[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]
PROGRAM
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, there will be no further rollcall votes
this evening. The Senate, under this agreement, will complete action on
the budget resolution tomorrow. There is remaining a maximum of, I
believe it is nine amendments--eight or nine amendments. I understand
from the managers that it is not likely all of them will require
rollcall votes, that the number of votes will be much smaller than
that, and then we will proceed to final passage.
I thank and commend the managers for the diligent job in managing a
very difficult matter.
Now, that will not complete the Senate's action prior to the recess,
as all Senators know. There will remain pending the cloture votes with
respect to the conference report on the education bill. After we
complete action on this tomorrow, I expect we will proceed to
consideration of that matter. I will discuss with the distinguished
Republican leader, as is my regular practice, on how best to handle the
scheduling of that matter. But for now, I understand the managers are
going to be here for a while considering other amendments that they may
take. Then we will return at 10 a.m. tomorrow with these amendments to
be offered.
May I inquire if the managers intend--and I encourage them to do so--
to line up one of these amendments so we could begin at 10 tomorrow
with an amendment? Senators then should be aware it is possible votes
will occur conceivably as early as 10:10 if an amendment is offered
promptly at 10 and the 10 minutes is used up.
I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wanted to say to the majority leader,
when he propounded unanimous consent and I expressed concern about the
Dorgan amendment, I was mistaken. I did not understand what it was. I
should not have objected even then. I thought it was a freestanding
amendment we were agreeing to. I should not have objected at that time.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, there is absolutely no problem with
that, and I thank my colleague for his kind words.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may be
permitted to speak up to 7 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
195 are printed in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and
Senate Resolutions.'')
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
organ and bone marrow transplantation amendments
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the managers'
amendment to the Organ and Bone Marrow Transplantation Amendments, H.R.
2659.
This amendment substitutes the language of the organ transplant
reauthorization--S. 1597--approved by the Labor and Human Resources
Committee and the text of the Comprehensive Child Immunization Act--S.
732--of which I am a cosponsor. Both of these are very important pieces
of public health legislation which deserve speedy approval by the
Congress.
Ever since the passage of the National Organ Transplant Act [NOTA] a
decade ago, we have attempted to fine-tune this program so that it
improves the acquisition and distribution of transplant organs. The
issues that surround organ transplants are both difficult and
emotional, and crafting amendments to NOTA is never an easy process.
Certainly, one of the more compelling problems facing organ
transplantation is the increasing gap between the demand for an the
supply of organs. From 1988 to 1992, the annual number of people
waiting for transplants rose by 66 percent to nearly 50,000 in 1992. In
the same time period, the number of organ donors grew by only 31
percent, with 4,497 donors providing 15,715 organs in 1992.
But, even more compelling is the fact that, during this 5-year time
period, over 10,000 people died waiting for an organ transplant.
At present, over 30,000 Americans are waiting for an organ
transplant; tragically, between five and seven people die each day
because an organ is not available for transplant.
The Senate organ transplant reauthorization, S. 1597, is a carefully
crafted measure which, on balance, appropriately addresses the need to
develop an equitable system to allocate organs. It strengthens the
system by achieving a more systematic and equitable process for organ
transplants and allocation.
As my colleagues are aware, the State of Utah has been a pioneer in
transplant development, and I have worked closely with State transplant
officials during the development of this legislation.
In particular, I wish to recognize several outstanding experts in the
field of transplantation, all of whom provided valuable advice and
counsel in crafting this legislation. They are: Dr. David Nelson at the
Utah Cardiac Transplant Program at LDS Hospital; Dr. Robert Shaddy at
the Pediatric Heart Transplant Program at Primary Children's Medical
Center; Dr. Don Olsen at the Artificial Heart Research Laboratory at
the University of Utah; Dr. John Hylen of the State Division of Health
Care Financing; and Dr. John Holman, Jr. of the Intermountain Organ
Recovery Systems and the University of Utah Kidney Transplant Program.
We have also worked closely with the State in development of the
childhood immunization bill, which we are also considering today.
It is no secret that I have had concerns about the scope of the
administration's proposals on childhood immunization. But I am in
absolute agreement that we must intensify our effort to immunize our
children against diseases that can be prevented through vaccines. That
is the intent of this legislation.
The State of Utah has undertaken an intensive effort to raise its
childhood immunization rates. We have established a task force under
the leadership of the First Lady of Utah, Mrs. Jackie Leavitt, and that
task force has been working diligently with a broad spectrum of
influential groups to improve immunization rates in Utah.
For example, this public-private partnership funded a care-a-van,
which in just a 2-month period vaccinated 4,000 children. They have
worked with vaccine manufacturers, such as Merck, who agreed to donate
free vaccines to all Medicaid providers.
The success of this partnership underscores concerns some of us have
shown about establishing a Federal effort that is too large and that
could supplant, rather than supplement, existing efforts.
I would like to thank Governor and Mrs. Leavitt for their leadership
on this issue. In addition, I would like to thank Rick Crankshaw from
the Utah Community Health Services Division, who provided me with
invaluable assistance.
