[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7423-S7459]
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. 1184

      (Purpose: To eliminate section 207 of the budget resolution)

  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 bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Simon, for 
     himself, Mr. Pell, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1184.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 207 in its entirety.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a little-noticed provision of the budget 
resolution will make it more likely that student loan cuts will come 
out of the pockets of students, rather than banks, bureaucrats, and 
other middlemen. Section 207 changes the way the loan costs are scored 
in the budget by requiring administrative costs--such as collection 
expenses--to be counted on a long-term--accrual--basis, rather than on 
a cash basis over the 5-year budget window. While this may sound like a 
reasonable change, it is accomplished in a manner that is inconsistent 
and biased.
  Section 207 is not applied consistently to all loan programs. 
Instead, it targets student loans in particular. Furthermore, this type 
of end-run around the Budget Act is not appropriate on a budget 
resolution.
  Section 207 is biased. There are a number of problems with the way 
that loans are scored in the budget. Section 207 only fixes one of 
them, skewing the scoring against direct student loans. This makes it 
more difficult to achieve savings without eliminating the in-school 
interest exemption or increasing fees and other student costs. A 
complete reform of the budget scoring rules for loan programs would 
consider:
  Cost-of-funds. The most significant item that overstates the cost of 
direct lending is the discount rate that is currently used. The 
interest rates that students pay vary annually, and the subsidized 
rates that the Federal Government promises to banks vary each quarter. 
A Council of Economic Advisors memorandum of April 30, 1993, points out 
that ``a multiple year loan with an interest rate that resets each year 
should be treated for pricing purposes as having a maturity of one 
year,'' meaning that a short-term rate should be used. But CBO and OMB 
assume that the Government's cost-of-funds is a higher, long-term rate, 
the 10-year bond. This makes direct lending appear much more costly 
than it really is. Indeed, in a February 8, 1993, letter, GAO pointed 
out that using shorter term interest rates would have more than doubled 
the direct loan savings.
  Tax-exempt bonds. Many student loan secondary markets use tax-exempt 
bonds, costing the Federal Treasury an estimated $2.3 billion over 5 
years. This cost is not considered when the Congressional Budget Office 
determines how much direct lending saves, or how much the guarantee 
program costs.
  Taxpayer bailouts. When guaranty agencies agree to share the risk 
under FFEL by paying a larger portion on defaulted loans, they are 
using money that belongs to the Federal Government--so the Federal 
Government is essentially sharing with itself. Furthermore, when any 
agency can't pay its share, the Federal Government steps in. These 
costs aren't currently considered.
  I would hope that the chairman would reconsider this provision prior 
to conference.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment simply strikes section 207 in 
order to keep all of our options open to avoid imposing costs on 
college students and their families.
  The amendment has no cost impact. The amendment strikes budget 
scoring rules in the budget resolution that single out a particular 
program.
  This amendment will allow committees of jurisdiction to look at these 
issues in a comprehensive manner. First, last, and always, this 
amendment protects students.
  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 have a slightly different impression. 
The Simon amendment would strike language in the resolution that 
corrects a bias against guaranteed student loans.
  If adopted, the Simon amendment would favor the Clinton 
administration policies for direct Government student lending. The 
budget resolution does not do that.
  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, 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 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 216 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1184) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1185

  (Purpose: To reduce military spending by $100 to reduce the deficit)

  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. Harkin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1185.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $100.
       On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $100.
       On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by $100.
       On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by $100.
       On page 7, line 15, decrease the amount by $100.
       On page 8, line 1, decrease the amount by $100.
       On page 8, line 10, decrease the amount by $100.
       On page 9, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $100. [[Page S7424]] 
       On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by $100.
       On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by $100.
       On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by $100.
       On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by $100.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would simply reduce the 
defense budget by $100. Let me repeat that. This amendment would simply 
reduce the defense budget by $100 in fiscal year 1996. The savings is 
applied to the deficit reduction.
  Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If I were you, I would, too.
  Mr. President, the sponsor of the amendment is here. I am willing to 
accept this amendment without a vote. Would the Senator agree to that?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment is ludicrous on its face. 
We will spend more than $100 printing the cost of this amendment and 
wasting time of this Senate.


                Amendment No. 1186 to Amendment No. 1185

   (Purpose: To reduce swine research spending by $100 to reduce the 
                                deficit)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a second-degree 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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Craig, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1186 to amendment No. 1185.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed, insert the following:
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 7, line 15, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 8, line 1, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 9, line 14, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by 0.
       On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by 0.
       It is the sense of the Congress that the functional levels 
     assume that the swine research be reduced by $100.00.

  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. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa cannot reserve the right 
to object.
  Is there an objection to the dispensing of the quorum?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are at a critical moment here. I would 
suggest that if the Senator from Iowa wishes to take $100 out of 
defense, the second degree-amendment, as I understand it, would take 
$100 out of swine research.
  I would suggest to both sides, why do we not agree to sensibly take 
$100 out of defense and $100 out of the swine program, and move the 
Senate ahead.
  Mr. DOLE. Or just raise $100.
  Mr. EXON. I will pay it myself.
  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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call of 
the quorum be rescinded.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The clerk will 
continue 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.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska made a suggestion 
a few moments ago that is now being seriously considered. I would 
simply ask, since we are moving so rapidly, and since we are near 
completing this in the next 2 hours if we hang on, I would just suggest 
once again that we have a voice vote on the proposition that we take 
$100 out of the defense budget and $100 out of the swine research 
facility in Iowa.
  I suggest that be agreed to on a voice vote. I would like to know. We 
will put it in proper form if we can get approval of it on both sides.
  Informally, I would ask if anyone would object if the Senator would 
put it in written form, what I have just orally stated?
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there is no debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the regular order, the question is on 
the amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder for purposes of trying to move 
ahead with the budget, if the Senator might agree, and we will agree to 
take the two amendments, the one pending and the amendment to it, set 
it aside without prejudice and let us move ahead with some of the other 
amendments?
  Mr. EXON. We agree. I think that is a good suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 1187

  (Purpose: To eliminate the firewall between defense and nondefense 
                        discretionary accounts)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for Senators 
Simon and Bumpers, 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. Simon, for 
     himself, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1187.

  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 65, strike lines 13 through 18 and insert 
     ``$477,820,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $526,943,000,000 in outlays;''.
       On page 65, strike lines 20 through 25 and insert 
     ``$466,192,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $506,943,000,000 in outlays;''.
       On page 66, strike lines 2 through 7 and insert 
     ``$479,568,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $499,961,000,000 in outlays;''.
       On page 66, strike lines 9 through 14 and insert 
     ``$477,485,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $502,571,000,000 in outlays;''.
       On page 66, strike lines 16 through 21 and insert 
     ``$492,177,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $511,761,000,000 in outlays;''.
       On page 66, strike beginning with line 23 through line 3, 
     page 67, and insert ``$496,098,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $517,258,000,000 in outlays; and''.
       On page 67, strike lines 5 through 10 and insert 
     ``$495,498,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $518,160,000,000 in outlays.''.
       On page 67, line 22, strike ``sum of the defense and 
     nondefense''.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Simon-Bumpers amendment eliminates the 
resolution's provision that establishes a firewall between defense and 
nondefense discretionary accounts. The amendment does not change the 
levels of budget authority and outlays, and does not add a single cent 
to the deficit.
  The amendment simply assures that Congress maintains flexibility to 
respond to changing spending priorities in a prudent, fiscally sound 
way. That sort of flexibility is particularly important in light of the 
vast uncertainties concerning the Nation's domestic and military 
commitments in the years ahead.
  As we debate the Nation's priorities within the overall constraints 
of the balanced budget, we should not bind ourselves needlessly to 
subcategories within the discretionary caps. Removing the firewall is a 
vital step in achieving the necessary flexibility.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. [[Page S7425]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while this does not change the numbers, 
it permits the defense moneys and the nondefense moneys to be fungible 
and move back and forth between the two.
  The Budget Committee said we should not do that for the next 7 years. 
I believe they are right.
  I move to table the amendment. 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.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate we have lost about 10 or 15 
minutes here. I would ask the clerk: At the end of the time we will 
turn in the scorecard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment.
  The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is 
necessarily absent.
  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 65, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 217 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

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

                                NAYS--33

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kassebaum
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1187) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I suggest that Senators ought to 
take heed of this now. What we are going to do, there are three more 
amendments from that side that we are ready to take up. Senator Exon is 
going to explain each of the three. I will have a brief explanation. 
Then everybody ought to stay here because we are going to vote on them 
one after another. We are not going to have an explanation at the end 
of each one. So three explanations, three amendments, and vote on those 
three amendments in sequence and immediately upon completing one go to 
another, no time interval for explanations.
  Mr. EXON. I would just simply add then we will go on with the process 
that had been established by the majority leader for 10 minutes and 10 
minutes only thereafter. That does not mean----
  Mr. SIMON. Nine minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Nine minutes thereafter. That does not mean we are going to 
change.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Oh, no.
  Mr. EXON. Anything other than to maybe expedite things for just a 
moment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
  Mr. EXON. We are getting very close.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 1188

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the inclusion of 
  reductions in Medicare spending in the concurrent resolution on the 
                      budget for fiscal year 1996)

  Mr. EXON. The first of the three amendments that have just been 
suggested by the Budget Committee chairman I send to the desk in behalf 
of Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1188.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REDUCTIONS IN MEDICARE 
                   SPENDING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Medicare protection is as important as Social Security 
     protection in guaranteeing retirement security and is truly a 
     part of Social Security;
       (2) senior citizens have contributed throughout their 
     working lives to Medicare in the expectation of health 
     insurance protection when they retire;
       (3) because of gaps in Medicare coverage, senior citizens 
     already spend more than one dollar in five of their limited 
     incomes to purchase the health care that they need;
       (4) low and moderate-income senior citizens will suffer 
     most from Medicare cuts, since 83 percent of all Medicare 
     spending is for older Americans with annual incomes below 
     $25,000 and two-thirds is for those with annual incomes below 
     $15,000;
       (5) at the present time, Medicare only pays 68 percent of 
     what the private sector pays for comparable physicians' 
     services and 69 percent of what the private sector pays for 
     comparable hospital care;
       (6) piecemeal, budget-driven cuts in Medicare will only 
     shift costs from the Federal budget to the family budgets of 
     senior citizens and working Americans;
       (7) deep cuts in Medicare could damage the quality of 
     American medicine, by endangering hospitals and other health 
     care institutions that depend on Medicare, including rural 
     hospitals, inner-city hospitals, and academic health centers;
       (8) deep cuts in Medicare will make essential health care 
     less available to millions of uninsured Americans, by 
     endangering the financial stability of hospitals providing 
     such care; and
       (9) cuts in Medicare benefits should not be used to pay for 
     tax cuts for the wealthy.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this concurrent resolution assume that 
     reductions in projected Medicare spending included in the 
     reconciliation bill for fiscal year 1996 should not increase 
     medical costs such as premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance 
     or diminish access to health care for senior citizens, and 
     further, that major reductions in projected Medicare spending 
     should not be enacted by the Congress except in the context 
     of a broad, bipartisan health reform plan that will not--
       (1) increase costs or reduce access to care for senior 
     citizens;
       (2) shift costs to working Americans; or
       (3) damage the quality of American medicine.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy's amendment urges that any 
reductions in Medicare should not increase premiums, deductibles and 
co-insurance for senior citizens and that Medicare reductions should 
not be enacted except as part of a broader health reform.
  I send a second amendment to the desk.
  Mr. DOLE. Could I have an explanation of the one we just did, an 
explanation of the first Kennedy amendment?
  Mr. EXON. I thought we were going to do it in sequence.
  Go ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We interpret the Kennedy amendment to propose that we 
hold Medicare reform hostage until we have a national health care 
reform package. But I am going to move to table it at the appropriate 
time in any event.


                           Amendment No. 1189

  (Purpose: To restore $28,000,000,000 in outlays over seven years to 
reduce by $22,000,000,000 the discretionary cuts proposed in elementary 
    and secondary education programs and reduce the reconciliation 
 instructions to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources (primarily 
    affecting student loans) by $6 billion by closing corporate tax 
                               loopholes)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, a second 
amendment, offered by Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy, for 
     himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. [[Page S7426]] Simon, and Mr. Pell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1189.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $28,300,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
       On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
       On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
       On page 31, line 12, increase the amount by 
     $28,300,000,000.
       On page 31, line 20, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
       On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
       On page 31, line 13, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
       On page 31, line 21, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 32, line 4, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
       On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
       On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
       On page 64, line 9, decrease the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 64, line 10, decrease the amount by $4,600,000,000.
       On page 64, line 11, decrease the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by 
     $26,700,000,000.
       On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy's amendment would restore 
$28 billion over the budget period for education, $6 billion to student 
loan accounts, $22 billion to restore funding to elementary and 
secondary education programs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this increases taxes $22 billion and 
provides for the expenditure thereof without any assurance it will be 
spent that way under budget law.


                           Amendment No. 1190

(Purpose: To add $8,871,091,316 in budget authority and $6,770,659,752 
in outlays to Function 500 over 7 years to restore funding to the Pell 
                Grant Program by closing tax loopholes)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send a third amendment by Senator Kennedy 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy, for 
     himself and Mr. Pell, proposes an amendment numbered 1190.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
       On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
       On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
       On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
       On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $65,246,479.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $430,766,179.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $832,941,958.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $1,222,899,409.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $1,648,270,247.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $2,097,874,450.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $2,573,092,594.
       On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
       On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
       On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
       On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
       On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
       On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by 
     $1,729,683,671. [[Page S7427]] 
       On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
       On page 31, line 12, increase the amount by $65,246,479.
       On page 31, line 13, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
       On page 31, line 20, increase the amount by $430,766,179.
       On page 31, line 21, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
       On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by $832,941,958.
       On page 32, line 4, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
       On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by $1,222,899,409.
       On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
       On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by $1,648,270,247.
       On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
       On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by $2,097,874,450.
       On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
       On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by $2,573,092,594.
       On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
       On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by $65,246,479.
       On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
       On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by $430,766,179.
       On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
       On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by $832,941,958.
       On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
       On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by $1,222,899,409.
       On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
       On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by $1,648,270,247.
       On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
       On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by $2,097,874,450.
       On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
       On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by $2,573,092,594.
       On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment is about something that we 
all know a great deal and have generally supported very well, Pell 
grants. This amendment, also sponsored by Senator Pell, would restore 
$8.8 billion over the budget period to protect the value of Pell grants 
against inflation and increasing college enrollments. Under the pending 
budget proposal, the Pell grants would decline in value by 40 percent 
over the next 7 years.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, again, we are going to raise taxes by 
$8.8 billion to spend that amount of money. I believe we have held firm 
on that heretofore, and I hope we do so again.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
that all three amendments be ordered to be for a rollcall vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not waive a right to table the 
amendments, do I, with that?
  Mr. EXON. No, the Senator does not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Fine. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection. Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have a way to dispose of Harkin-
McCain. I would add that as a fourth effort and move to table the 
underlying amendment--that will take care of both of them--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.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object to make sure we understand 
that----
  Mr. DOLE. I have cleared it with Senator Harkin.
  Mr. EXON. I believe what the majority leader just said has been 
agreed to by Senator Harkin, but I do want to check with him. As I 
understand it, you on that side will offer a tabling motion.
  Mr. DOLE. I just did it.
  Mr. EXON. The Senator just did it.
  Mr. DOLE. To table both of them.
  Mr. EXON. And that will be the fourth of the series of votes that we 
have just scheduled.
  Mr. DOLE. Right.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is a motion to table Harkin.
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. EXON. Anyone may reserve the right to offer a motion to table.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, were the yeas and nays ordered on the three 
amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, is this the Harkin 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request pending.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, was the request granted that the yeas and 
nays will be in order on all three?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That request has been agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays on all three.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the first Kennedy 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.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1188

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is 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 58, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

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

                                NAYS--41

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1188) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the second Kennedy 
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.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1189

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 1189, offered by the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. 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 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:
  [[Page S7428]]
  
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1189) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is the pending business the third 
pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 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.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1190

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Massachusetts. 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 (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     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

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1190) was agreed 
to.
               vote on motion to table amendment No. 1185

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the motion 
to table amendment No. 1185. 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 73, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--26

     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1185) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent--and I have talked 
to Senator Domenici about this--that we might recognize the Senator 
from California very briefly for a unanimous consent request that I 
think will be approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you very much.


