[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7416-S7422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.


                           Amendment No. 1178

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding mandatory major 
                assumptions under Function 270: Energy)

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

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] for Mr. Baucus, for 
     himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Robb, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
     Ford, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Wellstone, 
     and Mr. Exon, proposes an amendment numbered 1178:
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MANDATORY MAJOR 
                   ASSUMPTIONS UNDER FUNCTION 270: ENERGY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that within the mandatory 
     major assumptions under budget function 270, none of the 
     power marketing administrations within the 48 contiguous 
     States will be sold, and any savings that were assumed would 
     be realized from the sale of those power marketing 
     administrations will be realized through cost reductions in 
     other programs within the Department of Energy.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the budget resolution assumes $1.6 billion 
from the sale of unnamed power marketing administrations, and I have 
cosponsored this amendment to express the Senate's view that savings 
should be sought from other Department of Energy spending rather than 
from sale of the PMA's.
  Some in Congress and the executive branch have tried for years to 
sell off parts or all of the public power generation, transmission and 
marketing system that we built in the middle of this century to bring 
affordable power to rural areas and many small cities.
  From the standpoint of our responsibilities to the public purse, such 
proposals are penny-wise but pound foolish. For a one-time gain in sale 
of assets, some propose selling off a system that has generated about 
$50 billion in power revenues, a system that has paid its way on time 
and with interest.
  In addition to net power revenues that come to the Treasury, the 
$21.6 billion that was invested to build the PMA's is being repaid by 
the power customers in the same way most of us repay our home 
mortgages. The system has paid off more than $5 billion of the initial 
investment, and $9 billion in interest.
  But, for me, the worst part about selling the PMA's would be the 
effect on rural America. The PMA's were built so our farms and small 
towns would have assess to dependable, affordable electricity. That 
promise has been fulfilled.
  However, the sale of the PMA's would cancel the mortgage, so to 
speak, upon which the PMA's and their customers have been faithfully 
making payments for years. It would add debt to the system and force 
substantial power rate increases across rural America. I have received 
estimates that customers in my State would see rate increases averaging 
24 percent.
  In a budget resolution that would cut taxes to the most wealthy in 
this country, the provision for PMA sales would impose a kind of back-
door tax increase upon rural America.
  The sale of PMA's is foolish from a public policy standpoint, and it 
is unfair and hurtful to rural America. This body should voice its 
opposition to such a proposal by voting for this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
South Dakota would state the sense-of-the-Senate that none of the Power 
Market Administrations [PMA] should be sold and that the savings 
assumed from these sales should be taken from elsewhere in the 
Department of Energy's budget. I intend to vote against this amendment, 
and I would [[Page S7417]] like to take a brief moment to explain why.
  Many people have offered their interpretations of last November's 
elections. The theme which reoccurs in almost all of these analyses is 
the desire of the American people to have a smaller and more efficient 
government. The budget before us lays out a road map which attempts to 
accomplish that goal.
  My colleagues are well aware that the assumptions included in the 
budget resolution are not binding. The authorization committees can set 
their own priorities as to how to meet the budget outlined in the 
resolution. We should not follow the advice of this sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment that urges the authorizing committee to refrain from 
exploring all of the available budget options.
  The Power Marketing Administration sells power generated at Federal 
water projects to millions of Americans across the Nation. The power 
generated by these facilities is essential to many small and rural 
communities throughout my home State of Arizona.
  We should of course be very careful not to enter into any agreement 
which would result in unfair rate increases to the many people served 
by these systems, or that would result in the inefficient operation of 
these facilities.
  Nevertheless, the committee should be allowed to at least examine the 
issue. Several ideas have been discussed on how to down size the 
Federal Government in relation to the PMA's either through sale, lease, 
or management contracts.
  The budget resolution suggests that existing customers could be given 
the first option to buy the PMA's. Under this scenario, it may be 
possible for users to operate these facilities more efficiently than 
the Federal Government and actually reduce power rates. These and other 
ideas could and should be discussed to determine if it is possible to 
resolve this issue in a manner which will meet the public interest.
  Mr. President, I feel it would be inappropriate and an abdication of 
our responsibility to not even examine if and how we can reduce the 
size of the Government by exploring opportunities to provide power in a 
more efficient and cost effective manner.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the amendment that I have just offered 
proposes a sense of the Senate that the budget resolution not include 
language to sell the power marketing administrations except for Alaska; 
that offsetting revenue be found in the Department of Energy programs.
  This amendment recognizes that the production marketing associations 
contribute an annual $240 million a year in revenue to the Treasury 
while providing affordable, reliable power to 32 rural States. The 
PMA's are a vital part of this Nation's infrastructure and should not 
be sold to net an estimated $165 million.
  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 addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the budget resolution scales back on the 
President's proposals to sell PMA's.
  We reduce the savings in the President's budget by two-thirds or $2.9 
billion. Our assumption can be accomplished by dropping the sale of the 
western PMA's from the President's budget. We also assume that existing 
customers get a preferential right to purchase the PMA's. I think there 
are some Senators who know which PMA's were in neither proposal.
  I wish to move to table the 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 were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to table the amendment. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 64, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 212 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Helms
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Thompson

