines Have Not Reflected Current Needs
One of AOC's basic assumptions is that caseloads should
determine staff needs, which should define space needs.
However, GAO found that when determining the baselines, to
which future space needs were added, AOC assumed that all
authorized staff were needed. Therefore, space allocations
were included for all staff regardless of whether the staff
was justified by current caseloads. In addition, AOC included
deficits in the baselines without verifying that they
represented actual space needs.
To determine the impact of these practices on projections,
GAO tested two alternative methods for determining baselines.
GAO did not include deficits as part of the baseline under
either alternative. The first GAO alternative established
district baselines directly from current caseload, while the
second GAO alternative established baselines according to the
number of authorized staff positions.
Under the first of these alternatives, GAO used AOC's
caseload-to-staff ratios to convert current caseloads to
staff needs. The Design Guide space allocations were then
applied to determine the amount of space required to house
this level of staff. On the basis of this alternative, GAO
estimated that AOC's baselines overstated space needs in 65
districts by about 3 million square feet and understated
needs in 29 districts by about 840,000 square feet.
Under the second alternative, GAO began with the current
staffing levels to establish the amount of space currently
required. This alternative recognized that current staff
levels may not correspond to the level needed to process the
caseload. However, this alternative also recognized that
existing staff levels could not be readily modified. On the
basis of this alternative, GAO estimated that AOC's baselines
overstated space needs in 63 districts by about 2.1 million
square feet and understated baselines in 31 districts by
about 1 million square feet.
Under either of these alternatives, the GAO position was
that additional space is not warranted until the caseload
increases to the level that more staff are needed.
Projection Methods Have Not Produced Reliable Results
The long-range planning process used by AOC has not
produced reliable estimates of future space needs. First, the
methodology used to make initial caseload projections was
statistically flawed. AOC averaged the results of different
regression analyses to develop its final estimates. As a
consequence, the accuracy of the initial caseload projections
cannot be measured statistically.
In addition, the high level of subjectivity in the process
made it likely that if the process were repeated for the same
district even without a change in the caseloads, the final
estimate of space needs would be different.
Subjectivity occurred at two points in the process. First,
when initial caseload projections were made, if the estimate
seemed to be too low, it was arbitrarily increased. Second,
because the local representatives did not have available the
caseload projections made by AOC prior to the on-site
sessions, the final estimates of needs were based primarily
upon their subjective experiences.
To assess the overall reliability of AOC's process, GAO
developed 5- and 10-year projections of space needs for the
judiciary using a standard acceptable statical method. This
analysis indicated that the judiciary's 10-year projections
of court space needs were higher than GAO's estimates in 76
districts by about 5 million square feet and were lower in 18
districts by about 1.4 million square feet. Overall, AOC's
estimates were about 16 percent higher than GAO's estimates.
Using a GAO estimate of $31 per square foot, which reflected
the judiciary's average cost for all court space for the
period 1988 to 1992, this would represent an overestimate of
about $112 million per year, or $1.1 billion for the 10-year
planning period.
recommendations
GAO recommends that the director of the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts revise the future operations of the
long-range planning process to:
Treat all districts consistently in terms of the
application of the assumptions regarding the relationships
between caseloads, staff, and space;
Establish a baseline for each district that reflects its
current caseload; and
Increase the reliability of the results by using an
acceptable statistical methodology to project future
caseloads and by reducing the level of subjectivity in the
process.
agency comments
AOC provided written comments on a draft of this report;
the text of these comments is presented in appendix III.
AOC's comments and GAO's responses are discussed at the end
of chapters 2, 3, 4, and appendix III. On June 21, 1993, GAO
met with the Assistant commissioner, Office of Planning, GSA.
He provided official oral comments on a draft of this report.
GAO also met with agency officials from AOC to discuss their
comments.
AOC agreed with GAO that all districts should be treated
consistently, even though this was not occurred in the past;
however, AOC pointed out that these inconsistencies were not
intentional. GAO does not imply in the draft report that
the inconsistencies were intentional. However, because of
the 5-year period required to complete all districts,
changes did occur that affected some districts,
particularly those that had plans completed early in the
period. Following the completion of plans for all 94
districts in early 1994, on-site planning sessions will no
longer be routinely scheduled for all districts, thereby
reducing the time required to complete all districts from
5 years to 2 years. As a direct consequence, the
likelihood of changes that affect space allocations will
be reduced, although not eliminated. GAO's position is
that any time there is a change that affects space
allocations, the plans for all districts should be updated
to prevent the occurrence of inequities.
AOC stated that GAO misused its basic planning assumption
that caseloads should determine staff needs, which should
determine space needs, when it applied this assumption to
determine the amount of current space needed (baselines).
AOC's intent was that this assumption apply only to future
needs, not to current needs, and that the baselines should
reflect current space plus deficits. GAO's position is that
the baselines used by AOC often do not accurately reflect
existing needs; therefore, the estimates of future
requirements will continue to reflect any existing overages
or shortages in terms of the amount of space needed to
process the districts' caseloads.
AOC commented that the projection of future space needs
should be dependent primarily upon the qualitative
information provided by the local representatives rather than
upon statistical procedures. GAO recognizes that qualitative
methods, which involve group participation, can be used
successfully in some instances to generate accurate
projections. However, there are two basic restrictions to the
use of these qualitative methods. The participants should be
experts in the relevant area, and the projection period
should be limited to 1 or 2 years. However, the local
representatives who participate in AOC's on-site sessions
often would not qualify as experts, and AOC does not limit
this method to short-term projections. Therefore, even if
experts were involved the estimates produced would lack
reliability. AOC stated that beginning in 1994 on-site
sessions will no longer be routinely scheduled and that local
input will be obtained through other channels. This may
result in a reduction of the subjectivity and an improvement
in the reliability of the estimates. However, GAO's position
is that AOC should examine various alternative statistical
methods for estimating caseloads. AOC could then directly
translate these statistical projections into space
requirements by applying its assumptions regarding the
relationships between caseloads and staff/space.
A general issue that AOC and GSA raised was that the total
process for the acquisition of facilities is more complex
than just the long-range plans. GAO recognizes that the
court's projection of long-range space needs is only one
phase of a complex process. However, GAO was only asked to
evaluate the methodology the courts used for making long-
range plans not to evaluate the total space acquisition
process.
GSA officials indicated that they concurred with the GAO
draft report. They stated that the GAO methodology for
calculating baselines represented a way to improve the
reliability of future estimates of space needs for the
judiciary. They also agreed with GAO that AOC should examines
alternative caseload projection methods.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I would inquire of the Senator from
Nebraska. I have discussed his amendment dealing with Federal
courthouses with the distinguished ranking member, and if the Senator
from Nebraska would be agreeable to vitiating his request for the yeas
and nays, we would be agreeable to accepting the amendment. We find it
to be meritorious.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays be vitiated on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The yeas and nays are vitiated.
Is there any further debate?
Is there desire to yield the remaining time back?
Mr. DOMENICI. If I had time in opposition, I yield it back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 59 minutes 25 seconds.
Mr. KERREY. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, we have just been advised that one of our
colleagues on our side opposes the Kerrey amendment and has raised an
objection to its being accepted and, as a matter of fact, is on his way
to the floor to speak in opposition to it.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays again on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kerrey
amendment be temporarily laid aside so we may proceed with my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Kerrey amendment is temporarily laid aside, and the Senator from
Pennsylvania is recognized for purposes of offering an amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 1584
(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding payment of
arrearages of the United States in commitments for contributions to the
United Nations for peacekeeping activities)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself
and Mr. Hatfield, proposes an amendment numbered 1584.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title III add the following new section:
SEC. . SENSE OF SENATE ON PAYMENT TO UNITED NATIONS OF
UNITED STATES ARREARAGES IN CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
(a) Sense of Senate on Authority and Outlays.--It is the
sense of the Senate that budget authority of $250,000,000 in
fiscal year 1995 and outlays of $170,000,000 in that fiscal
year based upon funds accruing under subsection (b) should be
allocated to the committee or committees of the Senate having
jurisdiction over contributions to the United Nations for
peacekeeping activities for the purposes of permitting the
payment of arrearages of the United States in commitments in
fiscal year 1994 for such contributions.
(b) Sense of Senate on Funds.--It is the sense of the
Senate that funds should be available for the budget
authority of $250,000,000 and outlays of $170,000,000
referred to in subsection (a) as the result of--
(1) the reimposition by the United States of charges on
foreign governments (other than Israel and Egypt) for the
non-recurring costs of research, development, and production
of major defense equipment licensed for commercial export to
such governments; and
(2) the recoupment by the United States from such
governments of administrative costs relating to foreign
military sales; and
(3) the elimination of all financing assistance for such
sales (other than sales to Israel and Egypt) by the United
States.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to
express the sense of the Senate that $170 million in outlays be
allocated by pay arrearages owed by the United States for U.N.
peacekeeping operations. These arrearages are estimated to be as much
as $1 billion by the end of this fiscal year. The sum of $170 million
is obtained by reinstating certain cost now borne by the U.S.
Government as subsidies for foreign arms sales.
The thrust of this amendment is readily apparent, that the purpose of
U.N. peacekeeping forces is a very high value for the maintenance of
international peace, contrasted with the subsidies offered by the U.S.
Government for the sale of arms worldwide, which is quite a detriment
to the interest of peace.
The sense-of-the-Senate resolution cites an exception for Israel and
Egypt because of the spirit, if not the technical requirements, of the
Camp David Accord exempting those two countries from any additional
costs which might be incurred as a result of eliminating this subsidy.
Mr. President, the administration had requested that the sum of $670
million be included in the recent dire emergency supplemental, and that
request was denied when the supplemental, which was directed
principally for the California earthquakes, was substantially
overburdened. That request was rejected.
The $670 million requested by the administration was to pay for
peacekeeping forces to the United Nations. As I say, that arrearage by
the United States is now projected to grow to $1 billion by the end of
the fiscal year. The U.N. peacekeeping forces, Mr. President, I submit,
are a very, very good investment to promote the cause of peace around
the world.
We have recently seen the United Nations efforts in Somalia which,
had they been undertaken earlier, had there been more resources
available to the United Nations for peacekeeping in Somalia, and had
the United States not been thrust into the center of that operation
would not have resulted in the very regrettable circumstances which led
to many deaths of United States fighting forces.
At the present time, there are some 17 U.N. peacekeeping operations
around the world. In the field, there are some 70,000 soldiers, costing
about $3.5 billion a year, with many additional requests pending before
the United Nations if the funding were adequate to cover this important
function. This is a phenomenal growth, given that in 1987 the United
Nations had just 5 peacekeeping operations of some 10,000 soldiers in
total and an annual budget of some $233 million.
That striking growth is worth repeating, Mr. President, so that my
colleagues will see the spectacular growth of peacekeeping operations
and so that those who may be watching on C-SPAN II will see the
potential for very effective action by the United Nations on
peacekeeping as opposed to war making.
In 1987, there were five peacekeeping operations, with some 10,000
soldiers, with an annual budget of $233 million. At the present time,
there are some 17 operations, with 70,000 soldiers costing around $3.5
billion a year.
There is an additional peacekeeping request made for Georgia, one of
the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, where there is a
request for some 2,500 to 3,000 peacekeepers. However Russia is the
only country willing to send troops there.
There are now some 28,000 peacekeeping forces in the Balkans, which
is some 6,000 below strength.
The peace talks which are now underway with respect to Angola may
well lead to a request for peacekeeping forces there.
The United States is in a position which is really very sad, with
very substantial arrearages which we owe for the U.N. peacekeeping
operations. Our Nation, as the world leader speaking for the interest
of peace and democracy, ought to be at the forefront of peacekeeping
efforts instead of owing arrearages.
At the same time, Mr. President, I have noted a report by the
Congressional Budget Office which identifies very substantial subsidies
by the U.S. Government for the export of arms around the world. In
fiscal year 1985, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report
entitled ``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,'' and
noted that the cost of not recouping research and development costs for
commercial arms sales and requiring only reimbursement for 3.5 percent
of administrative costs on foreign military sales programs had a dollar
outlay of $170 million in fiscal year 1995, with a projected 5-year
savings of some $1.7 billion.
The United States now exports more military equipment around the
world than any other country, a position--and an unenviable position, I
might add--which was held by the Soviet Union during the 1980's. There
are arguments made that this will maintain the defense industrial basis
of the United States, which I think is hardly persuasive when the sale
of these weapons just promote war, deaths and human suffering.
So it seems to me, Mr. President, that this is a rather modest
approach identifying these $170 million in outlays this year for a
subsidy which the U.S. Government ought not to be undertaking, and
making those funds available in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution for
the payment of part of arrearages due by the United States for U.N.
peacekeeping forces.