                             Change of Vote

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to change my 
vote on rollcall No. 220, amendment numbered 1190, from a ``yea'' to a 
``nay.'' It will not make a difference in the vote count.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                           Amendment No. 1191

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the priority 
    that should be given to renewable energy and energy efficiency 
          research, development, and demonstration activities)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have an amendment submitted by Senator 
Bingaman and Senator Jeffords that expresses the sense of the Senate on 
renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and research 
development and demonstration activities in these areas, and our 
priority within the Federal Energy Research Program. Cosponsors of this 
amendment are Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Leahy. I think it has 
been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have no objection. We accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send the 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. Bingaman, for 
     himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. 
     Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 1191.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE PRIORITY THAT 
                   SHOULD BE GIVEN TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENCY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                   DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) section 1202 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 
     Stat. 2956), which passed the Senate 93 to 3 and was signed 
     into law by President Bush in 1992, amended section 6 of the 
     Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology 
     Competitiveness Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 12005) to direct the 
     Secretary of Energy to conduct a 5-year program to 
     commercialize renewable energy and energy efficiency 
     technologies;
       (2) poll after poll shows that the American people 
     overwhelmingly believe that renewable energy and energy 
     efficiency technologies should be the highest priority of 
     [[Page S7429]] Federal research, development, and 
     demonstration activities;
       (3) renewable technologies (such as wind, photovoltaic, 
     solar thermal, geothermal, and biomass technology) have made 
     significant progress toward increased reliability and 
     decreased cost;
       (4) energy efficient technologies in the building, 
     industrial, transportation, and utility sectors have saved 
     more than 3 trillion dollars for industries, consumers, and 
     the Federal Government over the past 20 years while creating 
     jobs, improving the competitiveness of the economy, making 
     housing more affordable, and reducing the emissions of 
     environmentally damaging pollutants;
       (5) the renewable energy and energy efficiency technology 
     programs feature private sector cost shares that are among 
     the highest of Federal energy research and development 
     programs;
       (6) according to the Energy Information Administration, the 
     United States currently imports more than 50 percent of its 
     oil, representing $46,000,000,000, or approximately 40 
     percent, of the $116,000,000,000 total United States 
     merchandise deficit in 1993; and
       (7) renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies 
     represent potential inroads for American companies into 
     export markets for energy products and services estimated at 
     least $225,000,000,000 over the next 25 years.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution include the assumption that renewable energy and 
     energy efficiency technology research, development, and 
     demonstration activities should be given priority among the 
     Federal energy research programs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment (No. 1191) is 
agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. At the suggestion of the majority leader, we have 
engaged in taking three amendments in a row and explaining them in 
advance, and then voting on them one after another so that there is no 
time lost. Senator Exon is going to offer three amendments, all three 
Bradley amendments. We know what they are.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order now for the managers to 
explain each of the three in sequence and thereafter, when the 
explanations are completed, each of the amendments be voted in sequence 
and that time for each amendment be 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the explanation.


                           Amendment No. 1192

     (Purpose: To establish a process to identify and control tax 
               expenditures by setting a target for cuts)

  Mr. EXON. I send an amendment to the desk, the No. 1 Bradley 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Bradley, for 
     himself and Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 1192.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 79, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC.   . IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF TAX EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any concurrent resolution on the budget (or 
     amendment, motion, or conference report on such a resolution) 
     that does not include--
       (1) appropriate levels for the budget year and planning 
     levels for each of the 6 fiscal years following the budget 
     year for the total amount, if any, tax expenditures should be 
     increased or decreased by bills and resolutions to be 
     reported by the appropriate committees; and
       (2) tax expenditures for each major functional category, 
     based on the allocations of the total levels set forth in the 
     resolution.
       (b) CBO.--The Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     shall include alternatives for allocating tax expenditures in 
     accordance with national priorities as required by section 
     202(f)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case 
     may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of 
     the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.
       (e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new 
     entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the Senate.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this amendment makes a very simple point: 
we can spend money just as easily through the Tax Code as we can 
through the appropriations process or through the creation of mandatory 
spending programs.
  The amendment that I have offered would simply require that in our 
annual budget process we establish targets for reducing tax loopholes--
just as we do for all other types of spending. Those targets would be 
enforced through a separate line in our budget reconciliation 
instructions for reductions in tax loopholes. We already do this for 
other entitlement programs. There is no reason not to do so for tax 
loopholes. The Senate would pass a budget resolution asking the Finance 
Committee to reduce tax loopholes, for example, by $10 billion a year 
or $20 billion or whatever the Senate decides is prudent. It would be 
up to the Finance Committee to meet those targets through the 
reconciliation process.
  This separate tax expenditure target would not replace our current 
revenue targets. Instead, it would simply ensure that the committee 
take at least the specified amount from tax loopholes. In other words, 
we would ensure that the committee would not raise the targeted amount 
from rate increases.
  I think we should be honest about the hundreds of billions of dollars 
that we spend each year through tax loopholes. Spending is spending, 
whether it comes in the form of a government check or in the form of a 
special exception from the tax rates that apply to everyone else.
  Tax expenditures are a large and rapidly growing form of spending by 
the Federal Government. According to the Budget Committee, in 1996, tax 
expenditures will cost over $480 billion; left unchecked, we will spend 
roughly $4 trillion on tax expenditures between now and 2002. In 1986, 
we dramatically scaled back these loopholes. However, since that time, 
they have grown at an astronomical rate. At a time when we are properly 
talking about other spending cuts, I do not believe that tax 
expenditures should be off the table.
  Tax expenditures or tax loopholes allow some taxpayers to lower their 
taxes and leave the rest of us paying higher taxes
 than we otherwise would pay. By requiring that Congress establish 
specific targets for tax loopholes as part of the budget reconciliation 
process, this amendment simply places tax loopholes under the same 
budgetary scrutiny as all other spending programs.

  Tax loopholes do not, as some would say, simply allow people to keep 
more of what they have earned. Rather, they give the few a special 
exception from the rules that oblige everyone to share in the 
responsibility of the national defense and protecting the young, the 
aged, and the infirm.
  Mr. President, in the face of a Federal debt rapidly approaching $5 
trillion, we cannot afford to be timid. Our children's way of life is 
dependent upon our acting on the Federal deficit today and tomorrow and 
every year thereafter until we restore fiscal sanity to our budget. We 
cannot wait until we grow our way out of the debt. And we should not 
and cannot wait until deficits start drifting up in the latter half of 
this decade before we do something.
  The Congressional Budget Office tells us that by 2004 the national 
debt held by the public will rise to roughly $6 trillion. At that time, 
the national debt will equal almost 55 percent of our gross domestic 
product. By 2004, interest payments on that debt will be approximately 
$334 billion, or over 3 percent of our gross domestic product. One 
recent report stated that these interest payments will cost each of 
today's children over $130,000 in extra taxes over the course of their 
lifetime. Our national debt is nothing less than a mortgage on our 
Nation's, and our children's, future.
  Mr. President, let us not kid ourselves. As we have seen from this 
week's debate, addressing our burgeoning debt will not be easy. If it 
was, we would have done it years ago. Instead, it will require a very 
thoughtful, and sometimes difficult, debate over our Nation's 
priorities and what sacrifices [[Page S7430]] we are willing to make in 
order to balance the budget. This means that we are going to have to 
take a hard look at what we spend the taxpayers' money on. And that 
means all of our spending programs--tax expenditures included.
  The purpose of this amendment is simply to try to draw the Senate's 
attention to the very targeted spending we do through the Tax Code--
spending that is not subject to the annual appropriations process; 
spending that is not subject to the executive order capping the growth 
of mandatory spending; spending that is rarely ever debated on the 
floor of the Senate once it becomes part of the Tax Code. The 
preferential deductions or credits or depreciation schedules or timing 
rules that we provide through the Tax Code are simply entitlement 
programs under another guise. Many of them make sense, Mr. President. 
And I would be the first to admit that. Many, however, probably could 
not stand the light of day if we had to
 vote on them as direct spending programs.

  Given our critical need for deficit reduction, tax spending should 
not be treated any better or worse then other programs. It should not 
be protected any more than Social Security payments or crop price 
support payments or Medicare payments or welfare payments.
  What am I really talking about? I am talking about provisions that 
allow wealthy Americans to renounce their citizenship in order to avoid 
paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. That is already in the Tax Code. 
I am talking about letting wealthy taxpayers rent their homes for 2 
weeks a year without having to report any income. That is already in 
the Tax Code. I am talking about providing production subsidies in 
excess of the dollars invested for the production of lead, uranium and 
asbestos--three poisons on which we spend millions of dollars each year 
just trying to clean up. That is already in the code. I am talking 
about tax credits for clean-fuel vehicles, cancellation of indebtedness 
income for farmers or real estate developers, special amortization 
periods for timber companies' reforestation efforts, industrial 
development bonds for airports or docks, special treatment of capital 
construction funds for shipping companies, et cetera, et cetera.
  Mr. President, let me be clear that this bill does not pinpoint 
specific programs and I am not suggested that we eliminate all tax 
expenditures. In fact, I support many of them. Instead, I am simply 
suggesting that we subject them to the same level of scrutiny as all 
other entitlement programs.
  If we are serious about deficit reduction--and for our Nation's 
future I sincerely hope that we are--then every segment of spending 
will have to be examined. We cannot do it fairly through discretionary 
spending cuts alone. Indeed, that is an area of the budget that is 
shrinking in terms of gross national product. Likewise, we cannot do it 
fairly through entitlement cuts alone. In order to achieve equitable, 
lasting deficit reduction, we will need to consider tax loopholes as 
well.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for nearly a decade now, one of our 
primary tasks has been to leash the burgeoning budget deficit and keep 
it under control. As my colleagues well know, the process of reducing 
the deficit is a painstaking one, during which every item of direct 
spending is scrutinized. Even entitlements are today facing the budget 
ax--for example, this budget resolution envisions $256 billion in 
Medicare cuts alone.
  This scrutiny, however, is reserved for direct spending items. Yet, 
one of our largest areas of spending in the Federal budget is tax 
expenditures--exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, preferential 
rates, and deferrals of tax liability. While, at the margin, we can 
debate exactly what constitutes a tax expenditure, these items will 
drain about $480 billion from Federal revenues this year.
  Let me make it clear that I do not support a massive elimination of 
tax expenditures without regard to merit. However, this very large and 
important part of Federal spending--for, clearly, that is what it is--
deserves the same scrutiny as direct spending.
  Currently, tax expenditures receive only minimal attention on an 
annual basis. Nowhere is this information incorporated in the budget 
process in a meaningful way--a way that spurs action to limit this form 
of spending. There are no targets for tax expenditures called for in 
the budget resolution, and there is nothing to force members to view 
tax expenditures by budget function, comparing aggregate spending in 
any given area through both direct spending and tax expenditures.
  The Bradley amendment would require the annual budget resolution to 
set forth the total amount, if any, by which tax expenditures should be 
increased or decreased. The resolution would have to include such 
totals both for the upcoming fiscal year and, for planning purposes, 
for the following 6 fiscal years. additionally, the total level of tax 
expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year would need to be broken out 
among the major functional categories. The budget resolution would be 
subject to a point of order if it failed to include the information on 
tax expenditures that is required by the Bradley amendment.
  I applaud Senator Bradley for his continued leadership on this very 
important issue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his 
amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Very briefly, this Bradley amendment requires Congress to 
set targets for reduction in tax expenditures similar to targets it set 
for mandatory spending in our budget resolution instructions.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is going to be subject to a point 
of order. It establishes a whole new process in treating budget 
resolutions and tax bills, and I do not believe we ought to be doing it 
here on the floor. When it is appropriate, I will raise the point of 
order.


                           Amendment No. 1193

 (Purpose: To restore cuts in Medicare and NIH by raising the tobacco 
                           tax by $1 a pack)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I submit the second Bradley amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Bradley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1193.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title III, add the following new section:

     SEC. --. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING OFFSETTING NIH AND 
                   MEDICARE CUTS WITH TOBACCO TAX REVENUES.

       (a) Tobacco Tax.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
     Senate Committee on Finance, in meeting the committee's 
     revenue instruction under section 6, will increase the 
     Federal tax on cigarettes by $1.00 a pack, tax smokeless 
     tobacco products at the same rate as cigarettes, and increase 
     the tax on all other tobacco products by a factor of 5.1667 
     and that the resulting revenues will be allocated as provided 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Use of Revenues.--The revenues resulting from the taxes 
     provided in subsection (a) shall be allocated as follows:
       (1) 90 percent of the revenues ($75,900,000,000) to offset 
     medicare cuts, reducing the total amount of cuts by 30 
     percent.
       (2) 9.4 percent of the revenues ($7,900,000,000) to offset 
     the entire reduction to the NIH budget.
       (3) 0.6 percent of the revenues, $530,000,000 to assist 
     tobacco farmers and communities in converting to new crops.
       On page 63, line 7, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``. The Senate Committee on Finance shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction to increase revenues 
     $12.5 billion in fiscal year 1996, $61.8 billion for the 
     period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $84.3 billion 
     for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.''.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $12.8 billion.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $12.2 billion.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $11.8 billion.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $11.4 billion.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $11.1 billion.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $12.8 billion.
       On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $12.2 billion.
       On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by $11.8 billion.
       On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by $11.4 billion.
       On page 3, line 26, increase the amount by $11.1 billion.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $12.5 
     billion. [[Page S7431]] 
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $12.8 billion.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $12.2 billion.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $11.8 billion.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $11.4 billion.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $11.1 billion.
       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $12.8 billion.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $12.2 billion.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $11.8 billion.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $11.4 billion.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $11.1 billion.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $12.8 billion.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $12.2 billion.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $11.8 billion.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $11.4 billion.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $11.1 billion.
       On page 6, line 3, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 6, line 4, increase the amount by $12.8 billion.
       On page 6, line 5, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 6, line 6, increase the amount by $12.2 billion.
       On page 6, line 7, increase the amount by $11.8 billion.
       On page 6, line 8, increase the amount by $11.4 billion.
       On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $11.1 billion.
       On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by $12.8 billion.
       On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $12.2 billion.
       On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $11.8 billion.
       On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by $11.4 billion.
       On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by $11.1 billion.
       On page 7, line 3, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 7, line 4, increase the amount by $12.8 billion.
       On page 7, line 5, increase the amount by $12.5 billion.
       On page 7, line 6, increase the amount by $12.2 billion.
       On page 7, line 7, increase the amount by $11.8 billion.
       On page 7, line 8, increase the amount by $11.4 billion.
       On page 7, line 9, increase the amount by $11.1 billion.
       On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 22, line 24, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 23, line 7, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 23, line 8, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 23, line 15, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 23, line 23, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 24, line 7, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 24, line 8, increase the amount by $0.08 billion.
       On page 33, line 19, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 33, line 20, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 34, line 2, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 34, line 3, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 34, line 9, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 34, line 10, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 34, line 16, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 34, line 17, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 34, line 23, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 34, line 24, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 35, line 5, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 35, line 6, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 35, line 12, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 35, line 13, increase the amount by $1.13 billion.
       On page 35, line 20, increase the amount by $11.3 billion.
       On page 35, line 21, increase the amount by $11.3 billion.
       On page 36, line 2, increase the amount by $11.6 billion.
       On page 36, line 3, increase the amount by $11.6 billion.
       On page 36, line 9, increase the amount by $11.3 billion.
       On page 36, line 10, increase the amount by $11.3 billion.
       On page 36, line 16, increase the amount by $11.0 billion.
       On page 36, line 17, increase the amount by $11.0 billion.
       On page 36, line 23, increase the amount by $10.6 billion.
       On page 36, line 24, increase the amount by $10.6 billion.
       On page 37, line 5, increase the amount by $10.2 billion.
       On page 37, line 6, increase the amount by $10.2 billion.
       On page 37, line 12, increase the amount by $9.9 billion.
       On page 37, line 13, increase the amount by $9.9 billion.
       On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.
       On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by $1.2 billion.

