[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7408-S7416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page S7408]]

                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, which the 
clerk will report
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for the 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.


                           Amendment No. 1168
    (Purpose: To allow the shift of up to $1 billion from wasteful 
 bureaucratic overhead and wasteful procurement in the military budget 
       for use in strengthening enforcement of immigration laws)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Lautenberg and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1168.

  Mr. EXON. 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:

       On page 68, add at the end of line 12 the following: ``In 
     addition, paragraph (1)(B) of this section shall not apply to 
     legislation that proposes to eliminate up to $1,000,000,000 
     from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and wasteful procurement 
     in the military budget, and to apply the resulting savings 
     for use in strengthening enforcement of immigration laws.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the shift 
of up to $1 billion from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and procurement 
in the military budget, for use in fighting illegal immigration.
  Let me take a moment and explain why the amendment is needed.
  Mr. President, this budget resolution proposes to reestablish a so-
called firewall that will give special protection to the military 
budget--protection not provided to any other program in the entire 
Government. Under this provision, a majority of the Senate would be 
blocked from shifting funds from the military budget for use in meeting 
domestic needs here at home. The only way to waive the prohibition 
would be to obtain a supermajority of 60 votes.
  Mr. President, I strongly object to this supermajority vote 
requirement. In my view, if a majority of the Senate thinks it's more 
important to address a particular domestic problem than to spend more 
money on the Pentagon bureaucracy, or on an outdated weapon system, a 
majority ought to have that right.
  Unfortunately, the Senate seems determined to establish a firewall 
for the military budget. And so it seems inevitable that the firewall 
will indeed be erected. However, I am hopeful that my colleagues will 
agree to reasonable exceptions to allow the transfer of funds for 
particularly compelling purposes.
  The premise of my amendment, Mr. President, is that fighting illegal 
immigration is one such compelling purpose.
  Mr. President, illegal immigration is rampant in this country. Some 
estimates show that 300,000 illegal immigrants come to this country 
each year. Despite its past admirable work, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service is woefully understaffed and underfunded.
  We need more border patrol agents to stop illegal immigration and 
other INS officials to help deport those who are living in this country 
illegally.
  Mr. President, illegal immigration is a major problem. Ask State and 
local officials from California, Texas, Florida, New York, and New 
Jersey about the toll that illegal immigration takes on their economies 
and local services.
  Mr. President, at a minimum a majority of the Senate ought to be free 
to provide up to $1 billion into fighting illegal immigration, if we 
can identify savings from military spending that the Senate agrees is 
wasteful.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment will allow the transfer of up 
to $1 billion from the wasteful bureaucratic overhead and wasteful 
procurement in the military budget for use in strengthening enforcement 
of the immigration laws without the 60-vote point of order that would 
otherwise apply to such transfer.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment exempts legislation, 
which would transfer $1 billion from defense to immigration, from the 
point of order for breaching the nondefense firewall.
  This amendment is not germane and is subject to a point of order. 
Therefore, I make a point of order, Mr. President.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand there are about 54 amendments, 
but only about 30 will require rollcall votes. I thought maybe we would 
do 20 today and 10 tomorrow--whatever is left tomorrow--and still try 
to accommodate the President on the antiterrorism bill. But it is going 
to be very difficult to do that. As long as he understands why we 
cannot do it, I assume he will not hold me responsible. We do not want 
to do all these today, we have so many.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to an agreement I had made with 
the minority, I withdraw my point of order at this point. Therefore, we 
will be voting up or down on the Lautenberg amendment, which is what I 
indicated a moment ago.
  Mr. EXON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered? I ask for the yeas and 
nays, if they have not been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1168, offered by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg]. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 68, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--68

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the amendment (No. 1168) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S7409]]

                           Amendment No. 1169

    (Purpose: To allow the shift of up to $2 billion from wasteful 
 bureaucratic overhead and wasteful procurement in the military budget 
        for use in addressing the problem of domestic violence)

  Mr. EXON. 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Lautenberg, 
     for himself and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1169.