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1178) was rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
underlying amendment.
  In view of the vote on the motion to table, I ask unanimous consent 
that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are 
vitiated.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1178) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, unless it was previously ordered, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senators Wellstone, Moseley-Braun, and Exon be 
included as cosponsors of the amendment that was just agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I say to all Senators we are making great 
progress. There has been great progress on both sides.
  We have two amendments that I think we have tentatively agreed to 
accept by voice vote.


                           Amendment No. 1179

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding reducing 
            overhead expenses in the Department of Defense)

  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. Levin, for 
     himself, and Mr. Simon, proposes an amendment numbered 1179.

  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.  . DEFENSE OVERHEAD.

     (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the major discretionary assumptions in this concurrent 
     budget resolution include 15 percent reduction in overhead 
     for programs of nondefense agencies that remain funded in the 
     budget and whose funding is not interconnected with receipts 
     dedicated to a program;
       (2) the Committee Report (104-82) on this concurrent budget 
     resolution states that ``this assumption would not reduce 
     funding for the programmatic activities of agencies.''
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations 
     should make a reduction of at least three percent in overhead 
     for Fiscal Year 1996 programs of defense agencies, and should 
     do so in a manner so as not to reduce funding for the 
     programmatic activities of these agencies.

  Mr. EXON. This is the Levin-Simon amendment. The budget resolution 
assumes the 15 percent reduction in overhead for nondefense agencies. 
The Levin-Simon amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which 
calls on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee to make at least a 3-percent reduction in overhead in defense 
agencies without reducing programmatic activities. I believe that, 
after a lot of discussion, this can be accepted by a voice vote.
[[Page S7418]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a sense of the Senate, and it in 
no way cuts the dollar amount of defense. Defense receives the exact 
amount of money as prescribed in the budget resolution. I have agreed 
to accept it and see how it works out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1179) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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.


                           Amendment No. 1180

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the essential 
        air service program of the Department of Transportation)

  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. Baucus, for 
     himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Simon, Mr. Rockefeller, 
     Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Exon, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1180.

  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 ESSENTIAL AIR 
                   SERVICE PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the essential air service program of the Department of 
     Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 
     49, United States Code--
       (A) provides essential airline access to isolated rural 
     communities across the United States;
       (B) is necessary for the economic growth and development of 
     rural communities;
       (C) connects small rural communities to the national air 
     transportation system of the United States;
       (D) is a critical component of the national transportation 
     system of the United States; and
       (E) provides air service to 108 communities in 30 States; 
     and
       (2) the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive 
     Airline Industry established under section 204 of the Airport 
     and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and 
     Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992 recommended maintaining 
     the essential air service program with a sufficient level of 
     funding to continue to provide air service to small 
     communities.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the essential air service program of the Department of 
     Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 
     49, United States Code, should receive to the maximum extent 
     possible a sufficient level of funding to continue to provide 
     air service to small rural communities that qualify for 
     assistance under the program.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this is another amendment that I believe we 
have worked out with the cooperation between both sides. This amendment 
is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment by Senator Baucus on essential air 
service, which I believe can be accepted by the managers.
  Mr. EXON. We have agreed to this and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Stevens as an original cosponsor. He was part of working this amendment 
out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor if I 
am not already one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1180) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1181