I yield the floor, Mr. President, and ask if the managers have any
response to this proposed amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no time is yielded, time
will be charged equally to both sides.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 1586
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania be set aside while I send an
amendment to the desk that will be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to temporarily setting
aside the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania?
Mr. ROBB. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. President, we had a unanimous consent agreement that was entered
into recently. I would like to stick to that. I do not know what the
Senator from New Mexico planned to do. If he planned to take it up and
have it accepted, I have no objection.
Mr. DOMENICI. Just as I sent it to the desk, they accepted it. It
will take 30 seconds.
Mr. ROBB. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the amendment of the Senator
from Pennsylvania is set aside for the purpose of the Senator from New
Mexico offering an amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I send this amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator
McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the clerk will report the
amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr.
McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 1586.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. .--Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate
regarding U.S. policy in Eastern and Central Europe.
It is the sense of the Senate that, the assumptions
underlying the levels of spending set forth in this
resolution regarding the national defense (050) and
international affairs (150) budget categories include an
assumption that the United States will oppose through
appropriate means attempts by the Russian Federation to
intimidate, use military force or engage in economic coercion
to establish a sphere of influence over the former republics
of the Soviet Union, the Baltics, or Central and Eastern
European nations, consistent with provisions contained in the
Freedom Support Act and the Foreign Assistance Appropriations
Act of 1994.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on Tuesday, the New York Times carried
a story that represents the latest example of Russian intentions in the
Baltics, the New Independent States and Central and Eastern Europe. Let
me read key portions of the article so my colleagues get a clear
picture of just what is happening.
More than a thousand tons of wheat seed purchased by the
United States for--Armenia, where there are lines for
rationed bread, are being held up by Russia which is
demanding payment of a 30% export duty. Under an agreement
signed by the United States and Russia two years ago, no
duties are to be imposed on the import or export of relief
assistance. The wheat seeds, purchased from Russia, have been
in the warehouse ready to be loaded on planes since early
February. Last fall, as a part of an $18 million relief
package for Armenia, Congress designated $3 million for wheat
seed. It was to have been used for winter wheat, but the U.S.
Agency for International Development was unable to arrange
the purchase before the beginning of winter planting.
Well, Mr. President, the story notes that American Embassy officials
confirmed these general details but declined comment after noting that
it was extremely sensitive. I also confirmed the story's accuracy and
was told that a cable went out on Tuesday urging Ambassador Pickering
to raise the matter at the highest levels of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The last word I heard on the issue was the solution was
imminent.
I wonder if the solution would be imminent but for the New York Times
interest. I thought the fact that we were buying wheat seed from Russia
rather than the United States obviously needs to be investigated, but
there is another issue which I want to pursue today, and which I
address in my amendment. Unfortunately, this case of starving Armenia
is not an isolated example of bureaucratic bungling. I believe this is
consistent with an emerging policy in which the Russian Federation is
attempting to dominate the Baltics, and former Republics of the Soviet
Union and Warsaw Pact through economic coercion, political
intimidation, and in some cases military intervention. Virtually every
leader in Central and Eastern Europe and in Central Asia has privately
and publicly expressed serious concerns about Russian neo-imperial
ambitions.
In fact, the only government that does not seem alarmed by the trends
is our own. Given an opportunity to explain our policy, the State
Department generally explains Russian concerns. Just a few weeks ago in
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I questioned Secretary Christopher
about President Yeltsin's State of the Union address in which he
asserted Russia's right to intervene throughout the region to protect
Russian minorities and guarantee stability. The State of the Union
speech was understandably unsettling to Russia's neighbors. Instead of
responding to Russia's neoimperialist rhetoric, Secretary Christopher
pointed out that Russia has legitimate interests in suppressing
violence on her borders and protecting Russian minorities.
He made no mention of the rights of minorities from other republics
living in Russia. He did not address their rights of sovereignty or
national integrity. Secretary Christopher chose instead to argue
Russia's case that their minorities were disenfranchised and should be
treated--in his words--``with generosity.''
Within hours, I heard from the leadership of a number of
organizations with strong cultural, ethnic and political ties to the
region. Everyone shared a sense of frustration and outrage with this
persistent and absolute policy bias toward Russia.
This week the Russians are starving the Armenians. They suspended
Ukrainian energy shipments 2 weeks ago. As Secretary of Defense Perry
learned yesterday, the energy crisis has been compounded by the
Russian's failure to fulfill their trilateral agreement obligations to
supply Ukraine with nuclear fuel rods in return for nuclear warheads.
In Georgia, Russian troops provided training and equipment to rebels
engaged in war against the democratically elected government of Mr.
Shevardnadze. In the Baltics, on again-off again talks for troop
withdrawal have been conditioned upon Russian requirements for
continued access to military installations.
I could go on and on, republic by republic, nation by nation,
elaborating on Russia's pattern of intervention. But, it is not just
actions that worry me. We should listen carefully to policy statements
from Moscow. Let me cite just a few examples.
In an op-ed in the Financial Times on Monday, a senior policy advisor
to President Yeltsin said:
Now it seems there is a growing consensus. Most feasible
regimes in Moscow would probably attempt a modality under
which the CIS countries would remain independent politically
but be dominated economically (by Russia) * * * In this
model, Russia would be first among equals * * * Russia will
also have to continue to be a local peace keeper or peace
enforcer.
Mr. Karaganov goes on to note that the only reason the nations will
be offered a measure of political independence is so local leadership
can be blamed for any problems.
I have already drawn attention to the veiled threats in President
Yeltsin's State of the Union--views which are consistent with dozens of
other comments he and his advisors have made on Russia's emerging role.
In December, Yeltsin told a news agency ``Russia considers itself a
great power and a successor to the Soviet Union in all its might.''
Foreign Minister Kozyrev has clarified Russia's right to assert this
might in what he calls the near abroad. In an interview, he noted:
Russia would strive to create effective peacekeeping forces
as a means of dealing with regional conflicts in the former
Soviet Union * * * such forces in the near abroad would
prevent the danger of losing geopolitical positions that took
centuries to conquer.
What is surprising is these are the views of the so-called moderates
in the Russian Government. Hardliners associated with the Defense
Ministry take the policy one step further. Not only has there been an
emerging pattern of economic and political domination in the new
republics, but Russia's extended reach has effectively subverted United
States policy and security interests in the Baltics and former Warsaw
Pact nations.
In obvious response to Russian concerns, the United States recently
rejected requests from European nations to expand NATO. Declaring a
reluctance to draw new lines in Europe, the administration offered an
ambiguous alternative framework paper called the Partnership for Peace.
The reluctance to draw lines, in truth, was a reluctance to make hard
choices. The proposal in essence yielded Russia veto authority over
United States-European policy. Russian opposition to NATO's expansion
had been repeatedly spelled out, including by President Yeltsin in his
State of the Union address. He said:
Russia is against widening of NATO by admitting more
countries of the European continent without Russia. This is
the path toward new threats for Europe and the world.
Sadly, the partnership seems more press opportunity than tough policy
or practices. I was not surprised to learn this morning that the Polish
Defense Minister is having a difficult time nailing down precise
American expectations and the exact benefits of participating in the
partnership. Although he was appropriately diplomatic, it seemed to me
he was being waylaid by procedural matters such as how to present
information to NATO rather than being advised of the concrete steps
Poland should take to expand cooperation.
Mr. President, the ambiguities of the partnership reflect our
overbearing regard for Russian sensitivities. While I do not accept
Russia's policies and plans for the new Republics, the Baltics and the
former Warsaw Pact nations, at least I can understand their ambition to
reestablish their sphere of economic, military and political influence.
What I cannot understand is why the administration has not clarified
American opposition to this creeping imperialism. There is a profound
imbalance in our approach at the expense of the independence and
territorial integrity of dozens of nations.
This bias presents an obvious question--why should we care? What
difference does it make if Russia's attempts to dominate the region?
The answer is simple. After decades of communism and occupation, after
centuries of subjugation, not one of these nations will willingly give
up their hard won independence without a fight. Prospects of aggression
and the resurgence of imperialism will only bear a painful price, as we
have seen in Bosnia. We now have early warnings of crisis in Crimea and
may still see Georgia reignite. It is in our political and economic
interests to help these struggling democracies navigate a course of
free markets and political liberty, not fall victim to explosive ethnic
conflicts or regional civil wars.
Mr. President, I would like to turn just for a moment to a remarkable
statement made by my friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. In what
can only be described as a fiery statement of support for the first
bill authorizing foreign assistance to former Warsaw Pact nations, her
emotional reaction to Hungarians taking to the streets, in her words
``to sing their beloved national anthem and pluck the red star from
their flag,'' 30 years after Soviet tanks rolled through the streets of
Budapest.
As she spoke of her Polish heritage, my colleague from Maryland
cautioned us all. Let me quote further from her speech:
We must remember history. These countries (of Eastern
Europe) have been buffeted on the east and west by Russia and
Germany. At the end of World War II along came two agreements
called Potsdam and Yalta, which led to the demise of
countries which are now called captive nations. Hungary,
Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Ukraine, to name just a
few. Through Potsdam and Yalta, night fell on Eastern Europe
and the Iron Curtain was drawn shut. It meant the end of
democracy. It meant the end of the free market system. The
communist leaders tried to squelch the religious fervor of
the people, but the people refused to yield, and now 40 years
later they have been able to seize the opportunity to move
toward democracy. We need to be there to help them during
this transitional period, to essentially provide phase two of
the Marshall Plan.
Mr. President, I think Senator Mikulski was right in 1989 and she is
right now. We now have an opportunity to take one more step along the
road to democracy and stability in Europe. We can choose more balance
in our foreign policy now--or we can pay a very high price later. This
amendment simply states the United States will use all appropriate
means to oppose Russian efforts to dominate the Baltic States, the
former members of the Warsaw Pact or the new Republics through economic
coercion, intimidation or use of force. It obviously does not rule out
any cooperative arrangements a nation may voluntarily enter into with
Russia--and, it certainly does not rule out United States cooperation
with Russia. But it makes clear that our terms of cooperation depend
upon Russian respect for their neighbors' independence and territorial
integrity. This amendment sends a clear signal that the Senate supports
balance, not bias, as we secure and advance the vital interests of the
United States.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to and I ask unanimous consent that the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unanimous-consent
request of the Senator from New Mexico is agreed to.
So the amendment (No. 1586) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from
Virginia in permitting me to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Amendment No. 1584
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my amendment is pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania
was set aside for the purpose of offering the amendment by the Senator
from New Mexico. We are now on the amendment of the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Who yields time?
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, may I inquire, did the Senator from
Pennsylvania ask for the yeas and nays on his amendment?
Mr. SPECTER. I have not.
Mr. SASSER. I hope the Senator will not. We have examined the
Senator's amendment and find it meritorious. I would be willing to
accept it for our side.
Mr. President, the Senator's amendment is acceptable to both sides of
the aisle. Has all time been yielded back?
Mr. SPECTER. I am prepared to yield back the time. I thank my
colleagues from Tennessee and New Mexico.
I just had a brief discussion with my colleague, the manager for the
majority. I asked him if he would fight hard at conference, and he said
he certainly would. So I will assume for purposes of the record it
would be unanimous if we took it to a rollcall vote.
There are going to be a great many votes stacked. In the interests of
concluding at some decent interval, perhaps before 3 a.m. tomorrow
morning, as last night, I am pleased to handle this on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1584) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent any pending
amendments be laid aside.
Mr. SASSER. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
Mr. ROBB. The Senator will yield.
Mr. SASSER. The Senator has been extremely patient here this evening
and we appreciate his patience.
The Senator from Nebraska had a courthouse amendment that he was
offering a moment ago, which the Senator from Arizona is in opposition
to. I am advised the Senator from Arizona can speak for 5 minutes on
this particular amendment, and that then we can dispose of it without a
rollcall vote.
I thank our friend from Virginia.
Mr. DeCONCINI. I would ask how long does the Senator from Virginia
intends to take? He has been very patient here --
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would tell the Senator from Arizona I am
going to be making a motion. A couple of Senators are going to speak on
it, but I am quite willing to yield an additional 5 minutes. I just do
not want to lose my place in line too many times.
Mr. SASSER. I can assure the Senator he will not. The reason I
suggest the Senator from Arizona go ahead is because I know the Senator
from Virginia will require some extensive debate on his amendment.
Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank the distinguished chairman and the Senator
from Virginia. I understand how it is, time and time again to be put
off. It is only because of these circumstances.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized to
speak on the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 1583
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending business will
be amendment 1583.
Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss
the amendment offered by the junior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerry],
which would place a moratorium on courthouse construction during fiscal
year 1995.
The Senator's resolution states that the President's fiscal year 1995
budget includes funding for 11 courthouses which eventually will cost
$1 billion. The resolution further states that priority funding should
be given to programs for children and families like Head Start and
grants for maternal and infant care. We all support those laudatory
goals. As a matter of fact, amendments have been offered here on this
budget resolution which would provide additional funds in fiscal year
1995 to Head Start, the Byrne Grant Program, and the Women, Infant, and
Children's Nutrition programs.
