[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________