[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.

                          ____________________