When you pit children and maternal health against the construction of
Federal courthouses, it makes for a difficult argument. Placing a
moratorium on Federal courthouse construction sounds politically
correct.
But, there are some very real consequences. We went through a
moratorium for Federal building construction last year during GSA's
time out and review. Projects were put in suspension while the General
Services Administration carefully scrutinized the costs and need of
every project, funded or planned. From this review, GSA recommended
savings of $127.7 million, the amount rescinded by the Congress for
specific projects in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
Public Law 103-211, under the rescission title of the Act. GSA proposed
the elimination of only two projects as a result of its review, but
savings from many due to reduced scope and value engineering. The
projects where funding has been requested in 1995 were recommended to
proceed by GSA.
I am not sure that most Members of this body realize that there is a
significant U.S. courthouse construction program underway in this
country. This includes projects in pre-design planning, under design,
and under construction. These projects have gone through an extensive
planning process which has addressed the program need of each project
and an indepth review of costs.
There is a significant demand for new and expanded courthouses in
this country. The demand for courthouse projects are driven by
primarily four factors:
First, the caseload of the courts continue to expand rapidly. More
case load drives the need for additional space;
Second, the creation of new Federal judgeships and the satisfaction
of initial space needs for judgeships previously created is also a
major contributor to the need for new space;
Third, the U.S. courts and GSA have worked together to identify
projected court needs for 10, 20, and 30 years into the future. If we
are to plan and budget for the 10-year needs of the courts, rather than
reacting on a crisis-by-crisis basis, space must be provided for short-
term expansion needs; and
Fourth, many older courthouses are simply not adequate to meet the
current program needs to the U.S. courts. These older courthouses were
designed and constructed for a court system which has changed
significantly over the years; not the least of which is major changes
in technology by which the massive amounts of paper associated with the
legal process is created and managed.
I think the Senator from Nebraska would agree that where the courts
are concerned, the Congress is partially responsible for affecting the
workload requirements. We are constantly adding more judges and
Federalizing more crimes. Studies have been conducted which demonstrate
that prisoners have too far to travel and this creates a security risk;
jurors have to commute long distances as well. This dramatically
impacts the requirements of the courts.
We can look back at the Vice-President's National Performance Review
on this subject. It included a recommendation that there be a
moratorium placed on GSA acquisition of Federal office space with an
estimated savings of $2 billion. It makes sense that if we are going to
downsize the Federal workforce as proposed by the President, the need
for increased Federal office space may not be justified. However, the
downsizing does not apply to the Federal judiciary.
GSA has reduced the costs of the courthouses which will be
constructed in fiscal year 1995, from design and scope changes. They
have recommended savings totaling $130 million, so far. I am sure there
will be additional savings when all is said and done. I think the
longer we hold out, the more it will cost in the long run and this will
continue to exacerbate the space problems of the Federal judiciary.
I oppose this sense of the Senate resolution. I think it is well
intended, and I have great admiration for the Senator from Nebraska and
support his objectives. But, I have to say that this sense of the
Senate resolution will not end up putting more money in the programs he
is interested in. Instead, it will have the effect of harming the
Federal judiciary's ability to conduct its work.
So, Mr. President, I have to oppose this amendment. In the spirit of
trying to get through tonight I am prepared to let the managers accept
the amendment under some real strong reservations. Having talked to the
ranking member on the other side of the aisle here, given his
knowledge, and having served on the appropriations subcommittee for a
long period of time, I will not insist on a vote.
I understand the Senator from Nebraska is prepared to vitiate the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DeCONCINI. Does my colleague want to vitiate the yeas and nays
and accept this amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, time will be charged
equally against both sides.
Mr. SASSER. I see the distinguished Senator from Maine, a cosponsor
of the courthouse amendment, is on the floor.
It is my understanding he wishes to vitiate the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Maine.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, my understanding is the amendment is going
to be accepted by the managers of the bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. COHEN. In that case, on behalf of Senator Kerrey and myself, I
ask the yeas and nays be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The yeas and nays were vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Is all time yielded back?
Mr. SASSER. All time has been. I yield back any time I might have in
opposition to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1583) was agreed to.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, all good things come to those who wait.
The Senator from Virginia has been waiting patiently. According to the
unanimous consent, he is next in line.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the
Senator from Virginia is recognized for purposes of offering an
amendment.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as a former member of the Budget Committee,
I have a pretty good idea of how difficult their task is. That
committee defines the entire mass of the Federal budget and tries to
make it fit not only the constraints of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act, but current national priorities as well.
They have accomplished that feat again this year and have, in the
main, in my judgment succeeded.
But I am about to make a motion to give the committee a chance to fix
a fixable flaw in that resolution. It is a broadly based cut in the
discretionary budget which is well-intentioned but, in my judgment,
creates more problems than it solves.
This motion to recommit follows the President's explicit admonition
in his State of the Union Address this year that the Nation simply
cannot accept further cuts in defense. He drew a line, a line that many
of us from both parties believe was absolutely necessary.
My motion would instruct the committee to do two things: First, it
would instruct the committee to detail how the spending reductions
would be accomplished, spelled out function by function.
Second, it would ensure that adjustments, such as the $26 billion cut
adopted in committee, would not come from the already beleaguered
national defense.
I concur that further reduction of the Federal deficit is necessary.
I do not think anyone here disagrees with that. But we have to remember
that the way to responsible deficit reduction is to make Government
more efficient at those tasks which it must perform and stop doing
those tasks which we cannot afford.
A laudable pursuit of deficit reduction should not be allowed to
hinder the execution of constitutionally mandated responsibilities of
Government. Because the extra cut adopted by the Budget Committee was
put into Function 920, essentially a slush fund, I am very much
concerned that unintentionally the effect will be to seriously crimp
our national defense.
Mr. President, the administration's budget last year, and again this
year, makes tremendous strides toward achieving deficit reduction. I
commend the President for his focus. And the Budget Committee, in a
praiseworthy move toward additional deficit reduction, voted to cut
$26.1 billion more in outlays from the administration's submission.
Unfortunately, the effect of those cuts was not distributed equally
over all functions of Government.
The explosive growth in the budget is not in discretionary accounts
but mandatory spending programs. As I have mentioned any number of
times on the floor of the Senate, mandatory spending programs are the
engine pulling the Federal Government inexorably toward the abyss.
The President and the Congress have been unable to adequately control
mandatory spending growth over the last decade. The result is a balance
sheet that is still getting redder by the minute. The Budget Committee
addressed that imbalance. The additional cut adopted in committee
reduced discretionary spending to decrease Federal deficits. I
certainly applaud that goal and it need not be abandoned, but I
understand that a number of members of the committee have reconsidered
their support for that cut and would like a chance to revisit that
decision. I hope, with this motion, to give them that opportunity.
Mr. President, providing for national security for the common defense
is the principal duty of the Federal Government. It is required by the
Constitution and is a uniquely Federal task. Current and future years'
defense plan and the President's budget submission are based on a new
and comprehensive analysis of the missions facing America's military
and represent the minimum forces needed to carry out those missions.
As tens of thousands of separated military personnel can tell you,
the Department of Defense has already instituted massive reductions in
the number of uniformed and civilian defense personnel which the
economy simply has yet to absorb. These cuts have been deep and they
have been rapid.
Further, the Department of Defense has instituted substantial cuts in
procurement of defense items with a strong impact on the private
sector. That effect is felt particularly keenly in those areas of the
country which are most affected by the public sector DOD drawdown.
I note that further reductions in both forces and procurements are
already planned. On top of those cuts, many local economies still have
not coped with the 1991 and 1993 base closure rounds. Of course, a
further base closure list will be out by this time next year.
All of these cuts combine with a very active tempo of operations
around the world, and continuing threats to American interests mean
that national defense has been stretched as far as it can. When budget
cuts come along, defense has been the first to feel those cuts. I and
many of our colleagues believe that we have already cut defense as much
as we can responsibly.
So it is particularly upsetting to me that the cut in the budget
resolution ignored the real problem of uncontrolled growth in
entitlements. The motion I send to the desk would recommit this
resolution to the Budget Committee with the instruction that its
members look again at how the budget can work without taking further
from our endangered national defense.
Government has taken on many roles, Mr. President. Some are
essential, others are not. None is sacrosanct. But I submit that to
rule most of the budget out of bounds and then take again from the one
function that is exclusively and constitutionally Federal would be an
error. I am confident that when the committee members reexamine the
budget with this focus, they will reach a speedy and appropriate
conclusion.
Therewith, Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] moves to recommit
Senate Concurrent Resolution 63 to the Committee on the
Budget with instructions to report to the Senate, within 3
days (not counting any day the Senate is not in session),
a revised concurrent resolution on the budget for the
fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 which
specifies by function any reductions in budget authority
and outlays necessitated by a lowering of the
discretionary spending limits contained in section 601 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, provided that no
such reduction come from the National Defense Function
(050) or the Allowances Function (920).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Who yields time?
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use--not
more than a minute or two. There are two or three other Senators who do
wish to speak to this motion. I would alert Senators that it is my
intention to yield back any time as soon as the Senators who have
already notified me of a desire to speak on the motion have had an
opportunity to do so.
I hope that with this indication, the Senators who are not on the
floor who wish to speak to the motion would proceed to the floor at
this time.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee
controls 30 minutes in opposition. The Senator from Virginia controls
23 minutes 9 seconds in support of the motion. If no one yields time,
time will be charged equally against both sides. Time will be charged.
Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine, the majority leader.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask that the manager yield me such
time as I may use in opposition to the motion.
Mr. SASSER. I will be pleased to yield such time as the distinguished
majority leader might use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, there is no Member of the Senate for
whom I have greater respect and affection than my friend and colleague
from Virginia. It is with some considerable regret that I rise in
opposition to the motion, but, as I previously indicated to him, I am
constrained to do so. The distinguished managers of the bill will
address some of the aspects of this motion which I believe should cause
Senators to oppose it. I will limit myself to just one.
The Budget Committee spent several days in preparing for their markup
and then in markup. As they debated this resolution, my understanding
is that 11 amendments were offered to cut spending; 10 of them were
specific, one was general and did not identify specific cuts. The 10
which were specific failed, and the only one which passed was the one
which did not identify any specific cuts.
The motion of the Senator from Virginia would have us send this whole
resolution back to the Budget Committee and tell them that they have to
specify the $26 billion in cuts, except that it cannot come out of
defense. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that the committee
could do this in 1 day or 2 or 3 or 4 and all of the evidence is
directed toward the contrary.
As much as we might wish something would happen, wishing will not
make it so, and, in this case, I think all that is going to happen is
that we are going to be here all of next week. I have already made
clear that the Senate will not go on recess until we pass a budget
resolution. I have stated that over and over again, and I want there to
be no misunderstanding in that regard: There will not be a Senate
recess unless we pass a budget resolution. And to just take this
resolution now, having come almost to the end, and send it back to the
committee with an instruction that all of the evidence indicates cannot
be and will not be complied with simply is to say we are going to be at
a stalemate.
I do not happen to agree with the substance of the motion which says
be specific but do not cut anything out of defense. There is some
reason to believe that would not be effective in preventing cuts in
defense. That will be discussed by the managers. But I simply want to
say, just so there can be absolutely no misunderstanding on anyone's
part, that if this resolution is sent back to the committee, then the
Senate is simply going to stay in session until such time as we pass
this, and that means certainly next week.
If that is the choice that Senators make, I am perfectly prepared to
accommodate that choice. But no one should be under any illusion in
that regard. That is what is going to happen; we will be in session
Monday. And if we are in session next week waiting for the Budget
Committee to act, we are going to have votes.
So that Senators ought not to be under the impression, well, they
just will not have to be here. They are going to have to be here. They
are going to have to be voting in what I think is a fruitless pursuit
for a perfect resolution. There is no perfect resolution, never has
been and never will be.
I can understand the wishes of my colleague with respect to
protecting defense spending from any cuts. Many Senators disagree with
that on the merits. I do not know why it is necessary to say that we
have to cut the budget but the one thing we cannot cut is defense
spending; we have to cut everything else. That is one thing on which
reasonable people can disagree, and the managers will talk about that.
But I just want there to be no misunderstanding of the practical effect
of this motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. SASSER. I thank the majority leader.
Mr. President, as I read the language here that is being offered in
this motion to recommit by the Senator from Virginia, it is almost
identical in its effect to the alleged walls protection that was
contained in the amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
Lott], yesterday. Now, the Robb motion says the following, that defense
shall be excluded ``from any reductions in budget authority and outlays
necessitated by the lowering of the discretionary spending limits.''
