[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 
63, the concurrent resolution on the budget, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 63) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal 
     years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
remains a total of 8 hours and 45 minutes for debate on the resolution, 
divided as follows: The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Sasser] controls 3 
hours and 45 minutes, and the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] 
controls 4 hours and 45 minutes; the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. 
Sasser] is to control the last 15 minutes of debate on the resolution.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I just want to ask for a 
clarification. I believe if you add up time that the two Senators have, 
it is not 8 hours and 45 minutes, it is 8 hours and 30 minutes. The 15 
minutes that Senator Sasser has at the end is part of his time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield myself 30 minutes and will 
shortly offer the Domenici-Nunn-Thurmond amendment with reference to 
defense and the Exon amendment which was adopted in committee.
  Madam President, especially let me call attention to Republican 
Senators who have amendments that are pending. Senators should know 
that I plan to use only a half-hour on this amendment unless forced to 
use more, thus leaving the remainder of the time that the Senator from 
New Mexico has for the amendments that various Senators on our side 
have indicated they want to offer. I urge Senators on our side and 
their staffs to cooperate with the minority budget director, Bill 
Hoagland, in an effort to get all the amendments listed and try to 
allocate the remaining time among those amendments in a fair way.
  We are surely not going to have an hour for each amendment, even 
though that is what one might be entitled to, literally, under the 
statute. I cannot grant everybody an hour because, if I do that, there 
will not be time for anyone else. We have to get a number of these 
amendments completed today.
  Having said that, I hope everyone on our side will, first, determine 
whether they really need to offer the amendment. If they do not, it 
will allow more time for other Senators and, second, it will minimize 
the requirement or request for time because I am going to have to 
allocate it in some way that is as fair as possible, but clearly no one 
can get all the time they want.


                           Amendment No. 1567

 (Purpose: To hold discretionary spending at the statutory cap levels 
   and to reduce the Federal budget deficit through restraint in the 
                     growth of mandatory spending)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, having said that, I send an amendment 
to the desk for myself, Senator Nunn and Senator Thurmond.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself, 
     Mr. Nunn, and Mr. Thurmond, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1567.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this Domenici-Nunn amendment strikes 
the Exon amendment which cuts discretionary spending by $26 billion in 
outlays from 1995 to 1999. It strikes that amendment, thus placing the 
discretionary accounts at the level that they would have been at had 
that amendment not been adopted, which was essentially the 
discretionary accounts in Chairman Sasser's mark.
  Second, this amendment reduces mandatory spending by $20 billion from 
1995 to 1999 by extending several Medicare fee and veterans' provisions 
contained in the 1993 reconciliation bill which would otherwise expire.
  Third, this amendment accepts the Exon-Grassley discretionary 
spending cuts of $6 billion for 1999. There are no caps in 1999, so the 
Exon-Grassley cuts in 1999 were unenforceable as the $6 billion that we 
use of their total cuts for 1999.
  And fourth, this amendment, in a very unique way but nonetheless very 
enforceable, makes the mandatory spending reductions in this amendment 
absolutely mandatory by prohibiting a committee from moving forward 
with deficit-neutral legislation which they are given authority to do 
in this budget resolution until the mandatory savings required by this 
amendment are achieved.
  Thus, the Senator from New Mexico, joined by Senator Nunn and Senator 
Thurmond, contend and lay before the Senate a proposition; namely, that 
the Exon amendment is destined to reduce defense substantially. I am 
not here on the floor claiming that all of the discretionary savings 
provided in the Exon amendment are going to come out of defense. But, 
Madam President, it is unequivocal that a substantial portion has to 
come out of defense, unless we are to assume that the Appropriations 
Committee will take all of the Exon cuts out of discretionary and none 
out of defense.
  The truth of the matter is, we do not have a wall between those two 
functions any longer, and even though the walls have fallen down, 
literally, in Eastern Europe, but also the walls have fallen 
legislatively in this budget and defense is vulnerable.
  I think we have to keep up our guard. So since there are no walls 
protecting defense and since the principal culprit of these 
astronomical deficits and burdens on our children's future--taxation 
without representation on the children of the future, this growing 
deficit--the principal culprit is not discretionary spending but rather 
entitlements and mandatory spending.
  So the Senator from New Mexico has found a way and offers it to the 
Senate today to take the same amount of outlay reductions out of this 
ever-growing entitlement composite in the Federal budget and returning 
an equal amount of outlays to the discretionary accounts of this 
Government.
  That clearly should put the appropriators in both Houses as they move 
through allocating these resources to be almost required to fund the 
President's level in defense, at least. And that is because the 
President of the United States has said eloquently in his State of the 
Union Address, we have cut defense enough; we should not cut it any 
more. In fact, he said, there are those who urge that I cut it more, 
and I have overridden them--all of this paraphrasing--we have cut 
defense enough.
  What this amendment does is say to the appropriators of this U.S. 
Senate and House, when this is adopted in the conference and if we pass 
it, clearly the conference better be careful if they decide on the 
House side to take it out because it will be a giant mistake and 
perhaps the entire budget resolution will fall in the Senate, because I 
am asking today, the Senator from New Mexico is asking Senators to 
substitute these cuts in this amendment for those discretionary cuts 
which had reduced the caps and put defense in a vulnerable position, 
because even with the President's support, the appropriators would say 
you have cut $26 billion in outlays out of discretionary accounts, $43 
billion in program authority over 5 years, and there is no alternative 
but to take part of that cut in defense.

  I, for one, do not want to take that chance. As I said, just because 
the walls protecting defense legislatively have fallen--they were there 
for 3 years, 1990, 1991, 1992, and then in 1994 and 1995 we took the 
walls down--just because they have fallen does not mean we should lose 
our guard, let our guard down and become vulnerable. We all know what 
is happening in North Korea. If America has a real serious problem from 
the standpoint of what might happen in this world that is of extreme, 
extreme danger to America and the world, it is the North Korean 
situation. We ought not be inviting dramatic reductions to defense with 
that kind of crisis and the vulnerability of the Soviet Union, former 
Soviet Union States and other trouble spots in the world.
  So the Senator from New Mexico did not want to take a chance. I 
compliment Senator Exon for wanting to reduce the deficit more. In 
committee, I voted for that. And so I will save anybody on the floor 
from reminding me that I did. And I will say right now that I made a 
mistake, not a mistake in cutting additional money from the deficit but 
we should not have done it from the discretionary accounts, in 
particular defense.
  I am confident, Madam President, if the Senator from New Mexico had 
arrived at this amendment in committee--and I confess I did not know 
how to do this in committee--I believe we would have adopted this 
amendment rather readily over further reducing defense in the 
discretionary reduction that is found in the Exon amendment.
  So I merely offer to the Senate a position that I believe is fair and 
much less dangerous for the defense of our country, that is, reduce 
entitlement accounts in the next 4 years and in the fifth year take the 
Exon cuts and you get exactly the same amount of deficit reduction that 
you received in the Exon amendment as adopted by the committee.
  So for those who say the taxpayers want deficit reduction and for 
those who will come to the floor and say that Taxpayers Union likes the 
Exon-Grassley amendment, let me say to them this amendment does exactly 
the same thing. It reduces the deficit by exactly the same amount. It 
is probably more enforceable and it probably over time will respond 
with more consistent and persistent deficit cuts, but in essence let me 
summarize.
  You get the exact same amount of deficit reduction in this amendment, 
and what you are cutting is essentially programs that have already been 
cut, but those cuts are going to expire and that money will be spent if 
we do not do it this way, so we are reducing the deficit by the exact 
same amount.
  Now, there are others who will want to come and describe America's 
defense needs. I believe it is readily summarized. You have a President 
who promised when he ran to cut a given amount out of defense, and then 
after he was in office he decided to cut it much more. I will not 
repeat the numbers, but they are rather large. That President told the 
American people enough is enough. The Exon-Grassley amendment will cut 
more out of defense. Enough is not enough. There will be more cuts.
  Now, I do not say that in any way, Madam President and fellow 
Senators, to disparage the budget cutting of those two Senators. They 
always want to reduce the deficit. They did that. I am only saying to 
the Senate I offer you another way to do it, and I will not haul out 
the charts, especially since the chairman has just arrived; he has seen 
them too many times.
  Good morning, I say to the chairman.
  Mr. SASSER. Good morning.
  Mr. DOMENICI. But those charts I put up here show that without any 
question that part of this Government that is growing out of control 
are the mandatory and entitlement expenditures. We can afford to take 
this amount of money out of Medicare and entitlements and direct the 
committee before they start down the path of new programs; that is, the 
Finance Committee, they must first place in law permanently these cuts.
  Now, I wish to make one last comment because I do not know that I am 
going to take a lot of time today because fellow Senators on this side 
have a lot of amendments, but there will be one additional argument 
made, perhaps Senator Moynihan, chairman of the Finance Committee, or 
someone else will say that this will have a detrimental, perhaps some 
will say, a totally negative, impact on health care reform.
  Let me just suggest that is not so. This is such a small amount of 
the savings that have to be obtained and taxes that have to be imposed 
for the President's plan to make its way through on health care reform 
that this has no chance of adversely affecting that.
  In fact, I might say on that score, the President claimed $20 billion 
in deficit reduction between 1995 and 1999 as part of health care 
reform. So in a very real way we are just providing him with those 
savings here by cutting those programs and providing that amount of 
savings.
  Now, my good friend, Senator Thurmond, is here. He is a cosponsor 
along with Senator Nunn.
  Could I yield the Senator 5 minutes, would that be adequate?
  Mr. THURMOND. I would like 10 minutes as near as I can get.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let us go with 5 and if the Senator needs more, I will 
give the Senator some additional time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. I rise in support of the Domenici amendment to the 
Senate budget resolution. This amendment would reverse the Budget 
Committee decision proposed by Senators Exon and Grassley to cut $26 
billion from discretionary outlays over the 5-year budgeting period.
  A discretionary spending cut of that magnitude means that many of the 
reductions, of necessity, would come from the defense budget. This cut 
would be in addition to the already existing $20 billion long-term 
shortfall in defense funding acknowledged by the executive branch and 
Congress. In other words, the Exon-Grassley proposal will make the 
severe underfunding of defense even worse.
  I also intend to vote for another Domenici amendment when it comes 
before us later. The next Domenici amendment would establish caps or 
so-called firewalls to protect defense spending from further raids to 
fund domestic programs. However, it must be acknowledged that a vote 
for firewalls will simply be a vote for the President's budget request, 
inadequate as that request may be. Perhaps in today's political 
climate, this is the best we can expect. But we must not allow 
enactment of the President's defense number to make us complacent. The 
President's budget request contains at minimum the long-term funding 
shorfall of $20 billion just cited. Some defense budget experts claim 
this shortfall may be as great as $100 billion. When a realistic figure 
for inflation is factored in, spending on national defense will be 
dangerously short-changed in the future years defense plan.
  While I support both Domenici amendments to reverse the draconian 
cuts to the discretionary accounts and to protect defense dollars from 
being used for nondefense purposes, I must point out that they do not 
solve the problem of serious underfunding of defense. I fear for the 
country when our only recourse to protect the Nation's security is to 
erect firewalls--after the building is already aflame.
  Madam President, the practice of diverting defense dollars to 
domestic programs and entitlements must end if American is to remain 
free and secure. The Department of Defense has contributed far more 
than its share in budget reduction efforts. Force levels are coming 
down to the lowest levels in recent history. Procurement, research, and 
development funds are being slashed. Despite the administration's 
claims that operations and maintenance accounts are well funded, 
readiness is steadily declining. We are coming perilously close to war 
in Korea at a time when every indicator of combat readiness is lower 
than before Operation Desert Storm.
  On the other side of the equation, Madam President, demands on the 
military are not declining in proportion to cuts in personnel and 
resources. Instead, requirements for people and equipment are 
increasing. The administration has said it is funding operating tempo 
to preserve readiness. However, most aircraft flying hours have not 
been for training, but to support humanitarian and peacekeeping 
operations. The services are being required to operate at rates as high 
as during the Persian Gulf war. Troops are spending record numbers of 
days deployed, but not in training. They are being used for almost 
everything but preparing for combat.