And, finally, I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy, who agreed to
insert language in the bill which will allow the Centers for Disease
Control to give priority in funding grant applications from States such
as Utah, which may have low immunization rates despite their best
efforts to improve them. This is an important provision that will help
many States.
amendment no. 1568
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to register my opposition to the
Bradley amendment, No. 1568 that passed by voice vote earlier.
I'm not sure many Members realize that the amendment passed, let
alone what the amendment said. This body just voted, albeit by a sense
of the Senate, that all tax expenditures, including the home mortgage
deduction, personal exemptions, first-time farmer bonds, educational
exemptions and hundreds of others, should be put on the chopping block.
If this were to become law, it would, despite the proponent's
objections, amount to a backdoor tax increase. If the Finance Committee
was required to cut a certain amount of tax benefits, many positive
benefits would be cut, because there just aren't many, if any,
illegitimate tax expenditures left. The proponent's attitude is that
all income belongs to the Government and the Government should decide
how much it's going to give back to the taxpayer.
If so-called loopholes do exist, I'd like the proponents to tell us
what they have in mind, because as a Member of both the Budget and
Finance Committees, I'm always looking for wasted money out there that
can be put to good use. The Finance Committee already has the authority
to review all tax expenditures, and if unfair benefits exist, then we
should, and I believe will, address them.
So, Mr. President, I want to register my opposition to this ill-
considered amendment.
amendment no. 1565
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Cohen, and Senator Jeffords be added as cosponsors to the amendment I
offered last evening to the Budget Resolution which provided increased
funding for Low Income Heat Energy Assistance Program, Prisoner
Literacy and Job Training, and Prenatal Care programs.
Further, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by
Senator Cohen and a statement by Senator Jeffords be included in the
Record in support of the amendment adopted by the Senate last evening.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, in offering this amendment to restore
full funding to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP],
which provides assistance to poor households for paying their energy
bills.
The budget resolution approved by the Senate budget committee takes
us a giant step toward restoring adequate funding for this valuable
program in the face of a drastic budget cut proposed by the Clinton
administration. Senator Specter's amendment will raise the funding
level further to ensure that the needy will receive the help they need
when facing their energy bills.
In January more than half the Nation was submerged in arctic
temperatures brought on by a blast of cold air from Canada. We
witnessed record cold temperatures in numerous towns and cities across
the country, thick ice on major waterways, broken water mains in cities
from Atlanta to New York, and a declaration of a state of emergency in
the District of Columbia.
The weather has now improved in most of the country. Temperatures are
back to normal. The state of emergency has been lifted.
But for those struggling to pay their energy costs during this
relentless winter, the emergency is anything but over. The
administration's proposal to cut funding for LIHEAP in half only
exacerbated their fears about being able to survive through the winter.
I am very pleased that the budget resolution before us today restores
70 percent of this cut, but I remain concerned that the continuing
erosion of funding for fuel assistance benefits will have a drastic
effect on the ability of the poor and elderly to survive through any
winter, whether it sets records or not.
The amendment I am joining Senator Specter in offering ensures
continued support for fuel assistance and will provide some assurances
to those in need that they will receive some assistance in paying their
energy bills. For these families and individuals, the LIHEAP Program is
absolutely crucial, and particularly so in my State of Maine.
While the rest of the country reacted in panic to the ordeal of
winter weather, Mainers watched with bemusement as other regions tried
to adjust to conditions that they face not just for one week once in a
lifetime, but for several months during the fall and winter every year.
Let me just read some weather statistics that were provided to me by
the national weather service:
In the northern part of the State, which also happens to be one of
the poorest parts, the average normal temperature--not this year's
record lows--is below freezing for five months of the year--November
through March--and is in fact close to zero in December, January and
February. April is just above freezing, at 38 degrees.
As it was in many places around the county, this past winter has been
an extremely harsh one for Mainers. They, too, faced record cold
temperatures and snowfall levels. But long, cold winters are not a rare
thing in Maine; they are the norm. They occur not just once in a
decade, but year in and year out.
I am bringing this information to the attention of the Senate today
to explain why I, and my constituents in Maine, are deeply concerned
about the Clinton administration's proposals to reduce funding for the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
The importance of LIHEAP benefits to the 62,000 low income Mainers
who receive assistance cannot be underestimated. Winter fuel bills run
at an average of $1,200 for many families in Maine, but benefits
average only $170 for the whole winter. For some households who heat
their homes with kerosene, wood or oil, benefits range from only $48 to
$120 for the entire winter in Maine's poorest counties. These amounts
are pitifully low, yet now we face a proposal to cut funding even more.
When word first leaked out that the program might be cut, I wrote to
President Clinton and to Health and Human Services Secretary Donna
Shalala to express my deep concern about the rumored cuts.
Those letters were sent before the Arctic blast reached a vast
portion of the country, including Washington, DC. I had hoped that as a
result of their experience with the bitter cold, decisionmakers in
Washington would come to understand what it means to live with constant
subfreezing temperatures and just how important a warm home can be. I
am greatly disappointed that these concerns were ignored by the
administration.
Again, I want to express my appreciation to the Senate Budget
Committee for restoring a vast portion of the proposed cut. The efforts
of the chairman and others to assist in improving the funding outlook
for this program is greatly appreciated in Maine and many other states
dependent on this funding. I know that difficult budget choices had to
be made, and I think the committee did a commendable job under the
circumstances.