  Mr. EXON. 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:
       On page 68, add at the end of line 12 the following: ``In 
     addition, paragraph (1)(B) of this section shall not apply to 
     legislation that proposes to eliminate up to $2,000,000,000 
     from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and wasteful procurement 
     in the military budget, and to apply the resulting savings 
     for use in addressing the problem of domestic violence.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the shift 
of up to $2 billion from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and procurement 
in the military budget, for use in addressing the problem of domestic 
violence.
  Mr. President, this budget resolution proposes to reestablish a so-
called firewall that will give special protection to the military 
budget--protection not provided to any other program in the entire 
Government. Under this provision, a majority of the Senate would be 
blocked from shifting funds from the military budget for use in meeting 
domestic needs here at home. The only way to waive the prohibition 
would be to obtain a supermajority of 60 votes.
  This supermajority vote requirement, in my view, is wrong. As I see 
it, if a majority of the Senate believes it's more important to address 
a particular domestic problem than to lavish more money on the Pentagon 
bureaucracy, or on an unnecessary weapons system, a majority ought to 
have that right.
  Unfortunately, the Senate seems determined to establish a firewall 
for the military budget. And so it seems inevitable that the firewall 
will indeed be erected. However, I am hopeful that my colleagues will 
agree to reasonable exceptions to allow the transfer of funds for 
particularly compelling purposes.
  Mr. President, fighting domestic violence deserves to be a very high 
priority.
  Mr. President, every 12 seconds, a woman is battered in the United 
States. Each year, over 4,000 women are killed by their abusers.
  Mr. President, domestic violence has reached crisis proportions. And 
we have got to do--it is critical that we do everything possible to 
respond.
  Mr. President, I know that many of my Republican colleagues do not 
believe that there is any waste in the Pentagon budget. I think they 
are wrong. But even if they are not yet convinced, I hope they will 
support the amendment. Under my proposal, it will be up to the Senate 
to decide whether any particular item of military spending is wasteful. 
That is a judgment that a majority of Senators should be allowed to 
make in the future. Also, the amendment limits transfers to $2 billion, 
which represents less than 1 percent of the military budget.
  So, Mr. President, this amendment poses this question to my 
colleagues: Whose side are you on? Do you want to support wasteful 
bureaucratic overhead at the Pentagon? Or do you want to stand with 
America's women, and support the fight against domestic violence?
  I think it is an easy choice. And I hope my colleagues agree.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the transfer of 
up to $2 billion from the wasteful bureaucratic overhead and wasteful 
procurement in the military budget for use in addressing the problems 
of domestic violence without the 60 vote point of order that would 
otherwise apply to such a transfer.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a little different 
interpretation. So I would like to state it. This legislation would 
transfer $2 billion out of the Department of Defense. We have no 
assurance what it would be used for, but it would be transferred out of 
Defense.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 73, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--73

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the amendment (No. 1169) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 1170

(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the nutritional 
                          health of children)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Leahy and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1170.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NUTRITIONAL HEALTH 
                   OF CHILDREN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Federal nutrition programs, such as the school lunch 
     program, the school breakfast program, the special 
     supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 
     children (referred to in this section as ``WIC''), the child 
     and adult care food program and others, are important to the 
     health and well-being of children;
       (2) participation in Federal nutrition programs is 
     voluntary on the part of States, and the programs are 
     administered and operated by every State;
       (3) a major factor that led to the creation of the school 
     lunch program was that a number of the recruits for the 
     United States armed forces in World War II failed physical 
     examinations due to problems related to inadequate nutrition;
       (4)(A) WIC has proven to be extremely valuable in promoting 
     the health of newborn babies and children; and
       (B) each dollar invested in the prenatal component of WIC 
     has been shown to save up to $3.50 in medicaid costs related 
     to medical problems that arise in the first 90 days after the 
     birth of an infant;
       (5) the requirement that infant formula be purchased under 
     a competitive bidding system under section 17 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) saved $1,000,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1994 and enabled States to allow 1,600,000 
     women, infants, and children to participate in WIC at no 
     additional cost to taxpayers; and
       (6) a balanced Federal budget will provide economic 
     benefits to children alive today and to future generations of 
     Americans.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution include the assumptions that-- [[Page S7410]] 
       (1) schools should continue to serve lunches that meet 
     minimum nutritional requirements based on tested nutritional 
     research;
       (2) the content of WIC food packages for infants, children, 
     and pregnant and postpartum women should continue to be based 
     on scientific evidence;
       (3) the competitive bidding system for infant formula under 
     section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1786) should be maintained;
       (4) foods of minimum nutritional value should not be sold 
     in competition with school lunches in the school cafeterias 
     during lunch hours;
       (5) some reductions in nutrition program spending can be 
     made without compromising the nutritional well-being of 
     program recipients;
       (6) in complying with the reconciliation instructions in 
     section 6 of this resolution, the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate should take this 
     section into account; and
       (7) Congress should continue to move toward fully funding 
     the WIC program.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think this has wide bipartisan support. 
Basically this says we will continue the nutrition guidelines that this 
Senate has voted for many times, feeding programs, and will require 
competitive bidding in the sale of infant formula on WIC programs.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
No. 1170.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the amendment (No. 1170) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1171