  Moreover, plans are in the works to increase our role in U.N. peace 
operations. This could result in tens of thousands of United States 
personnel being scattered around the world, in addition to safeguarding 
our existing commitments in Europe, Central America, the Persian Gulf, 
South Korea, and the Pacific.
  Madam President, if the world were growing safer every day; if 
America did not have vital interests around the world which must be 
defended with force of arms, perhaps we could afford to milk the 
defense budget to nourish already swollen domestic and entitlement 
spending. But I think every Senator on the floor today knows the world 
is not growing safer. It is an expensive delusion to think that we can 
continue to rob the military--crippling the capacity of our soldiers, 
marines, sailors, and airmen to fight and prevail--in order to pay for 
all kinds of nondefense programs.
  If this trend continues, someday, perhaps sooner than we realize, the 
bill is going to come due. I fear it will be paid in the blood of our 
servicemen, or in significant harm to the Nation's well-being. I for 
one cannot stand by and watch that happen. I am strongly in favor of 
deficit reduction, cutting Federal spending, and economizing--but not 
at the expense of our security and the needless loss of American lives.
  I thank the manager of the bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin 
is seeking recognition. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator 
off the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin is 
recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Madam President.
  I thank the chairman for yielding time.
  Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment for the very 
reason that it does attempt to immunize the Defense Department from the 
further cuts that are represented by the Exon-Grassley amendment that 
was added at the committee level. I do not think any area of our 
Government should be immunized from the need for deficit reduction. And 
we cannot make any mistake about what the purpose of this is. The goal 
is to take a major area of public spending--an area where I think there 
is still too much spending--and to keep it off the table at a time when 
we are just beginning to make progress on deficit reduction.
  We know the recent history. The President last year showed real 
leadership in helping us, encouraging us, to establish a level of 
deficit reduction in the budget of $500 billion. That figure became 
known not only here in Washington but throughout the country as a 
figure that we were going to try to achieve. It stuck in people's 
minds. They asked us questions such as, ``How are you going to get that 
amount of money? How quick will the cuts come into effect?'' But that 
figure of $500 billion was very important last year in the budget 
process in keeping our feet to the fire.
  The committee has done a good job of adding to the good work that the 
President has done in his budget this year. The budget kept the 
commitment to deficit reduction. It did it in a variety of areas. I am 
extremely pleased we are able to report after just a few months, really 
just over a year, a significant reduction in the deficit. There was 
some resolve in early January, as reported in the Washington Post, that 
there were those in the White House saying, ``We did deficit reduction 
last year.'' The President's budget as proposed here and reflected in 
the budget resolution shows that they did not win, that there is still 
some significant resolve in the White House to go further in the area 
of deficit reduction.
  I am particularly happy that when this went to the Budget Committee 
they did not just accept the levels approved or proposed by the 
President and even approved by the House. They went further. This is 
the great merit of the Exon-Grassley amendment. The amendment before us 
today attempts to get away from that. It attempts to immunize the 
discretionary area, especially the Defense Department from the 
additional $26 billion in cuts. I think this really is an answer to the 
question that the junior Senator from Mississippi mentioned yesterday. 
He said, ``Why do we have a Budget Committee? Why do we do this?''
  The answer is very simple: To get that $26 billion figure out there. 
The public is aware that we have to cut that amount between now and the 
end of this year, and they can hold our feet to the fire. It is all 
about putting pressure on us. It is all about getting away from the 
ability of this institution to prevent people from really knowing what 
is going on.
  If the public knows that we have committed to an additional $26 
billion in cuts they will continue to ask us,'' Where are the cuts? 
What are they specifically?'' That is why I think we have to preserve 
that Exon-Grassley amendment as it is.
  By the way, as I think has been pointed out, that was a true 
bipartisan vote in committee. In fact, I believe a majority of those 
who voted for it were from the Republican Party and not Democrat. It 
was truly a bipartisan effort. Contrast that with what some of the 
amendments that have been offered by the Republican side. They were 
really completely contrary to the goal of real deficit reduction. The 
amendment we rejected would have added $20 billion to the defense 
budget. It would have provided a $500 tax credit. It would have indexed 
capital gains. These are all things that would be nice to have, but 
they move in the wrong direction. They move in the completely opposite 
direction of the Exon-Grassley amendment.
  Madam President, I am particularly concerned that the proponents of 
this amendment believe that somehow the Defense Department should not 
be subject to any further cuts. There is at least one good example in 
the President's budget that has to be addressed, and that has to be 
accomplished this year. I regret that some of the committee language 
suggested that we should not accomplish this cut because I think we 
should.
  I take exception to some language included in the committee's report 
that said that supporting the continued funding of the Uniformed 
Services University of the Health Sciences is inconsistent with the 
overall intent of this resolution. I have proposed in bill form that we 
eliminate the USUHS because it is no longer needed. It is a defense 
program that can and should be cut.
  I am concerned that the effect of this amendment would be to protect 
even these kinds of items in the defense budget that are no longer 
needed. The Defense Department gets all of their physicians from three 
sources, about 70 percent from the medical scholarship programs, about 
20 percent from physicians who volunteer directly, and only about 10 
percent from the Defense Department medical school.
  Of all these, Madam President, the USUHS school is the least cost 
effective.
  This is not only the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, it is also the 
finding of the Defense Department itself, the agency that runs the 
school.
  So my point is--and I have more extensive remarks about this 
particular program--that this amendment which is before us now that 
will hinder our ability to get at this kind of waste in our Federal 
Government. It will prevent us from specifically identifying the 
programs that can and should be eliminated, including in the defense 
area, as we proceed with the budget later in the year.
  So I see this amendment as getting away from probably the best moment 
this year in deficit reduction, and that best moment is the courage of 
the Budget Committee to add the Exon-Grassley amendment, which I 
strongly support; and I think that that should be regarded as part of a 
pattern, a pattern of improvement that started with the Clinton 
proposals last year, that has been reflected in the efforts of this 
body on a bipartisan basis by the effort by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, 
and also by the effort of Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.
  If we eliminate this item, we take away what may have been the finest 
hour in the Senate so far in the last 2 years and actually insisting we 
do better, that we add an additional $26 billion in cuts before we put 
this matter to rest later this year.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). Who yields time?
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, may I inquire of the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia, is he seeking recognition?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes.
  Mr. SASSER. Also, may I inquire of my friend from West Virginia how 
much time he might require?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If I might inquire of the distinguished Senator, 
through the Presiding Officer, how much time remains on this? I am not 
sure of the time situation. One hour per side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SASSER. How much time is remaining to the opponents of the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 52 minutes 40 seconds for the 
opponents of the amendment and 42 minutes for the proponents.
  Mr. SASSER. I yield to my friend from West Virginia such time as he 
may consume, up to 20 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, the Senator is more than generous. 
I appreciate his courtesy very much.
  I rise in strong opposition to Senator Domenici's ill-timed, ill-
conceived amendment to cut Medicare by some $19 billion.
  To restore a $26 billion cut in discretionary spending and replace it 
with a $20 billion cut purely in mandatory spending--with all but $1 
billion coming from the Medicare program is not only unfair it is 
unwise.
  I would not have voted for the initial $26 billion cut in spending 
that unfortunately passed the Budget Committee, but now that it's done, 
I reject the proposition that we sacrifice the Medicare Program once 
again, to protect programs that some believe to be more valuable than 
the one over 35 million senior citizens and disabled Americans rely on 
for their health care needs.
  Not only have we already chopped $56 billion out of the Medicare 
Program for the purpose of deficit reduction less than a year ago, but 
Medicare savings are needed for us to finance the long awaited and 
desperately needed prescription drug benefit and home and community 
based long-term care program that are key elements of the President's 
health care reform bill.
  I do not intend to allow my colleagues with other agendas to use the 
dollars that the President, and many of us here in Congress have 
reserved for health care reform.
  This is a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees. CBO 
tells us that despite our tremendous efforts to reduce the deficit by 
hundreds of billions of dollars, the deficit will begin to rise again 
in fiscal year 1999. All of that rise is due to increasing Medicare and 
Medicaid costs. We need to understand that the only thing that will 
really help us in wresting control of our Federal health care spending 
and reduce the deficit in the long term is comprehensive health care 
reform--to achieve that we will need to use health care savings.
  The Domenici amendment proposes to take a significant chunk of the 
dollars that we need for health care reform.
  In fact, most of the proposed Medicare reductions in the Domenici 
amendment are part of the President's health care reform proposal, many 
are in Senator Breaux's health care reform bill and some are in Senator 
Chafee's legislation.
  It is time to make it absolutely clear those of us in Congress who 
are adamant about achieving health care reform do not intend to let you 
cannibalize our financing mechnaisms for your own purposes.
  Health care dollars should be recycled and used for extending health 
care security to more Americans, not available to finance other special 
interests, no matter how important some may believe them to be.
  I stand with the majority of my colleagues on the Senate Finance 
Committee and my chairman and draw the line. It is wholly inappropriate 
for members of the Budget Committee to tell the Finance Committee when 
and where it will spend the savings or revenues from programs in its 
jurisdiction.
  This may be an even more cynical amendment than it appears on its 
face. It may be that some of the proponents of this amendment are 
actually seeking to sabotage our historic chane to pass comprehensive 
health care reform that will give Americans the health security they 
have waited for and deserve I sincerely hope that is not the case. But 
I am afraid it is a very legitimate conclusion to draw from such a 
selfish effort. This is an exercise which we went through last year, 
and it was an exercise we went through last year successfully. We 
defeated the Domenici amendment, of a slightly different nature, but of 
a very similar purpose.