However, more can be done, and I believe the amendment before us now
accomplishes that. I will continue to work with Senator Specter and
others to secure additional funds for this worthwhile program and
explore ways to ensure that states with the greatest demands for
assistance receive adequate funds.
In closing, I implore my colleagues to listen to the cry of need from
the poor and elderly struggling to make ends meet. When we sit here in
thawed-out Washington, DC, making budget decisions that affect other
parts of the country, please keep in mind how fuel assistance can make
a huge difference in the lives of those who live in colder climates.
LIHEAP benefits today reach only 25 percent of those households
eligible to receive assistance. Those who are lucky enough to receive
help are among the poorest of the poor, with more than half surviving
on incomes at or below the poverty level, and they already spend a
disproportionately high amount of their limited incomes on energy
costs. While you and I spend about 3 percent of our income on energy
costs, LIHEAP recipients spend about 12 percent of their income on
heating bills and electricity.
This is not the time to impose additional reductions in this
important program. Too many families and elderly individuals depend on
it to make ends meet, and we cannot hurt them further. Fuel assistance
is absolutely crucial to the poor and elderly and helps influence the
decisions they are forced to make about whether to buy food, medicine
or heat.
Last month, I received a letter from a disabled World War II veteran
living on social security who is concerned about fuel assistance cuts.
He wrote, ``It's a toss up between medicine, food or heat. We have been
out of oil for 3 days in this cold.''
I urge my colleagues to think of this individual and thousands like
him when making decisions about spending on LIHEAP, and I urge them to
support this amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor the amendment
offered by the senior Senator from Pennsylvania and commend him for his
tireless efforts on behalf of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP). The amendment we are considering shifts $425 million
from government consulting accounts into LIHEAP and other vital
programs, such as the Maternal and Child Health Block Grants.
I am particularly pleased that this amendment will restore full
funding--$1.48 billion--of LIHEAP in fiscal year 1995. My colleagues
may recall that Congress already appropriated this amount last fall.
But earlier this year, when President Clinton released his budget
proposal for fiscal year 1995, he proposed cutting LIHEAP funding in
half. The Budget Committee restored about 70 percent of the cut when it
reported Senate concurrent Resolution 63. This amendment restores the
rest.
The administration claims that falling fuel prices justify steep
reductions in a program already cut by 30 percent since funding for it
peaked at $2.10 billion a decade ago. The Labor Committee did its best
to disabuse the administration of this view during a reauthorization
hearing last week.
I will state this as plainly as possible: home energy prices have not
fallen. They may not have risen as rapidly as inflation generally, but
then again, neither have the incomes of our low-income families--whose
ranks have swollen enormously because of the recent recession.
I contacted the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS). BLS maintains and updates a household fuel price index. The
index includes fuel oil, natural gas, electricity, coal, and other
sources of home energy. Average prices, weighted by use, for the years
1982 through 1984 serve as the index base. The average annual LIHEAP
appropriation for those three years was $1.96 billion. I applied index
values for subsequent years to the average annual appropriation to
determine the annual appropriations necessary for the program to
maintain purchasing power at the 1982-1984 level. In every year since
1987, actual appropriations have fallen short. The cumulative loss of
purchasing power between 1985 and 1993 totaled $3.63 billion. For the
current fiscal year--just to keep pace with changes in home energy
prices--we should have appropriated $2.18 billion, but we fell $747
million short. The fact that the President had to release $300 million
in emergency funds this winter merely underscores how important LIHEAP
is.
Obviously, the budget caps on domestic discretionary spending are
forcing Congress and the Administration to face and make exceptionally
difficult choices regarding program funding. I don't think any LIHEAP
advocate expects funding for the program to increase in this budget
climate. But we can't let it decrease any farther than it already has.
So, as I mentioned earlier, I commend Senator Specter for offering this
amendment. I am pleased to cosponsor it. And I urge my colleagues to
support it.
the republican alternative
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
fiscal 1995 budget resolution.
I commend the Budget Committe for reporting a budget resolution which
reduces the deficit by $38 billion over 5 years. In particular, I
commend the Committee for adopting the Exon-Grassley amendment, which
increases the President's proposed deficit reduction of $12 billion by
$26.1 billion.
That is a good start, but we must do better--despite the efforts of
Senators Exon and Grassley, the budget resolution will only cut the
deficit by $1.6 billion in outlays for fiscal 1995.
For some reason, both the President and Budget Committee Chairman
Sasser believe that we should take a rest from significant deficit
reduction this year. I acknowledge the fact that a $173.5 billion
deficit projection for fiscal 1995 is a significant improvement from
the $235 billion deficit in fiscal 1994. However, we must bear in mind
that this reduction is largely a consequence of the economic recovery
that began under President Bush.
As former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker advised members of
this body last week, during periods of recovery we should strive for a
surplus. In other words, we should act now. I do not suggest that a
surplus like that advocated by Chairman Volcker is realistic in the
immediate future. But we must begin to work towards that goal. We
should not defer hard budget choices until later in the business cycle,
when general economic conditions may impair our ability to act.