Now, that clearly says that protection is provided only within the
increment of any cap lowering. The entire remainder of the
discretionary pot, including all the defense spending, would still be
subject to cuts. In other words, the protection proposed here would not
really have the effect that I think our friend from Virginia wishes and
would be entirely an illusion. It would not protect defense at all.
Now, there is certainly no point in the committee reconvening to
establish a protection that does not, in effect, do anything to protect
the defense discretionary spending.
If I could have the attention of my distinguished friend from New
Mexico, he and I yesterday were discussing the amendment offered by the
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], and I wish to ask my friend from
New Mexico--without commenting on his position on the Robb motion,
because I know my friend from New Mexico is an ardent protector of
defense spending and worked hard in the Budget Committee to reimpose
the walls between defense spending and domestic discretionary spending,
and as a matter of fact took some steps in the Chamber here this
afternoon in an effort to restore discretionary spending so that
defense spending might be safeguarded--does the Senator agree with the
analysis that I have just offered of the technical effect of the Robb
amendment or Robb motion to recommit?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the Senator ought to tell me
what the interpretation is again, if the Senator would, please.
Mr. SASSER. I would be pleased to do so. What we have here, I say to
my friend from New Mexico, is an amendment almost identical--in fact, I
would say identical--in its effect to the one offered by the Senator
from Mississippi [Mr. Lott]. What it does is simply safeguard that
amount of the cut that was proposed in the Grassley-Exon amendment, and
the remainder of all of the discretionary funds are then fungible and
in one single pool.
So even if you safeguard the Grassley-Exon cut from being subjected
to that being used to cut defense spending, still you can come back and
take the remainder of the funds for defense out of the discretionary
pool. It is my interpretation it is identical to the Lott amendment
that we dealt with, I think, yesterday.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have a little more difficulty with this one. I am not
prepared at this time, Mr. President, to say that the result is the
same as I interpreted the efforts on the part of Senator Lott yesterday
afternoon, where he inserted the language nondefense discretionary. I
am not sure this is the same. Before I answer that, I would like to
study it a little more, and I will be glad to do that in just a moment.
Mr. SASSER. I thank my friend from New Mexico. But as I read this
amendment, as we have analyzed it here on our side in some great
detail, analyzed by counsel of the majority staff of the Budget
Committee, and has been analyzed by other budget experts here, it is
our interpretation that this does not, indeed, safeguard the defense
discretionary spending as our friend from Virginia seeks to do.
Since it does not do that, it is our sense of the amendment that the
only effect will be to extend the entire budget process and move it on
into next week. Frankly, I say to my friend from Virginia, I think
there is absolutely no chance that this Budget Committee could sit down
and come up with specific cuts in domestic discretionary spending
totaling $26 billion in outlays and $43 billion in budget authority.
As the distinguished majority leader pointed out, there were 10
amendments offered in the Budget Committee dealing with specific
reductions. All 10 of these failed. The only amendment that really
carried was the one that was classically nonspecific in nature, and
that was a nonspecific cut across the board.
So I think we are really spinning our wheels here. I know my friend
from Virginia is well motivated. I applaud his motivation.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield to
me?
Mr. SASSER. Certainly.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have now reread it and reread it. My interpretation
would be that absent actual walls, the effect of the amendment would be
the same from my standpoint. The Senator asked for my opinion. The
Senator from New Mexico would think the effect is the same. As the
amendment by Senator Lott yesterday, which attempted to protect defense
spending from any of the cuts that the Exon amendment would have
imposed, I think the effect is the same here. Without permanent walls,
I do not think you can protect it from the appropriations process doing
what it thinks in allocating the remainder of the money.
Mr. SASSER. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his opinion,
which is highly respected by both the chairman of the Budget Committee
and all members of our committee. It is well known that the
distinguished ranking member is one of the most learned, if not the
most learned, Member of this body with regard to the budget process and
how it works. He has probably more experience at it than any Member,
with the possible exception of Senator Hollings and perhaps Senator
Johnston.
So his opinions in these matters carry great weight with me,
particularly when you weigh in the balance that the Senator from New
Mexico, as I said earlier, is known as a very strong proponent of
defense spending and has been a very effective and skilled protector of
the defense side of the budget and has been very effective in reducing
the amount of cuts that would have come to it.
Mr. President, I see that the distinguished Senator from Nebraska is
on his feet.
Mr. EXON. Could I have 5 minutes?
Mr. SASSER. Yes. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and colleague, the
chairman of the Budget Committee.
I simply ask my likewise good friend and colleague from the
Commonwealth of Virginia to think further on the motion that he has
offered to recommit the bill to the Budget Committee. If the bill is
recommitted to the Budget Committee, I would simply say that I would
think that the bill that we would come back with probably would raise
the budget deficit, which I believe the Senator from Virginia would not
like to see.
I would like to try to establish once again the myth, as I see it, of
the scare tactics that have been rampant in this body from the very
highly placed people in this body that have spread these scare tactics
with regard to the defense cuts beyond all reasonable proportions.
In a meeting that I attended with a group of Members of the Senate, I
referred to these scare tactics as best I could explain them. And with
regard to the very humorous 1-minute skit that was provided by the
President and the First Lady to the Gridiron show last week with regard
to the scare tactics that they claim the insurance industry were using,
they ended up their commentary with the statement, ``There has got to
be a better way.'' Then on the screen it showed a picture that said,
``Paid for by the Committee to Scare Your Pants Off.''
I am afraid that there are some Members of this body who, like
myself, believe we should not cut the defense budget further. But it
has been blown all out of proportion.
Let me explain it in this fashion, if I might. The Exon-Grassley
proposal that has been attacked and flaunted by highly placed Members
of the U.S. Senate do not seem to quite understand the minuscule, at
best, effect if the Appropriations Committee decides that all or a
portion of this should come out of the defense budget. How much would
that be? In the first place, if the Appropriations Committee acts in an
irresponsible fashion and takes all or an extra-important part of this
out of the defense budget, then we would have a right to reverse that
on the floor. It is not easy to reverse the Appropriations Committee.
It has not been done very often. But we might.
I simply say that I do not think it should come out of defense. But
if the Appropriations Committee in its ultimate wisdom should decide an
across-the-board cut of our discretionary spending--defense is about
half--if they would take half of the Exon-Grassley proposal out of
defense, that would be a total, over a 5-year period, of about $13
billion or $14 billion.
I would like to see that. But if that should come to pass, we would
only be asking defense to cut $13 billion or $14 billion in the next 5
years out of what figure--would you believe $1 trillion or $1.3
trillion or $1.4 trillion? I do not believe it is going to be ruinous
if it is necessary to cut it out of defense to think that defense could
not reasonably, by the cancellation of one or two programs that do not
receive a high priority, to force them to cut out $13 billion or $14
billion out $l.5 trillion budget.
I simply say that I think the time has ended to quit scaring the
pants off the people with regard to national defense. No one more than
I in this body has stood longer and harder and worked in that well time
after time after time on defense. I, frankly, am a little bit offended
that some of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee cannot
understand and appreciate the fact that Jim Exon has stood with them on
many occasions not to cut defense.
The important thing is to remember that it is time that we make
further cuts in expenditures. I hope that the military will not have to
take any more. But if they do, I suggest that in all sincerity they
could fully take the cuts that I have just outlined.
I, therefore, say I think it is very bad policy to recommit this
bill. I think it will not be recommitted. I think it would be a study
in discretion if the Senator from Virginia on second thought withdrew
his motion.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. My time has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say to Senator Robb that I am
as worried as he is about defense. I will give you my assessment. If
this resolution as it is currently on the Senate floor comes out of
conference the same way--I am not sure that is going to happen; but
make sure everybody understands what I am saying with reference to the
assumption--at least $25 billion in budget authority will be taken out
of defense. That is very simple arithmetic. The Exon amendment cuts $43
billion in budget authority. Everybody is talking about $20 billion,
$26 billion. That is outlays. But the programs are ultimately cut when
you take away authority. It is $43 billion. I am roughly saying 60
percent is going to come out of defense. I just did the arithmetic.
That is $25 billion.
If somebody wants to say it does not matter, that $25 billion more is
not going to harm defense, that is fine. If somebody says I am scaring
the pants off somebody, I am merely saying if we are lucky it will be
$25 billion. The reason I am saying if defense is lucky is because we
have to remember that the very same amendment cuts close to a similar
amount out of all the nondefense programs. What is going to happen in
the battle? Are we going to take all of this out of WIC and food stamps
and education and all those programs? Is that what the Congress is
going to do? I would not think so. So if you are successful, and if it
forces some change in this, my hat is off to you. I think we have
tried, and I think we have failed thus far.
Perhaps in conference, some light will be shed on it, some real
numbers will be looked at. I compliment the Senator for his efforts. I
think he is honestly, and in a very forthright way, trying to say we
ought to do something different about defense, and he is searching for
a way, and I commend him on that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON. May I have 15 seconds?
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I yield 15 more seconds to the Senator
from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. I remind my friend from New Mexico that if the
circumstances are as dire as he just predicted, why did he vote for
this in the Budget Committee?
Mr. DOMENICI. I have explained that to the Senate about three times.
I will not do it again tonight. I said I made a mistake, and I tried to
find a way to fix it. I offered it to the Senate, and the Senate turned
it down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROBB. Let me respond briefly, and then I will yield to my
colleague from Mississippi.
First of all, let me say I am certainly not accusing anybody of bad
faith. Certainly, my friend and colleague from Nebraska has indeed been
a strong defender of defense and defense programs and a credible
deterrence in our national defense.
I think the debate that just ensued, or the dialog, in effect, that
occurred between the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from New
Mexico illustrates the concern that I have about the prospect for
defense if the Exon-Grassley amendment, without any allocation of
function, is acted upon in its current form. I want to give the
committee an opportunity to think through that question again. And,
indeed, the distinguished ranking member of the committee said that he,
as I noted, and others, would like to take a second look at that
particular question.
Let me say, however, that there was one comment with respect to the
defense question and who is taking the hits and who is not. If you look
at these charts which have been used by others and are familiar to
Members, look at the summit baseline that we started with in 1990.
These are not adjusted amounts. This one is in constant 1990 dollars.
You have something in excess of $300 billion. The 1990 summit agreement
took that down to the point where we are about $240 billion, and in
constant dollars the Bottom-Up Review takes that down to about $200
billion. About one-third of the Defense budget in constant dollars has
been eroded.
To present it in a way that may be easier to understand, if you look
at actual spending in the periods--and admittedly you are combining a
little bit of apples and oranges--but the foreign portion of the budget
has no real effect on the Defense foreign budget depicted here. It is
the one group that has been cut almost $200 billion, while every other
segment of spending has increased.
Let me make a couple of points with respect to the motion itself.
First of all, there are no restrictions in the motion to recommit with
respect to instructions that would prevent the Budget Committee from
establishing walls, if it choose to do so. Indeed, as a proponent of
walls, I would be very pleased to have the Budget Committee establish
such walls so both the Senator from Nebraska and I would be reassured
that this very significant amount of money would not be taken out of
defense spending.
Let me also say to my friend and colleague from Tennessee, in
addition to no restriction on adding walls, it is not limited to
discretionary spending. There may have been an assumption that it is
limited to discretionary spending, but the clear language of the motion
to recommit places no such restriction on the members of the Budget
Committee. And given the amount of debate that has taken place, it may
well be that the committee would want to turn to the mandatory
spending, which I made reference to in my earlier remarks.
Third, there is no requirement that the budget deficit be raised. If
the committee, in its wisdom, in reconsidering this particular matter,
decides that it makes sense, it would be within their power to make
whatever appropriate reductions in the amendment that was actually
placed on the bill, or on the budget resolution when it was passed. I
think the vote was 13 to 8. I understand there is some reconsideration
that has been taking place and a desire to do that.
Finally, although I am certainly aware of the fact that many, for
different reasons, may not support this particular motion to recommit
with instructions, I think it does send a very clear message, not only
to the conferees on the budget resolution, but hopefully for those who
would be involved in the appropriations process, that we are very much
concerned about the degree of cutting that has taken place in the
defense side of the budget and believe that additional spending cuts
ought to be taken out. In my own case, I favor additional cuts in the
mandatory programs. I know the reasons that that particular approach is
not favored by many Members of this body. But there are a number of
options, none of which are precluded by this particular resolution.
With that, I know the distinguished Senator from Mississippi would
like to speak to this particular matter. It would be his intent and
mine to offer additional amendments at an appropriate time to take care
of one or the other matters addressed by the majority leader.
I yield such time as he may require to Senator Lott.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for
yielding me this time. I commend him for the effort he is making here
this afternoon, certainly, with his background in the military and
participation as a Governor in dealing with budgets. He is a former
member of the Budget Committee, and he is a member of the Armed
Services Committee. He is very much interested in and concerned about
what we do with the defense of our country. I know he is concerned
about the cuts that have been made and how some of those cuts have been
made.