  I want my colleagues to understand that this is a very, very cynical 
amendment. This is also the kind of amendment which, I think, detracts 
from the level of our debate and does great hurt. We have 2 hours to 
debate it. The consequences are enormous, and I regret this approach.
  The Senator from New Mexico indicated a few moments ago in his 
remarks that for people who are worried about health care, they should 
not really worry about this at all because, as he said, it is a very, 
very small impact on health care. He is talking, of course, about a 
great deal of money, almost $19 billion.
  Everything in health care counts. All of a sudden, I came in here 
this morning, and it brings back some memories rushing to the defense 
of the military, and scenarios are created in Korea, North Korea, and 
other places, where all of a sudden it becomes a patriotic duty to put 
more money in the military.
  The President of the United States is very effective on this subject. 
He has made a very good budget. It is very, very interesting to me that 
the Senator from New Mexico wants to take so much money out of programs 
that help very, very much and then give it to the military. The Senator 
from South Carolina obviously sounded that. It is sort of like the old 
times are coming back.
  You do not cut $18.4 billion from Medicare without hurting people a 
lot. We have already done some very substantial cuts from Medicare, and 
I presume the Senator from New Mexico voted for these. In the budget 
resolution of last year, budget reconciliation, we cut $56 billion out 
of Medicare. That was a lot of money. But it was not nearly as much 
money as we cut out this year in the President's health care proposal, 
which is $118.5 billion out of Medicare--cut it out. That is about a 
$175 billion cut out of Medicare.
  If anybody in this body is serious about getting control of runaway 
costs of entitlements, Medicare being one of those, the way to do it is 
through health care reform. If Senator Domenici wants to reduce the 
budget deficit more than the half trillion dollars that we have already 
done, then what he needs to do is to put his full passion into passing 
health care reform.
  I have not heard speeches from the Senator from New Mexico on health 
care reform, and perhaps I will. But if he wants to be a responsible 
budget deficit hawk, that is the way to do it, to get health care 
reform passed. We have to do that in the Finance Committee. He is not 
on the Finance Committee and he does not have to worry about that kind 
of thing, so he can take this kind of approach.
  What happens, of course, is this money comes right out of the senior 
citizens. It also happens to come out of veterans. In fact, it comes 
out of veterans benefits. I urge all those listening to consider 27 
million veterans and 33 million senior citizens in this country--
actually, many more than that--and what they will be doing if they come 
and vote for the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico is to cut 
veterans benefits. I do not know how to say it more clearly than that: 
Cutting veterans benefits, that is what they will be voting for. There 
will be a lot of people to make sure that is well understood, and I 
will be certainly amongst those. But I am really angry about this 
assault on health care, to say this is a minor impact.
  The Senator from New Mexico knows very, very well that every dime, 
every dollar, much less $19 billion, is enormous in health care reform. 
I had a very, very warm evening with the Senator from New Mexico at the 
Vice President's house a number of weeks ago in which the Senator from 
New Mexico, in fact, did give a very impassioned and a very, very 
deeply moving speech--much better than the one I gave--about the need 
to do more in mental health, in health care.
  There were a number of people who stood up that night and talked 
about the need for that and talked about personal experiences. It was a 
very, very moving affair. I was one of those who got up and gave that 
kind of a talk. But at the end of the night, I got up and said: This is 
all terrific, but unless we pass health care reform, none of this is 
going to take place.
  The fact of the matter is, if you had to find one single piece of the 
health care proposal which is vulnerable, one single piece of it, it 
would be mental health. There are a lot of people around this country 
who are opposed to mental health benefits, because they think of it as 
stress in the workplace--and not as serious problems. We do cover some 
schizophrenic and some bipolar problems in the President's reform plan; 
not all of them, but some of them. I believe mental health benefits 
will be the very first thing that is jeopardized in reform. That is not 
made up by me today; this is common knowledge in the health care 
community that the first thing to go when we get down to starting to 
cut--and I will fight that cut--will be mental health benefits.
  I am sort of standing here in wonderment at this amendment, the need 
suddenly to rush billions of dollars into the defense industry and then 
sort of cavalierly dump off a whole lot of responsibility for cutting 
more money on the Finance Committee, creating a vacuum. And obviously 
that vacuum is going to have to be filled by cuts--cuts in mental 
health, cuts in prescription drugs. Prescription drugs, incidentally, 
have a great deal to do with mental health.
  So this is a very, very disturbing amendment, as far as I am 
concerned.
  In terms of veterans affairs, I want the membership to understand 
that this is a very serious effect. It is a $500 million cut in 
veterans benefits. There are no specifics in the amendment, of course, 
but it would likely eliminate some very good work that I think the 
Veterans Committee, which I chair, did on savings.
  It would eliminate savings in the fifth year, a great deal of money. 
And it would limit the amount of pension to $90 a month that can be 
paid to pensioners without dependents in Medicaid-covered nursing 
homes. Good grief. These are poor, old veterans who are in nursing 
homes. Nobody knows it, I hope, except if they are listening to what I 
am saying. But their benefits are going to get cut--poor, old veterans 
in nursing homes. I cannot say it any more clearly than that. I think 
that is despicable. I think that is despicable, and I want the 
membership to understand that.
  Madam President, this is serious stuff, budget deficit reduction. I 
understand that. I fought hard to make sure that we got the $1/2 
trillion reduction. The Senator from New Mexico voted against all that. 
I do not know what the Senator from Nebraska did. He might have voted 
for it, probably voted against it.
  But some of us care very, very much about budget deficit reduction, 
and we understand the delicate balance in this country between trying 
to make ourselves more fiscally responsible, which affects the markets 
and which is allowing our economy to grow, but, then, on the other 
hand, to say there are certain areas where we have to get ahold of our 
country's future, and some of that is technology and some of that is 
National Science Foundation, some of that is something called health 
care reform, but it does cost money. And I do not think that we can 
simply just come out here and sort of cavalierly cut another $20 
billion out of the budget without a very well-reasoned explanation 
other than just to be able to stand up and beat our chests and say I 
did more, to go home and say I did more.
  Now, of course, those who have a lot of defense installations in 
their own States, which I think is true of both of the Senators who 
propose this amendment, that is a very good thing for them to be able 
to go home and say, but the idea of just saying we are going to beef up 
defense and we are strong and we are tough and we are much more pro 
American than all these other people who are not going to vote for 
budget deficit changes so we can put more money in defense, let the 
Members as they are listening, if they are, and as they come to vote 
understand that this is taking away the greatest budget deficit 
reduction mechanism we have in the future, in the next decade, and that 
is called health care reform. Let us do our health care reform. We are 
not going to do health care reform if this amendment passes.
  Now, we defeated an amendment similar to this last year. As I 
indicated, we only defeated it by four votes. So I put my colleagues on 
notice this is going to be a very close vote. So when you are 
considering the attitude you bring to the floor with you, think about 
the poor, old veterans, and, yes, that is pulling at the heartstrings, 
but it does pull at the heartstrings because that is what it does. It 
takes the poor, old Medicaid veterans who are in long-term care 
facilities, nursing homes, and cuts their benefits. It takes health 
care reform, and Senator Moynihan and about 20 of us up here who are 
trying to do this thing in the Finance Committee, which is a very, very 
hard thing to do, and makes it virtually impossible.
  So I am very angry at this amendment. I think it is very cynical, and 
I think it should be defeated. If I do not violate the rules of the 
Senate, I will get up and talk some more about it.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  To my good friend from West Virginia, I am sorry that he uses the 
word ``cynical,'' because let me tell you what is cynical. It is 
cynical for a Senator to come to the floor and say we are cutting old 
veterans--it is cynical to say we are cutting old veterans' benefits 
when the cuts he is alluding to came out of his committee, were voted 
on last year. The Senator voted for them.
  All the Senator from New Mexico is doing is saying when those expire 
in 1998, continue them. Now, if that is hurting veterans--and you know 
what we plan to do in 1999? We plan to leave those cuts in place and 
spend the money some place. When the Senator speaks of Medicare and the 
cuts, the Senator voted for every single cut that the Senator from New 
Mexico is proposing, every one, because the cynicism in this place is 
that we pass a cut in Finance Committee for 1 year at a time. So that 
the next year when it expires, you can claim it again and claim 
savings.
  I have just decided to take a number of those and say let us face it; 
they are all going to be extended. These atrocious cuts are all in 
place, and we are going to extend them so that they remain in place 
just like they are going to be but we decide to save the money by 
extending them rather than letting it flop around to be spent 
elsewhere.
  Now, frankly, that is the case, and I really hope that my good 
friend, who says he is angered about the amendment, if he wants to say 
that $20 billion in entitlement programs, most of them in Medicare that 
is already cut--there is nothing new about the Domenici amendment, just 
extends it--if that $19 to $20 billion is going to destroy health care 
reform, and then by implication maybe even deny the mentally ill of 
this Nation coverage under that bill--I yield another minute--I truly 
wish he would look at it.
  I am as sincere as he is about health care, but I am also sincere 
about the President's commitment to save money in health care. I am 
sincere about the budget resolution of last year that says we are going 
to save money in health care. I am for saving $20 billion right now, up 
front out of those programs that we have already reduced. I am just 
saying continue the reduction, continue the reform.
  Let me just give you one example. Now, something has been said about 
cynicism. Let me ask, does everybody understand that when we write a 
bill on entitlement reform, we set the level of part B premiums for 
senior citizens at 25 percent, and we do it for 1 year at a time 
because the next year we extend it again and claim the same savings?
  Now, what if the American people thought that was the kind of thing 
we are doing? So I am just saying make that permanent and take the cut, 
take the entitlement cut residue right now and put it on the deficit.
  So, frankly, I do not think I am hurting a veteran. I am not hurting 
a senior citizen. I am not changing any program. It is already in 
existence in every respect.
  Now, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, Senator Coats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator manage the time for me in my absence 
for a few minutes? Can the Senator stay for about 10 minutes?
  Mr. COATS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for yielding. In answer to his 
question, I would be happy to manage the time in his absence.
  Madam President, in the last couple of days we have been faced with a 
difficult choice. Many of us have long supported a strong national 
defense believing it is the best investment we can make in this 
country, to ensure, to the extent we can, a peaceful world and a 
protection of our vital strategic interests.
  Expenditures made up front often save extraordinary expenditures that 
might otherwise have to be made should we engage in conflict, and we 
believe that they save the lives of American men and women who are not 
called to combat because an enemy has perceived, correctly, that the 
United States has a firm commitment to remain strong and to defend its 
interests and has the capability of doing so.
  At the same time, we are concerned about an ever-growing budget 
deficit, one that seems beyond the ability of this body to control. 
Numerous attempts have been made over the past dozen or so years--
different schemes, different budget proposals, different promises. None 
of those has realized its promise, and the budget deficit continues to 
grow.
  So when we are presented, as we were yesterday, with an opportunity 
to make further cuts in the budget deficit under the proposals 
incorporated in the committee print by Senator Exon and Senator 
Grassley, we are very tempted to support that. By the same token, we 
realize that we are once again operating out of an account with no 
protection for further cuts from defense, and I think we all realize 
the fact that when from a political standpoint we stand on this floor 
and enact those further cuts without firewalls or walls of protection 
to save against further defense cuts, the inevitable is going to 
happen. Most, if not all, of those cuts are going to come from defense.
  Now, people say, well, why should we not cut defense? The world has 
changed. The cold war is over.
  My answer to that is that we have been doing that. We have precisely 
been doing that for the last 10 years. What people fail to acknowledge 
and fail to realize is that defense is the one area of the budget that 
has taken real cuts. Everything else has been trimming at the margin, 
everything else has been reducing the rate of growth, but only in 
defense and only over a sustained period of time have we enacted real 
cuts.
  By the end of the President's proposal for defense, we will have 
released from service and dropped the level of personnel serving in our 
Armed Forces from 2.1 to 1.4 million. That is 700,000 less people 
trained and prepared in the defense of this country. We have shut down 
literally hundreds of provision lines across the country; hundreds of 
thousands, approaching 1 million people who used to work in the defense 
industry are now either working somewhere else or do not have a job. It 
has devastated some States, California in particular.
  All of this has been done in the name of reducing defense. The cuts 
have been substantial. We have cut active personnel 32 percent. We have 
cut Army divisions 45 percent, battle force ships 37 percent, fighter 
attack aircraft 40 percent, and on and on it goes.
  So when Members stand on this floor and say defense is not doing its 
share, they are just flat wrong. When they say that other programs have 
been cut in an equal amount, they are just flat wrong. Defense has done 
more than its share.
  So when the President of the United States, not someone with a long 
history of strong support for defense, comes before us in the joint 
session and draws the line and says,

       The budget I will send to this Congress draws the line 
     against defense cuts and fully supports the readiness and 
     quality of our forces, I will tolerate no more cuts,

Members from both sides of the aisle stand and applaud in one of the 
most sustained levels of support on a bipartisan basis that this 
Chamber has seen. Now we are faced with proposals to add further cuts 
from a category that we know will direct most of those cuts to defense 
cuts.
  Our Armed Services Committee just went through an extensive period of 
hearings with the Joint Chiefs, the service chiefs, the personnel 
chiefs and others, and to a person they said you cannot keep drawing us 
down at the rate we are going without seriously undermining our 
effectiveness, our cohesion, our morale, our ability to sustain and 
engage in meeting the strategic objectives that you, the Congress, and 
that this administration has laid out before us. You cannot continue to 
do that. We are on the razor's thin edge.
  General Shalikashvili said,

       There is little, if any, room for miscalculation. We have 
     not provided a hedge of an extra division here or an extra 
     fighter wing there. It is as lean as we dared make it and 
     retain our ability to meet our strategic objectives.