Earlier this month, this body debated the proposed balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution. At the risk of rehashing that debate, I
believe this body needs to focus--again--on the consequences of our
staggering deficit.
The projected fiscal year 1995 deficit of $174 billion will be added
to the $4.7 trillion bill we are dumping on our children and
grandchildren. Each American family of four is burdened with $74,500 of
debt due to the past fiscal irresponsibility of the Federal Government.
As a consequence, in 1994 we are spending $294 billion in gross
interest payments on that debt--$50 billion more than all domestic
discretionary spending.
Mr. President, we all know that it is tough to make friends by
pursuing meaningful budget reforms. Courageous leadership on this issue
may have cost our last President his job. But it is something we must
do.
Reducing government spending has been a priority throughout my Senate
career. In 1984, I launched an organization called Americans for
Generational Equity which sought to make clear how our reckless
spending habits devastates future generations. That organization worked
hard to identify and achieve the reforms necessary to cut the budget
without harming important programs.
I have also been a part of numerous efforts within this body to
attack the deficit. In the early 1980s, I sponsored along with Senator
Gorton the Durenberger-Gorton bill to balance the budget. Since then, I
also have supported strongly such measures as the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings Act, the Kassebaum-Grassley-Baucus proposal, the Boschwitz
spending freeze, the 1990 budget summit reforms, the 1992 entitlement
freeze, the 1993-94 Kerrey-Brown and Dole deficit reduction proposals,
and, most recently, the balanced budget amendment. I have also opposed
the concept of emergency supplementals and have offered amendments to
offset such off-budget spending.
For the same reasons I supported those proposals, I also strongly
oppose any attempt to strike the $26.1 billion of savings in outlays
included in the Exon-Grassley amendment. These savings can be achieved
by the Appropriations Committee without harming our national security
or compromising important Presidential initiatives such as health care
reform.
Mr. President, we all recognize that deficit reduction must be
carried out responsibly. That means cutting politically sensitive
programs such as entitlements. That also means resisting the temptation
to submit unrealistic deficit reduction proposals to the Congress.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, I believe the administration's 1995
budget fails on both counts.
I am disappointed to note that the President's 1995 budget did not
recommend any cuts in entitlement programs. Furthermore, the
President's 1995 budget proposed cuts in programs such as LIHEAP, REA,
AIDS Research, and Head Start which the administration should have
known this body could not responsibly accept. I congratulate the Budget
Committee members on both sides of the aisle who worked to restore some
of these harmful cuts. To the committee's credit, more appropriate cuts
were identified to pay for this additional spending.
Mr. President, I believe that the Republican substitute budget
sponsored by Senator Domenici represents a more responsible approach to
putting our fiscal house in order. The Republican substitute achieves
the kind of deficit reduction that we need--$322 billion more over the
next 5 years than the President proposed. Under the Republican plan,
the deficit would be reduced to $99 billion in 1999. In contrast, under
the Presidents budget the 1999 deficit would be $205 billion, an
unacceptable figure.
Mr. President, I also commend Senator Domenici for crafting a sound
plan for attacking the deficit while preserving the core of the Davis-
Bacon Act.
I support the Republican alternative, and will work within its limits
to ensure that its cuts are implemented responsibly. That means
preserving programs, such as Legal Services, which have practical merit
rather than political appeal. That means cutting areas, such as certain
entitlements, whose principal merit is their political appeal. And that
means not passing the buck by imposing unfunded mandates on State and
local governments.
Mr. President, I believe we must achieve greater deficit reduction--
this year. Therefore, I am compelled to vote against the fiscal year
1995 budget resolution. Instead, I support the Republican alternative
sponsored by Senator Domenici--it achieves meaningful deficit reduction
and does so responsibly.
defense levels of the fy 1995 budget resolution
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I fully support the laudable goal of my
colleagues on the Senate Budget Committee to cut spending and reduce
the deficit by $43 billion, but I am concerned about the potential
impact on defense of the amendment adopted in the Committee's markup.
If, as some have said, these cuts will all be taken from defense, this
resolution could result in an additional $43 billion cut in the defense
budget over the next 5 years. I cannot support such a reduction in the
defense budget. Therefore, I offer an amendment to ensure that these
discretionary spending reductions would be allocated fairly and
appropriately among defense and domestic discretionary programs.
The amendment, in the form of a sense of the Senate resolution,
rejects the stated intention of some of my colleagues to foist on the
defense budget the entire burden of this deficit reduction.
In my view, this is a fair and equitable approach to cutting
discretionary spending. As my colleagues should know, defense spending
has been cut every year since 1985. If approved, the President's budget
proposal submitted to Congress will result in a 35 percent real cut in
the defense budget since 1985, and another 10 percent real reduction by
1999. Defense has already been cut severely; it is time to look to
domestic spending for its fair share of cuts to reduce the deficit. Our
national security need not be sacrificed to deficit reduction.
Mr. President, I should also note that I have serious concerns that
the President's budget cuts defense too fast and too deep. Although
full details are not yet available, I am concerned that the capability
and readiness of our military will continue to decline under the
administration's proposals.