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Federal funding of 
law enforcement programs should be maintained, Federal funding for the 
violent crime reduction trust fund should not be reduced, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in behalf of Senator Leahy, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1171.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III of the resolution, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MAINTAINING FEDERAL FUNDING 
                   FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers 
     provide essential services that preserve and protect our 
     freedoms and security;
       (2) law enforcement officers deserve our appreciation and 
     support;
       (3) law enforcement officers and agencies are under 
     increasing attacks, both to their physical safety and to 
     their reputations;
       (4) on April 7, 1995, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 32 in 
     which the Senate recognizes the debt of gratitude the Nation 
     owes to the men and women who daily serve the American people 
     as law enforcement officers and the integrity, honesty, 
     dedication, and sacrifice of our Federal, State, and local 
     law enforcement officers;
       (5) the Nation's sense of domestic tranquility has been 
     shaken by explosions at the World Trade Center in New York 
     and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and by the 
     fear of violent crime in our cities, towns, and rural areas 
     across the Nation;
       (6) Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts need 
     increased financial commitment from the Federal Government 
     and not the reduction of such commitment to law enforcement 
     if law enforcement officers are to carry out their efforts to 
     combat violent crime; and
       (7) on April 5, 1995, and May 18, 1995, the House of 
     Representatives has nonetheless voted to reduce 
     $5,000,000,000 from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund in 
     order to provide for tax cuts in both H.R. 1215 and H. Con. 
     Res. 67.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that the Federal Government's commitment to 
     fund Federal law enforcement programs and programs to assist 
     State and local efforts should be maintained and funding for 
     the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund should not be reduced 
     by $5,000,000,000 as the bill and resolution passed by the 
     House of Representatives would require.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment by Senator Leahy was 
explained in some detail but not fully during our limited debate.
  Simply stated, this amendment corrects the House money removed from 
the antiterrorism and violent crime trust fund to be used for a tax 
cut. In light of the Oklahoma bombing and the increased terrorist 
threat, this amendment says we should put back the money that was taken 
out by the House.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have discussed this with the managers. I 
know their concern in moving forward. I do not think anybody is going 
to oppose this, and I would accept a voice vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. This is in the Senate package, and 
actually we will accept it without a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The amendment (No. 1171) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I wish to thank--I am sure I would be joined 
by my colleague--Senator Leahy for his offer. We are moving much faster 
than we had anticipated because we are cooperating.


                           Amendment No. 1172

    (Purpose: To provide for additional Medicare payment safeguards)

  Mr. EXON. 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Harkin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1172.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 77, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC.   . MEDICARE SAFEGUARDS COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE.

       (a) Adjustments.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of points of order under the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and 
     concurrent resolutions on the budget--
       (A) the discretionary spending limits under section 
     601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits as cumulatively 
     adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each out-year;
       (B) the allocations to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives under sections 302(a) 
     and 602(a) of that Act;
       (C) the levels for the major functional categories that are 
     appropriate and the appropriate budgetary aggregates in the 
     most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget; 
     and [[Page S7411]] 
       (D) the maximum deficit amount under section 601(a)(1) of 
     that Act (and that amount as cumulatively adjusted) for the 
     current fiscal year,

     shall be adjusted to reflect the amount of additional new 
     budget authority or additional outlays (as defined in 
     paragraph (2)) reported by the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives in 
     appropriation Acts (or by the committee of conference on such 
     legislation) for the Health Care Financing Administration 
     medicare payment safeguards programs (as compared to the base 
     level of $396,300,000 for new budget authority) that the 
     Congressional Budget Office has determined will result in a 
     return on investment to the Government of at least 4 dollars 
     for each dollar invested.
       (2) Additional amounts.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``additional new budget authority'' or ``additional outlays'' 
     (as the case may be) means, for any fiscal year, budget 
     authority in excess of $396,300,000 for payment safeguards, 
     but shall not exceed--
       (A) for fiscal year 1996, $50,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $50,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for fiscal year 1997, $55,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $55,000,000 in outlays;
       (C) for fiscal year 1998, $60,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $60,000,000 in outlays;
       (D) for fiscal year 1999, $65,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $65,000,000 in outlays;
       (E) for fiscal year 2000, $70,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $70,000,000 in outlays;
       (F) for fiscal year 2001, $75,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $75,000,000 in outlays; and
       (G) for fiscal year 2002, $75,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $75,000,000 in outlays;
       (b) Revised Limits, Allocations, Levels, and Aggregates.--
     Upon reporting of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), and 
     again upon the submission of the conference report on such 
     legislation in either House (if a conference report is 
     submitted), the chairman of the Committees on the Budget of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives shall file with 
     their respective Houses appropriately revised--
       (1) the discretionary spending limits under section 
     601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits as cumulatively 
     adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each out-year;
       (2) the allocations to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives under sections 
     302(a) and 602(a) of that Act; and
       (3) the levels for the appropriate major functional 
     categories that are appropriate and the appropriate budgetary 
     aggregates in the most recently agreed to concurrent 
     resolutions on the budget;