  One of two things has to happen. We either have to hold the line now 
on defense spending, or we have to go back and redefine what our 
strategic objectives are going to be. We cannot engage in Somalia, in 
Bosnia, in Korea, in meeting our obligations around the world. We 
cannot prepare to meet a contingency that we hope will not happen but 
may very well happen, and that is a Russia being different than what we 
think it would be or would like it to be. We cannot prepare for the 
future and meet unspecified, even unknown, threats to our national 
security, nuclear missile proliferation. We cannot ask our Armed Forces 
to carry on and be prepared to meet two nearly simultaneous major 
regional conflicts. We can barely do one. We have to make a decision.
  So the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico simply says if we are 
going to take these cuts, they ought to come out of a different 
category. We should not continue to put defense at risk.
  That is why I am supporting that amendment. We all know, every one of 
us knows, that until we deal with the mandatory spending we are not 
going to get control of this budget. We have been trying to squeeze the 
discretionary account now for nearly 15 years. While we may be able to 
make more cuts out of that account, that only accounts for a small 
percentage of the total budget. We have to face up to the reality that 
it is the mandatory programs that are driving the budget deficit. And 
until we do something about those mandatory problems, all this other is 
just smoke and mirrors. It is just subterfuge. It is not going to 
happen except the cuts will continue to come out of defense.
  If defense had not been doing its part for the last 10 years, I would 
say sure. We need to make changes and reduce this. But it has done more 
than its share, and it is as General Shalikashvili and others who are 
directed to provide us with advice as to how fast and how far we need 
to go, has said, we are at a thin razor's edge. We dare not go any 
further. There is little, if any room, for miscalculation.
  I think every one of us knows that if the extra savings are directed 
to come out of discretionary accounts, the majority of that is going to 
come out of defense. If we adopt the Domenici amendment, we know that 
we will have to begin to take those savings out of the account where 
they ought to come out of, and if we are going to deal with the 
deficit, that is where we have to go.
  It is a modest, mild proposal that simply extends decisions already 
made as to how we will affect savings out of the mandatory accounts.
  So for that reason and others I support the Domenici amendment.
  I thank the Senator for his time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I yield myself 5 minutes out of the time reserved by the 
chairman of the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I will talk later on some of the other 
specifics of this proposal.
  I am astonished when I listen to some of the remarks that are being 
made on the Senate floor today on the Domenici amendment. The Domenici 
amendment is a killer amendment with regard to the modest deficit 
reduction proposals adopted in the Budget Committee. Let there be no 
mistake about that. I just listened with interest to the Senator from 
Indiana who voted for this measure in the Budget Committee. I stand 
corrected. I thought that the Senator was in support of the amendment. 
Others closely associated with him on the Budget Committee did vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, if the Senator will just yield for a 
matter of clarification, I am for the Domenici amendment. But I do not 
serve on the Budget Committee. In fact, I wish I had.
  Mr. EXON. I corrected myself on that, if the Senator had been 
listening. I am sorry.
  Mr. COATS. I misunderstood the Senator.
  Mr. EXON. I would simply say, Madam President, that if the Senator 
from Indiana had been in the Budget Committee, had he heard the debate 
there, I think it would have been quite clear that there was no member 
of the Budget Committee on either side of the aisle that stood for 
defense. It was this Senator from Nebraska who took on cuts that were 
suggested there in the Milstar program and others that I thought were 
unwise.
  What has happened, unfortunately, by the chief sponsor of this 
amendment, is that the Senator from New Mexico, and others, have fallen 
into the trap that this money is all going to come out of defense.
  Madam President, I simply say, I take a back seat to no one in 
support of national defense, in the Budget Committee last week and 
elsewhere. I simply say that a big bugaboo has been created primarily 
coming out of the Appropriations Committee. We are so anxious to defeat 
the Exon-Grassley amendment that they have made ridiculous claims that 
this is going to devastate defense.
  Madam President, under the processes that we work under here, the 
Budget Committee sets the total limits, as most of the Senate 
understands. It is wrong for the Senator from Indiana, it is wrong in 
my opinion for the Senator from New Mexico, the latter being a member 
of the Appropriations Committee as well as the ranking minority member 
on the Budget Committee, who supported this amendment, the Exon-
Grassley amendment in the committee last week. Why the change of heart? 
The change of heart has been simply that I think the Senator from New 
Mexico and others have been convinced by the threats made out of the 
Appropriations Committee that they are going to take this out of 
defense.
  Madam President, to try to insulate the criticism that is going to be 
launched at the Exon-Grassley amendment, I simply say once again that 
this Senator has been the leader in the protection of the defense 
budget. The record will clearly show that.
  I simply say, Madam President, that it is a phony issue, regardless 
of who says it, that defense is going to be devastated by the Exon-
Grassley amendment. That would be up to the Appropriations Committee.
  If the Senator from New Mexico and others who are and have been great 
supporters of defense cannot stand up and do not have the votes and 
influence in the Appropriations Committee to have a disproportionate 
share of these cuts coming from national security interests, do not 
blame Jim Exon and Senator Grassley.
  This is a killer amendment. This has been fostered by wild claims. 
The fact of the matter is if there is criticism of the Exon-Grassley 
amendment, the legitimate criticism would be that it is too small a cut 
in the deficit.
  We are losing perspective completely here, Madam President, I 
suggest, with regard to what is fair and what is reasonable.
  I hope none of these cuts come out of defense, but that, again, is up 
to the Appropriations Committee.
  I simply say, that I hope tactics that are being used here as a 
killer of the Exon-Grassley amendment can be best described the way the 
President and Mrs. Clinton did in their humorous presentation to the 
Gridiron show last week. They are bringing up these scare tactics to 
``scare your pants off.'' It is not realistic.
  I simply say, as I will say later in my remarks, that this is not 
aimed at national defense. But if you want to use national defense as 
an excuse not to cut the budget further, then so be it.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. COATS. I wonder if the Senator will yield to me for just 30 
seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. On his time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the Senator 30 seconds.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I want to make it clear that I fully 
understand the Senator's intent is not aimed at defense. In fact, the 
Senator from Nebraska has been one of the stalwart defenders of our 
defense forces in our defense budget.
  The point I was trying to make is that the inevitable result of this, 
despite the Senator's best intentions, in this Senator's opinion, is 
that we will end up taking from defense rather than other discretionary 
programs, because we will be faced with what we are always faced with: 
An amendment saying either support the Head Start Program or support 
the F-22 modernization; either support the WIC Program or support the 
V-22.
  The inevitable result will be that since there is no firewall, the 
cuts will come from the defense programs in favor of other 
discretionary programs. I know that is not the Senator's intent. But I 
think that is the result.
  Mr. EXON. I yield myself 30 seconds from our time. I will simply say 
that the Senator from Indiana is, therefore, saying that the 
Appropriations Committee is antidefense, the Appropriations Committee 
will not take a stand for what is right to properly apportion it--make 
appropriations in a fair manner. I hope that I have more respect for 
the Appropriations Committee than that, and I do not concede that this 
is all going to come out of defense, as is the essential claim for the 
supporters of the Domenici amendment.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, if the Senator from New Mexico will yield 
me 10 seconds to respond for the last time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield him 10 seconds.
  Mr. COATS. As the Senator from Nebraska knows, sometimes no matter 
what the Appropriations Committee does--I agree with him, I do not 
think they will try to direct the cuts out of defense--we all know any 
Senator can offer amendments on the floor, and we know from past 
experience those amendments override what the Senator's intentions are, 
my intentions are or even the intentions of the Appropriations 
Committee. That is the reality we are dealing with with this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts on his feet. May I inquire of my friend from 
Massachusetts how much time he might require?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Seven minutes.
  Mr. SASSER. I will be pleased to yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I urge the Senate to reject this 
amendment.
  This proposal aims to reduce the deficit, but it cannot pass the 
truth in advertising test--because it is also a proposal to block 
comprehensive health care reform. Virtually every Medicare cut proposed 
in this amendment has already been earmarked to help pay for the cost 
of health care reform under President Clinton's plan. A number of these 
cuts are included in the Chafee and Breaux-Durenberger bills as well.
  The effect of this amendment is simple: It raises the price of health 
reform for the American people by an additional $20 billion over the 
next 5 years.
  Deep cuts in Medicare in addition to those already contained under 
the health reform plan are simply not justified.
  Today, Medicare already pays hospitals 10 percent less than their 
actual cost of caring for elderly patients. Hospitals offset these gaps 
by charging other patients more.
  Further cuts in Medicare, as proposed by this amendment, will only 
make this problem worse.
  By contrast, comprehensive health reform restrains Medicare spending 
in the right way, holding the growth in Medicare payments to levels 
that are consistent with the private sector, taking into account the 
growing health needs of senior citizens and the disparity that already 
exists.
  That is what the President's plan does. But this amendment would say 
that parity is not important--the gap between Medicare payments and 
private sector payments must grow ever wider.
  Without health reform, every dollar cut from Medicare means a dollar 
in additional costs for average citizens and for business. Health care 
providers will seek to recover Medicare underpayments by shifting costs 
to others.
  Cuts in Medicare are a false economy. They are also hazardous to the 
health of senior citizens. As the gap widens between what private 
patients pay and what the Government pays, hospitals, and doctors 
increasingly view the elderly as second-class citizens.
  It is shameful that the poor and uninsured are so often denied the 
services they need because they cannot pay. The shame will be 
compounded if the same fate befalls senior citizens because the 
Government has failed to keep the promise of Medicare.
  There is a realistic solution to the increasing cost of Medicare. It 
is also a solution that is long overdue. We need comprehensive health 
reform that meets two fundamental tests. It must guarantee every 
American basic health insurance coverage. And it must control costs in 
the health care system as a whole.
  A vote for this amendment is not a vote for spending restraint. It is 
not a vote for deficit reduction. It is a vote against health care 
reform. It is a vote against Medicare. It is a vote against senior 
citizens, and I urge the Senate to reject it.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, we are trying to keep our total 
arguments to a half hour. Can the Senator from Georgia get by with 7 
minutes?
  Mr. NUNN. I will try.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 7 minutes to Senator Nunn.
  Mr. NUNN. If I can get the Chair to notify me after 6 minutes.
  Madam President, I thank my friend from New Mexico and I thank my 
friend from New Mexico for offering this amendment. These are the tough 
choices that we have to make in this body.
  Frankly, as painful as it is to make these kind of choices, I think 
the choices are long overdue in terms of our fiscal picture.
  I am pleased that the Senator from New Mexico has offered this 
amendment for really two principal reasons:
  First, under the budget resolution, President Clinton's fiscal year 
1995 to 1999 defense budget would almost certainly face very 
significant and, in my view, very harmful reductions if we leave this 
budget resolution as it is.
  Second, this budget resolution does not seriously address the real 
culprit in our deficit picture, which is the runaway growth on 
mandatory or entitlement programs. The budget resolution before the 
Senate today reduces the cap on total discretionary spending by $43 
billion in budget authority and $26 billion in outlays over the next 5 
years.
  This includes a reduction of $5.3 billion in budget authorities and 
$1.8 billion in outlays this year. Defense spending is about 5 percent 
of discretionary spending, and if past history is any guide, a very 
substantial portion of this overall cut would come out of the Defense 
budget.
  But no one is saying, in answer to my friend from Nebraska, that all 
of it is going to come out of defense. I do not say that. I do not know 
that, and I could not contend that. I do not think the Senator from New 
Mexico is saying that. What we are saying is it stands to reason a 
majority is going to come out of defense. Fifty-five percent of the 
discretionary account is defense, so my guess is it will be somewhere 
between 50 and 60 percent.
  I agree with the intent of what the Senator from Nebraska and the 
Budget Committee tried to do, which is to enact additional deficit 
reduction. I happen to believe they went about it in the wrong way. By 
trying to make modest cuts in discretionary spending and leaving the 
door wide open for entitlement growth, this reduction leaves the back 
door wide open for continued mandatory uncontrolled spending, which is 
where our problem is.
  If I can get my capable staff to find the chart I want to refer to, I 
will do that in just a moment. But I am going to make the point 
verbally, even if I do not have the chart. I want to show people 
exactly what is happening to our overall budget. In accordance with the 
new caps on discretionary spending, the discretionary spending 
requested in the President's 1995 budget over the next 5 years 
represents an increase of just 2 percent over the amount we spent in 
this area compared to the previous 5 years.
  Madam President, we spend all of our time looking at a baseline. The 
thing that is hard about a baseline is, if the baseline is heading up, 
that is, if expenditures are heading up, and you tilt it down just 
slightly, you basically say you cut spending. What you did was you 
reduced the increase in spending. That is what we do in entitlement 
programs. People talk about cuts. The Domenici amendment is not a cut 
in entitlement programs. They are still going to grow like mad. They 
are just going to grow a little bit slower than would otherwise occur.
  I want Senators to focus on the difference. Getting away from the 
baseline, this is not a baseline comparison. This is the comparison of 
the 5 years we have just gone through, 1990 to 1994, compared to the 
next 5 years, 1995 to 1999.
  Some people may say, why compare it this way? Because this is the way 
people in this country think. How much did you spend in the past? How 
much are you going to spend in the future? They do not go buy groceries 
or anything else on a baseline, like we do. They do not say we are 
going to go out and we planned to spend $700 this month on groceries; 
now we are going to spend $650, so we have cut our spending on 
groceries, even though it might have been $500 the month before.
  Madam President, looking at it this way, the Defense and foreign 
policy budget is going down. This is the number going down. All the 
other parts are going up.
  I think people should focus on the difference between what is 
happening in the various categories. If you look at the last 5 years, 
and if you look at what we call the discretionary accounts --and that 
is what we are dealing with on this amendment; we are dealing with 
discretionary accounts, including but not limited to defense, versus 
the entitlement programs--we are going to spend, in defense that is 
part of the discretionary account, $190 billion less over the next 5 
years than we did the previous 5 years. The other parts of the 
discretionary, that is the domestic discretionary, are going to go up 
$250 billion over the next 5 years compared to the last 5 years.
  If you net that out, defense and nondefense discretionary, you have a 
net increase for the next 5 years compared to the previous 5 years in 
the discretionary account that is a $60 billion increase, about a 2 
percent increase. It is a lot of money, but in overall budget terms, 
not as much as meets the eye here.
  What happens on the other side of it? What happens on the 
entitlements side? On the entitlements side, we are going to spend, 
over the next 5 years--and this is assuming the President's health care 
plan passes, and it assumes all the savings are going to be realized 
over the next 5 years--we are going to spend $1.3 trillion more on 
entitlements than we did the previous 5 years. That is not the total. 
That is the delta; that is the increase. That is the additional--$1.3 
trillion increase in entitlements compared to a $60 billion increase in 
discretionary.
  So what does the Budget Committee do? They cut the discretionary. And 
included in that is defense, which is going down already $190 billion. 
No matter who voted for it, I think it was a mistake, I say to my 
friend from Tennessee.
  I am not going to take much more time. I think this chart shows it 
all. It shows, over the next 5 years in health care alone, the budget 
is going to increase about $800 billion; about $800 billion. Defense is 
going down.
  So, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Domenici 
amendment which will keep the deficit the same as the Budget Committee, 
but it will shift--I think appropriately--the burden of the increased 
deficit reduction the Budget Committee called for to the area of our 
budget that is indeed growing very, very rapidly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee controls 22 minutes 
28 seconds; the Senator from New Mexico controls 21 minutes 51 seconds.
  Mr. SASSER. May I inquire of my friend from North Dakota, what is the 
minimum time he could consume and still adequately express himself this 
morning?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would like 10 minutes, Mr. Chairman, but whatever the 
chairman's decision is I would be happy to abide by it.
  Mr. SASSER. The Senator from Iowa wishes to speak. May I inquire of 
the distinguished Senator?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Five or six minutes.
  Mr. SASSER. Five or six minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, the Senator from Nebraska would like at 
least 3 or 4 minutes. There are some points I have to cover.
  Mr. SASSER. I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we have made dramatic progress in the 
last year with respect to the deficit. I think it is terribly important 
the people of our country recognize what a substantial improvement has 
been made.
  The Chair will recall that a year ago, we anticipated a budget 
deficit of $300 billion for this year. Instead, we are now looking at a 
budget deficit of less than $180 billion. That is a substantial 
improvement. Yet some of us believe more must be done. That is why the 
Budget Committee took steps to further reduce spending over the next 5 
years.
  Now we have the question of a substitution by the Senator from New 
Mexico that would say do not cut on the domestic discretionary side; 
put it over onto the Finance Committee. Pass the hot potato; let them 
handle it; let them figure it out. And let us do it in a way that 
threatens medical care reform.
  Madam President, that makes no sense. That is not what we should do 
here. We should stick with what the Senate Budget Committee did and 
reject the Domenici substitute.
  I brought some charts to help explain how significant the improvement 
has been on the deficit front. This chart shows, from 1980 through the 
year 2004, the deficit as a percentage of our gross domestic product. I 
direct my colleagues' attention to the most recent period, 1991-92, 
when we saw the deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product 
up over 5 percent. Mostly as a result of the action we took last year, 
the deficit measured against the size of our economy took a very steep 
reduction, a dramatic reduction, to just over 2 percent.
  What we did last year worked. We had heard from the other side 
repeatedly that if we passed that budget deal, it would crater the 
economy. My friends on the other side of the aisle were wrong. The 
evidence has proved them wrong. They said if we passed the budget deal, 
we would devastate the economy, we would crater the economy. Now the 
evidence is in. They said it would increase the deficit. The deficit is 
down, and down dramatically.
  This chart looks at it another way. It shows the Congressional Budget 
Office 10-year budget outlook, what we looked at a year ago, before the 
budget deal, in terms of what the deficit was going to do, again 
measured against the gross domestic product. You can see it was going 
to be taking off. It was at a much higher level than where we are 
today, which is represented by the blue line, January 1994, 
Congressional Budget Office. This is where we were, the level of 
deficits we could expect before we took action. And because of the 
courageous action we took last year, we reduced that deficit line 
substantially and dramatically.