I also know that he said he knows we can make some changes in the
military, and we are trying to do that. We are trying to have better,
lighter, more mobile forces, and we are making changes and making do
with less. But there is a limit as to how far that can go. If the
budget resolution we have before us is not changed, Defense will suffer
an additional 9.6-percent reduction. That is in addition to the
reductions it has already taken.
I have heard it said here on the floor in the last couple of days in
other debates that the Soviet Union no longer exists. It imploded. It
is over, hallelujah. Utopia is on us. It is not. We still have a
situation in Russia that is not as stable as we would like for it to
be. They still have their missiles. They are still there. Very few, if
any, have been dismantled. They are still aimed at us, and a dangerous
situation still exists in the world.
One of the points I want to make is that defense has already paid
over the past 3 years. We should not have an additional deep cut. I
think most Members would be willing for defense to take some of the
cuts and part of its share, but not another 9.6-percent cut, in
addition to what we have already had.
We have not had many cuts in the discretionary spending. The argument
has been made that we have cut it so much; what it is really is that we
have cut it below what it would have been under inflated baselines.
Domestic discretionary spending has still gone up every year. It was
part of the budget agreement in 1990. I think it was 7 to 9 percent, or
something like that; it continues to go up every year. We can do more
in domestic discretionary spending.
I agree with the Senator about needing to do something in the
entitlements area. That is what I was trying to accomplish yesterday--
maybe not in a budgetary-perfect sense, but that was my goal. My
amendment would have said, look, we would take the very fine handiwork
of the Senator from New Mexico, the entitlement reductions of $20
billion, and put that on top of the domestic discretionary spending
cuts that were included in the budget resolution by the Budget
Committee.
I tried to make an effort to say that it would apply only to
nondefense discretionary. It was argued here we know what you want to
do. We understand. We can appreciate that. But you do not accomplish
it.
I was attracted to Senator Robb's approach here because I thought
maybe it would come nearer to or would, in fact, accomplish the goal
that I had in mind.
I want to emphasize now there was a fundamental difference in what I
was trying to do yesterday and what Senator Robb is trying to do today.
This amendment does not affect the entitlement programs at all. The
only thing this would do is say that defense is not going to be a part
of the $26 billion discretionary spending cuts. It attempts to exempt
defense spending.
So the motion of Senator Robb will direct the Budget Committee to
correct this resolution and stipulate the Grassley-Exon cuts must not
reduce defense.
I have been in the House and the Senate a long time. I have seen many
times motions to recommit with instructions. There are different
degrees. There is the motion to recommit with instructions to report
back forthwith.
Senator Robb's amendment, I believe, would say report back within 3
days. Perhaps, he may specify 2 days at some later point. The argument
is made but it will not really happen. The Budget Committee would not
do it or they might make all the other changes.
Who is kidding whom around here? For the Budget Committee this would
be pro forma. It could be done in the next 15 minutes. It could
certainly be done in the morning.
This amendment if passed, as it should be, is not going to force this
Senate into a session that would include Saturday or Sunday or Monday.
If it passed, the action required would be taken by the staff like
that, and it would be done.
In fact, most of the time if it is done forthwith, it is just words.
I mean it is done automatically. It just happens.
Who are we trying to fool around here like there is going be a great
big Budget Committee meeting, have the great big powwow and have a
fight with the things.
The Robb approach is understandable and logical. It could be done
quickly, simply, and is not going to delay this Senate.
This has been the suggestion by the distinguished majority leader,
who has a thankless job. I know it is tough, and he is trying to move
this thing along and trying to get us to do what we need to do. But it
happens every recess, every recess. We are told in January that we are
going to be out on a specific day, and we all say, well, there it is.
It is on our little calendars. We all have them. We are going to be out
on a certain day. In good faith we make commitments to our constituents
that we like to live up to because we do not like to be baldfaced
liars. We accept the commitment. We say we are coming based on a good-
faith statement that we would be out on a particular day, and most of
us even build in a little leverage there. We know actually we are not
going to get out when we are told we are going to get out. So we put a
day in there to make sure we are covered.
Every time when we get ready to go out, we are told if you do not do
this, do not do that, do not pass this or do not get this amendment, or
you do not pass that amendment, we will commit it to the Budget
Committee for weeks and days involving the problem, and we will be here
Monday and Tuesday.
Gee whiz, my attitude on that is if that is the way it has to be, so
be it. But I really would like to be able to know that when I am told
something is going to happen I can count on it and I can tell my
constituents and they can count on it.
I think when you talk about something this important, the defense of
our country, I am ready to stay here Friday night, Saturday, Sunday, or
Monday if that is what it takes.
We were not told in January that if we did not have the budget
resolution passed, the buyout bill passed, and the Goals 2000 passed,
all this long list of stuff, we would not have this chance to go home.
That was not the way it was given to us.
So I realize what the leader is trying to do. He wants to get through
tonight and finish up tomorrow. He is trying to keep his word.
I do not think that ought to affect the vote on this amendment. I
know the Budget Committee is basically telling us you cannot do
anything; you are stuck. I do not believe that either.
If we pass this motion to recommit, at least the Senate will express
itself on this important subject. It is a very important subject.
So I commend the Senator from Virginia in what he is trying to do. I
agree with him. Maybe you have to be here 2, 3, 4, or 5 terms to figure
out how you can accomplish a goal that you want to accomplish when you
say this is what I am doing and this is what my amendment will do. Then
you are told that what you say your amendment will do, what you would
like your amendment to do, but that is not what it does.
I know. Look, I have been on the Budget Committees. It is budgetese.
We are hearing it in its very best here tonight.
At the appropriate moment I will offer an amendment to the amendment
of the Senator from Virginia that would say the same thing, except I
would add the paragraph to it that says that ``The Committee on the
Budget is further instructed to report to the Senate a revised
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997,
l998, and 1999,'' which includes all provisions adopted by the Senate
during consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 63.
So we have Senator Robb's change. We would also preserve all of the
other amendments or changes that have been made during the process of
this debate over the past 2 days and today.
So, I congratulate the Senator for his effort, and I hope he
succeeds, and I hope it accomplishes what he desires to accomplish.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, let me ask my friend to yield for a
question.
Mr. LOTT. If the Senator wants me to yield time for a question, I
believe the Senator yielded me such time as I may need.
Mr. SASSER. On the amendment the Senator intended to offer, does this
also call for $23 billion in specific cuts?
Mr. LOTT. It is identical to the Robb amendment except that it says
that the amendments that have already been passed during the budget
deliberations including, for instance, the Mack amendment with regard
to the Spending Reduction Commission, would be included in the package
that is reported back.
So the answer to the question is it does exactly what the Robb
amendment does except that one addition.
Mr. SASSER. Does my friend from Mississippi understand that will mean
redoing the whole function totals if we went through and were trying to
segregate out additional $23 billion in discretionary cuts? You would
have to redo the whole resolution.
Mr. LOTT. How long would that take?
Mr. SASSER. How long would it take to agree on a majority vote on $23
billion worth of discretionary cuts? I do not know that that is even
possible no matter how much time we have, I say to my friend from
Mississippi. I remember when we were with the distinguished ranking
member--
Mr. LOTT. Excuse my interrupting. Is $23 billion a big number? It
would be almost impossible. Or $26 billion?
Mr. SASSER. I well remember when the distinguished ranking member and
I were locked up at Andrews Air Force Base for weeks--I do not like to
remember that--trying to come up with specific cuts and we worked and
worked and worked and we never succeeded.
Mr. LOTT. If the distinguished Senator from Tennessee will yield, I
know what he is talking about. I was in the so-called ``Gang of 17.'' I
went through the budget negotiation in 1982. I was there in 1987. It is
very tough.
You have some folks say, if you do that, I am out of here. Another
guy says, if you do that, I am out of here. It is very hard. I do not
deny that for a moment.
Let me ask the Senator this--and I know he is very knowledgeable on
the budget rules, budget process, and the numbers --but we are talking
about $26 billion in domestic discretionary spending cuts out of how
much? What is the total that is allowed in this budget for domestic
discretionary spending for the next fiscal year?
Mr. SASSER. Somewhere in the range of $230 billion or $240 billion.
Mr. LOTT. It is $240 billion, and this would require about a 10
percent reduction in that amount. I do not want to belittle that. That
is a high percentage, and it would not be easy.
But, I want to emphasize it probably is $23 billion out of $240
billion which looks to me like that would be achievable. I know it
would be hard.
But, as a matter of fact, the Budget Committee did vote for a cut,
and the full Senate has basically not knocked it out. So it is still in
there. I realize it would be a hard if you did not have defense
included.
Let me say this to the Senator from Virginia. This is his effort, and
I commend him for making it, and I am certainly delighted to try to
help him anyway I can.
Mr. SASSER. If the Senator will yield me another 30 seconds, we are
rapidly running out of time on this resolution, Mr. President. If the
Senator will yield back time on the motion, we will do the same on our
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, let me say on our side, we are quite
prepared to yield back the time. We do have two amendments, one that
will be offered by the Senator from Mississippi as the first-degree
amendment to the motion to recommit, and a second-degree amendment that
I am planning to offer. But we can collapse all of the time on those.
They are very minor changes that have already been indicated.
On that basis, I am prepared to yield back all of the time for the
proponents to the motion as it exists at the desk at this time.
Mr. LOTT. Has all time been yielded back, Mr. President?
Mr. ROBB. All the time has been yielded back from this side. The
opponents have time.
Mr. SASSER. I yield back all our time in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
Amendment No. 1587
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the motion to
recommit which I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an
amendment numbered 1587 to the motion to recommit.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] moves to recommit
Senate Concurrent Resolution 63 to the Committee on the
Budget with instructions to report to the Senate, within 3
days (not counting any day the Senate is not in session), a
revised concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal
years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 which specifies by
function any reductions in budget authority and outlays
necessitated by a lowering of the discretionary spending
limits contained in section 601 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, provided that no such reduction come from the
National Defense Function (050) or the Allowances Function
(920).
The Committee on the Budget is further instructed to report
to the Senate a revised concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 which
includes all provisions adopted by the Senate during
consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 63.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I say, very briefly, that this amendment to
the Robb motion requires the committee to report back to the Senate a
resolution which contains all amendments added on the floor during the
debate on the budget resolution. That is all it does, very simply, and
I have no further comment I feel necessary at this time.
I am glad to yield whatever time I control under the rule.
Mr. ROBB. Is the distinguished chairman of the committee prepared to
yield back any time?
Mr. SASSER. We are prepared to yield back all time in opposition.
Amendment No. 1588 to Amendment No. 1587
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, in that case, I send a second degree
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] proposes an amendment
numbered 1588 to amendment No. 1587.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
MOTION TO RECOMMIT
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] moves to recommit
Senate Concurrent Resolution 63 to the Committee on the
Budget with instructions to report to the Senate, forthwith,
a revised concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal
years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 which specifies by
function any reductions in budget authority and outlays
necessitated by a lowering of the discretionary spending
limits contained in section 601 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, provided that no such reduction come from the
National Defense Function (050) or the Allowances Function
(920).
The Committee on the Budget is further instructed to report
to the Senate a revised concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 which
includes all provisions adopted by the Senate during
consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 63.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this amendment changes only the timing. It
changes from 3 days to forthwith, so that if it is the determination of
the chairman and the ranking member that they want to meet for a
relatively brief period of time and make decisions that are within the
purview of the instructions--and I have had tried to point out that
they are not limited except for placing a floor under the amount that
is allocated to defense which coincides with the figure that the
President of the United States said was the figure below which he would
not permit spending to fall--and report back immediately, which could
include any of the remedies that have already been considered.
In any event, the only change is to allow the Budget Committee to
meet forthwith. And if the majority leader chose to do so, the
committee could report back tomorrow morning and we could complete
action on this in accordance with essentially the same timetable we are
working on right now.
But I would reserve my time until I know that the distinguished
chairman of the committee, the Senator from Tennessee, is prepared to
yield back any time. If he is prepared to yield back, I am prepared to
yield back any additional time.
I have been advised that the Senator from Georgia has requested that
I not yield back all of the time. He is enroute and would like to speak
to the amendment briefly.
I reserve the remainder of my time, and yield to the Senator from
Tennessee or the Senator from New Mexico if they would like to speak in
opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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. DOMENICI. I have two amendments that have been agreed to. I ask
unanimous consent that they be in order at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment Nos. 1589 and 1590, En Bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I submit two amendments on behalf of
Senators Hatch and Senators Chafee, Wallop, Murkowski, and Cohen. I ask
unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc; that the amendment
be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows:
Amendment No. 1589
Mr. DOMENICI offered amendment No. 1589 for Mr. Chafee, for himself,
Mr. Wallop, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Cohen.