     to carry out this subsection. These revised discretionary 
     spending limits, allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates shall be considered for purposes of congressional 
     enforcement under that Act as the discretionary spending 
     limits, allocations, functional levels, and aggregates.
       (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     may report appropriately revised allocations pursuant to 
     sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 to carry out this section.
       (d) Application of Section.--This section shall not apply 
     to any additional budget authority or additional outlays 
     unless--
       (1) in the Senate, the chairman of the Budget Committee 
     certifies, based on the information from the Congressional 
     Budget Office, the General Accounting Office, the Health Care 
     Financing Administration (as well as any other sources deemed 
     relevant), that such budget authority or outlays will not 
     increase the total of the Federal budget deficits over the 
     next 5 years; and
       (2) any funds made available pursuant to such budget 
     authority or outlays are available only for the purpose of 
     carrying out Health Care Financing Administration payment 
     safeguards.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office and the Health 
and Human Services inspectors general have found Medicare losses in 
billions of dollars every year because of the inadequate payment 
safeguards like audits and computer checks. Every dollar of investment 
in payment of safeguards saves $11 according to the GAO.
  In order to increase efforts to cut Medicare waste, the amendment 
provides an exclusion from the domestic discretionary caps only for 
increases above current spending levels for Medicare payment 
safeguards. This would occur only if the CBO finds that they will 
provide at least a 4-to-1 return on investment. A limit is set at $50 
million in fiscal year 1996, rising to $100 million in fiscal 2002.
  It cannot be used as a loophole to provide for any other kind of 
additional spending.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe we should turn this amendment 
down. This once again increases spending for a special purpose. We 
denied that for the IRS as to others taking it off budget.
  That is essentially what this would do.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Mexico to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Iowa. On this question, the yeas and nays were ordered, 
and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--36

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1172) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 1173

  (Purpose: Sense of the Senate regarding the need to enact long-term 
           care reforms to achieve lasting deficit reduction)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Feingold, for 
     himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Simon, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1173.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC.  . NEED TO ENACT LONG TERM HEALTH CARE REFORM.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that the 104th Congress 
     should enact fundamental long-term health care reform that 
     emphasizes cost-effective, consumer oriented, and consumer-
     directed home and community-based care that builds upon 
     existing family supports and achieves deficit reduction by 
     helping elderly and disabled individuals remain in their own 
     homes and communities.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Feingold's amendment requests the 
sense of the Senate that the 104th Congress should enact fundamental 
long-term health care reform that emphasizes cost-effective home and 
community-based care and achieves deficit reduction by helping elderly 
and disabled individuals remain in their homes and communities.
  I believe this amendment has possibly been agreed to and possibly 
could be handled by a voice vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, our priority in this budget is ensuring 
the short- and long-term solvency of Medicare, not necessarily 
restructuring the entire health care system. But I am willing to accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the majority and I thank Senator 
Feingold.
  I ask that the amendment be agreed to. [[Page S7412]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1173) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1174

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding losses to 
  Medicare and Medicaid and other health programs due to disease and 
                 disability caused by tobacco products)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Harkin, for 
     himself and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1174.

  Mr. EXON. 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 appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING LOSSES CAUSED BY USE OF 
                   TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     estimates that tobacco products impose a $20,000,000,000 cost 
     per year on Federal health programs like medicare and 
     medicaid through tobacco-related illnesses;
       (2) tobacco products are unlike any other product legally 
     offered for sale because even when used an intended they 
     cause death and disease; and
       (3) States such as Florida, Mississippi, Minnesota, and 
     West Virginia are currently taking action to recover State 
     costs associated with tobacco-related illnesses.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that any proposal by the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     to reduce Federal spending on medicare and medicaid as 
     required by Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 should include a 
     proposal to recover from tobacco companies a portion of the 
     costs their products impose on American taxpayers and Federal 
     health program including medicare and medicaid.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, a brief summary of the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Iowa would indicate that it is the sense of the Senate 
that any proposal by the Finance Committee to reduce spending on 
Medicare and Medicaid should include a proposal to recover from the 
tobacco companies a portion of the cost of their products imposed on 
Medicare and Medicaid and other Federal health programs. The Center for 
Disease and Prevention estimates that products sold by tobacco 
companies impose $200 billion a year on Medicare and Medicaid and other 
Federal health programs through tobacco-related illnesses.
  The adoption of this amendment would put the Senate on record in 
support of the efforts to have tobacco companies pay a portion of the 
costs of their products imposed on American taxpayers and the Medicare 
and Medicaid Programs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am just going to make a statement, 
then I will yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I say to Senator Exon, I have been kind of patient in 
letting him just read what any Senator has to say. It is getting more 
and more like a speech. It was supposed to be a little brief statement 
of purpose.
  I hope we can kind of work together and keep it to a statement of 
purpose in the future, or we will have to have somebody debate the 
issue on each one for an equal amount of time, and we do not want to do 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is a $140 billion tax increase. 
Therefore, on behalf of myself, Senator Robb, Senator Hollings, Senator 
Helms, Senator McConnell, Senator Faircloth, Senator Coverdell, Senator 
Thompson, Senator Warner, Senator Frist, and Senator Thurmond, I move 
to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] to table the amendment of the 
Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin]. The yeas and nays have been ordered and 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--31