                           AMENDMENT NO. 1193

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate 30 percent 
of the proposed Medicare cuts and the entire cut to the NIH budget. 
These cuts would be offset with revenues generated by increasing the 
tobacco tax.
  Mr. President, my amendment presents a win-win-win situation. It will 
improve not one, not two, but three threats to our national health. 
First, it dampens the incredibly harsh blow which the proposed budget 
will deal to our Nation's oldest citizens. Second, it ensures that the 
NIH will be able to continue its current efforts to develop life-saving 
technologies. And finally, it will encourage our citizens--particularly 
our children and teenagers--to avoid the addiction, sickness, and death 
which result from tobacco use.
  The first national health threat which my amendment seeks to improve 
involves the proposed Medicare cuts. We are all aware that the budget 
resolution would reduce spending for the Medicare program by $256 
billion over 7 years. This means that seniors will have to find an 
average of $3,447 more dollars to pay for their health care over the 
next 7 years. In my home State of New Jersey, seniors will have to come 
up with an additional $932 in the year 2002 alone just to pay for the 
additional Medicare costs which this budget imposes on them. For many 
seniors across the country, these new costs will be extremely difficult 
to bear. In 1992, the median income of seniors in this country was only 
about $17,000 a year, and over 20 percent of this income already goes 
for health-related costs. For the millions of seniors across the 
country who live on fixed incomes, finding an additional $3,447 over 7 
years will mean having to give up something else which is important to 
them. It is estimated that there are already nearly 8 million seniors 
nationwide who are forced to choose each month between paying for their 
medications and paying for food. I can't help wondering how many 
millions more seniors will be faced with this horrible choice once the 
proposed cuts go into place.
  Increased financial burdens on seniors is only one of the negative 
consequences which will result from the proposed Medicare cuts. Along 
with having to pay more, seniors will likely find that their ability to 
choose their [[Page S7432]] own doctor restricted--perhaps not 
explicitly, but because financial limitations leave them with no choice 
but to join a managed care plan. Also, doctors, hospitals, and other 
providers are all likely to face reduced payments. They already receive 
far lower payments from Medicare than from private insurers, and if
 Medicare rates are reduced much further some may find that they can no 
longer afford to take Medicare patients. Those which do keep taking 
Medicare will be forced to shift even more costs onto their privately 
insured patients, creating a hidden tax on employers and individuals.

  Mr. President, the proposed Medicare cuts are bad news for seniors; 
they are bad news for health care providers; and they are bad news for 
employers and individuals nationwide. My amendment will make this bad 
news a little better. It does this by offsetting 30 percent of the 
proposed Medicare cuts with revenues generated by increasing the 
Federal tax on tobacco products. This means that $76 billion will be 
restored to the Medicare Program. It reduces the amount of additional 
money which each senior must find from $3,447 to $2,413 over 7 years. I 
understand that $2,413 is still an enormous amount of money for anyone 
on a fixed income to part with. But $2,413 is at least better than 
$3,447.
  Mr. President, Medicare cuts are just one of the national health 
threats which my amendment seeks to improve. The second threat is the 
proposal, contained in this resolution, to cut the budget of the 
National Institutes of Health by 10 percent next year and then freeze 
it through the year 2002.
  Mr. President, cutting the NIH budget is shortsighted policy at its 
worst. NIH-funded research impacts the lives of millions of Americans 
every day. Technologies and drugs developed with NIH funds not only 
improve Americans' quality of life; they also save lives. Without the 
basic research which is funded by the NIH, in a few years the private 
sector will have limited fundamental research upon which to base its 
own efforts. The result will be a dramatic slowdown in the development 
of life-improving and life-saving technologies. I have no way of 
knowing which of us in this room, or which of our loved ones, could 
benefit in the future from technologies which NIH is developing today. 
But I do know that we owe it to all present and future Americans to 
ensure that their access to these technologies is not limited due to 
shortsighted budget cutting.
  For those who are not convinced that NIH's role in improving and 
saving lives warrants restoring its budget, let me make one final 
point: Much of NIH research reduces health care spending. For example, 
the NIH recently estimated that approximately $4.3 billion invested in 
NIH research had the potential to realize annual savings of between 
$9.3 and $13.6 billion. This translates into a 200- to 300-percent 
annual return. I challenge my colleagues to find any type of Federal 
spending which provides an annual return of at least 200 percent. Given 
that payoff, we can't afford to not invest in the NIH.
  My amendment recognizes these immense benefits generated by NIH, and 
seeks to ensure that this research can continue at its present level 
into the future. To do this, the amendment
 restores the entire $7.9 million which the Republican resolution cuts 
from the NIH budget.

  Finally, Mr. President, this amendment addresses the national health 
threat created by tobacco use. It seeks to encourage our citizens--
particularly our children and teenagers--to avoid the addiction, 
sickness, and death which results from using tobacco.
  Mr. President, I have been on this floor many times talking about the 
dangers of tobacco use. I have repeatedly stated that tobacco use kills 
well over 400,000 Americans every year--more than alcohol, heroin, 
crack, automobile and airplane accidents, homicides, suicides, and AIDS 
combined. Furthermore, secondhand tobacco smoke will cause tens of 
thousands of additional deaths. This year, one out of every five 
Americans who dies will die from tobacco use.
  But of all the sad stories which can be told about the impact of 
tobacco use in this country, perhaps the saddest is the alarming rate 
at which children and teenagers are being hooked on tobacco products. 
Over 90 percent of new users of tobacco in this country are teenagers 
or younger. The tobacco companies know children and teenagers are easy 
targets, so they specifically aim their advertising at them. And their 
efforts are succeeding. Every 30 seconds, a child or teenager in the 
United States smokes for the first time.
  In addition to the enormous human costs of tobacco use--the addition, 
suffering, and death which could have been avoided--tobacco contributes 
substantially to health care costs every year. According to the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention, health care expenditures caused 
directly by smoking totaled $50 billion in 1993, and $22 billion of 
those costs were paid by Government funds.
  My amendment seeks to reduce both the human and the economic costs 
created by tobacco use. It does this by increasing the Federal excise 
tax on most tobacco products by a factor of five, which translates to 
an increase of $1 per pack of cigarettes. In addition, my amendment 
would tax smokeless tobacco products at the same price as cigarettes, 
in order to eliminate cost incentives for people to switch from 
cigarettes to smokeless. By raising the Federal excise tax on tobacco, 
we can discourage people--especially children--from starting the 
tobacco habit, and we can encourage others to quit. Conservative 
estimates predict that a 10-percent increase in the price of cigarettes 
will reduce overall smoking by about 4 percent. And for kids, who are 
more price sensitive than adults, the impact is even greater.
  The benefits of such decreased demand cannot be overstated. First, 
and most importantly, thousands of lives will be saved and the 
unnecessary suffering will be avoided. In addition, both
 public and private health insurers will save billions of dollars each 
year, due to reduced costs for treating tobacco-related diseases. 
Finally, the increased tax will yield $84 billion in Federal revenues 
over 7 years. Over half a billion of this amount will be used to help 
tobacco farmers convert to other crops. The rest of the money will go 
to help decrease the national health threats posed by the drastic 
Medicare cuts and by the reduction in the NIH budget. These revenues 
will enable the entire cut to the NIH budget to be offset, and the 
proposed Medicare cuts to be decreased by 30 percent.

  Some persons may question whether it is appropriate to ask smokers to 
absorb part of the blow which the proposed budget designates for 
seniors and providers. My response to that question is an unequivocal 
``yes.'' According to a former Secretary of the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare, tobacco use is the largest single drain on the 
Medicare trust fund. This is the trust fund which is predicted to go 
insolvent in 2002. It strikes me as quite appropriate to ask persons 
who choose to use tobacco to help offset some of the costs of their 
choice. And it strikes me as quite inappropriate to ask other persons--
such as nonsmoking seniors and providers--to accept reductions at the 
same time that they are forced to help pay for the costs of other 
people's unhealthy choices.
  By discouraging tobacco use, decreasing Medicare cuts, and restoring 
the NIH budget to its current level, my amendment presents a win-win-
win situation. Our children and teenagers win, because they will be 
discouraged from starting down the road of addiction, sickness, and 
death caused by tobacco use. Health insurers and employees win, because 
health costs for tobacco-related diseases will be reduced. Health care 
providers and employers win, because this amendment will reduce payment 
cuts and cost-shifting. Seniors win, because the amendment will reduce 
the financial strains and the concerns about quality and access which 
will result from steep Medicare cuts. And we all win, as the NIH will 
be able to continue its current efforts to develop lifesaving 
technologies. For the sake of all these affected Americans, I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. EXON. This Bradley amendment is to offset NIH and Medicare cuts 
with tobacco tax revenues.
  The Bradley amendment raises tobacco tax $1 per pack of cigarettes. 
It also taxes smokeless tobacco products at a similar rate.
   [[Page S7433]] The revenues from the increased tax are used to 
restore $76 billion in Medicare cuts, restore the entire cut in the 
National Institutes of Health budget, $7.9 billion, without the 
Hatfield discretionary reduction, and assist tobacco farmers in 
converting to other crops $500 million.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, is it in order to announce that the Senator 
is going to table this now, make a motion to table now, or wait until 
the vote comes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Wait until the vote comes.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just remind the Senate that even 
though this sense-of-the-Senate resolution talks about all these good 
things, essentially you raise a tax and then it is up to the Senate and 
the Congress to decide what they would do with it. Senator Ford will 
move to table that.


                           Amendment No. 1194

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

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Bradley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1194.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX RATES AND TAX 
                   LOOPHOLES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) lower tax rates lead to increased economic activity and 
     increased economic opportunity;
       (2) lower tax rates lead to a more efficient economy, with 
     less tax avoidance and investment patterns that rely on 
     competitive market returns and not advantages produced by tax 
     law;
       (3) the tax code still retains billions of dollars worth of 
     special tax breaks which are available to only limited groups 
     of taxpayers and investors;
       (4) federal policy should encourage the development of 
     fully competitive markets and not create unique advantages 
     for individual investors, companies or industries.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Congress should, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     remove tax loopholes;
       (2) the Congress should use the savings from the closing of 
     special interest tax loopholes to reduce tax rates broadly 
     for all classes of taxpayers.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense of the Senate that 
Congress should remove tax loopholes and use savings to reduce the 
rates for individual taxpayers.
  Mr. DOMENICI. From what we gather, in order to reduce tax rates 1 
percent, you would have to raise $100 billion from things like the home 
mortgage deduction and the like. I will move to table that also.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the three 
amendments that we have just discussed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to ordering the yeas and 
nays on all three?
  Mr. BYRD. I ask that it be in order to order the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I make the point of order this amendment 
is not germane under the Budget Act and it should fall.
  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.


                 Vote on Motion to Waive the Budget Act

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 56, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The amendment is not 
restrictive. The point of order is sustained.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1193

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is a tax increase of some 1,100 
percent. On that basis, and on behalf of myself, Senators Robb, 
Hollings, Nunn, Thurmond, Helms, McConnell, Faircloth, Coverdell, 
Thompson, Warner, and Frist, I move to table this 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 
lay on the table amendment No. 1193, offered by the Senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Bradley]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1193) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1194

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Jersey. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced-- yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

[[Page S7434]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1194) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe we have reached consensus to take 
the next three up. I will leave it to the explanation of the chairman 
of the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are going to put three measures up 
now in the same manner we have done. Then, I would inform the Senate, 
we have only four amendments left after that. So we are getting there.
  The measures will be Senator Dorgan on the motion to recommit; 
Senator Wellstone on veterans and tax loopholes; and Senator Wellstone 
on defense.
  If my colleague will explain them, we will stack the votes by 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. EXON. For the information of all Senators, the Senator summed it 
up very well.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order? There is not order in the 
Senate yet, and we are about to hear a very important explanation as to 
what these next three votes are all about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee has 
outlined this. Just let me summarize so all understand where we are. We 
are moving very well. At the outside, we have six or seven amendments 
left. At the inside, I think it might be as low as five that will 
require that many more votes, of course.
  Following the pattern that has just been set, after this pattern of 
three, then we would try to bundle the last three in the same fashion. 
So I certainly ask unanimous consent it now be in order to offer those 
three, as agreed to by the chairman of the Budget Committee. I will 
proceed at this time to offer those three with brief explanations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk on behalf of the 
Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. It is a motion to recommit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, moves to 
     recommit Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 to the Committee on 
     the Budget with instructions.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion is as follows:
       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] moves to 
     recommit Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 to the Committee on 
     the Budget with instructions to report to the Senate, within 
     3 days (not to include any day the Senate is not in session), 
     a revised concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 that 
     provides (in compliance with Section 13301(a)(2) of the 
     Budget Enforcement Act of 1990) for a budget surplus in 
     fiscal year 2002 without counting the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to move that the Senate send the 
budget resolution back to the Budget Committee. I do this because I 
would like to see the Committee report a new budget that is truly and 
honestly balanced in 2002.
  As my colleagues know, although the resolution before the Senate is 
described as a balanced budget resolution, it actually is not balanced. 
On page 7 of the resolution, it says that the actual deficit will be 
$114 billion dollars in the year 2002.
  Why is there this confusion? Because those who claim this budget is 
balanced are using the surplus in the Social Security System to mask 
the size of the budget deficit.
  That is bad policy. It is bad accounting. And it goes against budget 
law.
  Camouflaging the budget deficit in this way is bad policy because we 
intended that Social Security surplus to be used for another important 
purpose. In 1983, with the Social Security changes we made that year, 
Congress decided to build up the Social Security trust fund so that we 
could meet the retirement claims of the baby boom generation in the 
2010's and 2020's. We were trying to force the Nation to save for that 
time. To use the surplus for other purposes contradicts the intent of 
the 1983 law--a law that enjoyed bipartisan support.
  It is also bad policy because it breaks faith with the American 
people. We have assured America's workers that the payroll tax that 
they pay is going into a trust fund and will be used for trust fund 
purposes only. Well, we break that promise if we count the Social 
Security surplus as reducing the deficit.
  If using the Social Security trust fund surplus is bad policy, it is 
even worse accounting. If you take over a trillion dollars in the next 
decade, put it in the Social Security trust fund, and also count that 
as deficit reduction, you are making one dollar do two things. Double-
entry accounting does not mean using the same dollar twice. In my view, 
that kind of bookkeeping is better described as book cooking.
  Last, the use of the Social Security surplus to mask the size of the 
budget deficit goes against the law. Section 13301 of the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1990, which is similar to provisions that I had 
offered in the House, forbids the Congress from including the Social 
Security surplus in the budget resolution.
  However, the report accompanying this budget says, on page 6, that 
the budget will be in surplus in 2002. The only way this budget 
balances in that year is by using the Social Security trust fund 
surplus. The law says you cannot do that.
  Now, Mr. President, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle 
will say that my motion requires them to find additional further 
deficit cuts in order to balance the budget. They are right. It does.
  My Republican colleagues will ask where my deficit reduction plan is. 
Well, I will remind my colleagues that I submitted over $800 billion in 
deficit reduction recommendations to the Budget Committee. If you put 
the Domenici budget and the options that I recommended together, and we 
do not set up a slush fund for tax cuts, then you can balance the 
budget in 2002 without using the Social Security trust fund surplus.
  I do not like the Domenici budget because I think its priorities are 
wrong. That is why I have supported a Democratic alternative that 
achieved greater deficit reduction than the Republican plan. And it did 
so without making deep cuts in Medicare and student loans or by doling 
out billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest in this country. However, 
the Senate defeated that amendment, so the pending budget resolution is 
the Domenici plan.
  Let me repeat my point. I hope I will not hear anyone say that I have 
not offered a plan to do this. If you put my recommendations together 
with the Domenici recommendations, you are able to meet my motion's 
requirements.
  So in closing, I would hope that my colleagues would support honest 
budgeting. I hope they will stand up for making good policy, for using 
accurate [[Page S7435]] accounting principles and for following the 
law.
  I hope my colleagues will support my motion, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I wish to add Senator Hollings as a 
cosponsor of this amendment--this Dorgan-Hollings motion--which is to 
recommit, and this motion would recommit the budget resolution to the 
Budget Committee with instructions to report back a budget that is 
balanced in the fiscal year 2002 according to section 301 of the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1990.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from South 
Carolina is added as a cosponsor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as a matter of inquiry, why did the 
clerk read that amendment? We have not been reading the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was a motion to recommit.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, and fellow Senators, this is a motion to 
recommit. This budget resolution before us complies with the law. The 
resolution is presented to Congress just as every other budget 
resolution has been presented, and just as the President presents 
budgets to us. I see no reason to recommit.