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding funding for the 
                National Railroad Passenger Corporation)

  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 Montana [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Baucus, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1181.

  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:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR NATIONAL 
                   RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution include 
     the following: that Congress should redirect revenues 
     resulting from the \1/2\ cent of the excise tax rate directed 
     by the amendments made by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993 for fiscal years 1996 through 1999 to the account 
     under subsection (e) of section 9503 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to a new account under such section for grants 
     to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for operating 
     expenses and capital improvements incurred by the 
     Corporation.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment is the next one on our list. 
It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment by Senator Baucus on Amtrak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will oppose this amendment on a couple 
of bases. One is that a half cent of the gasoline tax would be 
transferred from the highway fund to a special new fund called the 
Amtrak trust fund. I believe we ought not do business that way. I urge 
that this amendment be tabled.
  I therefore 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 to 
table.
  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 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 213 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1181) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Shelby). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 1182

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of [[Page S7419]] Senator Grams and Senator Abraham and ask for 
its immediate consideration. Senator Lieberman is also an original 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Grams, 
     for himself, Mr. Abraham and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1182.

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

       On page 73, line 2, strike ``may be reduced'' and insert 
     ``shall be reduced''.
       On page 73, line 2, strike ``may be revised'' and insert 
     ``shall be revised''.
       On page 74, line 12, strike ``may'' and insert ``shall''.
       On page 74, line 13, strike ``may'' and insert ``shall''.
       On page 74, line 21, strike ``may'' and insert ``shall''.
       On page 74, line 16, insert the following before the 
     period, ``by providing family tax relief and incentives to 
     stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic 
     growth.''

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I support this amendment because I 
believe that at least a substantial part of the fiscal dividend in the 
budget before us is set aside for family tax relief, incentives to 
stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic growth.
  Getting our fiscal house in order by balancing the budget represents 
a significant investment in our economic future. At the same time, I 
very much believe that providing family tax relief and savings and 
investment incentives is a significant investment in our collective and 
individual futures as well.
  The budget will inevitably require some painful adjustments. If we 
are asking the American people to make some of these adjustments, to 
share in this sacrifice, there should also be a light at the end of the 
tunnel. We should provide much-needed tax relief to the working 
families of this country, and tax incentives to the businesses of this 
country so that people will continue to have jobs at which they can 
work.
  As I understand it, the family tax relief envisioned by this 
amendment could embrace not only a middle-class child credit but a 
deduction for college and vocational training, much like the $10,000 
education deduction proposed earlier this year by President Clinton. In 
my travels across Connecticut, I have found that the level of anxiety 
among parents over how to pay for the higher education of their 
children is very high. Even those parents who have scrupulously saved 
over the years are wondering how they can ever foot education bills 
that run up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. And it is important to 
point out that while an education deduction will make it easier for 
families to invest in the future of their children, an education 
deduction also represents a collective investment in the future of this 
country.
  We are all aware of two additional facts. First, savings and 
investment are critical to our future economic well-being, and second, 
we are not doing enough of either. At present, our budget deficit eats 
up our national savings by borrowing from our national savings pool to 
pay for our current spending. Our national savings rate, which has been 
hovering between 3 and 4 percent of national income is not only 
historically low for us but three to four times lower than competitor 
countries such as Japan. This is a national crisis which the balanced 
budget before us attempts to address.
  That is one side of the equation. The other side is to jump start 
savings and investment in this country by providing tax incentives for 
savings and investment. Short of a complete overhaul of the Tax Code, 
along the lines of the thoughtful proposal that has been put forth by 
Senators Nunn and Domenici, I believe we should act now to reverse the 
downward savings trend in this country.
  The initiatives outlined above, combined with a steady path toward a 
balanced budget, will take us up to a higher plateau of savings and 
investment which will translate into new jobs and new growth in this 
country. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the amendment states that once balance 
is achieved and certified by the Congressional Budget Office, a reserve 
fund is provided to the Finance Committee for reduced revenues.
  If the Finance Committee reports a tax bill, it would include 
provisions for family tax relief and to stimulate savings and 
investment.
  Mr. DOLE. 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. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  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 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 214 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the amendment (No. 1182) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. 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. 1183