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1174) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that we do have 
10 minutes--1 minute for the explanation, 9 minutes for the vote. I 
want to accommodate everybody, but if we are going to finish this at a 
reasonable time, we are going to have to stick to the 9 minutes. I just 
give that alert to people. Nobody wants to miss a vote. I do not want 
anybody to miss a vote. Some people would like to be out of here late 
tonight or early tomorrow.


                           Amendment No. 1175

       (Purpose: To restore funding to Medicare)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Johnston, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Johnston, for 
     himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Mikulski and 
     Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 1175.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 74, delete lines 12 through 24 and insert the 
     following: ``budget, the appropriate budgetary allocations, 
     aggregates, and levels shall be revised to reflect the 
     additional deficit reduction achieved as calculated under 
     subsection (c) for legislation that reduces revenues and/or 
     increases funding for the Medicare trust fund not to exceed 
     the following amounts:
       ``(1) with respect to fiscal year 1996, $12,000,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 1997, $22,000,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(3) with respect to fiscal year 1998, $24,000,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(4) with respect to fiscal year 1999, $28,000,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2000, $28,000,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(6) with respect to fiscal year 2001, $28,000,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(7) with respect to fiscal year 2002, $28,000,000,000 in 
     outlays provided that, if CBO scores this surplus 
     differently, then the numbers provided above shall be 
     increased or decreased proportionally.
       ``(b) Revised Allocations and Aggregates.--Upon the 
     reporting of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), and 
     again upon the submission of a conference report on such 
     legislation (if a conference report is submitted), the Chair 
     of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate appropriately 
     revised allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of [[Page S7413]] 1974; budgetary 
     aggregates; and levels under this resolution, revised by an 
     amount that does not exceed the additional deficit reduction 
     specified under subsection (d).''

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Johnston's amendment would allow the 
$170 billion fiscal dividend to be used for either a tax cut or 
restoring cuts in Medicare.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This will be one of those amendments where a big 
portion of the reserve fund will be spent. I do not think we ought to 
do that. I think we ought to leave it as it came out of the committee, 
as a reserve. It is subject to a point of order for the same reasons 
and subject to the same provisions of the Budget Act. I raise the point 
of order against the amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, I move to waive the act for consideration of the pending 
amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--57

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 42, the nays 
are 57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1176

 (Purpose: To restore funding for our national parks by using amounts 
                        set aside for a tax cut)

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

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] for Mr. Reid, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1176.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 74, strike lines 12 through 24 and insert the 
     following: ``budget, the appropriate budgetary allocations, 
     aggregates, and levels shall be revised to reflect 
     $1,000,000,000 in budget authority and outlays of the 
     additional deficit reduction achieved as calculated under 
     subsection (c) for legislation that reduces the adverse 
     effects on discretionary spending on our national parks 
     system by restoring funding for rehabilitation, restoration, 
     and park maintenance.
       ``(b) Revised Allocations and Aggregates.--Upon the 
     reporting of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), and 
     again upon the submission of a conference report on such 
     legislation (if a conference report is submitted), the Chair 
     of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may submit to 
     the Senate appropriately revised allocations under sections 
     302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     budgetary aggregates, and levels under this resolution, 
     revised by an amount that does not exceed the additional 
     deficit reduction specified under subsection (a).''.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, a brief description of Senator Reid's 
amendment, which would restore $1 billion in funding to the National 
Park System to alleviate the devastating more than $2 billion backlog 
of needs.
  These funds would be drawn from the $170 billion fiscal dividend.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is another effort to divert the 
reserve fund. There is no assurance how the money would be used, 
regardless of what the resolution says.
  I raise a point of order, subject to a point of order on the Budget 
Act.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as previously stated on numerous occasions, 
I move to waive the Budget Act for consideration of the pending 
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Nebraska. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Mikulski
      
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.
  The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 1177

     (Purpose: To restore funding for water infrastructure grants)
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Mr. Sarbanes, for himself, Senators Lieberman, Mikulski, and Kerry, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Sarbanes, for 
     himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Kerry, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1177.