                           Amendment No. 1195

   (Purpose: To restore $74 million in FY 1996 spending for veterans 
          programs by reducing spending for tax expenditures.)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of 
Senator Wellstone, and I 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. Wellstone, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1195.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 64, line 24, decrease the amount by $74,000,000.
       On page 63, line 7, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``. The Senate Committee on Finance shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction to increase revenues 
     by $74,000,000 in fiscal year 1996.''
       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE-OF-THE-SENATE REGARDING TAX EXPENDITURES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Committee on 
     Finance, in meeting its reconciliation instructions for 
     revenue, will limit or eliminate excessive and unnecessary 
     tax expenditures, including those tax expenditures which 
     provide special tax treatment to a single taxpayer or to a 
     group of taxpayers.

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE DELIVERY OF 
                   VETERANS' SERVICES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution relating 
     to Veterans' Programs include the assumption that the 
     delivery of veterans' services will continue to be improved, 
     including further progress in the timely delivery of such 
     services.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing is simple 
and straightforward, but vital to Minnesota veterans and veterans 
around the country. It calls for using $74 million in fiscal year 1996 
funds earmarked for tax expenditures--in plain English, tax breaks, 
loopholes, and even giveaways to oil and tobacco companies, and other 
corporate behemoths--to restore projected cuts in VA spending that 
would have damaging, if not devastating effects, on timely delivery of 
important services to veterans.
  According to the VA, if these cuts should occur there would be a 
sharp rise in claims backlogs and delays in resolving veterans' claims 
for benefits, increases in already excessive time lags in providing 
disabled veterans with vocational rehabilitation and employment 
services, and an inability to provide veterans with timely education 
benefits earned under the GI bill. For this to happen to those who have 
served our Nation bravely and without question while corporate welfare 
remains untouched would be unconscionable and clearly unacceptably to 
the American people.
  Mr. President, while I deplore the damage that would be done to 
service for our veterans in each of these areas, I would like to focus 
particularly on the potential negative impact on the timely processing 
of veterans claims.
  In the countless meetings I have had with Minnesota veterans over the 
last 4 years the issue of unacceptably long delays in VA claims 
processing has consistently been at or near the top of their list of 
priority concerns. As a consequence, it has been and continues to be a 
major concern of mine. In 1993, I introduced a bill to improve and 
streamline VA's system of processing and adjudicating claims which was 
particularly aimed at reducing delays which had then reached crisis 
proportions.
  Fortunately, as a result of the leadership of Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, Jessie Brown, the VA has made progress recently in reducing 
backlogs in processing veterans claims for compensation. At the end of 
1993 the VA had an overall backlog of 575,000 claims which is expected 
to be reduced by the end of this year to 400,000 claims--a decline of 
over 30 percent. Similarly the average time for a VA regional office to 
process an original claim dropped from 212 days in May 1994 to 166 days 
in March 1995, a decline of about 22 percent in just 10 months. And I'm 
pleased to note that the St. Paul, MN VA Regional Office has made 
significant gains over the past 18 months, reducing claims backlogs 
from approximately 7,500 to 5,000 and average claims processing times 
from 214 days to 122 days.
  I would like to see the St. Paul VA Regional Office and others like 
it around the country given the support they need from Congress to 
continue to improve timeliness--to improve services for veterans. I 
hope to see the St. Paul office process claims in under 100 days on 
average. That's a worthy goal. What I don't want to see is Congress 
cutting funding for claims processing at a time when it is needed most 
to continue improving services and when it can only nullify the gains 
the VA has made in this area.
  Unfortunately, the progress the VA has made in addressing this 
difficult and complex problem is being seriously imperiled by the 
estimated $74 million cut in funding for the operating budget of the 
VA's Veterans Benefit Administration in fiscal year 1996. In fact, it 
would reverse the recent progress that has been made in this area, with 
the VA estimating that if the cut is implemented the claims backlog 
would revert to over 500,000 cases and average claims processing times 
would soar to over 1 year.
  Mr. President, there is much more to this issue than the cold 
statistics I've cited. There are sometimes enormous human costs too--
cost that I can only describe as heart rending. About 18 months ago we 
distributed a questionnaire to Minnesotans to elicit their views about 
the backlogs in the veterans claims and adjudication process. I found 
and still find many of the comments received with the questionnaire to 
be terribly disturbing and I want to share a few of these with you. One 
veteran, for example, stressed that the issue of backlogs was a crucial 
one ``because it sometimes leads to the death of a veteran
 by suicide over frustration and injustices suffered.'' In other words, 
this veteran believes that some veterans are committing suicide because 
they are so frustrated by waiting long periods of time for their claim 
to be resolved. In a similar vein, a county veterans service officer 
lamented that some ``veterans * * * die before their claims have been 
adjudicated,'' and a VA psychologist reported that ``veterans are 
losing their homes, selling personal belongings, and committing suicide 
while waiting * * * for their claims to be adjudicated.'' This is what 
I was told a year and a half ago by people who work every day with the 
VA adjudication system. Since then, as I have said, timeliness has 
improved at local VA regional offices. So, the last thing we should do 
is cause the backlogs to increase and reverse the trend of progress, 
re-creating the crisis from which we are just emerging.

  In addition to the personal trauma, excessive delays in processing 
veterans claims represent a breach of faith with our veterans who while 
serving in our Armed Forces are led to believe they will receive fair 
and timely compensation if they incur a service-connected disability. 
Should this cut be implemented, we would be moving in precisely the 
wrong direction in terms of improving timeliness. We all know that 
justice deferred is justice denied. Let us not do anything to make the 
adjudication system any slower or to add to the claims backlog.
  Mr. President, permit me to quote from an eloquent letter recently 
sent by the National Commander of the American Legion to Chairman 
Domenici, copies of which all of my colleagues should have received:

       Mr. Chairman, reducing General Operating Expenses (GOE) 
     within the Veterans Benefits Administration will seriously 
     handicap VA's [[Page S7436]] ability to reduce the 
     extraordinary backlog in veterans claims and appeals cases. 
     VA has made some improvements in this area over the past 
     year. To reduce GOE funding will setback all of the progress 
     VA had made and further delay benefit decisions for veterans 
     and their dependents. A significant part of the problem that 
     has existed in the processing of claims was caused by budget-
     related staff reductions.

  I could not agree more. If the budget cuts are implemented we will be 
taking a giant step backward, canceling the progress that has been made 
and returning to a situation wholly unacceptable to our veterans, their 
families, and to all Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, thereby keeping faith 
with the men and women who have served this country faithfully and 
ensuring that welfare for corporations doesn't come at the expense of 
the welfare of our veterans.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would restore projected cuts 
of $74 million in the Department of Veterans Affairs funding for the 
fiscal year 1996 that would have damaging effects on the timely 
delivery of important service to veterans, including processing of 
veterans' compensation claims, providing disabled veterans with 
vocational rehabilitation and employment services, and further 
education benefits earned under the GI bill. It would urge the Finance 
Committee to cut excessive and unnecessary tax expenditures of $74 
million for fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no explanation.


                           Amendment No. 1138

 (Purpose: To reduce FY 1996 defense spending by $10 billion and apply 
                   the savings to deficit reduction)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I can sum up very briefly the amendment 
number 1138 which is at the desk. This amendment would reduce defense 
spending by $10 billion in fiscal 1996 budget authority and $5 billion 
in outlays.
  It expresses the sense of the Senate that such reductions should come 
from low-priority defense programs, and should, to the maximum extent 
possible, preserve funding for programs and activities which directly 
affect force readiness, or the quality of life of service members and 
their families. The savings would be used solely to reduce the deficit.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Wellstone amendment cuts $10 billion 
from defense. I think that is enough said.
  Mr. EXON. I ask unanimously that the motion and the two amendments 
have rollcall votes. I ask that that be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send up the second amendment?
  Mr. EXON. I call up the motion and the two amendments for a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Wellstone, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1138.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $10,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       On page 7, line 15, decrease the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by $10,000,000,000.
       On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       On page 65, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 65, line 15, decrease the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DEFENSE SPENDING.

       It is the sense of the Senate that in reducing defense 
     spending by the amount provided for in this amendment, 
     Congress shall focus on low-priority programs, and to the 
     maximum extend possible should preserve funding for any 
     programs and activities that directly affect force readiness 
     or the quality of life for service members and their 
     families.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment as 
part of a series designed to highlight clearly my budget priorities, as 
opposed to those provided for in the pending budget resolution. While I 
believe our Nation must be kept free and secure, and I do not overlook 
the many risks we face, I am deeply troubled that of all the huge 
spending cuts in this budget, none come from the military budget. That 
must change. Defense, like everything else, must bear its share of the 
deficit reduction burden. This amendment is designed to begin to 
address that problem, at least for the coming year.
  Even with the ethnic and nationalist conflicts that have spawned 
terrible human tragedies in Bosnia, Somalia, the Middle East, the 
former Soviet Union, Haiti, and elsewhere, requiring increased 
peacekeeping and other forms of assistance from the United States, we 
can and should scale back our post-cold-war defense spending 
substantially. Likewise, continued concerns about the proliferation of 
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are real. But they require us 
to think in new and imaginative ways about the possibilities of using 
smart diplomacy rather than smart bombs, of placing a greater emphasis 
on multilateral efforts to keep the peace, of relying more on a 
strengthened United Nations, and other multilateral bodies like NATO, 
to maintain a safe, secure, and prosperous world.
  Instead of this approach, what we have been too often from defense 
policymakers is bureaucratic inertia, a residual unilateralism, and a 
clinging to the cold war status quo. Despite huge cuts elsewhere in the 
budget, there are no cuts provided for in military spending. Defense 
spending continues to grow, even in the face of our new post-cold-war 
reality.
  This budget provides for no cuts from huge and expensive weapons 
systems that are now obsolete. None from post-cold-war intelligence 
spending that should be curtailed. None from increased contributions 
from our allies, or burdensharing. None from the billions in wasteful 
spending that the Pentagon can't even account for, as widely reported 
recently by the Federal Government's own watchdogs, and in the press. 
In recent years, they've spent so much money over at the Department of 
Defense, with such sloppy bookkeeping, that they can no longer even 
keep track of it all. The other day a major Pentagon procurement and 
contracting official declared that he was giving up on even trying to 
account for it all. That speaks volumes about how much wasteful and 
unnecessary defense spending could still be wrung from this system. 
These reports reveal clearly that the Pentagon is still one of the 
largest sources of wasteful and unnecessary spending in the Federal 
Government.
  The U.S. military needs will-trained and well-equipped forces 
tailored to the threats and risks of today. Excessively large forces 
that were based on war-fighting strategies of another era, or on 
implausible assumptions that the United States could be required to 
fight two regional wars of about the same size as the Persian Gulf, 
simultaneously, with no help from our allies, cannot be responsibly 
maintained at high levels of military readiness. The Pentagon's current 
budget projections, including elements of the much-touted Bottom-Up 
Review, too often fail to question these kinds of basic assumptions. 
And the result is wasteful and unnecessary weapons or delivery systems 
like the B-2 bomber, star wars, the C-17, the Seawolf submarine, the 
Trident missile, the Milstar satellite system, and a host of other low-
priority post-cold-war programs, many of which are now obsolete. Under 
current budget constraints, we simply can no longer afford these, if 
ever we could. Scaling them back would save billions in the coming 
years. But we must have the courage to make these tough decisions now.
  Mr. President, my amendment would require a modest cut of $10 billion 
from the military budget in 1996. That's only $10 billion out of a 
projected defense budget of over $260 billion. While many other Federal 
programs are being slashed by 30, 40, even 50 percent, or more, the 
defense budget cannot remain immune to budget pressures. The amendment 
would apply all of the savings from these account to deficit reduction. 
It is designed to: First, ensure that the modest cuts it provides for 
will be made in low-priority programs; second, protect the readiness of 
our forces, and third, preserve the living standards of servicemenbers 
and their families. Adopting this amendment would be a small but 
important step toward a more responsible Federal budget in which all 
sectors of society bear their fair share of deficit reduction. I urge 
my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

[[Page S7437]]

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, those are the three amendments that we have 
agreed to package in a form similar to that which we have had 
previously today.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to have the yeas and nays on the motion to recommit and the 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                       Vote on Motion to Recommit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
recommit. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 60, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the motion was rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my vote on 
the Grams amendment No. 1182 be changed from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' This 
change will not affect the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1195

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1195. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the amendment (No. 1195) was rejected.
                       vote on amendment no. 1138

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1138, the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Wellstone]. 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 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 12, nays 87, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

                                YEAS--12

     Boxer
     Daschle
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--87

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the amendment (No. 1138) was rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am sorry to tell the Senate that we were 
down to three votes and now we are back up to four. As near as we can 
tell, we have four remaining votes. We have agreed to yield back a 
portion of the time that we previously agreed to for closing arguments 
after the votes are over and before final passage.
  I suggest, and I think my colleague, the chairman of the committee 
and I have agreed that we will package the four remaining votes. If I 
understand it, there is one by Senator Snowe, two by Senator Wellstone, 
and one for Senator Bradley. And we can do these in an expeditious 
matter and put the four together. If that is agreeable to the chairman 
of the committee it is agreeable on this side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So we understand, there are no amendments beyond these.
  Mr. EXON. No amendments beyond these.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could we agree we have no second-degree 
amendment to your amendment?
  Mr. EXON. It may be a good idea to phrase it as a unanimous-consent, 
that there will be no more than the four amendments that have just been 
identified, and there would be no second-degree amendments.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think it was stated beautifully.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1136

  (Purpose: To direct the Committee on Finance to further reduce the 
   deficit by limiting or eliminating excessive and unnecessary tax 
                             expenditures)

  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. Wellstone, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1136.

  The amendment is as follows:


[[Page S7438]]

       On page 63, line 7, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``. The Senate Committee on Finance shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction to increase revenues 
     $10,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $50,000,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $70,000,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal yeas 1996 through 2002.''.
       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX EXPENDITURES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Committee on 
     Finance, in meeting its reconciliation instructions for 
     revenue, will limit or eliminate excessive and unnecessary 
     tax expenditures, including those tax expenditures which 
     provide special tax treatment to a single taxpayer or to a 
     group of taxpayers.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment which 
would direct the Finance Committee to close $70 billion of narrowly 
focused tax breaks and loopholes over the next 7 years, and apply the 
savings solely to deficit reduction. This $70 billion figure is more 
than double the amount of savings from tax expenditures assumed in the 
House Budget Committee's budget resolution. Unfortunately, the Senate 
Budget Committee did not include any savings from tax expenditures in 
the budget resolution we are debating today. I believe that is a 
serious mistake, because unless it is changed it virtually ensures that 
powerful, well-heeled special interests who have fought so hard for so 
long to protect their special tax breaks could be held harmless under 
this budget.
  We must take steps now to reduce the Federal budget deficit in a way 
that is fair, responsible, and that requires shared sacrifice. This 
amendment would help us along that path. The amendment requires the 
closing of $70 billion of special interest tax loopholes and other 
breaks which have received far too little scrutiny in this budget 
process. Senator Bradley, Senator Feingold, and others have described 
in detail the problems posed by these huge tax breaks, and the savings 
which could be generated from these sources. Since a number of 
amendments have been defeated which would apply
 at least some of the savings generated by closing corporate loopholes 
and other tax breaks to other priority domestic programs, the time has 
now come to put to the test the proposition that at least some of these 
savings ought to be used exclusively for deficit reduction. That is why 
the savings generated by this amendment would be used exclusively to 
reduce the deficit.