  Madam President, partly as a result of that deficit reduction action, 
long-term interest rates have been going down and going down 
dramatically. You can see since we took the action in 1992 long-term 
interest rates went into a very steep reduction from just under 8 
percent, and at one point they were down to 6. Now they have ticked 
back up.
  Madam President, this tells us that the action to reduce the deficit 
we took last year was the right action. It was important action. It was 
effective action. But it also tells us we ought to do more because now 
we see those interest rates starting to rise again. As a matter of 
fact, they have gone up nearly 100 basis points. That tells this 
Senator that the Senate Budget Committee action to make further cuts 
was the right action.
  Madam President, as a result of those lower interest rates, we saw a 
strong revival in the economy--in the fourth quarter, 7.5 percent 
growth, the best record of economic expansion that we have seen in 9 
years.
  Madam President, this shows the index of leading economic indicators, 
and you can see since 1992, when we were at 97, the index of leading 
economic indicators has taken off like a scalded cat, and again that is 
a result of the courageous action taken by our colleagues last year to 
pass a budget deal that effectively lowered the deficit, helped 
contribute to lower interest rates and got this economy moving again.
  Madam President, this chart shows what has happened to real business 
investment, from 1984 to 1993. Again, if we look at 1992, it is right 
here. We were at about $500 billion in real business investment. And 
look what happened since we passed that budget deal. Real business 
investment again has increased dramatically, to over $620 billion a 
year.
  Madam President, what we did last year worked. We ought to stay the 
course of deficit reduction. We ought to do more to keep interest rates 
down and to keep this economy moving forward. That makes sense.
  Now, let us deal with the specific proposal of the Senator from New 
Mexico. He is exactly right. The area that is out of control with 
respect to our Federal spending is in entitlements, specifically 
Medicare and Medicaid. This chart again shows as a percentage of our 
gross domestic product what has happened to Medicare spending from 1980 
and the year 2004, and you can see it is just in a skyrocketing 
situation. Medicare spending has absolutely taken off. It has to be 
addressed.
  Medicaid spending, exactly the same pattern. By far the fastest 
growing part of Federal spending is Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, 
they are growing twice as fast as any other part of the Federal budget. 
So why not then adopt the Domenici amendment?
  Madam President, it is very simple. A health care explosion in costs 
has to be addressed in health care reform. That is the appropriate 
place. That is where it should be done. We should not be out here, 
while considering a budget resolution, trying to deal with health care 
reform when that is the major focus of the legislative action of this 
body for the rest of the year. That is the appropriate place to deal 
with this part of the budget problem.
  Very frankly, Madam President, we need to do it all. We need to make 
the cuts the Senate Budget Committee made in domestic discretionary 
spending and we need to address the entitlements, specifically health 
care entitlements, but that ought to be done in health care reform.
  Madam President, one other point needs to be made. The Budget 
Committee made cuts that are evenly spread during the 5 years. The 
proposal of Senator Domenici is back loaded. He has virtually all of 
the cuts in the last year. In fact, if you look at his cuts for this 
year, do you know what you find? A big zero. There are no cuts for this 
year in Senator Domenici's proposal. And what about next year? There 
are virtually no cuts in his proposal for next year. Madam President, 
it is back loaded. It threatens health care reform. It ought to be 
defeated.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield? Is he out of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just yield myself 10 seconds. Speaking of back 
loaded, the Exon-Grassley amendment has $20 billion of the $43 billion 
in budget authority in the last year, 1999.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield? Madam President, might I just 
make an observation with respect to back loading, a comparison between 
the two? Might I have 20 seconds?
  Mr. SASSER. Twenty seconds to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let us compare fairly. The Exon-Grassley proposal, $1.6 
billion in actual spending reductions in this year; the Domenici 
proposal, zero. In 1996, Grassley-Exon $6.4 billion, Domenici $300 
million. In 1997, Exon $5.6 billion, Domenici $1.9 billion. The back 
loading is all in the proposal by the Senator from New Mexico--$19.1 
billion of his $26 billion of cuts in the last year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding. We are talking about a lot of issues here. I would like to 
try to separate them and then get to the real heart of this matter.
  First of all, yesterday, we had an opportunity to vote on the 
Domenici amendment, not as a substitute for savings already in the 
budget but as an addition to those savings. And as an addition to those 
savings, I voted for the Domenici amendment.
  The Domenici amendment does something that we ought to do every time 
we pass the budget and every time we claim a savings, and that is it 
makes the change permanent. As the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico has pointed out this morning, one of the fraudulent games we 
play is that we make the same ``reductions'' over and over and over, 
and we claim every year we are cutting something when the reality is 
that we change the law, we make the change for a specific period of 
time, and when it expires we get to claim the savings again.
  What the distinguished Senator has done basically is extend for 
another year savings in law that currently exist, and in the process he 
has claimed more savings. We should make those changes permanent. We 
should have done it to begin with. And I am for the substance of the 
Domenici amendment. As I said yesterday, when it was offered as a 
freestanding amendment to add to deficit reduction, I voted for it.
  Also, let me address the defense issue. The distinguished Senator 
from Iowa offered an amendment in the Budget Committee to cut spending, 
discretionary spending by $26 billion. As far as I am aware, as a 
member of the Budget Committee, in the last 4 or 5 years, this is the 
first significant amendment that we have adopted in the Budget 
Committee which has cut spending.
  I voted for it in the Budget Committee. I do believe that our 
fundamental problem is in entitlements. I wish we had an opportunity to 
cut entitlements more and reform them and control them. We had an 
opportunity on the Republican substitute, for which I voted. But the 
real question we are down to today is this: Should we, in a budget that 
claims to be dealing with the deficit, be taking out the only real 
spending cut that has been adopted by the Budget Committee in 4 or 5 
years?
  I guess my philosophy is sort of a coaching philosophy. You have all 
seen at football games that every once in a while a team will kick a 
field goal, and the other team will have a penalty on the field goal 
attempt. And it will give the team that was on the offense the first 
down. The question is, do you take the three points off the board and 
take the penalty or decline the penalty and keep the three points?
  My basic philosophy has always been do not take points off the board. 
What we have in the Grassley amendment is a cut in spending of $26 
billion. I think the Domenici amendment ought to be adopted, but not as 
a substitute for that $26 billion.
  As far as our national defense is concerned, I take a back seat to no 
Member of the Senate in my support for defense. I have always believed 
in a strong defense. I offered the amendment in the House, the Gramm-
Latta budget, that rebuilt national defense, that adopted the Reagan 
Defense budget. And I am proud of the impact of that budget in helping 
to win the cold war.
  I believe defense is being cut too much. I believe even in a world 
where the lion and the lamb are about to lie down together, America 
needs to be the lion. But I cannot take the position that every time we 
are trying to cut any spending program that we can be blackmailed 
legislatively by those who say if you cut spending, we are going to cut 
defense.
  First of all, if we reject this amendment, defense may be cut again 
anyway. It was last year. If we accept this amendment, defense may or 
may not be cut, depending on what we do. I am going to vote in the 
appropriations process for a full funding of the President's Defense 
budget. But I cannot take the position that because someone threatens 
to cut defense that we cannot do anything about reducing the deficit. I 
think a strong defense is important. I am alarmed about what we are 
doing, but I am equally alarmed about the deficit. Despite the charts 
we just saw, I do not believe that we have fundamentally changed the 
deficit figure.
  So the Grassley amendment is a simple, straightforward amendment: Cut 
discretionary spending by $26 billion over the next 5 years. Do I 
believe we can do that without decimating defense? The answer is yes.
  I intend to support the Grassley amendment and vote against the 
Domenici amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Who yields time?
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is not easy for me to rise against an 
amendment by Senator Nunn and Senator Domenici because Senator Nunn has 
been so helpful to me on so many different initiatives I have had on 
defense procurement reform. Also, Senator Domenici has been a very good 
leader in this area of exposing waste in the budget. And, of course, as 
Senator Gramm said, I also supported the substance of this amendment 
yesterday.
  But when you get right down to it, the basic question is whether or 
not we are going to do more today or wait until tomorrow. I think there 
is some legitimacy to what the Senator from North Dakota said, that 
this is a back- loading of the Nunn-Domenici amendment, but ours is 
front-loaded. The exact figures are that outlays under Exon-Grassley 
would in 4 years be cut $17.9 billion, and Mr. Domenici's amendment 
would cut $6.5 billion.
  What the people want is for us to make the cuts now, not put it off 
until future Congresses and future years when the cuts will not be 
made.
  Last year, we Republicans made a very strong point on the floor of 
this Senate--and I made it myself as well--that we found fault with 
President Clinton's first budget because he actually increased taxes 
before he was sworn into office, while about 80 percent of the spending 
cuts came in the outyears after his first term in office. So that is 
not the responsible way to budget. We ought to bite the bullet today.
  So if we Republicans last year criticized the President and the 
majority party for being irresponsible for back-loading their 
expenditures and front-loading their tax increases, it seems to me that 
we must be consistent this year. If we find fault with the President's 
budget and we want to make cuts now, cut today, not tomorrow. That is 
the essence of this debate on the Exon-Grassley amendment versus the 
Nunn-Domenici amendment, although it is clouded with this issue of 
defense.
  Nobody should accuse the Senator from Nebraska of being soft on 
defense. He is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, and he 
would not do one thing that would hurt defense. Yet, those threats are 
out there that we are going to take it all from defense. I do not think 
that is going to happen. In my view, this is a ``Chicken Little'' 
argument. The amendment reflects that. The debate on defense reflects 
that. ``The sky is falling, the sky is going to fall on the defense 
budget.''
  I mentioned yesterday that the same lame arguments were used in 1985 
when we froze the Defense budget: That a reduction in the Defense 
budget would mean the Earth would stop spinning. But we froze the 
Defense budget that year. And we still stared down the Soviets into 
oblivion.
  Now I make this point because just today that echo is beginning to 
reverberate. The Defense Department is putting out the word that the 
effects of the Exon-Grassley amendment is to cost us two whole 
divisions. Mr. President, please, please. Why must we suffer these 
insults on the intelligence of the American people? Those who support 
this amendment have succumbed to what I think are scare tactics. That 
is nonsense. That is extortion.
  This is a budget resolution. It is not an appropriations bill. If we 
get scared off this early in the process, when are we ever going to get 
deficit reduction? Is what we are doing on this budget resolution, just 
an exercise rather than a serious effort? The President's defense 
numbers are already at rock bottom. I do not think we can take another 
$20 billion out of defense because they are already overprogrammed by 
$20 billion. They are overprogrammed, not underfunded.
  There is another point to be made about this amendment. The way I 
read the Domenici amendment, his savings, as I think the Senator from 
North Dakota made very clear, come mostly in the outyears. But we need 
to make those deficit reductions right now.
  The sky is not going to fall on the defense budget if the Exon-
Grassley amendment is adopted. That was not our intention. It will not 
be the final result. Those who claim otherwise are crying ``fire'' when 
there is none.
  So my advice is to sit down, to relax, to have a cream soda, do what 
the public wants for a change. What do you hear from the grassroots? 
``Have guts, make cuts, and just say `no' to more spending.'' But, most 
importantly, Mr. President, do it in such a way that when we go back to 
tell the people we voted to make cuts that we in fact did make cuts. We 
made them today, not in the term of the next President of the United 
States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining to the 
opponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee has 6 minutes and 
20 seconds.
  Mr. SASSER. The proponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 21 minutes and 20 seconds.
  Mr. SASSER. The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is on 
his way to the floor. I have a message. He was requesting 4 minutes to 
speak on the Domenici amendment. Will 3 minutes suffice for my friend 
from West Virginia? I yield 3 minutes to my friend from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] for 3 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I will try to be very clear about this. At the beginning of this 
debate, I indicated that I felt it was a cynical amendment. I maintain 
that thought. The reason I do is because the Senator from New Mexico 
voted for the Grassley-Exon amendment in committee. In a sense, I 
thought it was a hangover amendment in fact because what happened was 
that now all of a sudden the Senator and some of his colleagues are 
looking up and saying, ``Gee. We did not do the right thing. Fifty 
percent of this money is going to be cut from defense. We don't want to 
do that. We want to cut it from Medicare, from veterans' benefits, and 
other things. So we come back and offer another amendment, even though 
he voted for the amendment in the Budget Committee.'' That is what I 
call cynical, because it is.