Last July, I published a compilation of responses from the Chiefs of
Staff to my questions about the readiness status of the military
Services. This publication, entitled ``Going Hollow: The Warnings of
Our Chiefs of Staff'', contains page after page of statements from the
Chiefs that readiness is already declining in each of the Services, and
that underfunding will only exacerbate the problem. Last Friday, I
wrote to each of the Chiefs to ask again for their assistance in
identifying shortfalls in funding or indicators of declining readiness.
With another year of declining defense budgets, I am not hopeful that
their responses will be more encouraging this year than last.
It does not appear that the President's budget request adequately
addresses these serious problems. When the budget was submitted in
February, the Pentagon disingenuously claimed to increase spending on
readiness by $5 billion. Yet only about 20 percent of that amount was
allocated to readiness-related programs. Secretary Perry has since
admitted that this increase was overstated.
Under the administration's defense budget request, operational
training rates, which the Pentagon claims are maintained at current
levels, actually decline in several areas compared to training rates at
the end of the Bush administration. Without adequate training, our
smaller force will be less ready to fight and win any future conflicts.
The men and women who serve in the Armed Forces are denied a full pay
raise in the Clinton defense budget. Cost-of-living allowances for
military retirees are delayed until October, while civilians retired
from Federal service will receive their COLAs in April. Once again, the
Clinton administration is singling out military personnel and retirees
to bear an unfair share of deficit reduction. This disregard for the
financial security of military personnel who are serving or have served
their country has a severe negative impact on the morale of our troops.
Only 3 years ago, we went to war in the Persian Gulf as the most
combat-ready force in the world. The value of that readiness was clear
in the decisive victory we achieved in just a few weeks with minimal
loss of life. Today, that readiness is beginning to erode. Our forces
are going hollow.
These are serious matters upon which the lives of American soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and Marines depend. Future opponents are not likely to
allow us time to get ready for war. If we are not ready, the men and
women we send into combat will pay for our negligence with their lives.
Mr. President, I trust my colleagues have also been the many
reputable studies which suggest that the President's defense budget is
insufficient to fully fund the force levels of the Bottom Up Review
[BUR]. Estimates of funding shortfalls range from $20 billion, which is
the Pentagon's own figure, to more than $100 billion over 5 years. The
inadequacy of this budget to fund the BUR Force exacerbates the
readiness problems I have outlined above and heightens the danger our
troops will confront in future conflicts.
As many of you know, Secretary of Defense Perry has testified to
Congress that inflation estimates in the defense budget are understated
by this amount over the 5-year plan. I have asked the Congressional
Budget Office to analyze the inflation factors in the President's
defense budget request, and CBO has responded that, using their
estimates, the 5-year defense plan is underfunded by $19.5 billion for
inflation increases. Secretary Perry has testified that these inflation
costs will be fully funded in future defense budgets, even if he has to
request additional funds for defense. I hope his efforts will be
supported by the administration.
Other studies take this budgetary analysis a step further and
suggest, with a great deal of validity, that the bottom up review force
is inadequate to support the underlying strategy, which requires that
our military be prepared to fight in two nearly simultaneous major
regional conflicts. For example, the BUR calls for a force of 100 long-
range bombers, which would be expected to ``swing'' from the first
major regional contingency to the second, and possibly back again.
Another critical asset slated to do double-duty in theaters on opposite
sides of the globe is the Joint STARS aircraft, which provided
essential and timely support to our forces in the Gulf War. The BUR
Force is also woefully inadequate in strategic life assets, requiring
military planners to make questionable assumptions about warning time
and time between the onset of these contingencies.
Lack of funding for these critical military assets, which are
unquestionably some of the most expensive programs in the DOD budget,
calls into question the validity of the entire bottom up review
concept. It also places in serious jeopardy the lives of our military
men and women who may be called upon to support our national military
strategy with inadequate equipment, training, and support.
Mr. President, even as the defense budget is steadily decreasing, the
percentage of the budget devoted to non-traditional civil activities is
rapidly increasing. I could talk at great length about the burden on
defense created by the Congress' practice of directing DOD to use
defense dollars to support domestic activities. These non-defense
activities include peacekeeping, environmental compliance drug
interdiction, disaster relief, and the like. In a study released last
November, the General Accounting Office concluded that:
For fiscal years 1990 through 1993, DOD allocated at least
$10.4 billion to [domestic] activities. This figure, however,
understates the full amount spent because data on such
activities are incomplete. [emphasis added]
On March 21, the Congressional Research Service completed a study of
items in the DOD budget that may not be directly related to traditional
military capabilities. This study analyzed defense expenditures for
fiscal year 1990-1993, the same period covered in the GAO report cited
above, and the report concludes that $28.3 billion was expended during
that period for items which could be defined as non-defense activities.
CRS looked further at fiscal year 1994 defense appropriations and the
fiscal year 1995 defense budget request, and identified another $24.3
billion in nondefense activities in these 2 years alone. All together,
CRS lists $52.6 billion in defense expenditures for items not directly
related to military capability.