                   (Purpose: To propose a substitute)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Conrad, 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. Conrad, for 
     himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Graham, Mr. Simon, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
     Kohl, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Robb, and 
     Mr. Byrd, proposes an amendment numbered 1183.

  (The text of the amendment appears in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment received some debate, 
although limited. I think most Members of this body understand the 
proposal very, very well. I do not have enough time to explain it in 
great detail.
  Let me try to sum up very briefly. The fair share alternative offered 
by Senator Conrad and others makes some very hard and necessary choices 
in the whole area of budget fairness. The Republican plan makes the 
wrong choices.
  This alternative gives us a plan that asks everyone to contribute. 
The fair share plan balances the budget by the year 2004 without 
counting the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund and achieves 
more deficit reduction in 2002 than the Republican plan.
  The fair share plan freezes discretionary spending but restores $190 
billion in public investment. The fair share plan restores funding to 
Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and other high priorities. It 
rejects the tax [[Page S7420]] cut targeted to wealthy and instead asks 
them to contribute by limiting the growth of tax loopholes that benefit 
the wealthy.
  The alternative does not balance the budget on the backs of the 
middle class, children, college students, and our elders.
                  finally, a ``real'' balanced budget

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud my colleague and 
friend, Senator Conrad, for his work in constructing this amendment. As 
I learned in 1980 and again in 1985, it is not an easy task. But the 
Senator from North Dakota should be commended for his courage and 
resolve to focus his budget alternative on three bedrock principles 
that are essential if we really want to do the job.
  First, the Conrad alternative would comply with section 13301 of the 
Congressional Budget Act and would balance the budget without counting 
the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund. We've heard a lot of 
talk in the last few days about how the Republican budget resolution 
would balance the budget in 7 years, but the hard facts tell otherwise. 
Again, I would invite my colleagues to turn to page 7 of the Republican 
resolution where the deficit for fiscal year 2002 is listed as $113.5 
billion. In contrast, the Conrad amendment is designed not only to talk 
the talk, but to walk the walk. Under this proposal by the year 2004, 
the Federal budget, excluding Social Security, would be in balance.
  Second, the Conrad approach recognizes that the Federal budget cannot 
be balanced through spending cuts alone. If we want a balanced budget, 
we have to have a balanced approach. No one relishes the idea of 
raising taxes, but the simple fact is that we could eliminate all 
spending on non-defense discretionary programs and the budget would 
still be out of whack. Instead of facing this budget reality, the 
Republican resolution plays Santa Claus, promising $170 billion in tax 
cuts that will be written in stone out of a economic dividend that may 
never materialize.
  Finally, the Conrad amendment protects programs that are crucial to 
our Nation's well-being. The Republican strategy is an alarming 
permutation of a justification that we heard during Vietnam--that we 
had to burn the village in order to save it. Mr. President, that line 
was wrong then and it is wrong now. Programs such as education and 
biomedical research are crucial investments in our Nation's future; 
drastic cuts in such programs are penny wise and pound foolish.
  While the Conrad approach offers a far more honest and realistic 
approach to balancing the budget, it is not a perfect plan. 
Specifically, I am concerned that the $170 billion economic dividend, 
which Senator Conrad puts towards deficit reduction, may never 
materialize and that the elimination of tax loopholes may fall short of 
its $228 billion target. A far more certain and equitable alternative, 
I believe, would rely on a comprehensive 5 percent value added tax that 
would be earmarked specifically for deficit and debt reduction. Such an 
approach would reap additional benefits in encouraging national savings 
over consumption and in improving our international trade position 
through a border neutral tax.
  While we may differ on some of the specifics, let me again applaud 
the efforts of Senator Conrad for his willingness to stop the 
gamesmanship of the past few days and to propose the first real 
balanced budget that we have seen.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as we approach final passage of the fiscal 
1996 budget resolution, I want to take a few moments to outline my 
views and concerns on this historic vote.