  When this budget resolution slashes funding for Medicare and 
Medicaid, when we are cutting education programs and student loans, 
when we are slashing Federal spending for veterans and farmers, when we 
are causing great pain for children and the most vulnerable in our 
society, it seems only fair that we should ask wealthy individuals and 
corporations to pay their fair share. That is why we should plug many 
of the narrowly focused tax breaks and loopholes which allow the 
privileged few to escape paying their fair share, forcing everyone else 
to pay higher taxes to make up the difference. It is a simple question 
of fairness.
  Let me make a simple point here that is often overlooked. We can 
spend money just as easily through the tax code, through what are 
called tax expenditures, as we can through the normal appropriations 
process. Spending is spending, whether it comes in the form of a 
Government check or in the form of a tax break for some special 
purpose, like a subsidy, a credit, a deduction, or an accelerated 
depreciation for this type of investment or that. Some tax expenditures 
are justified, and should be retained. But some are special interest 
tax breaks that should be eliminated, or loopholes that should be 
plugged. These are what this amendment is design to go after.
  These special interest tax expenditures are simply special exceptions 
to the normal rules, rules that oblige all of us to share the burden of 
citizenship by paying our taxes. All of these special tax breaks 
distort, to one degree or another, economic investment decisions, 
usually in favor of wealthy individuals and corporations with the 
highest paid lobbyists in Washington.
  It is time to end these special interest tax breaks and close these 
tax loopholes. Various groups from all ideological perspectives--from 
the National Taxpayers Union and the CATO Institute to the Progressive 
Policy Institute to the Citizens for Tax Justice--have prepared lists 
of tax expenditures which they believe should be eliminated. Special 
interest tax breaks are simply a subcategory of the larger group of tax 
provisions called tax expenditures. The Congressional Joint Tax 
Committee has estimated that tax expenditures cost the U.S. Treasury 
over $420 billion every single year. And they also estimate that if we 
don't hold them in check, that amount will grow by $60 billion to over 
$485 billion by 1999. That's why tax breaks must be on the table along 
with other defense and domestic spending as we look for places to cut 
the deficit.
 But despite the logic of this approach, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have refused to even consider the possibility of 
cutting tax breaks for wealthy corporate and other interests, making 
them bear their fair share of the deficit reduction burden. Instead, 
they have chosen to pursue the path of least political resistance, 
slashing programs for the broad middle class, the vulnerable elderly, 
and the poor.

  Now, not all tax expenditures are bad. Not all should be eliminated. 
Some serve a real public purpose, such as providing incentives to 
investment, bolstering the nonprofit sector, encouraging charitable 
contributions, allowing people to deduct State and local taxes, and 
helping people to be able to afford to buy a home through the mortgage 
deduction. But some of them are simply tax dodges that can no longer be 
justified. At the very least, all of these should undergo the same 
scrutiny as other Federal spending, and should bear their fair share of 
deficit reduction.
  It is only fair, since these special tax breaks for certain companies 
and industries force other companies and individuals to pay higher 
taxes to make up the difference. Some of these tax breaks allow 
privileged industries such as the oil and gas industry to avoid paying 
their fair share of taxes. All distort, to one degree or another, 
economic investment decisions, usually in favor of companies with the 
highest paid lobbyists in Washington. In many cases, doing away with 
these special tax breaks for certain industries would allow a more 
efficient allocation of economic resources.
  I think it is a simple question of fairness. If Congress is really 
going to make the over $1.4 trillion in spending cuts and other policy 
changes that would have to be made to balance the Federal budget by 
2002, then those on the other side of the aisle should make sure that 
wealthy interests in our society, those who have political clout, those 
who can hire high-priced lobbyists to make their case every day here in 
Washington, are asked to sacrifice at least as much as regular middle 
class folks whom you and I represent. We should represent those who 
receive Social Security or Medicare or veterans benefits, and not just 
those special interests who can afford to pay high-priced hired guns to 
lobby for them.
  I am amazed that many in the majority party have proposed, among 
other things, expanding corporate tax breaks at the very same time that 
they are slashing Government spending on programs for the poor, for 
children, for education, and for the most vulnerable in our society. 
They have proposed tax cuts for the wealthy which, according to the 
Treasury Department, would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and at 
the same time they refuse to subject a broad range of new tax breaks to 
scrutiny in the budget process. And these are the ones who call 
themselves deficit hawks?
  Some will charge that by closing tax loopholes and restricting 
special interest tax breaks we re somehow proposing to raise taxes. And 
they will say that over and over and over until some will begin to 
believe it. They are wrong. What they fail to understand is that even
 with the reforms of the mid-1980's, which closed many of the most 
egregious tax loopholes, the presence of the tax breaks in the current 
tax system forces middle class and working people to pay more in taxes 
than they otherwise would have to pay. While some are paying less then 
their fair share in taxes because of these special tax subsidies, 
others are being forced to pay more in taxes to make up the difference. 
Closing tax loopholes is not raising taxes. Of course, these subsidies 
are hidden in the tax code because it would be too hard to get the 
votes in [[Page S7439]] Congress, in the full light of day, to directly 
subsidize these industries--especially under current budget 
constraints.

  It is a simple matter of fairness. In our attempts to reduce the 
federal deficit, all sectors of our society must make some sacrifices. 
Specific industries and the wealthy are the ones who often benefit most 
from special interest tax breaks and loopholes. If we do not treat tax 
breaks the same as direct spending, the wealthy will avoid making any 
sacrifices as we cut spending programs for the middle class and the 
poor. Just because some special interest has the means to hire a high-
priced tax lobbyist to get a special tax break written into legislation 
does not give them the right to avoid sharing in whatever sacrifices 
are necessary to reduce the budget deficit.
  The General Accounting Office issued a report last year, and has 
issued several others on tax expenditures. It was titled ``Tax Policy: 
Tax Expenditures Deserve More Scrutiny.'' I commend it to my 
colleagues' attention. It makes a compelling case for subjecting these 
tax expenditures to greater congressional scrutiny, just as direct 
spending is scrutinized. The GAO report reminds us that spending 
through special provisions in the tax code should be treated in the 
same way as other spending provisions.
  At a time when we are talking about potentially huge spending cuts in 
meat inspections designed to insure against outbreaks of disease; or in 
higher education aid for middle class families; or in protection for 
our air, our lakes, and our land; or in highways; or in community 
development programs for states and localities; or in sewer and water 
projects for our big cities; or in safety net programs for vulnerable 
children; or to eliminate the school lunch program, we should be 
willing to weigh these cuts against special tax loopholes that could 
cost hundreds of billions each year. This amendment will have the 
Finance Committee close merely $70 billion worth of these special 
interest tax breaks and loopholes--a modest $10 billion per year for 
the next 7 years.
  Under congressional budget rules, the details of which specific tax 
breaks to eliminate must be left to the Finance Committee. That is the 
way it should be. But even though I am not a tax lawyer, I have been 
able to identify a number of tax breaks for elimination, and loopholes 
which should be closed. For example, for much too long the oil and gas 
industry has enjoyed special
 tax breaks not available to other industries. These special tax 
loopholes include the ability to expense oil and gas exploration costs 
and the so-called Special Percentage Depletion Allowances. It is time 
to end these costly special tax privileges for a single industry. Why 
should the oil and gas industry receive special treatment in the tax 
code which is not available to other kinds of companies? Closing these 
special interest tax loopholes could save as much as $10.6 billion over 
5 years.

  Other tax loopholes which should be closed relate to the taxation of 
multinational corporations. Through complex accounting shell games 
involving their foreign subsidiaries, and by locating their plants 
overseas, multinational corporations can avoid paying most of their 
U.S. taxes. According to some estimates, closing these loopholes could 
save as much as $10 to $15 billion over 5 years. Still other special 
tax breaks allow Americans working overseas to receive their first 
$70,000 of income absolutely tax free, at a cost of $8.6 billion over 5 
years. We should also close the loophole which allows billionaires to 
renounce their U.S. citizenship and avoid paying taxes on the value of 
property which increased while they were U.S. citizens. The savings 
from closing this loophole would be at least $1.7 billion over 5 years. 
Finally, we should stop the fancy stock swap loophole which allowed 
DuPont and Seagrams to avoid paying over $1.5 billion in taxes that 
would otherwise be due to the Treasury. And we should consider further 
scaling back, or eliminating outright, section 936 of the Internal 
Revenue Code designed to subsidize certain investments in Puerto Rico. 
That provision alone would generate an estimated $19.7 billion, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office. Eliminating these 
provisions alone would generate about $50 billion in savings over the 
next 5 years, with billions more to be saved from other sources.
  As I have said, it is a simple question of tax fairness. If Congress 
is really serious about making the painful spending cuts and other 
policy changes that would have to be made under this budget resolution, 
than those on the other side of the aisle should join us in voting to 
make sure that wealthy interests in our society, those who have 
political clout, those who can hire high-priced lobbyists to make their 
case every day here in Washington, are asked to sacrifice at least as 
much as regular middle class folks whom you and I represent. Just 
because some special interest has the means to hire a high-priced tax 
lobbyist to get a special tax break written into legislation does not 
give them the right to avoid sharing in whatever sacrifices are 
necessary to reduce the budget deficit. In our efforts to shrink the 
Federal budget deficit, we just cannot let these special interest tax 
dodges continue.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would instruct the Senate 
Committee on Finance to report changes in the laws within its 
jurisdiction; to increase revenues by $10 billion in fiscal year 1996; 
$50 billion in the years 1996 through 2,000; and $70 billion for the 
year 1996 to the year 2000; to be generated by scaling back or 
eliminating outright a number of unnecessary, excessive or inefficient 
tax expenditures, including those which provide special tax treatment 
to a single taxpayer or a group of taxpayers.
  The $70 billion goes to deficit reduction.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President I want to respond. This is $130 billion 
tax increase. I move to table the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1141

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding low-priority 
   domestic discretionary funding to be reduced in order to pay for 
 partial restoration of funding for the National Institutes of Health)

  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. Wellstone, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1141.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title III, insert the following: ``It is the 
     sense of the Senate that the low-priority discretionary funds 
     to be reduced in order to offset funds restored for programs 
     and activities of the National Institutes of Health should 
     come from eliminating low-priority Federal programs like the 
     Space Station, and not from high-priority programs for 
     education, food and nutrition for low-income children, 
     anticrime efforts, veterans programs, job training, health 
     care, infrastructure, and other such investment programs.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, while I was an original cosponsor of 
the Hatfield amendment to restore critical funding to the National 
Institutes of Health, I would like to offer a sense of the Senate that 
would ensure that we do not jeopardize other valued programs in order 
to accomplish this goal. In the budget resolution, funding for the NIH 
would have been reduced by nearly $8 billion over 7 years. Such a 
reduction would have decimated the biomedical research effort of this 
country and could not be permitted. But the offsets necessary to 
restore funding to the NIH as proposed by Mr. Hatfield should be taken 
from low-priority domestic discretionary programs like the Space 
Station, and not from high-priority programs like food and nutrition 
programs for low-income children, anticrime efforts, veterans programs 
infrastructure, and other such investment programs. Education, health 
care, and labor accounts have been protected by the Hatfield amendment 
but I include further protection for them in my amendment as well.
  Mr. President, I want to take a moment to point out that the NIH 
serves as the focal point for health research in this country. It 
supports the work of over 50,000 scientists at over 1,700 institutions, 
as well as conducting biomedical and behavioral research and research 
training in its own facilities. The mission of the NIH is the pursuit 
of science ``to expand fundamental knowledge about the nature and 
behavior of living systems, to apply that knowledge to extend the 
health of human lives, and to reduce the burdens 
[[Page S7440]] resulting from disease and disability''. To pursue this 
mission, which is one that is essential to the future of America, 
requires adequate financial resources, scientists, and infrastructure. 
The Hatfield amendment will assure that these functions will be able to 
continue to improve the lives of the American people.
  What would the impact have been if the originally proposed reductions 
in NIH funding had been permitted to occur? The NIH is now able to fund 
about 24 percent of all research proposals submitted each year. A 5-
percent budget cut would have resulted in an ability to fund between 12 
and 18 percent of such proposals, according to Dr. Harold Varmus, 
Director of NIH. A 10-percent cut, as proposed in the Senate budget 
resolution, would have meant that fewer than 1 proposal in 10 submitted 
to the NIH would have received funding. In some areas, where funding is 
already tight, such as mental health, fewer than 1 proposal in 20 would 
have received funding. This would have clearly been a tragedy. With 
such a low rate of funding for research, clearly less and less research 
would have been performed.
  Just as important, however, would have been the effect on the 
research work force. Young people considering a career in
 biomedical research are unlikely to choose to do so when they realize 
that they only have 1 chance in 10 or 20 to be funded to do their work. 
The loss of young, creative researchers, once it had occured, would 
taken decades to replace.

  The NIH agenda for the coming years includes a focus on HIV/AIDS, 
breast cancer and other women's health issues, minority health, 
tuberculosis, brain disorders, gene therapy, drug design, and disease 
prevention, among other topics. Are these important national problems? 
Is progress being made through research? Let's look at some examples:
  First, breast cancer continues to be the cancer most frequently 
diagnosed in the United States. In the decade of the 1990s, it is 
estimated that more than 1.5 million new cases of breast cancer will be 
diagnosed and nearly 500,000 American women will die of breast cancer. 
Recent research, however, has led to the discovery of a gene linked to 
breast cancer, and the development of more precise screening techniques 
to detect breast cancer. Between 1989 and 1992, the overall death rate 
for breast cancer in American women declined 4.7 percent--in large 
measure due to these and other associated breakthroughs. Vital and 
successful programs that must be continued.
  Second, Parkinson's disease and other neurologic diseases are 
continuing to devastate the lives of sufferers and their families. 
Parkinson's disease currently afflicts over one million Americans, and 
I have seen its effects firsthand. Both my mother and father had 
Parkinson's disease, and its manifestations seemed incredibly cruel to 
me. My father was a writer, and at the very end of his life I remember 
seeing him in the study trying to type with his hand just shaking--he 
was unable to do it. Soon thereafter he was unable to walk, and was 
barely able to speak. At the time of his death, he was confined to bed, 
unable to communicate, and drained of the dignity with which he lived.
  What is encouraging is that Parkinson's disease is on the threshold 
of substantial scientific breakthroughs. The new science of molecular 
biology has brought forth dramatic and exciting developments that have 
given Parkinson's patients new hope. Scientists are closer to 
discovering the cause--or causes--of this disease * * * tissue implants 
into the brain have been shown to replace the dopamine that is missing 
in the brain of afflicted patients * * * genetically engineered 
medication or even gene therapy might provide long-lasting, 
sustainable, side-effect-free improvements, or even a cure. Similar 
dramatic advances have occurred in the understanding and diagnosis of 
Alzheimer's disease. Restoring funding to the NIH, as accomplished by 
the Hatfield amendment, will help assure that these breakthroughs will 
be pursued, so that no person, and no family need to suffer as my 
parents, and my family did, with neurodegenerative diseases.
  These are just two examples, and there are many others that 
illustrate the value of the biomedical research effort, and the tragedy 
and human suffering that would occur if it is not supported.
  A little appreciated benefit of NIH work is a reduction of
   health care costs, by early diagnosis, more effective treatment, and 
disease prevention. For example, the NIH recently developed a vaccine 
against a common bacterial infection--Haemophilus influ- 
enzae type B--that afflicts children. When severe, this 
infection can cause meningitis, and result in mental retardation, at a 
great cost in suffering to the patient and family, and financially to 
society as well. The vaccine that was developed will prevent this 
illness. It is projected that this breakthrough alone will save 
Americans over $400 million a year.