  Let us make two things clear. Veterans are a very important part of 
this country. And the only way health care reform is going to succeed, 
and succeed for veterans, is if veterans are included in health care 
reform. We have set aside $3.3 billion to upgrade the veterans' health 
care system, to allow it to be competitive to the nonveterans' health 
care system, so that the 24-plus million veterans who cannot now use 
veterans hospitals will be allowed to do so. That is the kind of thing 
which will be undermined and stopped dead in its tracks by the 
amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.
  Second, people can talk until the skies fall, but this is undermining 
health care reform. The Senator from Georgia talked about the exploding 
costs of Medicare and everything else. If you want to have control in 
the long term of entitlements and you want to get a grasp on those, for 
heaven's sake, do not do anything to undercut health care reform, which 
is the largest thing this body has undertaken in this century.
  The Senator from New Mexico is doing that. It needs to be clear to 
the membership that he is doing that. This amendment does that, and it 
is a cynical and unworthy attempt to destroy a classic effort by the 
President of the United States, and a lot of the rest us, to try to 
reduce the budget through health care reform and help something called 
the American people through health care reform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the managers on both sides intend to try 
to stack votes on amendments to a time that would be convenient with 
the leadership this afternoon. In furtherance of this end, I ask 
unanimous consent that 4 minutes on the pending amendment be reserved, 
to be consumed by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee 
when he arrives on the floor. I understand he is en route and wishes to 
speak on this.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 3 o'clock this afternoon the Senate 
return to the Domenici amendment, which will be temporarily laid aside, 
and immediately vote on or in relation to that amendment, with no 
second-degree amendments in order to the Domenici amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I was not 
aware of this. We put off the vote on the Domenici amendment last night 
for what, in the opinion of this Senator, was a serious nonsensical 
move for the U.S. Senate. We alerted those who were here until after 3 
o'clock in the morning that we would take up the Domenici amendment the 
first thing this morning. I have some reservations about further 
delaying the vote on the Domenici amendment.
  The Domenici amendment, as I said earlier, is a killer amendment to 
the Exon-Grassley deficit reduction proposal. I am not certain it is 
wise, from what I know, to put it off, once again, because we scheduled 
this originally for between 5 o'clock and 8 o'clock last evening. Then 
we tinkered around until 3 o'clock in the morning. Now we are talking 
about putting off a vote until 3 o'clock this afternoon.
  May I ask the managers of the bill, why is it that we cannot complete 
our debate on the amendment before us and then have a vote in the usual 
procedure?
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, let me say to my friend from Nebraska that 
we have been advised by the leadership that there are Senators 
presently at the White House who could not return in time for a vote if 
it went off at the regular time here.
  Second, the President and Vice President will be in the Capitol today 
at noon or 12:30 consulting with the Democratic Policy Committee, and 
the majority leader is reluctant to interrupt their visit here with 
votes. Beyond that, that is the only explanation that I have.
  It is my surmise that this will not disadvantage the opponents of the 
Domenici amendment. I think, if I may say to my friend from Nebraska, 
some of his supporters are probably at the White House.
  Mr. EXON. That might well be. Given the explanation, Mr. President, 
and despite my reservations, I yield to the superior judgment of the 
manager of the bill and do not object.
  I simply say that the Senator from Nebraska wishes to make a few 
closing remarks in opposition to the Domenici amendment at the 
appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Under the regular routine, one of your Senators would 
be in order now.
  Mr. SASSER. As I understand it, Senator Bradley is on his way to the 
floor.
  Mr. EXON. The Senator from Nebraska is prepared to go ahead with his 
remarks at this time, if you are waiting for Senator Bradley. Would 
that expedite things?
  Mr. SASSER. As a matter of fact, we had time reserved for the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, who I see is now coming through the 
door.
  Mr. President, I will yield the distinguished Senator from Nebraska 2 
minutes, and then the distinguished Senator from New York 2 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as usual, we have run out of time. I 
emphasize once again that the Domenici amendment is a killer amendment 
with regard to the modest deficit reduction proposal that was supported 
in the Budget Committee.
  I simply say, once again, that I think the points have been made by 
others of my colleagues, and I need not repeat those. I simply say that 
if the Domenici amendment were accepted, it would be a monumental 
setback for real deficit reduction.
  There are lots of things wrong that have been advanced on the floor 
of the Senate today in opposition to the Domenici amendment. The one 
that I am most concerned about is that it would effectively gut or cut 
the effectiveness that I think Senator Grassley and I have worked on 
very hard to craft.
  I oppose the Domenici amendment, and I hope it will be resoundingly 
defeated, for a number of good reasons, when it comes to a vote.
  I yield back any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, at 1:30 or 2 o'clock this morning, when 
the Chamber was filled, I took the opportunity to state a view on this 
matter, as I had stated earlier yesterday in anticipation of this vote. 
I simply wish to read my statement of this morning, earlier today.
  I said:

       I wish simply to say, Mr. President, as I had occasion to 
     say earlier today--

  That being yesterday.

     that the Domenici-Nunn amendment involves a fateful decision 
     by this body as to the future of health care reform. It would 
     transfer so much in the way of entitlement money, Medicare 
     and Medicaid, requiring them to be cut by the Committee on 
     Finance. These are amounts that were programmed, if you 
     accept that word, for the President's health care bill, and 
     if this measure is to be adopted, it has the most ominous 
     implications for the future of that legislation.