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. . SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING DIESEL FUEL DYEING
REGULATIONS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that changes made to the
collection point of the diesel fuel excise tax made as part
of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 and the Internal
Revenue Service regulations implementing such changes have
caused economic hardship, created market distortions, and
added burdens to users and suppliers of diesel fuel by--
(1) requiring businesses, primarily small entrepreneurs, to
invest thousands of dollars in equipment, or choose between
taxable and nontaxable users of diesel fuel, in order to
comply with the new rules;
(2) imposing cumbersome notification requirements for
marketers and distributors of diesel fuel and home heating
oil; and
(3) creating shortages of fuel due to storage tank
limitations.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the Internal Revenue Service should make every effort
to ensure its regulations implementing the changes to the
collection point for the diesel fuel excise tax will minimize
the economic hardship, market distortions, unnecessary
burdens, and supply shortages;
(2) such regulations should, to the extent possible, be
consistent with Environmental Protection Agency regulations
implementing the diesel desulfurization program; and,
(3) if the Internal Revenue Service lacks the authority to
issue revised regulations consistent with this resolution,
then Congress should consider legislation that will eliminate
these hardships, distortions, burdens, and shortages.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am offering this sense of the Senate
resolution to highlight my concerns, as well as those of many of my
colleagues, over changes made to the collection of the diesel fuel
excise tax. These changes were included in last year's reconciliation
bill.
Last year's legislation changed the collection point of the excise
tax on diesel fuel from the producer or importer to the terminal rack.
This change made the collection point for diesel fuel similar to the
method used to collect gasoline taxes. It was generally thought that
making this change would improve taxpayer compliance and assist the
Internal Revenue Service with administering the tax.
In addition to moving the collection point of the tax, a dyeing
scheme was enacted to differentiate taxable diesel fuel from nontaxable
fuel. Finding a way to differentiate the fuels is important to
enforcing the tax, because diesel fuel is used for a variety of
purposes, not all of which are subject to the excise tax. For example,
diesel used to fuel over the road vehicles is subject to tax, whereas
diesel used as home heating fuel is not.
A distributor of diesel fuel destined for a nontaxable use, must
receive dyed fuel to indicate that it is intended for a nontaxable use.
This fuel may only be used for the nontaxable purpose for which it was
originally sold, and under no circumstances can it be sold for a use
which would not be exempt from tax.
Mr. President, I fully support efforts to increase compliance with
out tax laws. But in making changes such as this, we must be cognizant
of the problems we create. Let me give you a few examples of some of
these problems.
Diesel fuel is used to power many boats. Most of them are commercial
boats, such as fishing vessels, but it also is used for larger
recreational boats. Diesel fuel sold for commercial purposes is not
subject to the excise tax, but the same fuel, sold to a recreational
boater, is taxable. Under this new scheme, the fuel sold to the
recreational boater is clear fuel, not subject to the dyeing
requirements, because tax has been paid on the fuel. Fuel sold to the
commercial boater must be dyed fuel to indicate that it is exempt from
the tax.
The obvious problem created by the new rules is that a marina or dock
that services both commercial and recreational boaters must now have
two separate storage tanks in order to service these customers. It may
not be economically feasible to install a new tank, and in many
instances it is physically impossible to do so. The alternative
available to the marina are first to buy dyed fuel and give up its
pleasure boat business, second to buy undyed, taxed fuel, pass the tax
on to all of its customers and insist that the commercial users apply
for refunds. In most instances, cash-flow problems associated with this
second option cause undue economic hardship for the ultimate user.
My concern is that marinas will be forced to forgo its recreational
business, particularly where their commercial business dominates. That
could very well result in fuel shortages for recreational boaters.
The problems created by these new rules are not limited to the sale
of fuel for boats. As I mentioned, the fuel used to run trucks and
buses is essentially the same as the fuel used to heat your home.
Therefore, the new dyeing rules apply to home heating oil distributors.
Home heating oil is exempt from the diesel fuel excise tax,
therefore, the fuel sold for this purpose must be dyed under the new
rules. In order to increase compliance, the Internal Revenue Service
requires that the delivery ticket contain the following
statement:``dyed diesel fuel, nontaxable use only, penalty for taxable
use.''
This statement was not required as part of the statute, but was
included in the Service's regulations. These regulations were not filed
until the end of November of last year, but were effective January 1,
1994. Home heating oil marketers could not have anticipated this
notification requirement, as it was not included in the statute. Thus,
the delivery tickets that they purchased earlier in the year did not
contain this statement, and they were forced to hand stamp the
notification onto the tickets in order to comply with the regulation.
While this may not seem to be a monumental problem, in the middle of a
very cold winter, where demand for fuel oil was quite high, it
certainly created an additional burden.
Mr. President, the problems created by these new rules are not
concentrated just in my State or the Northeast. I am aware of similar
problems across the country. My sense of the Senate resolution simply
calls on the Internal Revenue Service to ensure that the regulations
minimize economic hardship, market distortions and supply shortages. I
hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
amendment no. 1590
(Purpose: to express the sense of the Senate that no taxpayer should be
required to pay more Federal taxes because of being married)
Mr. DOMENICI offered amendment No. 1590 for Mr. Hatch, for himself
and Mrs. Hutchison.
At the end of the resolution, insert the following new
section:
SEC. . SENSE OF SENATE THAT TAXES NOT BE INCREASED BECAUSE
TAXPAYERS ARE MARRIED.
(A) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) successful stable marriages are an essential part of a
successful stable society;
(2) the breakdown of marriages has been one of the causes
of our unacceptable crime, illiteracy, school dropout, drug
abuse, and illegitimacy rates;
(3) the Federal Government has a moral and ethical
obligation to help promote stable marriages or at least to
not undermine them financially;
(4) the Internal Revenue Code currently contains a number
of provisions that financially penalize couples for becoming
or remaining married (so called ``marriage penalties'');
(5) marriage penalties are in effect an annual Federal tax
on marriage licenses;
(6) the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 added new
marriage penalties to the Internal Revenue Code and expanded
some existing marriage penalties;
(7) marriage penalties financially discriminate against the
most fundamental and important unit in our society--the
family--and are especially harmful to our Nation's children;
and
(8) there is no policy justification for the Federal
Government to financially penalize couples simply because
they choose to become or remain legally married.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that no taxpayer, regardless of age, sex, income, or number
of dependents, should be required to pay more in Federal
taxes under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code
because that taxpayer is legally married.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from
Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], I rise to offer an amendment to the budget
resolution.
The debate in the Senate this week on the budget resolution has
touched and will touch on many matters of great importance to the
people of this Nation. The decisions about how this Government collects
and spends tax dollars are central to the economic well-being of our
country and even to the rest of the world.
In our discussions about this $1.5 trillion budget and the billions
spent here or the billions spent there, we must not forget one thing,
Mr. President. And that is that our Nation is comprised of individual
families, which are the most basic and most important institutions of
all. The strength and the future of this Nation is directly dependent
on the success and stability of the American family.
I would like to bring to the Senate's attention today a provision of
Federal law that is undermining our families--the tax treatment of
married couples.
Mr. President, I believe that a great deal of this Nation's problems
with crime, illiteracy, school dropout, drug abuse, illegitimacy, and
other social ills are caused by the breakdown of so many of the
families in our society. And, among the chief reasons for family
breakdown are the divorce of parents or the failure of parents to get
married. Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that our tax laws
encourage divorce and discourage marriage.
Part of the blame for America's disintegrating families can be traced
right to the Internal Revenue Code. I would like to briefly outline for
the Senate how our Federal tax laws are contributing to the decline of
the family by discouraging single parents from marrying and by
encouraging couples of all ages and income brackets to divorce.
Moreover, Mr. President, the problem is getting far worse. Our Tax
Code has long had a bias against marriage, but last year's tax bill
greatly expanded the so-called marriage penalty for many couples, and
in some surprising ways. Under President Clinton's deficit reduction
plan, we were told that only the very richest of Americans would have
to pay higher taxes. What few of us realize, however, is that the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 greatly increased the penalty
for being married, and not just for wealthy couples.
Here are the effects of the marriage penalty on several hypothetical
Utah families, both before and after the 1993 tax changes. And, I have
to say, Mr. President, that the results are shocking.
Let's look at the example of a couple I will call John and Marie.
John, a divorced single father of one, earns $11,000 a year working at
a fast food restaurant in Salt Lake City. He has been dating Marie for
over 2 years and wants to marry her. Marie is a widow with two small
children who earns $13,000 a year working in the lunchroom of an
elementary school. Under the current tax law, John and Marie receive a
combined refund of $4,128 filing as two single individuals. As you can
see from the chart, most of the refund is because they each qualify for
the earned income tax credit. If John and Marie were to marry, they
would have to pay $581 on their joint tax return. This is a marriage
penalty of $4,709, or almost 20 percent of their total income for the
year. Financially, they would be foolish to marry!
Before the 1993 tax changes, the marriage penalty in this case would
have been $4,305. In other words, the cost of marriage for John and
Marie has gone up $404 since last year.
As I mentioned earlier, the Tax Code has long discriminated against
married couples who both earn a substantial portion of total family
income. The marriage penalty paid by low-income families is mostly due
to the fact that many singles can qualify for the earned income tax
credit [EITC] on their separate incomes. When married, however, the Tax
Code combines the spouses' incomes to determine EITC eligibility. This
often places the couple above the income threshold for EITC and creates
a tremendous disincentive for marriage.
With last year's expansion of the EITC, this particular marriage
penalty is no longer falling only on those with lower incomes. Many
middle-income families are also affected.
For example, let's look at Jeff and Becky Smith. This is an average
Utah family where Jeff is produce manager for a grocery store and earns
$31,000 a year. Becky, his wife, works part time as a nurse and makes
$13,000 a year. The Smiths have three children. The Smiths may not know
it, but they would be better off financially if they were to divorce
and Becky take two of the kids. Under current law, the Smiths pay
$3,810 as a married couple filing jointly. If Jeff and Becky were to
divorce, however, their combined single taxes would only be $910. This
represents a marriage penalty of $2,900 a year. If the 1993 tax changes
had not been enacted last year, the marriage penalty would have been
$2,522, so the tax on Jeff and Becky's marriage license has gone up by
$378 a year.
Let me state right now, Mr. President, that I am a supporter of the
earned income tax credit. And, I am certainly glad that we expanded it
last year. But I feel we overlooked a serious side effect of that
expansion with these terrible marriage penalties that it creates.
The causes of marriage penalties go far beyond the earned income tax
credit, however. The basic reason for much of the penalty for most
couples is the fact that the tax rates are biased against marriage.
At higher incomes, Mr. President, the marriage penalty gets even
worse, in terms of total dollars. This is because the thresholds for
moving into the new 36 percent and 39.6 percent brackets are designed
to hit married couples at lower levels than they hit singles. In fact,
the threshold for the 39.6 percent bracket is the same for married as
it is for singles. This creates a tremendous marriage penalty for those
with higher incomes.
Consider the example of the Williams family, who lives in Provo, UT.
David is a successful computer software company owner who earns
$150,000 per year. Patricia, his wife, is an attorney and earns
$135,000. They have two sons. Under current law, the Williams pay
Federal tax of $79,109 as a married couple. If they were to divorce,
however, their combined tax would drop by a whopping $14,814 per year.
If last year's tax bill had not been enacted, the marriage penalty
would have been only $8,700, which is still an awfully high price to
pay just to be married.
Certain senior citizens are among the hardest hit by last year's
marriage penalty increases. Most Social Security recipients don't know
it yet, but there is a new marriage penalty hidden in the tax law for
many of them in 1994.
Let's look at Bob and Edith, who live in St. George, UT. Bob, a
retired furniture store manager, earns $35,000 a year from a pension
and from interest and dividends. He also receives $12,000 a year from
Social Security. Edith still works part time as an accountant. She
earns $20,000 plus draws $12,000 a year from Social Security. Under
current law, Bob and Edith pay $12,602 as a married couple. If Bob and
Edith were to divorce, however, they would save $2,924 on their taxes.
The marriage penalty would have been only $1,748 if last year's bill
had not passed.
Mr. President, many of society's problems can be blamed on the
weakening of the American family. Yet, our Tax Code provides an
economic incentive for couples to break up or not marry at all. This is
just plain wrong.
My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that no taxpayer,
regardless of age, sex, income, or number of dependents, should be
required to pay more Federal taxes under any provision of the Internal
Revenue Code because that taxpayer is legally married.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator
Hatch's call for the abolition of the Tax Code's marriage penalties.
It's not surprising that something as cold and complicated as the Tax
Code can be completely backwards when it comes to protecting the
American family. The fact is that when two people get married in this
country there generally is a windfall for the Treasury, and an
unqualified financial disaster for the happy couple.
The Tax Code penalizes marriage by combining spouses' incomes and
pushing them into a higher tax bracket. The usual explanation for this
is that two can live more cheaply than one. Maybe so, in some cases,
but where does it say Government is entitled to any money left over
after a married couple's living expenses.