  Mr. EXON. 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:

       On page 74, strike lines 12 through 24 and insert the 
     following: ``budget, the revenue and spending aggregates may 
     be revised and [[Page S7414]] other appropriate budgetary 
     allocations, aggregates, and levels may be revised to reflect 
     the additional deficit reduction achieved as calculated under 
     subsection (c) for legislation that reduces revenues, and 
     legislation that will provide $10,805,000,000 to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to administer federal grants 
     for water infrastructure programs in the following manner:
       ``(1) with respect to fiscal year 1996, $962,000,000 in 
     budget authority and 42,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 1997, $1,962,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $346,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(3) with respect to fiscal year 1998, $2,462,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $920,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(4) with respect to fiscal year 1999, $2,962,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $1,679,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2000, $2,962,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $2,291,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(6) with respect to fiscal year 2001, $2,962,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $2,679,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(7) with respect to fiscal year 2002, $2,962,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $2,798,000,000 in outlays.
       ``(b) Revised Allocations and Aggregates.--Upon the 
     reporting of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), and 
     again upon the submission of a conference report on such 
     legislation (if a conference report is submitted), the Chair 
     of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may submit to 
     the Senate appropriately revised allocations under sections 
     302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; 
     discretionary spending under section 201(a) of this 
     resolution; and budgetary aggregates and levels under this 
     resolution, revised by an amount that does not exceed the 
     additional deficit reduction calculated under subsection 
     (d).''

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the budget resolution we are debating 
today assumes that Federal grants for sewage treatment construction and 
safe drinking water infrastructure would be phased out over the next 3 
years. If approved, this proposal would end the Federal Government's 
20-year commitment to assist cities and towns in cleaning up our 
Nation's waters. My amendment would restore these funds--funds which 
are absolutely vital to State and local Government's efforts to meet 
water quality standards under the Clean Water Act.
  Since 1972--when we passed into law the Clean Water Act--Congress has 
provided grants to States to help local governments meet water quality 
standards. These Federal dollars are used to capitalize what are known 
as State revolving funds or loan programs. Under these revolving funds, 
States provide low-interest construction loans to cities and towns to 
construct and improve wastewater treatment facilities. These grants 
have been a centerpiece in our efforts to reduce point source water 
pollution--the pollution that comes from sewer pipes and industrial 
wastewater pipes. They have also been instrumental in once again making 
many of the rivers, lakes, and estuaries in this country fishable and 
swimmable.
  In my home State of Maryland, these moneys, together with millions of 
dollars in State funds, have been a key to efforts to improve water 
quality and restore living resources in the Chesapeake Bay--the largest 
estuary in the United States and Maryland's most valuable resource. We 
still have a long way to go, however, before the water quality of the 
bay is sufficient to sustain viable populations of many fish, 
shellfish, and bird species. Maryland has been counting on its State 
revolving fund as one of its primary mechanisms for reaching the water 
quality goals that it and the other Chesapeake Bay Agreement 
signatories made for the bay. In Maryland, the State revolving fund is 
used to upgrade treatment facilities, correct failing septic systems, 
retrofit urban areas with stormwater management facilities, and restore 
degraded stream systems impacted from stormwater runoff from developed 
and agricultural areas. All of these improvements have a direct impact 
on the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its living resources.
  This budget resolution eliminates grants to State revolving funds. it 
phases them out over the next 3 years, leaving State and local 
governments on their own to come up with the funds for adequate 
wastewater infrastructure and setting back our efforts to clean up the 
approximately 40 percent of the Nation's water bodies that are still 
impaired. Even the rewrite of the Clean Water Act that passed the House 
last week--which in my judgment would gut some of the most important 
clean water programs provided for in current law--continues funding for 
sewage treatment State revolving funds through the year 2000.
  The burden this budget proposal places on State and local governments 
is staggering. EPA estimates that over $137 billion are still needed to 
achieve waste treatment objectives nationwide. The State of Maryland 
estimates that its water infrastructure needs over the next 5 years are 
nearly 10 times the proposed funding level in the budget resolution.
  This proposed cut would also adversely impact the labor market, 
eliminating approximately 100,000 construction related jobs over 5 
years, and an additional 200,000 jobs over the next 20 years. It would 
also jeopardize U.S. commitments to the environmental provisions of 
bilateral agreements that call for investment in water infrastructure 
in the United States-Mexico border area.
  Mr. President, water pollution is an interstate problem that demands 
a Federal response. Water from six States flows into the Chesapeake 
Bay. Even if Maryland had the resources to complete construction of all 
needed wastewater infrastructure, the Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts 
will only be successful if similar investments are made in the five 
other States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Without Federal 
assistance, however, it is unlikely that the upstream States will make 
a substantial investment in the water quality of the bay. The Congress 
understood the interstate dynamic of pollution in 1972 when a 
bipartisan majority passed the Clean Water Act and began funding waste 
treatment infrastructure. We seem to have forgotten this lesson.
  This budget resolution also phases out on the same schedule all 
Federal funding for grants to assist local governments in improving 
drinking water quality. Municipalities need significant resources to 
comply with drinking water standards to prevent the serious adverse 
health effects that can and do occur from drinking water contamination. 
In 1993--just 2 years ago--100 people died and over 400,000 fell ill 
from a bacteria outbreak in the public water supply in Milwaukee, WI. 
The Congress appropriated money last year for the very first time to 
prevent problems like this from happening in the future. Mr. President, 
I remind my colleagues that we appropriated these funds to save the 
lives of Americans; to prevent illness and disease. This is not pork. 
This is not a make-work public work project. It is an investment in the 
health of Americans and in a clean environment.
  Mr. President, balancing the budget should not, and need not, come at 
the expense of human health or a clean environment. The amendment I 
offer today is deficit neutral and will restore water infrastructure 
grants, including money for the clean water, and drinking water State 
revolving loan funds for the next 7 years at 1995 levels. I urge my 
colleagues' support for this amendment to continue this country's 
investment in clean water and safe drinking water.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Maryland Department of 
the Environment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Maryland Department