  I restate, Mr. President, the most ominous implications for the 
future of health care reform.
  I thank my distinguished friend and chairman of the Budget Committee 
for the time he has given me in this very tight schedule, and I yield 
back the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance 
Committee.
  Mr. President, I would like to yield 2 minutes off the resolution to 
the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield a 
moment on my time?
  Mr. KERREY. I yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just inquired of the Parliamentarian 
timekeeper how the time remained. I think there is a slight 
misunderstanding. I would like to see if the Senator from Tennessee 
could correct it and clarify it.
  I thought our understanding last night was literal that I had 4 hours 
and 45 minutes and the Senator from Tennessee had 3 hours and 45 
minutes with he was getting the last 15 of his at the end of the 
debate.
  I think he is following the previous conventions and not literally 
doing that but rather equalizing so that I would have no different 
amount of time than he, and I thought we had agreed to the contrary. 
Does the Senator agree?
  Mr. SASSER. I agree. The agreement last night, as I understand it, is 
as stated by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. President, could we withhold for just a moment?
  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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Sitting here listening to both sides makes me wonder just what is 
this amendment doing. One group of Senators gets up and says it is not 
doing anything, it is tail-end loaded, or something, even though it is 
entitlements and we are changing the law permanently so it is not doing 
enough. But on the other side it is going to destroy health care; it is 
such a big, big change in things; it is a dramatic using up of 
resources that are going to be needed for health care.
  Mr. President, I do not think we can have it both ways. The truth of 
the matter is a tiny, tiny morsel of the savings that come from health 
care reform, as the President desired, will go to deficit reduction 
under this amendment, the amount being $20 billion. We will be spending 
$1.6 trillion, and the Senator's amendment is $20 billion over 4 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Tennessee.
  Mr. President, let me say several things in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and the 
distinguished Senator from Georgia.
  First of all, Exon-Grassley cuts need to be preserved at all costs. I 
have heard some say that it is a too large a cut. I have heard some say 
it is too small a cut.
  The fact of the matter is what this does is it sends a signal to the 
market that we continue to be serious about deficit reduction. Though 
it may not result in immediate reduction of interest rates, I believe 
it sends a signal to the Federal Reserve that will allow for the 
Federal Reserve to keep the pressure off of additional raises in 
interest rates.
  I believe it is a market-oriented approach. It says to the market 
that we understand that our vote last August, our action last August, 
was treated favorably by the market with lower interest rates. The 
bonds were bid up as the consequence of that action. The stock market 
went up as well.
  Today the market does not expect us to do deficit reduction, and 
indeed the Exon-Grassley amendment by lowering the caps is raising the 
markets, and I think it needs to be retained.
  I regret that the amendment being offered by the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico and the distinguished Senator from Georgia does 
not merely add to that because if it did I would support it. If it 
merely added to what Exon-Grassley were attempting to do, I would 
support it because with all due respect to the argument of the 
distinguished Senator from New York, I am not convinced that it kills 
health care reform. I am not convinced at all. I supported the 
distinguished Senator's argument last year when he had a cap on 
entitlements. I wish in fact we had an opportunity to do that again 
this year.
  One of my concerns in the health care debate is that we are not 
leveling with the American people sufficiently. We are pretending at 
times to act. We act as if we believed that somehow the American people 
can get health care for nothing, that there is not some cost to it. 
There seems to be a promise that I can give you this benefit, this 
benefit, this benefit, and there will not be any costs attached.
  I think increasingly we have to come to the American people and say: 
If you want a program here is what it is going to cost you.
  I believe very strongly that we need a health care program that is 
very similar to the Social Security in that we have a pay-as-you-go 
program, we have a program that will require us to stay in balance.
  We are not doing that today with our health care system. Thus, I do 
not object to a cap on entitlements at all because I believe it forces 
us to tell the American people the truth.
  However, I do with regret oppose this particular amendment because I 
believe it undercuts what Senator Exon and Senator Grassley are trying 
to do, which is send a signal to the market that we continue to be 
serious about deficit reduction, we want low interest rates, low 
inflationary recovery. We see jobs being created out there in the 
private sector. We want to continue that kind of job growth.
  I believe that the amendment offered in good faith by the Senator 
from New Mexico and Senator from Georgia will undercut the efforts of 
Senators Exon and Grassley and thus I believe strongly, Mr. President, 
that it should be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, under the previous unanimous consent 
agreement, the Domenici amendment will be temporarily laid aside to be 
taken up again at 3 p.m.
  Mr. President, the next amendment in order would be the amendment of 
the distinguished Senator from New Jersey who is just off the floor.
  I see the distinguished Senator from New Jersey has arrived on the 
floor.
  May I inquire of my friend how much time he would require?
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would say no more than 20 or 30 minutes 
maximum.
  Mr. SASSER. I ask my friend if he could compress that. We have a time 
shortage here this morning.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I would be pleased to compress it as short as possible. 
It depends.
  Mr. SASSER. Could we agree on 15 minutes and then if the Senator gets 
some vibes we can extend it?
  Mr. BRADLEY. I do not mind that 15 minutes for my side at all.
  Mr. SASSER. I am pleased to yield to the Senator 15 minutes. I do not 
know of anyone who will speak in opposition.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Good. Then I am prepared to move.


                           Amendment No. 1568

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the annual budget 
        process should restrain the growth in tax expenditures)

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Bradley) for himself, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Bryan, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1568.

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the Senator is entitled to time on his 
amendment on his own time. So he can speak on his own time.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) continuing budget deficits and the accumulation of 
     Federal debt have a detrimental impact on the Nation's long-
     term economic growth prospects;
       (2) in the absence of further fiscal restraint, the 
     Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal 
     deficit will increase to $365,000,000,000 by 2004 and the 
     national debt held by the public will grow to approximately 
     $6,000,000,000;
       (3) tax expenditures are growing significantly; and
       (4) in some instances, tax expenditures may have the same 
     effect as direct Federal spending and should be subject to 
     the same level of budgetary review.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Congress should consider targets for the growth in 
     tax expenditures similar to the targets for the growth of 
     mandatory spending;
       (2) such targets should be specified in any reconciliation 
     instructions included in a budget resolution; and
       (3) such targets should be enforceable separately from any 
     revenue targets included in the reconciliation instructions.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the amendment that I have sent to the 
desk makes a very simple point. We can spend money just as easily 
through the Tax Code as we can through the appropriations process or 
through the creation of mandatory spending programs.
  I think we should be honest about the hundreds of billions of dollars 
that we spend each year through tax expenditures. Spending is spending, 
whether it comes in the form of a Government check or in the form of a 
special exception from the tax rates that apply to everyone else.
  Tax expenditures or tax loopholes allow some taxpayers to lower their 
taxes and leave the rest of us paying higher taxes than we otherwise 
would pay. The resolution, therefore, simply says that it is the sense 
of the Senate that we should include specific reduction targets for tax 
expenditures as a part of the budget reconciliation process. We should 
put tax expenditures under the same budgetary scrutiny as we do other 
spending programs.
  Mr. President, tax spending does not, as some would say, simply allow 
people to keep more of what they earned. Rather, it gives them a 
special exception from the rules that oblige everyone to share in the 
responsibility of the national defense and protecting the young, the 
aged, and the infirmed.
  Mr. President, we all have been heartened by the recent drops in 
projected budget deficits. The most recent CBO figures show the deficit 
dropping to $166 billion in 1996, largely due to the success we had in 
passing the largest deficit reduction package in history last summer.
  We cannot rest on that success. It was a good downpayment on deficit 
reduction, but it is not enough. And we all know that getting control 
of runaway health care entitlements is another downpayment on taming 
the national debt. It will take time for those savings to be realized, 
however.
  We cannot afford to be timid, Mr. President. Our children's way of 
life is dependent upon our acting on the Federal deficit today and 
tomorrow and every year thereafter until we restore fiscal sanity to 
our budget. We cannot wait for the savings to materialize from health 
care reform. We cannot wait until we grow our way out of the debt. And 
we should not and cannot wait until deficits start drifting up in the 
latter half of this decade before we do something.
  The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the national debt held 
by the public will go from $3.5 trillion in 1994 to roughly $6 trillion 
in 2004. By 2004, the national debt will equal almost 55 percent of our 
gross domestic product. Just the net interest on that debt will go from 
$201 billion to $334 billion, or over 3 percent of our gross domestic 
product. That is not good enough. It simply continues our practice of 
mortgaging our Nation's future.