                           conrad alternative

  This morning I voted to support Senator Conrad's Fair Share Balanced 
Budget Plan offered as a substitute to the majority's resolution. While 
this plan is far from perfect, it represents a fairer, more honest 
approach to fiscal discipline than the underlying budget resolution.
  The Fair Share plan would balance the budget by 2004 without counting 
the Social Security trust fund in the calculation. In other words, it 
would not use the Social Security surpluses to mask the true size of 
the deficit, as the majority's resolution would do. It would produce 
$16 billion more in deficit reduction in 2002 than does the Republican 
plan.
  The plan would freeze non-defense discretionary spending, instead of 
cutting it $190 billion below a freeze, as the Republican resolution 
would do. As a result, this alternative would save critical investments 
such as education, technology, medical research, and important 
environmental clean-up efforts from far more severe cuts.
  The alternative would also lessen the severity of the Republicans' 
cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition and veterans benefits. The plan 
would fully fund student loans.
  The alternative wisely contains no tax cuts. As I have said 
previously, I do not believe that now is the time to cut taxes. Revenue 
reductions only serve to make the hole we must dig ourselves out of 
that much deeper. Tax cuts skewed toward the affluent, as are those 
passed by the House, are especially difficult to justify.
  Finally, the Fair Share plan would cap the rate of growth for tax 
loopholes that benefit corporations and the wealthy. It would therefore 
ensure that all segments of society, including the most affluent, 
sacrifice to attain a balanced budget. This stands in stark contrast to 
the Republican plan.
  I do not support every element of this alternative, but I believe it 
makes an important statement: There are other, fairer routes to a 
balanced budget than the one offered by our Republican colleagues.
                         fiscal 1996 resolution

  Mr. President, in my view, the underlying resolution is fundamentally 
flawed. It treats our people not as assets to be developed, but as 
items in a spending cut process. It burns the bridges that ordinary 
Americans use, or hope to use, or hope to use, to cross over to a 
better life for themselves and their families. And it requires the 
middle-class and the less affluent to clean-up from the fiscal train 
wreck of the 1980's. I would remind my colleagues that our budget would 
be in balance if we were not required to pay interest on the debt 
accumulated solely during the Reagan/Bush era.
  In an effort to lessen its adverse impact, I have supported numerous 
amendments to restore funding for vital Federal investments such as 
health care, education, and the environment. The cost of all of these 
amendments has been fully offset from other sources. I regret that few 
of these amendments have passed, but I am pleased that we were able to 
achieve bipartisan cooperation in restoring funding for the National 
Institutes of Health and partial restoration for student loans. I 
offered and cosponsored a number of amendments that would have restored 
greater funding for our critical investment in education. They, 
unfortunately, failed.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, the American middle-class is collapsing around us. A 
report just released by the Casey Foundation states that today, nearly 
a third of all men between the ages of 25 and 34 don't earn enough to 
support a family of 4 above the poverty level. That's about two and a 
half times the number from 25 years ago.
  There was a time when blue collar workers formed the bedrock of the 
middle-class. High-wage jobs for people without years of advanced 
education were plentiful, and a high school education was a passport to 
a healthy future. That time is gone.
  The United States now has the largest gap between rich and poor of 
any industrialized nation in the world. The richest 1 percent of 
American families now own 40 percent of our Nation's wealth, whereas in 
Britain--our closest rival--the top 1 percent own just 18 percent of 
the wealth.
  If we care about restoring opportunity and security to our people, 
then we've got to do better by them. If we want them to obtain the best 
jobs that the new economy has to offer, then they'll need the best 
education, job training, and health care that this country has to 
offer.
  American politics is about change, Mr. President. But it is not about 
this kind of change. This debate should be about how we build a 
stronger and a richer America, not just fiscally, as important as that 
is, but economically and socially and morally, as well. Using this 
standard, this resolution fails. [[Page S7421]] 
  In the days ahead, it is my sincere hope that we can work 
cooperatively together to put our fiscal house in order without 
jeopardizing our neighborhoods, our communities, and our future in the 
process. We can do better, and we must.
                        getting priorities right