We have progressive income taxes in the name of ``fairness.'' But
there is nothing fair about it when a two income takes the plunge into
marriage, and finds their combined incomes taxed at higher rates than
either of them paid as singles. Perhaps marriages should be sealed with
vows to love, honor, and pay higher taxes together for as long as both
shall live.
So, what do we charge our constituents for the privilege of enjoying
the institution of marriage? As you can see on this chart, two single-
income taxpayers each making $15,000 would each receive a refund of
$724, for a total refund of almost $1,500. But if they get married,
they must pay over $2,000 in taxes. That's a marriage penalty of
$3,500. For taxpayers making $30,000 a year, that is a catastrophic
financial penalty.
The irony in this is that income tax progressivity, the very tool by
which social planners have sought to redistribute wealth more fairly,
contributes to destabilizing the traditional family, illegitimate
births, child neglect, illiteracy, health problems, drug use, and
crime. An over dramatization? Let's look at the facts.
In every modern survey, the number one underlying cause of marital
problems and divorce is financial pressures. Putting aside the extra
burden the Federal Tax Code places on wedded bliss, it isn't easy to
pay for a marriage and family these days.
It takes a big chunk of family income to pay for food, clothing and
decent shelter. Add transportation, the expense of child care and
health costs--and with what's left over married couples struggle to
save to buy a home, to pay for college, and to put aside something for
retirement. Is it any wonder financial pressures break up marriages?
With the way or Tax Code unfairly adds to these stresses, it wouldn't
be too far fetched to have the Federal Government named a correspondent
in divorce proceedings.
Unfortunately, it isn't adults who suffer the worst consequences of
the marriage penalty. Every dry statistic that depicts incremental
weakening in the cohesion of family units has a real human face--the
innocents, the children who are born into and grow up without the
stability and nurturing and family resources most of us take for
granted.
We're going to debate welfare reform here a little later this year,
and much will be made about the rate of illegitimate births in this
country. More than 1.2 million babies were born out of wedlock in
1991--five times as many as 30 years before, even though the total
number of babies born in 1961 and 1991 was about the same.
These are children far more likely to die in their first year,
because most of them are born into poverty. Poverty rates are five
times as high as single-parent families as for two-parent families.
Nearly half of children who grow up without a father present receive
Government assistance; less than one in ten children with two parents
do.
These are children, many of whom grow up in substandard housing and
dangerous neighborhoods, who don't get a good education or adequate
health care, and who have the greatest temptation--the temptation of
hopelessness--to turn to crime and drugs. So, the next time someone
blithely says two can live more cheaply than one, remind them who
really pays.
Government ought to encourage stable, nurturing families--two people
sharing the joys and sacrifices of building a life together, raising a
family, and relying on each other in old age.
Championing conventional marriage is no longer quite politically
correct. It has been assigned a connotation of intolerance for
alternative lifestyles and limits on personal freedom. But I hope even
those who recognize no social conventions can agree that marriage is
not an affront to common decency, a thing that ought to be discouraged
or even penalized by Government.
Mr. President, it would be a very complicated thing to adjust the Tax
Code to remove the existing marriage penalty. Yet it is such a small
thing, in comparison to the benefits our entire society would realize
by strengthening families and helping to care for our youngsters.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Amendments Nos. 1591, 1592, and 1593, En Bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk three amendments on
behalf of Senators Packwood, Danforth, and Murkowski, and ask unanimous
consent that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be agreed to; that the motions to reconsider be laid on the
table, and statements by Senators involved in the amendments be printed
as if read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows:
amendment no. 1591
(Purpose: To clarify the budget points of order applicable to years 6
through 10)
Mr. DOMENICI offered amendment No. 1591 for Mr. Packwood, for
himself, and Mr. Moynihan.
In section 23 of the pending Resolution, on page 49,
beginning on line 7 strike the following: ``to a significant
degree''.
amendment no. 1592
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding any reduction-
in-force at the Kansas City Plant of the Department of Energy)
Mr. DOMENICI offered amendment No. 1592 for Mr. Danforth, for
himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Bond, and Mrs. Kassebaum.
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY REDUCTIONS-IN-FORCE.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) a reduction-in-force at the Department of Energy's
Kansas City Plant should not be carried out until--
(A) the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
1995 and the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 1995 become law; or
(B) Congress has otherwise approved such an action.
department of energy kansas city plant
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, the purpose of this sense-of-the-Senate
amendment is to retain Congress' role in evaluating the budget request
of the Department of Energy, as it relates to the Department's Kansas
City plant, before the budget request is implemented.
The Department of Energy budget proposal for fiscal year 1995 for the
Department's Kansas City plant is very troubling. Initially, the
Department requested $280 million for the Kansas City plant for fiscal
year 1995. However, responding to an Office of Management and Budget
review of its budget, DOE scaled the funding proposal back, first to
$270 million, and finally to $214 million.
Our need to develop and produce nuclear weapons has, fortunately,
diminished greatly. Reductions in funding for maintenance of the
Nation's nuclear deterrent are now possible. For the past several
years, the Department has studied how it should consolidate facilities
which produce nonnuclear components for nuclear weapons. Last year, the
Secretary of Energy determined that all nonnuclear component
manufacturing and stockpile maintenance at the Rocky Flats, Mound, and
Pinellas plants should be terminated and that consolidation should take
place at DOE's Kansas City plant. Even though Kansas City will be the
one consolidated nonnuclear site, the Plant has experienced significant
cutbacks over the past several years.
The fiscal year 1995 budget request of the Department of Energy for
the Kansas City plant would not allow the plant to maintain a competent
weapons stockpile support production capability. The plant still has
many tasks that it is charged with performing. It must: implement the
Department's plans for consolidation; perform laboratory testing and
flight testing of systems that remain in the enduring stockpile to
ensure safety and reliability; carry out the DOE's retrofit and quality
improvement program--including the B83 Quality Improvement Program and
the B61 modification program; perform the limited life component
exchange maintenance function; provide special design test gear and
special sensitive production; refurbish and maintain safe secure
trailers for the transport of completed nuclear weapons and fissionable
components; dismantle older weapons systems for which the Kansas City
plant produced most of the components; and perform the ongoing mission
of repairing and replacing components in the stockpile based on
reliability tests or evidence that security or safety improvements are
needed. The budget request of the Department of Energy would permit the
Kansas City plant to perform only between 60 and 70 percent of the work
it is supposed to do.
Mr. President, I fear that this budget recommendation is based not on
the important requirements of maintaining our nuclear stockpile, not on
the need to address safety concerns associated with maintaining nuclear
weapons. I fear that this cutback is driven solely by the OMB budget
ax. As much as anyone in this body, I support budget cuts. However, a
major cut at the only facility in the country that will, over the long
term, produce crucial components for nuclear weapons must be done
carefully, based on actual reduced workload requirements and not on
arbitrary budgetary requirements.
This amendment is necessary because, based on the fiscal year 1995
budget request, the Kansas City plant will begin layoffs immediately.
By the end of June, 1994, it will have laid off between 1,200 and 1,500
highly and uniquely skilled people. By the end of June, Congress will
not have determined spending levels for fiscal year 1995. Congress,
thus, is left out of the process. Congress has the power of the purse.
It is the job of Congress, not the executive branch, to determine
funding levels for different missions at the Department of Energy. It
is unacceptable for the Kansas City plant to lay people off without
knowledge of whether Congress will accept the Department's budget
recommendation. As a result, this amendment expresses the sense of the
Senate that the restructuring of the Kansas City plant should not be
carried out until Congress takes action, either through the defense
authorization bill for fiscal year 1995, the energy and water
development appropriations will for fiscal year 1995, or any other
legislative vehicle.
I urge the Secretary of Energy to reconsider the budget needs of the
Kansas City plant and to delay layoffs until Congress has a chance to
act.
amendment no. 1593
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding minerals
management)
Mr. DOMENICI offered amendment No. 1593 for Mr. Murkowski, for
himself and Mr. Stevens.
At the end of title III, insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING MINERALS MANAGEMENT.
It is the sense of the Congress that the budget authority
and outlay totals set forth in this resolution assume
sufficient funding under budget function 300 (Natural
Resources and Environment) to ensure--
(1) the ability of the Minerals Management Service to run
an effective Outer Continental Shelf resource evaluation
program that responds to increased interest on OCS areas,
including Alaska;
(2) the ability of the United States Geological Survey to
continue to perform mineral resource surveys at the same
levels as in previous years; and
(3) the continued effective functioning of all current
Bureau of Mines offices.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to have included in the
manager's amendment a Sense of the Congress resolution concerning the
natural resources portion of the fiscal year 1995 budget.
My sense-of-the-Senate resolution states that three programs under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior should be funded at
levels consistent with past years in order to provide the same level of
services provided in past years. My amendment states that the Minerals
Management Service should have the resources needed to run an effective
Outer Continental Shelf resource evaluation program that responds to
increased interest on OCS areas, including Alaska. Second, the
amendment states that the U.S. Geological Survey should be funded at a
level to allow it to continue to perform mineral resource surveys at
the same level as in previous years. Last, the amendment states that
funding be provided to keep all current Bureau of Mines offices
functioning effectively.
This amendment is consistent with the views of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee as presented in its analysis of the President's
budget which was forwarded to the Budget Committee by unanimous vote.
My concern, and, I think, the committee's concern, stems from the fact
that, though the overall budget for the Department of the Interior is
not slated for severe reductions, the President has signaled his
intention to shift funds away from development programs which many
Western States, like Alaska, rely upon to create economic opportunities
for their citizens.
These resource development programs benefit the entire country by
increasing America's economic strength and making it easier for
individuals and businesses to create jobs. New jobs create revenue for
the U.S. Treasury in the form of income and business taxes.
Let me discuss the situation in my home State of Alaska. The Minerals
Management Service, U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines programs
are slated to be cut by $12 million and over 100 employees. It is a
severe cut for my State, and would be a severe blow to miners,
firefighters, drillers and others who depend on these crucial Federal
services.
Reductions of the U.S. Geological Survey could eliminate future
geologic mapping of Alaska. My amendment states the Senate's intent
that the USGS continue to perform its duties at the same level as in
previous years. This is important because less than 40 percent of
Alaska has been fully mapped. Alaskans depend upon their maps for
mining, remote firefighting, aviation, and navigation. Extensive road
maps used in other States simply do not exist in Alaska, due to the
vast areas without roads. USGS maps are the only information source of
this kind. Under the Statehood Act, the Federal Government agreed to
explore Alaska's potential. The $2.1 million cut to the USGS in Alaska
proposed by the President would severely curtail these services.
Closure of the Bureau of Mines offices in Juneau and Anchorage, which
the President's budget envisions, will remove entirely a Federal mining
presence in the State with the best prospects for future mining
development. My amendment states that all Bureau of Mines offices
should continue to function effectively. Alaska has a history of world
class mineral development. Potential for new world class mines is
great. These are undisputed facts. Yet the President contemplates that
the nearest location of a Bureau of Mines office would be in Spokane.
What new mines will be found in Spokane? Shifting funds away from the
programs that directly benefit mining represents a dangerous shift
within the Bureau. Many of my Western colleagues share my concern on
this issue. The Bureau of Mines closure in Alaska will put 34 employees
from Anchorage and Juneau out of work and cut roughly $7 million from
this important program.
Cutbacks at Mineral Management Service in Alaska will slow down the
offering of offshore oil lease sales. My amendment states that funds
should be made available to ensure the ability of the MMS to run an
effective Outer Continental resource evaluation program that responds
to increased interest in areas like Alaska. Alaska OCS has potential
for major discoveries that will benefit the U.S. and reduce our
dependence on imported oil. With every major oil field in the United
States declining we need new oil and gas development. Alaska has
developed its Prudhoe Bay field safely and can do it elsewhere in the
State if it knows where to look. The proposed budget will put 50
employees in Anchorage out of work, about a third of the workforce, and
cut $2.5 million in funding.
Mr. President, though the amounts involved may seem small, the impact
on Alaska and the West is monumental. My sense-of-the-Senate resolution
expresses the desire of this body to maintain these programs at current
funding levels and manpower strength. I am pleased that it has been
accepted and thank my colleagues for joining in making this very
important statement.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
vote on or in relation to Senator Gramm's amendment number 1574 at 8:05
p.m.; that upon disposition of Senator Gramm's amendment, the Senate
vote, without any intervening action or debate, on or in relation to
Senator Robb's motion to recommit; that no further amendments be in
order to either the motion or the Gramm amendment or to any language
that may be stricken.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object.
Senator Cohen asked me to object and he is on the floor now.
Mr. COHEN. Might I inquire in terms of when the Cohen-Kerrey
amendment would be coming before the body this evening?