                                           of the Environment,

                                      Baltimore, MD, May 19, 1995.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: This letter is to bring an urgent 
     matter to your attention and to request your immediate 
     assistance in amending the Senate Budget Resolution in order 
     to continue the State Revolving Loan Fund authorizations 
     through the year 2000, as opposed to the current language 
     which phases out the program in three years.
       This environmental financing mechanism is the largest and 
     only source of funds, other than some very small State grant 
     programs, now available to local governments struggling to 
     meet the demands of providing adequate infrastructure and 
     protecting surface and groundwater resources.
       In addition, the State of Maryland faces the special 
     challenge of working to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its 
     tributaries together with its neighboring jurisdictions and 
     the federal government. Without this funding mechanism, 
     Maryland will not be able to fulfill its commitment to reduce 
     pollution to the Bay by the year 2000, as agreed to by the 
     signatories of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. [[Page S7415]] 
       Maryland has been particularly aggressive in establishing 
     and maximizing its Revolving Loan Fund by leveraging federal 
     and state funds through the sale of revenue bonds. However, 
     as described below, the needs will continue to exceed the 
     availability of funds for many years to come.
       The 1994 Annual Needs Survey conducted by the Maryland 
     Department of the Environment documents $1.26 billion in 
     wastewater projects needed to: correct areas of failing 
     septic systems; eliminate excess inflow and infiltration into 
     sanitary collection systems; upgrade treatment facilities to 
     meet water pollution control standards; and accommodate 
     planned development in designated growth areas across the 
     State.
       The Survey also identified over $30 million in projects to 
     retrofit existing urban areas with stormwater quality 
     management facilities and to restore degraded stream systems 
     impacted by stormwater runoff from developed and agricultural 
     areas. These types of projects can be financed through the 
     Maryland Revolving Loan Fund.
       In addition, the Department estimates that there is a need 
     for over $500 million to remediate existing municipal 
     landfills, in order to restore and protect water quality, 
     which is also fundable through the Revolving Loan Fund.
       This represents a total need of about $1.8 billion for 
     water quality improvements in the State. The Senate 
     Resolution proposes a total of $3.5 billion nationally over 
     the next three years, after which no appropriations are 
     provided. Of this amount, Maryland would receive $76 million 
     over the three years, assuming an allocation of 2.1867%. 
     Fully leveraging these federal grants and state match will 
     generate approximately $180 million for loans to local 
     governments. Even when the portion of the program now 
     revolving is added, only another $24 million is generated 
     over this three year period. Thus our needs are nearly ten 
     times the proposed funding level in the Senate Resolution.
       Not to extend the authorization of the federal revolving 
     loan funds through the year 2000 could be the single most 
     devastating setback to federal, state and local efforts to 
     achieve the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, which has 
     become the national model for improving water quality under 
     the Clean Water Act.
       I think we would agree that this is a critical issue 
     requiring your immediate intervention. Please let me know 
     what additional support I can provide to assist you with the 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Jane T. Nishida,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor, with my friend 
and colleague Senator Sarbanes, an amendment to Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 13, the congressional budget resolution, which would restore 
funding for clean water and safe drinking water State revolving funds 
[SRF's], the low-interest loan programs that assist local communities 
to provide quality water to their residents.
  Mr. President, there are many things in this budget resolution before 
us that I find absolutely amazing. Ranking right up there at the top of 
the list of bad ideas is a provision to eliminate the Federal low-
interest revolving loan program which helps communities finance 
important water infrastructure projects. This provision in the 
Republican budget proposal cuts one of the very important Federal 
programs which helps local communities meet their financial obligations 
to safeguard our citizens' water.
  Our amendment would restore the water infrastructure revolving fund 
accounts to the 1995 levels of $2.96 billion annually through 1996-
2002. In addition, our amendment is deficit neutral in that it provides 
funding by allocating money from section 204 of the budget resolution's 
surplus allowance.
  I find it extremely ironic that the Republican leadership would allow 
a provision which totally eliminates assistance to local communities 
when just weeks ago the Congress passed and the President signed into 
law a bill which would require such assistance in future legislation. 
As we all know, the unfunded mandates legislation requires the Federal 
Government to fund 100 percent of certain requirements for local and 
State governments to meet Federal safeguards in areas such as water or 
air quality beginning on January 1, 1996. However, at the same time, 
this bill would phase out the very Federal assistance that the Federal 
Government has provided for over two decades.
  While I would have liked to see certain changes in the unfunded 
mandates legislation and while I offered and supported amendments to 
improve the bill, I voted for the final version specifically because I 
have always believed and continue to believe in a strong Federal-State-
local Government partnership. Have we forgotten so quickly the concerns 
we heard expressed from towns and cities across this country? I have 
not. I remember the concerned conversations I had with dozens of 
concerned local officials and the letters I received from hundreds of 
concerned citizens about the need for assistance from the Federal 
Government. That is why I am supporting this amendment today.
  Why is Federal assistance still needed in this area? Americans
   have come to expect a certain level of protection in the water they 
drink, the air they breathe and the food they eat. Polls show that the 
vast majority of Americans believe that the appropriate role of the 
Federal Government is to provide the necessary safeguards to maintain 
the public health and safety standards to which they have become 
accustomed during their lifetimes.