Mr. President, while views differ as to the relevance of some of
these expenditures to military capabilities, the GAO and CRS studies
illustrate the increasing drain on scarce defense resources for non-
traditional, non-defense activities. These are costs which the
Department of Defense must pay, and they are growing costs which must
be considered when we assess the levels of funding for defense. Every
dime spent by DOD on these types of activities is money which
jeopardizes the ability of our military to fulfill their primary
mission, to defend the security of the U.S.
Mr. President, I do not look back with nostalgia on the Cold War. I
welcome the relaxation of tensions between the United States and the
former Soviet Union. But the end of the superpower conflict which drove
our national security policy for 45 years cannot be interpreted to mean
that the world is now a stable and safe place. Our troops may soon be
sent into harm's way in Korea, Bosnia, or other places in the world
where instability could easily lead to regional conflict. We have an
abiding obligation to provide the best possible equipment, training,
and support to the men and women who are ready to risk their lives to
protect our security.
Finally, Mr. President, despite our best efforts, we have not yet
halted the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
destabilizing advanced conventional weapons to countries which may pose
a threat to our security in the future. In addition, the administration
has proposed a wholesale easing of restrictions on the export of
enabling technologies to these potential enemies. We must plan now to
ensure our ability to deal with the potential consequences of continued
weapons proliferation.
On March 8, Senators Nunn and Thurmond, the chairman and ranking
minority Member, wrote to the Budget Committee to urge full support for
the President's budget request. They wrote:
We do not believe that reductions below the aggregate
funding level proposed by the President should be made in
defense in fiscal year 1995.
They went on to say that:
We believe the Congress and the administration should
adjust the defense budget upward in the outyears to properly
fund the administration's proposed force structure.
On January 25 of this year, President Clinton spoke unequivocally in
his State of the Union address of his unwavering support for the
defense budget he had submitted to Congress. He said, and I quote:
``The budget I [will] send to Congress draws the line against further
defense cuts * * * We must not cut defense further.'' I am told that
the White House is very much opposed to the cut in discretionary
spending recommended by the Budget Committee.
Mr. President, it must be apparent to my colleagues that these are
good arguments, not for cutting defense further, but for increasing the
funds allocated to defense by President Clinton. And I am concerned
that the overall levels of the administration's defense budget is
dangerously low. At a minimum, however, I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to vote for my amendment to guarantee fair and
equitable allocation of discretionary spending reductions.
save-as-you-go proposal
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I support this budget resolution. It
contains real and significant cuts in appropriated spending. It does
not raise taxes. It is responsible and thoughtful.
However, the resolution has one major flaw, in my view. It does
nothing to address entitlement spending. Entitlements comprise over 50
percent of all Government spending and are growing at a rate faster
than inflation--while non-entitlement spending is actually shrinking.
Controlling entitlements is key to controlling the deficit. Because we
have not addressed entitlements, the deficits projected by this budget
increase from $174 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $192 billion in
fiscal year 1999. Deficits won't go down until all spending goes down.
To achieve this deficit reduction, we must reform the way in which
Congress addresses entitlements. I understand that we cannot change
budget rules on this resolution, but I want to make the point that what
we need is a change in the way this body does business.
Currently, our budget rules require us to pay as you go for
entitlement spending. That is, any change in law that increases
entitlement spending must be offset 100 percent.
Clearly, that system is not good enough. It offers no incentive to
cut back entitlement programs. It allows them to continue to grow with
inflation, population increases, and spiralling health care costs.
I propose that we trade pay as you go for save as you go. Our rules
should require any new entitlement spending to be more than offset. For
every new entitlement dollar we spend, we ought to offer up $1.10 in
spending cuts--$1.00 to pay for our new initiative and 10 cents to go
into the deficit reduction trust fund for future generations.
I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a letter I am sending
today to Robert Reischauer, Director of the Congressional Budget
Office.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[See exhibit 1.]
Mr. KOHL. I am asking CBO to analyze how much we would have reduced
the deficit over the last few years had this simple reform been in
place. I ask my colleagues to consider this save as you go approach as
a real opportunity to bring entitlement spending down the way we are
bringing nonentitlement spending down--and to help protect our
children's future.
This is a good budget for current generations--it cuts spending,
keeps taxes down, and holds the deficit steady. It is not a good budget
for future generations. Until the budget is balanced, we are passing on
our debts to our children. We need to change the way we think about
budgeting in Washington. It is not good enough to get through today; we
have to save for tomorrow as well. I urge my colleagues to consider
changing our rules on entitlements to force us to save as we go, and
perhaps we can start using the budget to take care of our children as
well as we take care of ourselves.
Exhibit 1
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC, March 24, 1994.
Mr. Rbert D. Reischauer,
Director, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Reischauer: I have developed the attached proposal
to amend the Pay-Go provisions created by the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990. I seek your assistance in answering
the following questions:
If such a provision had been enacted as part of BEA, how
much would less deficit reduction would now be required?
If such a provision were enacted now, how much less would
the deficit be in six years, assuming a similar level of
direct spending legislation as has been experienced over the
last six years, compared to the status quo?
What is your brief assessment of this proposal in terms of
its promise at reducing the deficit? Are there any design
suggestions (e.g., how should user fees be treated, etc.)
that you can offer?