  Mr. President, let us not kid ourselves. Addressing our burgeoning 
debt will not be easy. If it was, we would have done it years ago. 
Balancing the budget is going to require sacrifice from every American. 
It also means that we are going to have to take a hard look at what we 
spend the taxpayers' money on. And that means all of our spending 
programs--tax expenditures included.
  Last week, I introduced legislation which would fundamentally reform 
how we deal with discretionary spending and the appropriations process. 
It would create real opportunities to redirect spending, guarantee 
Members the ability to cut spending with a majority vote as opposed to 
60 votes and constrain conferences to retain spending cuts agreed to in 
both Houses. It is not uncommon for a conference report to come back 
with a higher spending number than either the House or the Senate had 
in it.
  But discretionary programs are only a small part of the deficit 
problem. We should be honest about spending programs throughout the 
budget process. That is what this resolution is all about. The sense-
of-the-Senate resolution that I offer today simply suggests that we 
should set specific targets for tax expenditure reductions in our 
budget resolution process. Those targets would be enforced through a 
separate line in our budget reconciliation instructions for reductions 
in tax expenditures. We already do this for other entitlement programs. 
There is no reason to not do so for tax expenditures. The Senate would 
pass a budget resolution asking the Finance Committee to reduce tax 
expenditures, for example, by $10 billion a year or $20 billion or 
whatever the Senate decided was prudent. It would be up to the Finance 
Committee to meet those targets through the reconciliation process.
  This separate tax expenditure target would not replace our current 
revenue targets. Instead, it would simply ensure that the committee 
would take at least that specified amount from tax expenditures. Or, in 
other words, we would ensure that the committee would not raise the 
targeted amount from rate increases or excise tax increases.
  I plan to follow up this resolution with a bill that will implement 
these proposed changes to the Budget Act. It is my hope that this bill 
will help to shed sunlight on the issue of tax expenditures.
  I expect to hear from those who will say that I am trying to increase 
taxes. I strongly disagree. I am simply trying to draw the Senate's 
attention to the very targeted spending we do through the tax code--
spending that is not subject to the annual appropriations process; 
spending that is not subject to the Executive order capping the growth 
of mandatory spending; spending that is rarely ever debated on the 
floor of the Senate after it is put in the Tax Code. The preferential 
deductions or credits or depreciation schedules or timing rules that we 
provide through the tax code are simply entitlement programs under 
another guise. Many of them make sense, Mr. President. And I would be 
the first to admit that. Many, however, probably could not stand the 
light of day if we had to vote on them as direct spending programs.
  Given our critical need for deficit reduction, tax spending should 
not be treated any better or worse than other programs. It should not 
be protected any more than Social Security payments or crop price 
support payments or Medicare payments or welfare payments.
  What am I really talking about? I am talking about letting wealthy 
taxpayers rent their homes for 2 weeks a year without having to report 
any income. That is already in the Tax Code, I am talking about 
providing production subsidies in excess of the dollars invested for 
the production of lead, uranium and asbestos--three poisons that we 
spend millions of dollars on each year just trying to clean up. That is 
already in the code. I am talking about tax credits for clean-fuel 
vehicles, cancellation of indebtedness income for farmers or real 
estate developers, special amortization periods for timber companies' 
reforestation efforts, industrial development bonds for airports or 
docks, special treatment of capital construction funds for shipping 
companies, et cetera, et cetera.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of all the major 
tax expenditures be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  TABLE 6-6.--MAJOR TAX EXPENDITURES IN THE INCOME TAX, RANKED BY TOTAL 
                            1995 REVENUE LOSS                           
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Total revenue loss                          1995  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion of employer contributions for medical insurance               
 premiums and medical care....................................    56,265
Net exclusion of employer pension contributions and earnings..    55,540
Deductibility of mortgage interest on owner-occupied homes....    54,800
Step-up basis of capital gains at death.......................    28,305
Accelerated depreciation (normal tax method)..................    27,495
Deductibility of nonbusiness State and local taxes other than           
 on owner-occupied homes......................................    25,640
Deductibility of charitable contributions (all types).........    19,330
Exclusion of OASI benefits for retired workers................    16,525
Deductibility of State and local property tax on owner-                 
 occupied homes...............................................    14,655
Deferral of capital gains on home sales.......................    14,620
Exclusion of interest on public purpose State and local debt..    12,350
Exclusion of interest on life insurance savings...............     8,730
Exclusion of interest on State and local debt for various non-          
 public purposes..............................................     7,515
Preferential treatment of capital gains (normal tax method)...     6,920
Exception from passive loss rules for $25,000 of rental loss..     5,775
Net exclusion of Individual Retirement Account contributions            
 and earnings.................................................     5,290
Earned income credit\1\.......................................     5,100
Exclusion of capital gains on home sales for persons age 55             
 and over.....................................................     4,960
Exclusion of workmen's compensation benefits..................     4,455
Graduated corporation income tax rate (normal tax method).....     3,890
Net exclusion of Keogh plan contributions and earnings........     3,875
Exclusion of social security benefits for dependents and                
 survivors....................................................     3,730
Deductibility of medical expenses.............................     3,560
Exclusion of employer premiums on group term life insurance...     2,880
Credit for child and dependent care expenses..................     2,820
Tax credit for corporations receiving income from doing                 
 business in U.S. possessions.................................     2,630
Expensing of research and development expenditures (normal tax          
 method)......................................................     2,390
Credit for low-income housing investments.....................     2,265
Exclusion of benefits and allowances to armed forces personnel     2,030
Exclusion of reimbursed employee parking expenses.............     1,930
Exclusion of veterans disability compensation.................     1,920
Exclusion of social security disability insurance benefits....     1,905
Special ESOP rules (other than investment credit).............     1,760
Deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations                 
 (normal tax method)..........................................     1,700
Expensing of certain small investments (normal tax method)....     1,560
Additional deduction for the elderly..........................     1,555
Exclusion of income of foreign sales corporations.............     1,400
Excess of percentage over cost depletion, fuel and nonfuel              
 minerals.....................................................     1,330
Inventory property sales source rules exception...............     1,300
Credit for increasing research activities.....................     1,270
Deferral of interest on savings bonds.........................     1,250
Alternative fuel production credit............................       970
Deferral of income from post 1987 installment sales...........       935
Exclusion of income earned abroad by United States citizens...       895
Exclusion of scholarship and fellowship income (normal tax              
 method)......................................................       875
Exclusion of employer provided child care.....................       725
Exemption of RIC expenses from the 2% floor for miscellaneous           
 itemized deductions..........................................       690
Exclusion of public assistance benefits (normal tax method)...       585
Expensing of multiperiod timber growing costs.................       575
Exclusion of employee meals and lodging (other than military).       550
Parental personal exemption for students age 19 or over.......       535
Exclusion of railroad retirement system benefits..............       400
Targeted jobs credit..........................................       395
Exemption of credit union income..............................       380
Empowerment zones.............................................       330
Deferral of gains from sale of broadcasting facilities to               
 minority owned business......................................       290
Exclusion of parsonage allowances.............................       290
Suspension of the allocation of research and experimentation            
 expenditures.................................................       270
Deductibility of casualty losses..............................       230
Expensing of exploration and development costs, fuel and                
 nonfuel minerals.............................................       210
Amortization of start-up costs (normal tax method)............       200
Credit for disabled access expenditures.......................       160
Permanent exceptions from imputed interest rules..............       150
Exclusion from income of conservation subsidies provided by             
 public utilities.............................................       145
Capital gains treatment of certain agricultural income........       140
Exclusion of employer premiums on accident and disability               
 insurance....................................................       140
Small life insurance company deduction........................       135
Carryover basis of capital gains on gifts.....................       130
Exclusion of military disability pensions.....................       130
Special Blue Cross/Blue Shield deduction......................       125
Tax incentives for preservation of historic structures........       125
Cancellation of indebtedness..................................       110
Tax exemption of certain insurance companies..................       110
Exclusion of special benefits for disabled coal miners........       100
Interest allocation rules exception of certain financial                
 operations...................................................        95
Expensing of certain multiperiod production costs.............        85
Exclusion of employer provided educational assistance.........        85
Investment credit for rehabilitation of structures (other than          
 historic)....................................................        80
Exclusion of veterans pensions................................        75
Expensing of certain agricultural capital outlays.............        70
Exclusion of GI bill benefits.................................        65
New technology credit.........................................        65
Tax credit for the elderly and disabled.......................        65
Tax credit and deduction for clean-fuel burning vehicles and            
 properties...................................................        65
Exception from passive loss limitation for working interests            
 in oil and gas properties....................................        50
Special rules for mining reclamation reserves.................        50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The figure in the table indicates the effect of the earned income tax
  credit on receipts. The effect on outlays in 1995 is $15,795 million. 
                                                                        
Note: Provisions with estimates denoted ``normal tax method'' have no   
  revenue loss under the reference tax law method.                      

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, before there is a long list of people 
coming down to defend these programs that I just mentioned, let me 
remind them that this resolution does not pinpoint any specific 
expenditures. It simply asks that these programs be treated in a 
similar manner to other entitlement programs.
  The Joint Tax Committee estimates the revenue lost from these tax 
expenditures each year. While interaction effects make it difficult to 
pinpoint exact costs--how one tax expenditure interacts with another--
the Joint Tax Committee list will add up to over $409 billion this 
year. Unchecked, this list will grow to over $523 billion by 1998. The 
administration's recent estimates of revenue loss are somewhat higher 
due to last year's budget bill. Perhaps more interesting, however, are 
the administration's estimates of what the ``outlay equivalents'' for 
these tax expenditures are each year--in other words, what they would 
cost us if they were transformed into direct spending programs, as 
opposed to hidden spending programs in the Tax Code. The 
administration's estimate for outlay equivalents this year added up to 
$550 billion for 1994. This is scheduled to grow to over $660 billion 
by 1998. I simply do not believe that we can afford to be that generous 
in our Tax Code. At a time when we are talking about cutting 
entitlement spending and cutting discretionary spending--and properly 
talking about cutting those--tax expenditures should not be out of 
bounds.
  I am not suggesting that we eliminate all these programs. In fact, 
many of them I support. All I am suggesting is we put them under the 
same scrutiny that we put other entitlement programs.
  If we are serious about deficit reduction--and for our Nation's 
future I sincerely hope that we are--then every segment of spending 
will have to take a hit. We will not do it through discretionary 
spending cuts alone. Indeed, that is an area of the budget that is 
shrinking in terms of gross national product. We will not be able to do 
it only through entitlement cuts. We will need also to address tax 
expenditures.
  Finally, we should streamline the budget process. We should make it 
more transparent and more effective. We have to show the public, who 
have grown cynical and frustrated with Congress, that we will not hide 
behind a procedural smokescreen. We have to demonstrate we can do what 
we have been elected to do, and that is to make the tough decisions in 
support of our national interests.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.
  I list as cosponsors Mr. Feingold, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerry of 
Massachusetts, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Dorgan.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield for a couple of 
minutes?
  Mr. BRADLEY. I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from 
South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the Senator for offering 
this amendment and for his comments. I associate myself with his 
remarks.
  It is, really, an amazing fact, given the extraordinary difficulties 
we in the Senate and Congress continue to face with regard to 
ratcheting down the deficit we have experienced over many years, that 
so few of us have a complete appreciation of the cost of tax 
expenditures year in and year out.
  In fact, it is difficult for us to acquire the numbers. According to 
numbers I have been given, we had over $375 billion in tax expenditures 
for 1992 alone. We do not know what the figures are for 1994, and that 
is the point.
  If indeed we are serious about bringing this deficit under control, 
if we are truly serious about looking at all the means by which we can 
accomplish that in the balanced and fair manner we all seek, certainly 
taking the approach in this resolution is essential.
  I think there are at least four things this approach would achieve. 
First, it would provide accountability. Incorporating tax expenditures 
into our budget process in this manner would force accountability on 
this kind of spending like it does on other forms of spending.
  Second, prioritization. There are many very good tax expenditures, 
ones I strongly support. Others are certainly worthy of additional 
scrutiny and debate about whether it is in the national interest to 
maintain them as a permanent part of the Tax Code.
  Third, balance. Obviously, as we look to the array of different ways 
to address better fiscal responsibility, ensuring we have everything on 
the table, ensuring we have balance will allow us properly to make the 
best decision.
  Finally, public awareness. As I said, we do not know how much we 
spent this year on tax expenditures. As we consider the budget debate 
in coming years, it is critical that public awareness be as evident on 
this issue as it is on entitlements and discretionary spending and 
other areas of the budget.
  So let me again emphasize how appreciative this Senator is of the 
resolution offered by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. It 
merits our support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield me 1 minute?
  I commend the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for offering this 
very worthwhile amendment. We held hearings in the Senate Budget 
Committee last year on the whole question of tax expenditures and how 
very costly many of these tax expenditures are.
  The Senator from New Jersey, I think, has put his finger on the 
problem. Many of these so-called tax expenditures, or tax breaks, or 
tax incentives--however you wish to describe them--become embedded in 
the Tax Code. They are subject to little or no review. And they 
continue there year after year.
  Many times we find there was a good and rational public policy reason 
for putting these tax incentives or tax expenditures into the Tax Code, 
but that good, sound, public policy reason will expire over a period of 
time. Yet it still remains in the Tax Code, subject to no review and, 
frankly, costing the Treasury billions and billions and billions of 
dollars every year.
  So I commend the Senator from New Jersey who has waged this battle 
all alone for a number of years. He called it to our attention. We held 
hearings in the Senate Budget Committee. I am pleased to accept his 
amendment here this morning.
  I understand my distinguished colleague, the ranking member, has no 
objection to this amendment being accepted.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I want commend the distinguished Senator 
from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] for bringing to the Senate's attention 
the critical importance of tax expenditures in deliberations over the 
Federal budget. The Senator is quite correct that tax expenditures in 
many ways have the same effects as direct Federal spending.
  The importance of tax expenditures is currently reflected in the 
President's annual budget, which devotes an entire chapter to tax 
expenditures. This year it appears as chapter 6 in the Analytical 
Perspectives volume in the fiscal year 1995 budget.
  Similarly, it may also be useful to display levels of tax 
expenditures in the concurrent resolution on the budget--for 
informational purposes. This would be useful for Senators in our annual 
budget deliberations and I commend Senator Bradley for bringing this 
concept to the Senate's attention.
  However, as chairman of the Committee on Finance, I would oppose any 
attempt to include specific ceilings for tax expenditures or specific 
reconciliation instruction for tax expenditures in the budget 
resolution.
  On those occasions when a budget resolution instructs the Finance 
Committee to raise a specified amount of revenues, it is important to 
the committee to retain the discretion to determine how much of this 
revenue should come from increasing taxes, and how much by reducing tax 
expenditures. Setting forth specific instructions for tax expenditures 
would, in fact, have the effect of limiting the Finance Committee's 
discretion on how best to raise needed revenues.
  Reduction of tax expenditures has always been a very important 
component of the Finance Committee's final determination on how to 
raise needed revenues--and it will continue to be in the future.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1568) was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________