  With approximately 40 percent of our Nation's water sources still 
impaired, we must continue our commitment to water pollution prevention 
and abatement. As we seek to balance the budget, we must be mindful not 
to hastily eliminate the public infrastructure investments that for too 
long have been short-changed in the recent budget proposals.
  In 1972, a bipartisan Congress passed and a Republican President 
signed into law the original Clean Water Act, the comprehensive measure 
to protect and restore the quality of water in our Nation's rivers, 
lakes, and streams. Since then, the water infrastructure program has 
been an important component of a well-balanced effort to help local 
communities reduce pollution from sewage and industrial wastewaters. In 
addition, the Safe Drinking Water Act provides a similar program to 
protect the Nation's ground waters from which we get the water that 
flows from our taps.
  The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that outstanding water 
infrastructure needs total over $135 billion nationwide. Phasing out 
the SRF Programs over the next 3 years will leave many local towns and 
cities stranded in their financial pursuits.
  In my home State of Massachusetts, even with the assistance provided 
by the Federal Government over the years, the cost of meeting the water 
quality standards has placed and continues to place an extraordinary 
burden on many families and communities. Many Massachusetts residents 
currently pay water and sewer bills that exceed their property taxes. 
Companies are considering moving their activities out of State and 
lower income families worry about paying the ever-increasing water 
bills.
  Ratepayers in the greater Boston area must shoulder the burden of a 
$5.2 billion water infrastructure construction project, with only 
minimal assistance from the Federal Government. However, it is not just 
large cities such as Boston or Baltimore or San Diego that need 
assistance. Small- and medium-sized towns across the country borrow 
funds from the State revolving fund to upgrade septic systems and build 
wastewater treatment and stormwater management facilities. In 
Massachusetts, communities across the State--Fall River, Gloucester, 
New Bedford, South Essex, Lynn, to name just a few--have mounting water 
rates because of their water projects, and need the assistance 
available from the revolving funds. I hope my colleagues will support 
this amendment because it is setting the right priorities for this 
country by investing in our local communities to help them to do the 
long-term planning that is vital to sustained economic growth and 
prosperity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sarbanes and the other 
cosponsors I previously announced, I propose this amendment to restore 
water infrastructure grants to assist the State and local governments 
in meeting clean water and drinking water standards.
  As the amendment draws the funding from the $170 billion fiscal 
dividend, it would not increase the deficit.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is, I hope, the last in a series of 
amendments that attempts to spend the dividend. I do not know how much 
dividend there will be left if we would have spent all of it as 
requested by Democratic amendments. But, in addition, we have no 
assurance that if this were [[Page S7416]] granted, it would be spent 
in the manner suggested.
  It is subject to a point of order under the Budget Act, and I make 
the point of order.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act for 
consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Nebraska. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 43, the nays are 56. Three-fifths 
of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if I might just ask the Senate 
if I could have 1 minute as if in morning business for a completely 
unrelated matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 852 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent that I might have 1 minute, as the 
Senator from New Mexico, as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________