  Critics of the NIH note that funding has doubled in the past 10 
years, and, therefore, claim that cuts could be made without harming 
programs. Although NIH's budget has increased almost every year, the 
available money has not grown as rapidly as the demand for it to 
conduct research, largely because of the opening up of so many new, 
promising fields of research in biomedical sciences over the past two 
decades. Between 1984 and 1993, for example, applications for research 
projects support increased 33 percent. The number of awards made during 
this time, however, fluctuated greatly from year to year. The result 
has been unpredictable variability, with a downward trend, in the 
fraction of projects submitted, that are awarded grants. In 1987, 34.8 
percent of grants were funded, but this has steadily fallen to 25 
percent in 1994 overall, and lower in some Institutes of the NIH.
  In addition to the disastrous effects on investigators, cuts in the 
NIH budget of the magnitude proposed would have had an equally 
devastating effect on the Nation's medical schools. About half of NIH's 
extramural budget ends up in medical schools, directly to support 
research, and indirectly to help maintain the infrastructure necessary 
to carry out the research.
  The Hatfield amendment will assure that medical schools have the 
resources they need to continue their efforts in research. I hope that 
my colleagues will also support my amendment to assure that low-
priority discretionary funding is used to restore the critically needed 
funds to the National Institutes of Health.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the 
Senate that low-priority domestic programs and activities of the 
Federal Government, including the space station, should be reduced in 
order to meet the requirement of the Hatfield National Institutes of 
Health amendment.
  It ensures that the high-priority programs, including education, food 
and nutrition for low-income children, anticrime efforts, veterans 
programs, job training, health care, and other similar investments be 
protected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to note that the tax loopholes that could 
be closed could include the interest deduction on home mortgage.


                           Amendment No. 1196

                   (Purpose: To propose a substitute)

  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. Bradley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1196.

  (The text of the amendment appears under today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we all know that years and years of Federal 
budget deficits are a real threat to the future of our economy.
  We know that they cut into the private savings and investment we need 
to provide for a better future.
  We know that they require us to borrow from other countries, 
increasing our exposure to the changeable winds of the global economy.
  And, Mr. President, we know that those deficits contribute to the 
perception that Government does not work, that it cannot do its own 
job, that we cannot get our own House in order.
  When I introduced my own balanced budget amendment over 10 years ago, 
and when I voted for the balanced budget amendment earlier this year, I 
did so in the conviction that regaining [[Page S7441]] control of our 
Federal finances must be at the top of our priorities.
  But I said when I cast my vote that, a crucial reason for my concern 
about the deficit is that its very real importance threatens to 
overwhelm our ability to make rational--and yes, compassionate--choices 
for the future of our country.
  By its sheer size and seriousness, the Federal deficit is driving all 
other policy choices. It is dictating the terms of debate as we 
consider what we can do about crime, health care, welfare reform, our 
decaying infrastructure, military readiness, and the place of our 
country in a changing world.
  Now, Mr. President, it is completely appropriate for us to subject 
every policy, every dollar we spend, to the strictest standards of cost 
effectiveness.
  That should be our standard, no matter what shape our books are in.
  But as I said when I voted for the balanced budget amendment, Mr. 
President, we must achieve that standard in a way that is fair, and 
that covers everything in the budget, including tax expenditures.
  And, Mr. President, we must understand that a shortsighted focus on 
the bottom line, on simply cutting spending without a thought for its 
impact on the future, can threaten our future just as surely as 
continued deficits.
  Mr. President, we must continue on the path we began 2 years ago 
toward lower and lower deficits--but we must also continue to commit 
our scarce resources where they can do the greatest good, for the 
greatest number of our citizens, over the long run.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Republican budget plan is not fair, 
and it fails to meet our obligation to invest in the future. Therefore, 
I cannot support it.
  I regret that I cannot support that budget plan, that on
   paper--if a lot of heroic assumptions work out--aims at a zero 
deficit by the year 2002.

  But the refusal to accept amendments--amendments, Mr. President, that 
would not have changed that zero-deficit goal of a balanced budget by 
the year 2002--has left us with a budget plan that is not fair and that 
sacrifices our future for shortsighted savings today.
  And, I am sorry to say, Mr. President, it leaves us with a budget 
plan that puts the burden of deficit reduction on those who are least 
able to bear it. That unfairness, I believe, will have real economic 
costs that could be avoided by a more careful considered path toward 
the balanced budget goal.
  Let us remember, Mr. President, that the amendments that were 
rejected would not have increased the deficit--they would have 
continued the path toward a zero deficit--but they would have achieved 
that goal while maintaining our commitment to investments vital for the 
future of our economy and society.
  I supported an amendment by Senator Rockefeller to restore $100 
billion in Medicare cuts, and I cosponsored Senator Johnston's 
amendment to restore two-thirds of the Medicare cuts. These amendments 
would still have eliminated the deficit by 2002. But, instead of tax 
cuts--tax cuts not for the middle class but for those who do not need 
them--these amendments would have preserved Medicare for those seniors 
on fixed incomes.
  Unfortunately, both Medicare amendments failed. And, the effect of 
the underlying Republican budget would be to increase the costs of 
Medicare for the average senior citizen by $900 in the year 2002. I 
believe this is neither desirable nor necessary to balance the Federal 
budget.
  In the same way, Mr. President, the Republican budget plan cuts $21 
billion from a program to reward work that President Ronald Reagan 
called the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job 
creation measure to come out of the Congress, the earned income tax 
credit.
  Senator Bradley's attempt to restore that cut--to repeal that tax 
increase on the working poor--was defeated.
  The Republican cuts in the earned income tax credit come with no 
thought about how they would affect the pressing need for real welfare 
reform.
  Now we all agree, Mr. President, that the central question in welfare 
reform is how to get people off the dole and back to work. But by 
increasing the tax burden on low-income working families, the cuts in 
the earned income tax credit will make work less attractive for the 
very families that are at the greatest risk of falling into the welfare 
system.
  The Republican budget says, ``cut first,'' Mr. President, ``and ask 
questions later.''
  The Republican budget is shortsighted in other ways, Mr. President. 
It makes education more expensive, and cuts away at crucial supports 
for the research programs that have--up to
 now--kept our country in the lead internationally in the most critical 
factor needed for future competitiveness--knowledge.

  I cosponsored and supported amendments that would restore funding to 
student loan programs and to the funds available for medical and other 
research programs that could sustain our country's international 
leadership in the production of that knowledge.
  In all of these areas--providing health care, promoting work over 
welfare, supporting education, and research--I voted for amendments to 
the Republican budget plan. These changes would have achieved the 
balanced budget goal we all seek, but without the unwise and 
unnecessary cuts that will weaken the foundations for stronger economic 
growth.
  Those changes I supported, Mr. President, would have also assured 
that more Americans could participate in that future growth.
  Those amendments would have achieved the same balanced budget goal as 
the Republican plan, but in a way that shared the sacrifice more fairly 
now, and would provide a fairer distribution of the future benefits 
from that sacrifice.
  When I saw the many weaknesses in the Republican plan, Mr. President, 
I resolved to join with Senator Bradley in offering an alternative 
balanced budget plan that would achieve the benefits from eliminating 
deficits in ways that did not sacrifice fairness or the foundations of 
economic growth.
  As I said, Mr. President, among my first concerns was the unwise and 
unnecessary cuts in Medicare that are the real cornerstone of the 
Republican budget plan. Without those cuts, there is no Republican plan 
for balancing the budget.
  The Bradley-Biden amendment restores $175 billion of the Republican 
cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Our plan would increase Medicare 8 
percent annually over the next 7 years.
  However, it is our hope that we can reduce the cost of Medicare in 
that time through comprehensive health care reform--not with arbitrary 
cuts like those proposed in the Republican budget.
  By controlling the underlying growth in health care costs--which is 
the real cause of the increase in Medicare costs--comprehensive health 
care reform would be a benefit not only to Medicare recipients but to 
all Americans. And the offshoot is that down the road, we can save 
money in the Medicare Program--savings that we hope will not require 
cutting how much Medicare pays to doctors and hospitals, and even more 
importantly, savings that will not mean higher costs to senior citizens 
on fixed incomes.
  The irony is that Republicans have been using the annual report of 
the Medicare Board of Trustees to justify their draconian cuts in 
Medicare. But, the Republicans are ignoring the Board's recommendation 
to Congress to save the Medicare system as part of broad-based health 
care reform.
  But beyond the fact that the Bradley-Biden plan would honor our 
country's commitment to provide health care for our elderly, there are 
other, more fundamental differences between our program and the 
Republican budget.
  For example, we demand restraint in the growth of tax expenditures, 
among the fastest-growing reasons we continue to pile up deficits.
  Now, Mr. President, this plan imposes a hard freeze on domestic 
spending--no increase in the dollars spent--and then cuts an additional 
$15 billion. And this plan cuts an additional $10 billion from the 
current projections for defense spending.
  This is strong medicine for our persistent deficit disease.
  Unfortunately, we now must take such dramatic--and painful--steps in 
those areas.
  But in the name of fundamental fairness, Mr. President, how can we 
ask [[Page S7442]] the children, the poor, the elderly, of our country 
to sacrifice without demanding that those who have prospered under the 
current system, and have continued to prosper as deficits have built up 
over the years, to participate in restoring balance to our country's 
finances?
  Make no mistake, tax expenditures have the same effect on our 
deficits as any other kind of Federal program--they increase the gap 
between what we spend and what we take in. Why don't we examine them 
with the same critical accountant's eye that we must apply to defense 
spending, agricultural programs, education, health, and research?
  Incredibly, Mr. President, the Republican plan refuses to touch this 
rapidly growing drain on the Treasury, choosing instead to permit what 
will be a $4 trillion entitlement program between now and the year 2002 
to go untouched.
  Let me repeat that Mr. President. Tax entitlements--exemptions, 
deductions, loopholes, call them what you will--will total $4 trillion 
between now and the year we seek to achieve a balanced budget.
  In their search for ways to reduce Federal deficits, the Republicans 
have taken on spending for children, for the elderly, for the working 
poor, for education, for scientific and medical research. But they 
won't touch tax expenditures that will cost the Treasury three times 
what it will take to balance the budget over the next 7 years.
  What Senator Bradley and I would do is subject those tax entitlements 
to the same scrutiny that we apply to the rest of the budget--no more 
sacrifice from that source than from others, but no less, either.
  All told, we would cut only $197 billion over 7 years from that $400 
billion--a 5-percent reduction over the 7 years.
  Of course, not all tax deductions and exemptions have to be cut to 
achieve that modest goal. Our plan would not touch the home mortgage 
deduction, the deduction for State and local taxes,
 or the deduction for contributions to charities.

  Let me repeat that before I hear that those worthwhile and necessary 
items are at risk under our plan. They are not. We do not need to touch 
them to achieve our balanced budget goal in the year 2002.
  But we would slow the growth--not eliminate, but slow the growth--in 
such tax expenditures as the quick tax write-off for timber that will 
cost us $2.3 billion over the next 5 years.
  I believe that most Americans would agree that such programs--
programs that lose money from the Treasury as surely as any other--
could share some of the restraint needed to restore balance to the 
Federal budget.
  By cutting this and other tax breaks, we would save $197 billion that 
can be used to bring the Federal deficit to zero by the year 2002.
  By refusing to take on the huge tax expenditure budget, Mr. 
President, the Republican plan must find its savings by raising 
Medicare premiums by $900, by adding $3,000 to the cost of a student 
loan, and by increasing taxes by $21 billion on working families.
  These are cuts that the Bradley-Biden plan does not have to make, Mr. 
President, because it spreads the costs of deficit reduction more 
equitably, and thereby requires less sacrifice of those who can least 
afford it.
  In addition to sharing the near-term sacrifice more evenly, this plan 
also builds a foundation for future economic growth that will be more 
widely shared, as well.
  Our plan provides for full funding of student loans, and makes 
reckless cuts in our Nation's scientific and medical research 
unnecessary. It provides for prudent levels of investment in the 
equipment, the information, and the people who will lead our economy--
and the world's economy--into the next century.
  And, Mr. President, the Bradley-Biden plan permits--once a real 
deficit-reduction plan is in place and its benefits can be accurately 
predicted and scored by the Congressional Budget Office--it permits a 
$10,000 college tuition tax deduction for middle-class families.
  It helps to underwrite our competitive future, and it helps to 
underwrite a key element of the American dream.
  Mr. President, ours is a plan that would achieve the goal we all 
share--a balanced budget. But we should aspire to more, Mr. President--
we should dream of a better future, and we should take the actions now 
that are needed to make that dream a reality.
  Without continued support now for education, scientific and medical 
research, health care, public infrastructure, and other investments, we 
will be poorer in the long run, whatever shape our Federal finances are 
in.
  The Bradley-Biden balanced budget plan not only achieves the mundane, 
but essential, goal of restoring balance to the Government's books. It 
makes the investments necessary to keep alive our faith in the future.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Bradley amendment reduces defense 
spending by $5 billion; reduces nondefense discretionary by $15 billion 
more, than a hard freeze; restores $100 billion of the $256 billion 
Republican Medicare cut; $85 billion from a $1 a pack increase in the 
tobacco tax; restores $75 billion of the $175 billion Republican 
Medicaid cut; retains Republican agricultural cuts; restores funding of 
student loans; restores $60 billion of the $86 billion in income 
assistance cut by the Republican budget plan; reduces the tax loopholes 
for corporations and the wealthy by $197 billion.
  If the fiscal dividend materializes, using $70 billion to restore a 
portion of the spending cuts from the Republican proposal; and lastly, 
uses the remaining $100 million of fiscal dividend, if available, to 
provide a middle-class tax cut.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this proposes $282 billion in tax 
increases over 7 years. I think that is the record setter. It cuts 
outlays in the agricultural programs and others.
  I believe it is pretty late to have a full budget before the Senate 
today. I move to table it.


                           Amendment No. 1197

(Purpose: To reduce the reconciliation instructions to the Committee on 
  Labor and Human Resources (primarily affecting student loans) from 
 $13,795,000,000 in outlays over 7 years, to $4,395,000,000 by closing 
                             tax loopholes)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Ms. Snowe, 
     for herself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
     Hollings, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1197.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Close tax loopholes and corporate subsidies by the 
     following amounts:
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $875,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $1,675,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $875,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $1,675,000,000.
       Restore cuts in student loans by the following amounts:
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $875,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $1,675,000,000.
       On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by $875,000,000.
       On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by 
     $1,550,000,000. [[Page S7443]] 
       On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by $1,675,000,000.
       On page 31, line 12, increase the amount by $875,000,000.
       On page 31, line 20, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by $1,675,000,000.
       On page 31, line 13, increase the amount by $875,000,000.
       On page 31, line 21, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 32, line 4, increase the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by $1,675,000,000.
       On page 64, strike beginning with line 7 through page 64 
     line 12, and insert the following:
       ``Human Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays 
     $266,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $2,990,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $4,395,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.''
       At the appropriate place insert the following: The 
     assumption underlying the functional totals include that ``It 
     is the sense of the Senate that cuts in student loan benefits 
     should be minimized, and that the current exclusion of income 
     of Foreign Sales Corporations should be eliminated.''