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the alternative 
budget proposed by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad.
  I have cosponsored this alternative because a budget debate is about 
priorities. The Republican budget resolution has its priorities all 
wrong. And the Conrad alternative, which I helped put together, gets 
our priorities right.
  Mr. President, the problem with the Republican budget resolution is 
that it hits middle America in the stomach. It tells the elderly, most 
of whom live on fixed incomes, to absorb $256 billion in Medicare cuts. 
This budget asks the poor to suffer $175 billion in Medicaid cuts. It 
requires students from middle-income families to pay interest on their 
loans during their schooling, a total hit of $14 billion. And it would 
cut food and farm programs by $46 billion.
  As I have mentioned on the floor before, what is truly galling about 
the Republican budget is that it would use this hit to middle-income 
Americans to pay for $170 billion in tax cuts primarily for the 
wealthy. Tax cuts are irresponsible when we are trying to cut the 
budget deficit. And the budget passed by the House is even worse. It 
takes $350 billion from programs that people depend on and then uses 
that money to pay for tax cuts that would overwhelmingly benefit the 
rich.
  Our alternative is a sharp contrast to the Republican budget. My 
colleague from North Dakota and I are interested in very different 
priorities.
  While achieving more deficit reduction than the Republican plan, we 
would restore much of the funding for a few key domestic programs that 
the GOP budget would cut. We would add back $100 billion for Medicare. 
We would restore $50 billion for Medicaid. We would provide $24 billion 
more for food and farm programs. And we would soften the blow to our 
Nation's students by $14 billion. All of these programs would still be 
cut, but not nearly so much under our alternative as under the 
Republican budget.
  To pay for our changes, we simply would ask the wealthy and big 
corporations to give up some of their tax breaks, get out of the 
corporate welfare wagon, and help the rest of us pull toward a balanced 
budget.
  We would require the Finance Committee to close $228 billion in tax 
loopholes for the wealthy and for big business. Foreign corporations 
that try to avoid taxes here could expect a crackdown under the Conrad 
budget. Multinational firms that try to hide their income from the IRS 
would have a far more difficult time. Billionaires who renounce their 
citizenship and retire to tax havens abroad would have to pay the taxes 
the rest of us have to pay.
  We have chosen these tax changes carefully. We would not touch the 
home mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for State and local 
taxes, or the deduction for charitable giving. These are provisions 
that millions of Americans depend on. We would also insist that any 
reduction in tax preferences target those who earn over $140,000 a 
year.
  Also, Mr. President, let me emphasize that we would use the $170 
billion fiscal dividend for deficit reduction, not for tax cuts for the 
wealthy. That is what the American people want us to do--reduce the 
deficit first.
  And reduce it we do. This alternative budget would balance the budget 
(without counting the Social Security trust fund surplus) in the year 
2004, two years earlier than the Republican budget would do so. We 
achieve more deficit reduction than the majority's budget by the year 
2002.
  Mr. President, there you have it. I will vote for this alternative 
because it does more to reduce the deficit and it shares the pain 
fairly. It asks all Americans to pay their fair share, and that is the 
right way to cut the deficit.
  Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Republicans, in particular 
Representative Kasich and Senator Domenici, deserve credit for focusing 
the attention of Congress on the great need to balance the Federal 
budget. The ever-growing national debt is a weight on the growth of the 
economy. Merely paying the interest on the debt costs taxpayers 
hundreds of billions of dollars each year and limits the Government's 
ability to act effectively. I strongly support balancing the budget at 
the earliest possible date, and I realize that a lot of sacrifices will 
need to be made in order to reach a balanced budget.
  The Republican budget leaders in both the Senate and the House were 
brave enough to submit plans that call for a great deal of fiscal 
restraint and some hard choices. For that we should commend them.
  But, unfortunately for a lot of Americans and a lot of New Mexicans, 
the choices the Republicans have asked us to make are the wrong 
choices. With their eyes firmly fixed on providing tax loopholes to the 
rich and to providing an unspecified tax cut, the Republicans in 
Congress are forced to balance the budget in an unbalanced way.
  I am sure in coming weeks I will be criticized for not voting for the 
Republican budget. People will say I did not support a balanced budget. 
But the truth is that today I will be recorderd as having voted in 
favor of a balanced budget, the very same day the Republican budget 
passed. But the balanced budget I voted for--the Democratic alternative 
budget I helped craft--is a budget just as strict fiscally as the 
Republican budget, but fairer to seniors, students and working 
families.
  The Republican budget, in my view, is anti-working families, anti-
seniors, anti-future, and anti-New Mexico. In contrast, the Fair Share 
Plan--formulated by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, 
myself and a small group of Democratic Senators--does the following:


  I. Achieves even greater fiscal discipline than the Republican plan

   A. Balances the budget (on a unified basis) by 2002, just as the 
Republican plan does.
   B. Achieves total on-budget balance (that is, without using Social 
Security surpluses) by 2004, or 2 years before the Republican plan 
does.


    II. Protects critical investments in our future competitiveness

   A. Restores non-defense discretionary spending to a hard freeze, 
providing almost $200 billion more than the Republican plan for 
critical investments in: First, education and training, second, 
infrastructure, third, research & development, and fourth, other areas 
that will boost our economic competitiveness in the 21st century.
   B. Freezes defense spending to the same extent as the Republican 
plan.


            III. Reduces the burden on middle class families

   A. Protects middle class seniors by restoring $150 billion from the 
Republican cuts in Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
   B. Restores to middle class college students and their families the 
full $14 billion that Republicans propose to cut from student loans and 
other mandatory education accounts.
   C. Reverses the Republican plan's cut in the earned income tax 
credit for lower-middle class and poor working families, by restoring 
$60 billion of the Republican proposal on income assistance programs.
   D. Only cuts $22 billion from family farm and nutrition assistance 
programs, $24 billion less than the Republican proposal.
   E. Restores half of the Republican $10 billion cuts in veterans 
benefits.


IV. Asks the wealthy to pay some fair share of the burden of balancing 
                               the budget

   A. Rejects the Republican $170 billion reserve for tax cuts that 
will mostly benefit wealthy taxpayers.
   B. Asks big corporations and wealthy taxpayers (couples making over 
$140,000 per year, e.g.) to pay some share of the deficit reduction 
burden, by closing tax loopholes and by just limiting the growth in tax 
breaks and tax preferences for corporations and these wealthy taxpayers 
to inflation plus one percent (CPI + 1 percent).


    V. Brings all, and not just some, of the components of federal 
                       expenditures under control

   A. The Republican budget proposal limits Federal direct spending to 
less than a 25-percent increase over the 
[[Page S7422]] next 7 years, but allows Federal tax expenditures in the 
form of loopholes, tax preferences, and tax breaks to increase by 
almost 50 percent over the next 7 years.
   B. The Fair Share Budget corrects this imbalance by limiting direct 
spending to just over 25-percent increase (cutting over $1 trillion in 
spending and interest over the next 7 years), but also by slowing the 
growth of Federal tax breaks and tax preferences to a 35-percent 
increase over the same period. The alternative budget requires the 
cutting of just 5.7 percent of a projected $4 trillion of tax 
expenditures over the 7 years, and limits the cuts only to wealthy 
corporations and wealthy taxpayers (couples earning over $140,000, 
e.g.).