To ensure that we could get this proposal enacted early
enough in this session to affect the major entitlement bills
that are likely to be enacted this year, I request that you
complete this analysis as soon as possible, or no later than
May 2, 1994.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions,
please contact Richard Turman at 224-5653.
Sincerely,
Herb Kohl.
encouraging deficit reduction under ``save-as-you-go''
The Proposal: Reduce the burden on future generations by
amending the current ``Pay-As-You-Go'' requirement that
legislative changes in Federal entitlements be offset 100
percent by other spending cuts or revenue increases. Under
the modification, the required offset would be increased to
110 percent of the new spending, with the additional 10
percent dedicated to deficit reduction.
Why Do We Need To Change the Budget Rules
1. Our Future Demands That We ``Save-As-You-Go''--We are
now threatening our childrens' future, but have a chance to
do something about it. Whenever we make a change in
entitlement law--and pay for it by reducing lower-priority
programs--we owe it to our children to invest an additional
amount in their future. This means investing $10 for every
$100 in new spending in deficit reduction.
2. Without Such Changes, the Deficit Will Remain
Uncontrolled--Although the discretionary caps restrain the 36
percent of the $1.5 trillion Federal budget to which they
apply continued growth in mandatory spending drives the
deficit ever-higher in both OMB and CBO forecasts. Without
reforming the legislative process for mandatory budgeting, we
will never stop stealing from future generations!
3. The Current Pay-Go Rules Are Not Designed To Solve the
Deficit Problem--We need to move beyond controlling changes
to entitlements through Pay-Go to controlling entitlement
spending itself. Pay-Go merely keeps the Federal government
from knowingly increasing the deficit through new mandatory
spending. By enforcing a one-for-one trade-off between new
spending and savings, the Pay-Go rules assume that the
deficit doesn't matter. Instead of encouraging budget
savings, the Pay-Go rules actually encourage any spending
cuts to be saved up and used to offset new spending. We need
to change the rules to build deficit reduction into the
regular course of business instead of leaving it to be
accomplished once in a while through big omnibus bills--
otherwise we will never get the deficit down.
How Would ``Save-As-You-Go'' Work
If a bill increases spending by $100 million in a fiscal
year, it would have to be accompanied by $100 million in
offsets for that same year. Pay-Go's existing enforcement
tool, the sequester, would be modified so that any new
spending violating these rules would generate a sequester
large enough to offset 110 percent of the new spending. The
baseline would be adjusted downward to ensure that the
savings are locked in.
Do We Really Need This Change
After several years, ``Save-As-You-Go'' would cut a sizable
dent from the deficit, ensuring a better future for the next
generation and doing so in a manageable way. Unless we make
this investment in the future every time we legislate changes
in entitlement spending, we may never be able to balance the
budget without huge, crippling, spending cuts or tax hikes.
We could have enacted such a change when we created Pay-Go,
and the problems we now face would be more manageable. It is
not too late to get started--our children will start
benefiting whenever we do!
wic
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to highlight what I believe is
a crucial element of this budget resolution. I am referring to the
budget assumptions regarding the Special Supplemental Food Program for
Women, Infants and Children.
Page 21 of the committee report on the resolution reads:
The Committee's recommendation assumes the full $354
million increase in budget authority over a freeze requested
by the president. An additional 710,000 low income women and
children would be served and the program would remain on
track for full funding in 1996.
In addition, the Boxer-Leahy amendment, adopted yesterday, assumes an
additional $100 million in WIC in 1995.
Mr. President, am I correct in understanding that the committee's
resolution adopts and assumes the President's full fiscal year 1995
funding request for WIC, as well as an additional $100 million, toward
the goal of serving all eligible WIC who apply by 1996?
Mr. SASSER. That is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. I would like to applaud the chairman of the Budget
Committee, Senator Sasser, for continuing to make funding for the WIC a
high priority in the Senate budget resolution.
Mr. President, WIC serves children at one of the most critical times
of their lives. It provides nutritious food, access to health care and
nutrition education to pregnant women and young children up to age 5
who are low income and at nutritional risk.
WIC is universally acclaimed as one of our Nation's most successful
and cost-effective early intervention programs.
I would like to highlight the role that a program like WIC can play
in health care reform. WIC is a perfect example of how prevention can
work to save both money and lives. When pregnant women participate in
WIC, they give birth to healthier babies.
A study released last May by Mathematica Policy Research found that
infant mortality rates for babies born to WIC participants are one-
fourth to two-thirds that of nonparticipants. Reductions in neonatal
mortality rates are even greater--one-sixth to two-thirds the rate of
nonparticipants.
Mr. President, the infant mortality rate in the U.S. ranks 22d among
industrialized nations. We have a moral responsibility to invest in
WIC.
Dr. Buford Nichols, of the department of pediatrics at Baylor College
of Medicine, testified before the Senate Budget Committee in 1990 that
``20,000 infant deaths can be prevented each year by improving prenatal
nutrition and care.''
In addition to saving lives, WIC improves the quality of life for
children by getting them off to a healthy start. Babies with low
birthweight are at greater risk of having developmental handicaps,
birth defects, infectious diseases, behavior problems, and
complications.