  Mr. Simon. Mr. President, I was extremely happy to see that the 
Senate passed the Snowe-Simon amendment restoring $9.4 billion for the 
student loan program. The Senate has agreed to fund this amendment by 
closing corporate tax loopholes. I want to emphasize, however, that the 
specific loophole mentioned in the amendment was not binding in any way 
and was intended to serve only as one of many possible suggestions. 
Indeed, on the basis of the very persuasive arguments made by Senators 
Murray, Kerry, Kennedy, and Biden about the high-tech industry in their 
States and in the nation, I have been persuaded to work with the 
Finance Committee to find a different tax loophole to use as a funding 
source.
  Ms. Snowe. I understand the concerns of my colleagues, as well. I too 
will work with the Finance Committee to find a source of revenue for 
the student loan program that best serves all the interests of my 
colleagues. I want to thank Senators Murray, Kerry, Kennedy, and Biden 
for their help in restoring funding for the student loan program. And I 
especially thank my Republican cosponsors--Senators Cohen, Kassebaum, 
Campbell, and Jeffords) for their help and assistance on this important 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate returned 
to its tradition of bipartisan support for education to restore $9.4 
billion to student loan accounts by an overwhelming majority. These 
funds provide vital support for the Nation's college students.
  I also welcome the statement of my colleagues Senators Simon and 
Snowe concerning the offset and our willingness to work closely with 
members of the Committee on Finance to insure that the most appropriate 
offset is developed. Clearly, tax expenditures should bear their fair 
share of any serious effort to balance the budget.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, while I strongly support the goal of the 
Snowe-Simon amendment to lessen the cuts in the education function, I 
cannot vote for this approach because it proposes to raise taxes.
  Although the authors of this amendment claim that this will be 
accomplished by closing a tax loophole for foreign sales corporation, 
which I would support in the context of fundamental tax reform or 
overall tax reduction--as, indeed, I strongly favor closing many tax 
loopholes, and will work to so when a tax bill is under consideration--
the practical legislative effect of this amendment would be to instruct 
the Senate Finance Committee to raise tax revenues by about $9.4 
billion over 5 years through any means.
  Mr. President, that could mean higher taxes on working families, the 
elderly or others whose economic future I care about. Out of the some 
$12 trillion we will spend under this budget, I believe that over the 
next 7 years, we can find the additional dollars to fully protect needy 
students by cutting corporate welfare and unnecessary spending. That is 
why I worked with Senator Snowe yesterday on an amendment that would 
protect student loans by cutting spending.
  Having said this, if this amendment should pass, I will support this 
budget resolution and strongly encourage the conferees on the budget to 
retain this resolution in student loan funding, but do so by cutting 
spending in other areas. Further, in my position as a member of the 
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee I will work to ensure that 
the Guaranteed Student Loan Program is fully funded under any 
circumstances I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment reduces the 
reconciliation instruction to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources, primarily affecting student loans, from $13,795,000,000 in 
outlays over 7 years to $4,395,000,000 over the same period of time by 
closing tax loopholes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I think I have a little time left. With 
regard to this, we favor the Snowe amendment and urge its support. It 
would restore funding needed for student loans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this 
point to ask for the yeas and nays on the four remaining amendments 
that have been outlined with one request for the yeas and nays, which I 
request at this juncture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the first Wellstone 
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 majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me ask Members to stay right here 
because we are going to go as quickly as we can, hoping to do it in 
less time. We had an hour debate. We are going to ask consent, and I 
ask now unanimous consent to reduce that to 40 minutes instead of 1 
hour on behalf of the managers on each side. Then we will have final 
passage of the budget and then we will move to the terrorism bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion.
  Mr. DOLE. Did we get the agreement on the 1 hour to 40 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Vote on Motion To Table Amendment No. 1136

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1136.
  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 necessary absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 228 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     [[Page S7444]]
     
                                NAYS--15

     Boxer
     Bryan
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Reid
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1136) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 1141 
offered by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone]. On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Wellstone 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.


               Vote On Motion to Table Amendment No. 1141

  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 Minnesota. 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 result was announced--yeas 81, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 229 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

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

                                NAYS--18

     Biden
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So, the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Bradley 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.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1196

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 1196, offered by the Senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Bradley]. 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 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 230 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     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
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--13

     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Rockefeller
     Simon

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1196) was agreed 
to.
                       vote on amendment no. 1197

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1197 offered by the Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessary absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--32

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the amendment (No. 1197) was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMON. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are going to have 40 minutes of debate 
now.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order so we can understand?
  Mr. DOLE. Forty minutes and then final passage. I think it would be 
helpful if all Members remain in their seats, or if they do not care to 
listen to final debate, then remove themselves from the Chamber. We 
hope to start the vote about quarter of 6, or 10 of 6. I think the 
first speaker will be the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator 
Exon.
  So I urge my colleagues to give the managers our attention here for 
the next 40 minutes.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the time 
allotted to our side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we should have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair respectfully asks all Senators to 
take their seats.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we reach closure----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I make my request again. I think we 
should have order in the Senate. [[Page S7445]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point is well taken. The Chair 
requests all Senators to cease conversation.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we come to the closure of debate on this 
very, very important budget matter, I want to start out my closing 
remarks by taking a moment to thank the Budget Committee staffs, the 
majority staff and the minority staff, for what I think was a truly 
wonderful job. It takes a lot of hard work and they performed it so 
very, very well, whether in the minority or majority. I think we all 
recognize that while we have fractious debates from time to time, our 
staffs do a particularly outstanding job in working together.
  Senators on this side of the aisle are certainly most grateful for 
the contribution of our minority staff and also the important role and 
relationship we have had with the Senators on that side, headed by my 
good friend, Senator Domenici, and his excellent staff. I guess few 
realize the truly monumental task and the intricate time demands and 
the details--the daunting task, if you will, of budgeting. It was much 
tougher this year than it was in previous years, when we were obviously 
more restrained about our expenditures.
  I want to take a moment if I can, then, just to run through some 
names here that I shall be forever indebted to. I think the Senate will 
be as a whole. The American people should know it was an able staff 
headed by my chief of staff, Bill Dauster, whom everyone recognizes is 
one of the true experts on our budget. I thank Bill for all he has 
done. And the excellent staff he has assembled to work with.
  I want to thank: deputy chief of staff Jerry Slominski; analyst for 
Transportation and Justice Andy Blocker; analyst for Veterans and 
Commerce Kelly Dimock; special assistant to the ranking member Tony 
Dresden; analyst for government, community and regional development Meg 
Duncan; general counsel Jodi Grant; senior analyst for Energy and 
environment Matt Greenwald; LBJ fellow Nancy Harris; senior analyst for 
income security, social security and Medicaid Joan Huffer; chief 
economist Jim Klumpner; staff assistant Nell Mays; director of budget 
review and analysis and analyst for Mecdicare Sue Nelson; presidential 
management intern Susan Ross; and assistant director for revenue and 
natural resources David Williams,
 and the others who played key roles in our budget staff.

  Mr. President, let me take a few minutes, if I can, to sum up the 
feelings this Senator has after a lot of work and effort by a lot of 
people.
  I come down to the final debate on the 1996 budget resolution with a 
lot of thoughts and with a lot of appreciation for all the help I have 
had. I was just thinking the other day, though, that this will be my 
17th budget that I have debated in the U.S. Senate. I voted for some 
good, creditable budgets, like the one in 1993 that provided nearly 
$500 billion in deficit reduction. I voted against others that I 
believed were fiscally unsound and were not in the best interests
 of our great Nation. Each of those budgets was important, but perhaps 
none as important as this one at this particular time.