Mr. SASSER. Well, there will be further debate on the Cohen-Kerrey
amendment following the disposition of these amendments on which we are
stacking votes.
Mr. COHEN. So you would intend then, following the stack of these
votes, to proceed to the Cohen amendment?
Mr. SASSER. That would be my intention. As the Senator from Maine
knows, we are awaiting--have been awaiting the arrival of the President
pro tempore, who indicated he wished to speak on this matter.
Mr. COHEN. Am I correct my amendment would be the next in order,
after laying it aside by unanimous consent?
Mr. SASSER. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, might I
inquire? I understood the Senator from New Mexico has about 42 or 43
minutes remaining and that is all the time there is for general debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, except there is 15 minutes
reserved to the Senator from Tennessee to conclude debate.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, apparently there are three Senators who
are seeking to speak. We are reserving our time for about three
amendments that have still not been called up. I urge Senators to use
as little time as possible. There is no time left on the Robb
amendment, as I understand it. We have yielded back. Is that not
correct?
Mr. ROBB. I say to the Senator from New Mexico, we are on the second-
degree amendment. As far as the constraints of the total time
allocation, we have not used up but about a minute of that time. But it
is the intent of this Senator, as soon as the Senator from Georgia has
completed his remarks, to yield back all time and then, if it is in
accordance with the wishes of the managers of the bill, to voice vote
the first- and second-degree amendments and ask for a rollcall vote
only on the amended motion to recommit.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I have no objection to the
unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may require to the
distinguished Senator from Georgia, the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I do not think I will require a whole lot of
time, but I rise in support of the Robb amendment.
Mr. President, I had hoped we would not reach the stage where we
really were attempting--and it certainly may not pass, but at least
there is an attempt being made here--to send the whole budget
resolution back.
The reason I am reluctant to get to this stage is because I know how
hard the Budget Committee has worked. I understand the hours they put
in. I certainly understand the leadership required by the Senator from
Tennessee and the Senator from New Mexico to put together a budget
which, by anybody's definition, is very difficult to do.
It is very easy to see why we have such huge deficits when you look
at what has happened here on the floor in the defense area and in the
other areas.
If you look at the chart that the Senator from Virginia has displayed
here, you could easily see what is happening to the Federal budget.
Now a lot of people do not want to look at it. They do not want to
basically confront the facts, but at some point arithmetic has to take
over. I do not know how many years it is going to take before we start
being able to just add and subtract in this body.
At some point we have to understand that you are not going to get the
deficit under control, nor are you going to be able to continue to
finance the domestic side of this budget as well as the entitlement
programs by cutting defense. It cannot be done, not because I say it
cannot be done, but because it is arithmetic. If you just look at what
has happened, we go by this baseline concept around here.
Mr. President, I think everyone ought to focus on what is happening
to the budget.
We have a baseline concept around here. If you make the baseline go
up enough, meaning anticipated spending, then you can bend it just a
little bit and say you cut spending no matter how much it is going up.
So, really we bewilder the public trying to follow these debates
because everything is geared to the baseline. I understand it from a
technical point of view, but from a practical point of view it is not
the way ordinary, normal people think. I do not think most people
understand it. Frankly, I understand why they do not.
But, if you want to look at what is happening to spending, you want
to take a look at this chart 1 minute. This chart shows the amount of
money we spend in various categories: defense, foreign aid, domestic
discretionary, Social Security, health care, other entitlements, and
interest on debt.
It shows what we spent for the 5 previous years. Then it shows what
we are going to spend the next 5 years. This is how you tell what you
are doing in budgeting--getting away from the baseline that is arcane
and technical and difficult and, in my view, increasingly irrelevant to
basic arithmetic.
In defense, in the next 5 years, without the Grassley-Exon cuts that
are in this budget resolution, we are going to reduce, compared to the
previous 5 years, by $190 billion; domestic discretionary is going to
go up about $250 billion. These two areas together are what we call
discretionary spending. If you net them out because of the $190 billion
reduction in defense, you have a plus over the 5 years in discretionary
of about $60 billion. That is 2 percent--$60 billion is a lot of money
but it is only 2 percent growth in that area.
Look at what is happening in other categories. Social Security is
going up over $400 billion, compared to the previous years. That is all
paid for, because there is enough money coming into Social Security. In
fact, there is a surplus. That is the good news.
The bad news is we are borrowing all that money from the Social
Security trust fund to the tune of about $80 to $100 billion a year and
we are sending from the operating fund an IOU in the form of a Treasury
bill saying we owe the Social Security trust fund for this surplus.
What we are going to do is we are going to leave future generations
to pay off that when we reach the point where there is no more surplus
in the Social Security trust fund because we do not have as much coming
in as we have going out. That year will be about 2015, about 23 years
from now.
Does anybody want to venture a guess what we are going to owe the
Social Security trust fund then, based on this borrowing which we are
counting as if it were reducing the deficit, which it is not? The
number is about $5 trillion. Not billion, trillion. Trillion. That is
when our grandchildren are going to say what did this generation do to
us? What did this generation do to us? It is going to be our children
and our grandchildren. They are not going to forgive us for what we are
doing fiscally.
Look at what we are doing in health care. How much money are we going
to spend in health care over the next 5 years compared to the previous
5 years? Additional money--this is not total money--this is additional
money, this is incremental, this is beyond the previous 5 years--about
$800 billion. Guess what. That is assuming the President's plan passes
and it is assuming that we are going to achieve all the savings the
President asked us to achieve and projects we are going to achieve.
Other entitlements go up somewhere in the neighborhood of $70
billion. And then take a look at why we are in such a hole and we are
getting in a deeper hole. Interest on the debt, compared to 5 years
ago, the next 5 years we are going to spend $190 billion more on
interest on debt than we did in the previous 5 years.
Guess what. People asked, what happened to the defense dividend at
the end of the cold war? $190 billion here less in defense. Guess where
it goes. Just to pay the interest on the debt increase, because we are
continuing to grow these entitlement programs.
The Robb amendment does not cure all these problems. He does not
pretend to. What it basically says is let us at least protect our
national security. Let us not continue to pretend we can cut this
category that is already going down, that is paying much more than its
share of the decreases, while continuing to let these grow. This is not
in dispute. These are facts. These are facts.
Just look at the history of what we have done over the last 3 years.
The budget summit agreement in 1990 was supposed to save $500 billion
by 1995. What happened? This was because of the recession; it was not
all the budget agreement. But we not only failed to reduce the deficit
by the $500 billion, we had another, a second major reconciliation bill
enacted last year, under President Clinton, which provides additional
deficit reduction in 1994 and 1995. The deficit still, after both of
these bills, both of which were supposed to save about $500 billion
each--the deficit is still going to increase by 1995 by $250 billion.
So we have enacted two budget agreements, two different major
reductions in the deficit, which was supposed to reduce the deficit,
but it is going up by $250 billion instead of going down by $500
billion. Guess why. Because entitlements are out of control. And
everybody knows that.
I hope we support the Robb amendment. It is not going to solve this
problem, but it is going to prevent us, at least, from wrecking our
national security while we are continuing to be irresponsible in our
fiscal management.
The President of the United States stood before the Congress and
asked us in his State of the Union not to cut defense any more. He has
said over and over again in private, and I believe some in public, that
he believes we have cut defense too much or are cutting too much. He is
right. We are.
Who is going to be accountable? Who is going to be accountable when
our military people come up and say we cannot meet the two-regional-war
scenario? The most we can do is perhaps fight one regional war. What
kind of signal does that send to people in Korea? To people in the
Middle East? What kind of signal does it send all around the world
about America? That is where we are going. Mark my words. Within 6
months to 1 year you are going to hear over and over and over again
from the military people, ``You have cut defense so much we cannot come
before you and tell you we can do the job we have been assigned. If you
want to give us another job, if you want to have a different set of
assumptions, fine. But we cannot perform the functions assigned to us
by the Clinton administration under the Aspin Bottom-up Review--and the
Congress of the United States that has gone along with that.''
Mr. President, we are getting in serious trouble. I support the Robb
amendment as a last resort on this resolution, and I congratulate him
on giving us the chance to vote for it. I do not know whether it will
pass or whether it will fail. But at least we will be able to register
our opinion.
To those people who voted against the Domenici resolution earlier
today, the Domenici-Nunn resolution, this is your chance to redeem
yourself. Because what you did when you voted against it, whether you
realized it or not, you made it clear that you were in favor of cutting
the defense budget of the United States below President Clinton's
budget by at least $21 billion over the next 5 years, minimum.
That was a vote to cut defense. Some people are going to try to
rationalize it and explain it another way, but anybody in this body
that has witnessed the budget process in the last few years who
believes with a cut of $42 billion in discretionary accounts believes
that less than half of that is coming out of defense, they have been in
a dream world. It is going to be at least 50 percent, probably closer
to 60 percent.
I will do my best to keep it from being any higher than it has to be.
I had planned to offer a firewalls amendment. The Senator from New
Mexico and I were going to offer a firewalls amendment. But right now
we are in a hopeless position with the firewalls amendment for this
reason: Because we do not know how much is coming out of defense, and
if we put up a firewall now, after the Domenici amendment has been
killed by this body--many on this side of the aisle and many of that
side of the aisle voted against it--we do not have any way to have a
firewall. Not at this point because we do not know how much the
appropriators are going to assign to defense out of that $42 billion
cut. And if we put a complete firewall up, what we will be saying is
not one penny of the $42 billion comes out of defense. I do not believe
this body will vote for that.
Last year we had 54 Senators vote for a firewall, less than the 60
required. I do not believe we can fairly ask our colleagues to have a
firewall when we do not know what is going to happen with the money
that has been cut under the Exon-Grassley amendment.
Mr. President, I will ask the Senate tonight, and everybody is going
to have a chance before the night is over--we may not have a chance to
debate it, but the Senator from New Mexico and I will be offering an
amendment on entitlement caps. People are going to get to vote for
this, and we are going to have everybody run out and say you cannot do
that because it is going to cut health care, and that will be wrong
because we drafted the amendment so that the baseline--and I hate to
even use that word--but the baseline is going to be after we pass the
health care bill this year.
So the beginning measuring point is going to be in 1996. It will not
interfere with health care. Whatever we pass in health care will be the
baseline. And then you will limit the growth. We will test whether the
health care plans can save money. If the health care plans cannot save
money, then we are going to keep going into this hole more and more
every year.
So what we are going to be proposing later, and I hope we will have a
few minutes to debate it, will be an entitlement cap. It will not
include Social Security. It will exclude Social Security and interest
on the debt, but it will allow the entitlement programs to begin
growing with a rate of inflation plus the population, plus we have even
a 4 percent kicker the first year above the rate of inflation, 3
percent the second, and 2 percent the third.
Mr. President, if we cannot live with that, then this deficit is
hopeless and we might as well forget it.
So we are going to have a chance to vote on an entitlement cap even
if we do not have a debate before this night is over.
It is my hope that the Robb amendment will be adopted and that even
though we may miss the recess--whatever it takes--we will go back and
try to begin doing this job right. We are digging a deep hole, not one
that will be recognized immediately, but one that will be recognized
over a period of time. We are digging a very deep hole for our children
and our grandchildren.
Mr. President, I hope the Robb amendment is adopted. I will support
it, and I thank the Senator for his leadership.
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bryan). Who yields time?
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from
Georgia for his eloquent articulation of precisely why I think it is
important that we do adopt this particular amendment. I hope it will be
the will of the majority of our Senators to honor the position that has
been staked out by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and
honor the request of the President of the United States to ensure that
defense spending is not cut beyond the point that it has already been
cut with respect to all of the other options in solving this problem,
including the reimposition of walls, if it be the will of the committee
to do so. They are not precluded by this amendment.
I am prepared to yield back any remaining time, and I am also
prepared to have the second-degree and first-degree amendments voice
voted, if that is in accordance with the will of the managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment No. 1588, offered by the Senator from Virginia.
So the amendment (No. 1588) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 1587 offered by the Senator from Mississippi, as amended.
So the amendment (No. 1587), as amended, was agreed to.
vote on amendment no. 1574
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 8:05 p.m. having arrived, the
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1574, offered by the Senator
from Texas.
Mr. ROBB. I request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West
Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] would vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 67, as follows:
[Rollcal Vote No. 78 Leg.]
YEAS--32
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Coats
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Kempthorne
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Wallop
NAYS--67
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simon
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--1
Rockefeller
So the amendment (No. 1574) was rejected.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was rejected.
Mr. FORD. 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 question is on
agreeing to the motion to recommit by the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
vote on motion to recommit
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] to recommit. On this question, the
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] and
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 70, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]
YEAS--28
Bennett
Brown
Coats
Cohen
Coverdell
Danforth
Dole
Glenn
Gorton
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nunn
Robb
Roth
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--70
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simon
Specter
Wallop
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--2
Bond
Gramm
So, the motion to recommit was rejected.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________