WIC not only saves lives, it saves taxpayer dollars as well. For
every dollar that we spend through WIC to improve the health and
nutrition of a pregnant woman, we save as much as $3.13 in Medicaid
costs during the first 60 days after birth.
We save money because babies born healthier require less care. That's
smart public policy.
The average medical cost of a low birthweight baby can exceed
$39,000. The average cost of the WIC food package in 1991 was $31.67
per participant per month.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, WIC does not live up to its potential
when it does not serve all the people who need it. Under current
funding levels, 3 million women and children--about 40 percent of those
eligible--cannot get WIC.
By not fully funding WIC, we spend much more on health care for
babies who are born premature and weighing too little. We are
contributing to the health care crisis that is crippling our economy.
In this budget resolution the Senate once again affirms its
commitment to reaching full funding for WIC, and the House budget
resolution makes a similar assumption regarding funding for WIC. I
applaud my Democratic and Republican colleagues in both the Senate and
the House of Representatives for their continued bipartisan support for
this important program.
Discretionary programs have come under a great deal of pressure in
the past few years and they continue to do so this year as we struggle
to reduce the budget deficit.
I strongly support efforts to bring down the deficit. But I also know
that an ounce of prevention is indeed worth a pound of cure, and that
full funding for WIC is an important part of controlling health care
costs and the deficit.
The House and Senate Budget Committees recognize the wisdom of that
saying and have made a point of increasing funding for WIC even in this
time of discretionary cutbacks.
I applaud their vision and their courage in including the President's
full WIC request in this year's budget resolution, and I hope to work
closely with my fellow appropriators to provide this level of WIC
funding.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I share the distinguished chairman of the
Agriculture Committee's enthusiasm for the WIC Program. I would point
out that the budget resolution as reported by the Budget Committee
included $3.6 billion for this program, an 11 percent increase over
last year's levels. This level of funding would keep this program on
track for full funding in fiscal year 1996. Senator Boxer's amendment
that we adopted yesterday added $100 million, bringing the total level
of funding to $3.7 billion or 14 percent over last year's level.
WIC, which has now been in existence for 20 years, is certainly one
of the most successful of all Federal programs. Providing nutritious
food and vital services to at-risk low-income women and children
invests not only in their future, but also reduces the potential for
costly health problems.
I commend my colleague from Vermont for his strong leadership on the
WIC Program and child nutrition in general.
Provision to Terminate the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Budget Committee is to be
congratulated for their excellent work, and in particular for
continuing the critical work to reduce our deficit by requiring an
additional $26 billion in cuts over the next 5 years. It is vital that
we continue to make headway in this area, and build on the deficit
reduction work begun by President Clinton in his landmark deficit
reduction program.
Though their overall effort is to be applauded, Mr. President, I take
exception to some language included in the committee's report
accompanying the concurrent resolution on the budget. In particular,
the report language supporting the continued funding of the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences [USUHS] is inconsistent with
the overall intent of this resolution.
Of course the language has no binding effect, but I feel the issue
merits a response.
Put most clearly, Mr. President, USUHS is not as cost effective as
alternative sources of military physicians.
The Department of Defense obtains almost all of their physicians from
three sources--about 70 percent through the medical scholarship
programs, about 20 percent from physicians who volunteer directly, and
about 10 percent from USUHS. Of all of those sources, though, USUHS is
the least cost effective.
Mr. President, this is not only the conclusion of the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, it
is the finding of the Department of Defense, the agency that runs
USUHS.
Responding to an Inspector General's review of USUHS, the Secretary
of Defense--in May of 1990, directed the Assistant Secretary of
Defense--program analysis and evaluation--to conduct a study of USUHS.
That study found that the acquisition costs of USUHS-trained physicians
are much higher than the costs of acquiring physicians from any other
source, more than four times as high.
The Congressional Budget Office findings were even worse, noting, as
of 1991, that at $562,000 per person USUHS was the most expensive
source of physicians for the military, providing physicians at more
than 5 times the $111,000 per person from the military's medical
scholarship program, and more than 10 times the cost of obtaining
physician volunteers.
Of course, acquisition expenses are not the only cost of a physician
to the military. Salaries and retirement benefits make up a substantial
portion of the total cost. Here again, USUHS-trained physicians tend to
be more expensive.
In fact, because of their higher retention rates, average salaries
and pensions are so much higher for USUHS-trained physicians that the
Department of Defense found that even if they could acquire a USUHS-
trained physician for free, instead of the $562,000 estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office, USUHS would still be the most expensive
source for military physicians.
The bottom line is, as the Department of Defense noted in its own
study, ``the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences is a
significantly more expensive provider of physicians to the Department
of Defense'' than any other source.
It will take time to phase down USUHS operations, and we will not
realize full savings until it is closed. But even as we start that
process, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that we can save
$190 million over the next 5 years.
Mr. President, with the overall downsizing of our force structure,
and the continued pressure put on the entire Federal budget by our
deficit, it does not make good economic sense to keep funding USUHS,
and I will work to ensure that the President's provision phasing down
the Pentagon's medical school is included in the 1995 budget.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to proceed for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of Senate
Joint Resolution 178 are located in today's Record under ``Statements
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CONRAD. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________