                VI. Is NOT about raising anybody's taxes

   A. Tax preferences or tax entitlements are one of the fastest 
growing categories of Federal spending. The Fair Share Balanced Budget 
resolution does not reduce these entitlements. It only slows their 
growth to inflation plus 1 percent.
   B. The Republicans cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim, on 
the one hand, that the Fair Share Budget's proposed slow-down in the 
growth of tax entitlements for the wealthy constitutes a tax increase, 
but, on the other hand, claim that their slow-down in the growth of the 
earned income tax credit [EITC] (which is also a tax expenditure) is 
not a tax increase. If they claim that the Fair Share Budget includes a 
tax increase on the rich and big corporations, they must also admit 
that the Republican budget plan includes a tax increase on lower-middle 
class and poor working families.
  While not perfect, this Democratic alternative plan achieves the goal 
of a balanced Federal budget without asking America's working families, 
seniors and students to bear all of the burden. But the Republican 
budget does not ask the wealthiest corporations and the wealthiest 
Americans to contribute one dime to balance the budget. Moreover, in 
order to secure a $170 billion reserve for tax cuts to benefit mostly 
wealthy people, the Republican budget trades away investments in our 
future--in education, infrastructure, and research and development--
investments in our children.
  Remember that the main reason given for eliminating the deficit is 
that we are doing it for our children. But, if we free our children 
from the burden of the Federal deficit by depriving them of the 
education and training that they will need to compete and succeed in 
the global and technologically driven economy of the next century, then 
we have not been responsible.
  Education programs, for example, are especially important to New 
Mexico. My State has the third highest rate of children living in 
poverty of any State in the Nation. More than one in four children in 
New Mexico live in families with incomes below the poverty line. One-
third of the students in New Mexico's schools have limited proficiency 
in English. Its school-age population has grown tremendously, and a 12-
percent increase in New Mexico's population of school-age children is 
projected over the next 7 years. The Republican budget will cut 
programs for New Mexico's schools by about 30 percent over the next 
seven years; that translates into tens of millions of dollars that New 
Mexico's schools will have to do without as they struggle with these 
special problems.
  By cutting programs to help the children of working families go to 
college by nearly a third, which is being proposed by the GOP, tens of 
thousands of New Mexico's students could lose the opportunity to go to 
college. That would be devastating to their futures and to the future 
of our State. In New Mexico, most higher education students receive 
Federal financial aid, including 33,000 students who receive Pell 
Grants.
  I do not believe that America will be well-served by the Republican 
budget, nor do I feel that most Americans would agree with the specific 
proposals contained within it. And that is why I am proud to have 
cosponsored the fair share balanced budget alternative and to vote for 
it today.
  In conclusion, I want to remind the Senate that the passage of any 
budget resolution today is only the beginning of a long process that 
will determine the priorities of our Government. The budget is only a 
framework for the appropriations committees to work with as they spend 
the summer determining specific spending levels for agencies and 
programs.
  Throughout this process, I pledge to continue to fight for proper 
funding for programs that will contribute to providing educational 
opportunities for our children, meet the health care needs of our 
senior citizens, and reward work and encourage innovation in the 
marketplace.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 2 years ago, we passed the largest tax 
increase in American history. This will be the second largest tax 
increase in American history. I do not think we ought to adopt it.
  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. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. 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 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     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
     Sarbanes
     Simon

                                NAYS--60

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Mikulski
      
  So the amendment (No. 1183) was rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senate, I apologize 
for the delay I caused. I thought I voted before I left.

                          ____________________