  As Nebraska draws me closer to home, I think more about the country I 
want to leave my fellow citizens. I think about their day-to-day 
struggle for a better life. I think about their grandchildren and the 
uncertainties they face, I think about how I want to leave them a 
country with shoulders broad enough to build a family and a future on.
  This Republican budget may convey that legacy to some, but not to 
this fiscally conservative Nebraskan. It is a budget that makes a 
devil's bargain over tax cuts at a time when we should be appealing to 
our better angels. We should make sure we balance the budget before we 
make a real or phony commitment to the politically popular promise of a 
tax cut.
  It is a budget that takes away unfairly from our seniors, children, 
and least fortunate, but disproportionately and unfairly lines the 
pockets of the wealthiest among us.
  It is a budget that keeps the most affluent fling first class, but 
puts rural America in a tail spin.
  It is a budget that turns a blind eye to working Americans who play 
by the rules.
  In the final analysis, it is a budget I cannot support.
  I know what a tough task my good friend, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, has had. I salute him for the masterful job he has done. And 
he has my condolences for the job that lies ahead that will require the 
wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.
  We may disagree on the shape of this budget. But the Senator from New 
Mexico and I truly believe, both of us, in balancing the budget. For 
us, and many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is not 
an abstraction. We want to make a decisive attack on our country's 
budget crisis.
  I wanted a bipartisan balanced budget where all of us would share, 
and share equally, in the painful decisions and sacrifices that are 
necessary to bring the budget into balance. I wanted a balanced budget 
that was driven by fairness.
  On many occasions, before and during this debate, I offered the olive 
branch to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In spite of the 
heated rhetoric, I thought that cooler heads could prevail. I offered 
compromise and reason. I offered unity instead of division. I though we 
could fine tune this budget and redistribute the cuts within its 
framework. I thought that we could work together to produce a balanced 
budget that most Republicans and Democrats could support.
  But the past 50 hours have proven me wrong. The Republicans froze us 
out of the process, basically. We were persona non grata as far as they 
were concerned. I didn't expect my Republican colleagues to accept all 
of our amendments. But they did not give serious consideration to 
barely any of the constructive and reasonable amendments we offered. 
And none, and I repeat none of the amendments I supported would have 
kept us from balancing the budget by the year 2002, which is the 
central element, I think in the plan offered by the majority.
  The Republican majority put a fence around their budget. We were 
blocked at every turn. We were rebuffed on each critical amendment. It 
was ``No'' to softening cuts on Medicare. It was ``No'' to the earned 
income tax credit. It was ``No'' to education. It was ``No'' to rural 
America. It was ``No'' to fairness. It was ``No'' to shared sacrifice.
  Mr. President, this is not a budget for all seasons, and is certainly 
lacking in reason. This is not a budget for all Americans. This is not 
a budget of shared sacrifices. This is not a budget on which our fellow 
citizens in Nebraska, or elsewhere can build a better life. This is a 
budget that I cannot support.
  Where do we go from here? To something workable and more 
constructive? Given the budget presented us by the House, and this one 
concocted in the Senate, we go to conference with little hope of a 
final budget that will have any semblance of bipartisan support.
  It follows that the reconciliation bill and the appropriations 
measures will be so bound in advance by this unworkable budget that the 
end product will also be devoid of any real semblance of bipartisan 
support.
  There are those who seemingly have reveled in the charges that the 
President is ``irrelevant'' in the budget considerations. They will 
find out how ``irrelevant'' he really is should he veto--and, in my 
opinion, properly so--the end product of all of this partisanship.
  Beginning now, and up to the point of a possible veto, I will be 
working with my President and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to attempt to fashion a workable bipartisan compromise that will not be 
painless, but will be fair to all Americans and, most importantly, to 
America.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a few Senators who requested 
time. Maybe I will do that before I give my closing remarks. Senator 
Gramm asked for some time, and I will give him 2 minutes. Senator Robb, 
who is not here, asked for 2 minutes, and I am going to give him 2 
minutes. And Senator Nunn asked for 3 minutes; I am going to give him 
time. Then I will get back to my time.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair. [[Page S7446]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized to speak 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, there are many things to praise in this 
budget, and I want to begin by praising the man who made it happen, and 
his name is Pete Domenici.
  I think he has provided great leadership in the Senate, and given the 
numbers we had to work with, given the disposition of our Members, I do 
not think anybody can have anything to say about Pete Domenici other 
than to give him the credit he is due.
  But I want all my colleagues to understand exactly where we are as we 
pass this budget. With the adoption of the Snowe amendment, this budget 
now before the Senate spends $184 billion over the 7-year period, more 
on nondefense programs than the budget that was adopted in the House. 
That is $184 billion worth of additional nondefense program spending 
that is going to have to be taken out in conference, if we are going to 
have any opportunity to have a real cut in taxes for working families, 
and if we are going to have any real opportunity to provide incentives 
for growth.
  I want my colleagues to know that I am going to vote for this budget. 
I want to urge every person in the Senate who wants to balance the 
Federal budget to vote for this budget, and I hope we get a sound vote.
  But I want my colleagues to understand that unless we cut this 
excessive spending out, unless we let working families keep more of 
what they earn, unless we provide incentives for growth, and unless we 
balance the budget while doing those things in the final product that 
will come out of the House Senate conference, I am not going to vote 
for that budget. I believe we can do these things.
  Our House colleagues have shown us that it can be done. And I am 
hopeful, when we go to conference with the House, that we will look at 
our mandate from the election, we will look at what our colleagues in 
the House did, we will take heart and leadership from them, and that we 
will come back with a budget that is balanced over a 7-year period, 
that lets working families keep more of what they earn, and that 
provides incentives for people to work, save, and invest. That is what 
I favor.
  I believe that is what the American people favor. And by passing this 
budget today, we have an opportunity to begin to make that happen.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Nunn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, first I want to commend my friend from New 
Mexico, Senator Domenici, and my friend from Nebraska, Senator Exon, 
for handling the management of this bill under very difficult 
circumstances. I have been in that place many times, and I know how 
difficult it is and what a challenge it is.
  Second, I would like to commend the Senator from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, for real leadership in putting on the table for all of us to 
both contemplate, vote on, and study in the future, and the American 
people to contemplate, all the untouchables that have not been in 
budget resolutions before.
  This is first time that I have seen all elements of spending on the 
table except Social Security. It is my view that will have to be on the 
table at some point in the future. But that one is not on the table 
today.
  I disagree with a number of the priorities in this resolution, and I 
have voted differently from my friend from New Mexico on a number of 
amendments because I do believe that we have not earned any tax 
dividend at this point. I do not believe we ought to have a tax 
dividend until we really get the budget under control. I think that is 
essential, and that is a priority. And I think that is what the 
American people want.
  I think moving to reduce taxes before we get spending under control, 
and before we really earn the dividend, is kind of like going on the 
wagon by starting off chug-a-lugging a bottle of whiskey. I do not 
think that is the way to proceed. However, having said that, I do think 
this budget is in the right direction. I think it moves in the right 
direction.
  I am going to vote for it for that reason, because it does move in 
the right direction. And moving in the right direction in terms of 
tackling entitlements, in terms of restraining growth and spending in 
those programs that have been clearly out of control, as difficult as 
that is going to be to do, I think the direction is enormously 
important. It is important for our children. It is important for our 
grandchildren. It is important for our economy. It is important to 
increase savings, and thereby investment and productivity, and thereby 
the real income of the American people over a period of time.
  Finally, I think that this direction is enormously important for the 
credibility of this Congress and the credibility of our Federal 
Government.
  So I commend my friend from New Mexico for real leadership, and I 
will vote for the final passage of this resolution.
  Like the Senator from Texas, I will be watching the conference very 
closely, perhaps from a slightly different perspective.
  Mr. President, again, I rise today to announce my support for the 
fiscal year 1996 budget resolution. I commend my good friends, Senator 
Pete Domenici and Senator Jim Exon, the chairman and ranking member of 
the Senate Budget Committee, for their floor management of this bill. 
Having been a member of the Senate Budget Committee and having worked 
with Senator Domenici on a 10-year balanced budget plan in our Center 
for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS] ``Strengthening of 
America Commission,'' I know how daunting a task it is to produce a 
plan to reach a balanced unified budget by 2002. I know that my friend 
Pete Domenici had to make many difficult decisions and fall back on 
many of his own priorities to forge a majority coalition on this bill. 
This type of leadership is often given sufficient recognition or 
praise.
  I have followed this debate closely. This is a historic moment. This 
resolution marks the first time the Senate Budget Committee has 
reported a budget resolution that in my view deals with all the 
elements on the spending side of the budget that must be addressed to 
have any hope of balancing the budget. I commend my friend from New 
Mexico for the courage and the leadership he has exhibited in crafting 
this resolution.
  The most significant improvement over past attempts to balance the 
budget is the Senate Budget Committee's inclusion of recommendations to 
restrain significantly the projected growth of Federal mandatory or 
entitlement spending, which now represents 50 cents of every dollar the 
Federal Government spends.
  For years, Congress and the executive branch have tried to achieve a 
balanced budget by cutting the defense and domestic discretionary 
programs that are appropriated by the Congress and signed by the 
President, and by raising taxes. At the same time these budget efforts 
time after time allowed the mandatory or entitlement programs, which 
are on autopilot, to grow faster than inflation, faster than 
discretionary programs were being cut, and faster than taxes could be 
raised.
  In the 1990 budget summit, half the savings came from cutting the 
defense budget. While large defense savings were possible due to the 
end of the cold war--and those savings which were made are still 
contributing to deficit reduction today--that kind of historic 
opportunity is a one-shot deal. That agreement predictably did not 
balance the budget because defense represented at that time 24 percent 
of the overall budget. As a result of that agreement, defense is only 
18 percent of the budget today, and under this resolution it will fall 
to 14 percent by the end of the century.
  Over half the deficit reduction in the 1993 reconciliation bill came 
from tax increases. Once again, reductions in the growth of 
entitlements contributed only a small portion of the deficit reduction. 
Tax increases and defense cuts will never balance the budget as long as 
the entitlement programs remain unrestrained.
  These previous attempts, because they failed to address the largest 
and fastest growing part of the budget, were virtually doomed to fail. 
In my mind, our previous attempts to balance [[Page S7447]] the budget 
without seriously addressing the out of control growth of spending in 
entitlement programs were analogous to Bonnie and Clyde robbing parking 
meters.
  Mr. President, this budget resolution finally goes where the money 
is. Fifty percent of the deficit reduction in this plan comes from 
reducing the projected growth in spending--not the actual spending 
levels--in entitlement programs. Compared to CBO's baseline 
projections, it provides spending reductions totaling $1.3 trillion 
over the 7-year period ending in 2002. These reductions are achieved 
through reductions in two principal areas: entitlements and nondefense 
discretionary programs.
  This resolution recommends that entitlement spending growth be 
reduced by $650 billion, that nondefense discretionary spending be 
reduced $350 billion, and defense will be reduced by another $100 
billion below CBO's baseline. Due to these reduced Federal 
expenditures, it is estimated that interest payments on the debt will 
be lessened by $200 billion.
  Mr. President, over the last few days, many of my colleagues have 
attempted to amend the resolution to correct what they believed to be 
flaws in this proposal. I share many of their concerns, and, if I had 
my way, I would make a number of changes, including:
  First, holding the defense budget stable over this period rather than 
having it continue to decline as called for in both this resolution and 
President Clinton's budget;
  Second, setting a goal of balancing the budget without using the 
surpluses from the Social Security Trust Fund, even if it takes 10 
years rather than 7.
  Third, reducing some of the cuts from projected growth in the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs to make the required reforms more 
achievable and sustainable;
  Fourth, reducing the proposed cuts in Federal education programs to 
acknowledge that human capital is our most precious resource;
  Fifth, restoring some of the proposed reductions in the Earned Income 
Tax Credit, which is essential in helping low-income working people and 
in making work more attractive than welfare;
  Sixth, mitigating to some extent the proposed cuts to agriculture and 
veterans programs; and
  Seventh, keeping the National Service program alive and viable. This 
program is proving to be both an important and efficient way of 
delivering human services, and it is also serving as a catalyst for 
community service by thousands of American young people.
   Mr. President, I will continue to fight to address these priorities 
as this process continues and we debate the specific details in the 
reconciliation legislation that will carry out this plan. I also 
believe that tax expenditures should not be exempt from review as we 
legislate in the summer and fall. Balancing the budget requires shared 
sacrifice, and as we cut spending we should also review revenue-losing 
tax breaks which may not be justified. For these reasons I supported 
the Conrad alternative to the Committee-reported budget resolution.
  Notwithstanding these reservations, I will vote for the Domenici 
budget resolution. We will debate the details for months to come, and 
we could vote and debate forever in search of a perfect solution, but 
the general direction required is clear. If there was an easy way to 
balance the budget without cutting spending on popular programs, we 
would have done it long ago. But that is simply not possible. This plan 
gives the American people a realistic look at what it takes to balance 
the budget with spending cuts alone.
  I believe this resolution points us in the right direction. Mr. 
President, most of this debate has focused on specific elements of this 
plan, but what sometimes gets lost in the debate is the fact that the 
status quo is not painless either--in fact it is not even sustainable. 
We simply cannot continue to pile $200 to $300 billion in additional 
debt each year on our children and grandchildren.
  I also hope that I will also be able to support the conference 
report, but that depends on its content. I consider the House's action 
in beginning a $1.2 trillion budget cutting exercise by reducing taxes 
by over $300 billion over 7 years to be fiscally irresponsible. I am 
pleased that more than two-thirds of my colleagues voted to 
overwhelmingly defeat this tax cut in the Gramm amendment, which have 
made the tax cuts contained in the House passed Contract With America 
part of this resolution. The House approach is like an alcoholic 
promising to go on the wagon right after gulping one last bottle of 
whiskey.
  In this resolution, there is a reserve fund that makes the fiscal 
dividend resulting from enactment of a balanced budget plan available 
for tax cuts. This dividend was the focus of most of the proposed 
amendments to this resolution. In my view, the Senate should have 
adopted the Feingold amendment, which would have applied that dividend 
to deficit reduction and given us a cushion that would allow us to 
balance the budget even if the economy does not perform as well as CBO 
has projected.
  The budget resolution contains an invitation to use this fiscal 
dividend for tax reductions rather than applying it to deficit 
reduction. I oppose this part of the resolution and I voted against the 
amendment which strengthened this invitation from may to shall. The 
Senate will address this question again before any such tax cut passes. 
If the Senate is unwilling to apply this fiscal dividend to the deficit 
then I prefer using the dividend to ease the most severe impacts of the 
spending reductions Medicare, education, and programs for low-income 
working people, rather than for tax cuts. My votes on several 
amendments reflect this. But my first choice was to take a more 
conservative approach by applying the fiscal dividend to deficit 
reduction as proposed by the fiscally responsible path in the Feingold 
amendment.
  This budget resolution is tough medicine, and it will be very 
difficult to carry out some of the reductions called for. I suspect the 
reductions in the growth rate of spending in Medicaid and Medicare, 
education, agriculture and other areas that are required if we are to 
balance the budget will generate more and more opposition from 
substantial segments of America before the cuts are passed by Congress, 
and certainly before they are fully implemented. There is also a 
probability that in cutting projected spending by over $1 trillion 
dollars in a 7-year period Congress will inadvertently make some 
serious errors which will have to be corrected. For these reasons, I 
believe that reducing taxes by the amount produced in the fiscal 
dividend would be inequitable and premature until the spending cuts and 
restraints have been locked in.
  I would remind all of my colleagues who believe, as I do, that we 
should be balancing the budget without using the Social Security 
surplus, that leaving the fiscal dividend alone and applying it to 
deficit reduction, as we would have done if the Feingold amendment had 
been adopted, would also help move us toward the goal of a real 
balanced budget. Balancing only the unified budget by continuing to 
borrow the Social Security surplus simply postpones the day of pain 
when the general fund must repay the Social Security Trust Fund.
  The budget resolution before us balances the budget in 2002, 
including the Social Security surplus. But without that surplus, the 
deficit in 2002 would still be about $100 billion. While the exact size 
of the fiscal dividend would depend on what savings and enforcement 
provisions were enacted in a reconciliation bill, CBO's previous 
estimate of the fiscal dividend in 2002 was about $50 billion. If we 
had applied that to deficit reduction, we could have cut the deficit in 
2002, excluding Social Security, in half, from about $100 billion to 
$50 billion.
  Today, the general fund already owes the Social Security Trust Fund 
$500 billion. By 2002, when we finally get the budget back in balance 
including using these Social Security surpluses, the general fund will 
owe the Social Security Trust Fund $1.1 trillion. When the baby boom 
generation starts retiring around the year 2015, just 20 years from 
today, we will owe the Social Security trust fund about $3 trillion.
  We all know that Congress and the President have to face up to the 
Social Security problem. We all know the Social Security system is not 
going to be the same for those who are in their 20s, 30s, and 40s today 
as it is for people who are already retired and receiving 
[[Page S7448]] Social Security benefits today. It cannot be. And the 
longer we avoid facing up to that problem, the worse the problem is 
going to be. Balancing the budget without the continued use of the 
Social Security surplus to finance other Government spending is an 
absolute necessary first step in that effort. Unfortunately, this 
budget resolution does not meet that test or even have that goal.
  Mr. President, in closing, I want to congratulate Senator Domenici 
for his leadership on this budget resolution. This budget resolution is 
but the first step of a long and difficult journey, but we are headed 
in the right direction--the direction that will bring our budget into 
balance.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague.
  I want to say that, as I look at the Senator from New Mexico and the 
Senator from Nebraska, I want to say my friend from New Mexico, the 
chairman of the committee, if I could get his attention, that I think 
the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Nebraska really are a 
model for this U.S. Senate. You can disagree without being 
disagreeable. I think we have had a tough and important debate, and I 
congratulate both of them on it.
  I want to say that, from my perspective as a Senator from California 
who ran because I wanted to fight for the people of California, that 
this budget as it comes before us now is the broadest retreat on the 
American dream that I have ever seen in my time as an adult.
  I will say that we tried to change this budget. We at every chance 
said that the tax cuts should go to the middle class, not to the 
wealthy. We offered broad restorations to education. We tried to make 
this better. We tried to ease the pain on the seniors, on the students. 
And I say to my friends on both sides of the aisle that if ever we were 
here to fight for anyone, should it not be the children? Should it not 
be the elderly? Should it not be the hard-working middle-class families 
who will have a tax increase, those who earn $28,000 a year and less?
  So this budget turns its back on those people while maintaining tax 
loopholes, keeping military spending harmless and, frankly again, 
retreating from the American dream that I was so fortunate to be a part 
of in my lifetime.
  I hope as this process continues we will have enough votes to turn 
back some of these priorities. I hope we will bring common sense to the 
debate in the days that lie ahead.
  I will be voting against this budget. If it does anything, it shows 
the difference between the parties. I think that is good for this 
country, to see the differences between the parties.
  I wish to thank my colleague and again the committee chairman for 
working with me, although we have disagreed many times. I think the 
staff on both sides have just been extraordinary as well as the 
chairman and the ranking member.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator D'Amato from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am proud to support this budget. 
Senator Domenici and the Budget Committee deserve to be commended. 
Senator Domenici's plan, for the first time, meets what the American 
people have been asking for--responsible and courageous leadership.
  It is not easy to balance the budget. It is not easy to cut those 
programs, yes, that the people want and get used to. It is not easy to 
tackle Medicare. But let me tell you something. We were not elected and 
sent here to do things the easy way. That program will be bankrupt. We 
owe it to today's seniors and those in the future to protect it, 
preserve it, to strengthen it. We owe it to our children in the future 
to give them the opportunities we have had. Unless we achieve a 
balanced budget and cut spending, that will not be the legacy we leave 
to them.
  There are those who preach fear and divisiveness. I have heard talk 
already about how this is going to help the wealthy. It seems to me, 
when we balance the budget and reduce interest costs that make it 
possible for people to have jobs and opportunity, we are helping 
America.
  I do not believe that the administration or my Democratic friends for 
the most part have given the kind of leadership that this Nation needs. 
Criticize, create fear, create doubt, turn their backs on their own 
reports, a report that this administration came down with, which 
indicated that Medicare would run out of funds within the next 6 or 7 
years.
  We have an obligation to move boldly. We are. It is the right time, 
and it is about time, and I hope we can pass this budget 
overwhelmingly. I support it.
  I commend Senator Domenici and all who have worked with him to bring 
us to this point.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from New York. I yield 2 minutes to 
Senator Robb.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Robb would like 2 minutes on my time.
  I yield 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Mexico will yield 2 
minutes, I would be very pleased.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman 
and the ranking member of the Budget Committee for their leadership and 
the long, hard work that brought us to this particular point.
  If this were a budget and not a budget resolution, Mr. President, I 
might take a different course of action. I happen to believe that most 
of the choices, most of the priorities that we establish in terms of 
guidelines as to how we get to our destination are not the priorities 
that I would embrace and, indeed, I have voted with my Democratic 
colleagues on a number of occasions to try to change those priorities. 
But we did not prevail.
  I believe that Republicans were wrong in 1993, when they felt as 
strongly as they did about deficit reduction, not to try to assist 
President Clinton and Democrats. And feeling as strongly as I do about 
the importance of deficit reduction, I believe it would be wrong for me 
not to assist with the heavy lifting.
  Mr. President, the lifting is going to be very, very heavy. I do not 
think many of the Members who may be fully supportive of this 
resolution have considered all of the implications that are ultimately 
going to have to be considered when making the tough individual choices 
about cutting specific programs or cutting tax expenditures, raising 
revenues, whatever the case may be. But I am prepared to assist in that 
effort. I think it is important that, to the extent we can, we engage 
in this most important task on a bipartisan basis.
  So, Mr. President, I will be pleased to vote for this resolution, 
notwithstanding significant differences with respect to the 
distribution of the burden and the pain and a very significant 
difference with respect to whether or not we ought to have any tax cuts 
in this measure at this time.
  Nonetheless, I applaud the leadership for moving us to this point, 
for setting a very clear and important goal. I am embracing the 
destination and not the road as to how we get there, and I am going to 
work to try to make some course directions as we move down that road.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the ranking member as well 
as the chairman of the Budget Committee for their hard work, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for the remarks. And I thank the 
Senator for the support with the vote today.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have no ill will at all toward some of the 
Democrats, some of my closest friends and associates, but I have tried 
to conduct this matter with a sense of dedication but still in good 
humor. I just want to say that if there are any Republicans who wish to 
vote against the budget, I will be glad to yield them time if they come 
to the Senate as quickly as possible. [[Page S7449]] 
  I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Rhode Island.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I regret to tell the Senator he will have to do it all 
himself.
  Mr. EXON. I so anticipated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution marks 
the beginning of the end of an era. There can be no avoiding of the 
fact that the resolution in many ways lays out a plan for the effective 
dismantlement of progressive government as we have come to know and 
benefit from for half a century.
  This I believe is a lamentable turn of events in my view, all the 
more so because I believe we could bring the Federal budget under 
control by less extreme and less destructive means.
  When I came to the Senate in 1961, the political climate was keyed to 
national circumstances far different from those prevailing today. Most 
of us had vivid memories, first, of the era of active, interventionist 
government that resulted from the economic stresses of the 1930's; and 
second, of the dominant role of the Federal Government in the 
successful prosecution of our role in World War II, a role which was to 
continue through the cold war era.
  From that basis of a dominant Federal role in opposition to foreign 
tyranny, there was a natural evolution to the historic role of the 
Federal Government in greatly expanding our national commitment to 
social justice at home. This found expression in the civil rights 
revolution of the 1960's, and in a host of other fields, including 
health, education, welfare, occupational safety, and environmental 
protection to name only a few.
  To be sure, there were excesses and mistakes that were committed in 
the name of an activist central government, and their elimination is 
one of the benefits of the current swing of the pendulum of history 
back in the direction of less government and less intervention.
  But as one who has been privileged to serve here during this 
remarkable cycle, I want to record the view that there is much that we 
have done over the past four decades that has made our country a better 
place, and those accomplishments should not be rejected in a willy-
nilly rush to diminish the role of government.
  Unfortunately, the budget resolution lays the groundwork for just 
such an evisceration of progressive government and I, therefore, cannot 
support it.
  I am appalled at the implications of drastic cuts in the
   international affairs account, presaging a trend to isolationism and 
withdrawal from a half century of activist leadership in world affairs. 
This resolution envisions a progressive phasing back of assessed 
contributions for United Nations peacekeeping, as well as drastic cuts 
in foreign aid. These are radical and regressive changes and I reject 
them.

  I am likewise dismayed at the assumed reduction in Federal spending 
for education by as much as $32 billion over 7 years. This would place 
at risk or threaten curtailment of a number of worthy programs which 
have evolved over the past 30 years to assert a Federal interest in 
this most basic area of public investment. So these cuts too are not 
acceptable.
  I deeply regret also the assumptions underlying this resolution which 
would curtail the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and AMTRAK, while at the same time 
threatening to turn back the clock of post-Watergate reform by 
abolishing the Presidential campaign financing system. I hope the 
Senate amendment restoring the funding for this system will prevail.
  These are but a few of the programs now in jeopardy in which I have a 
special interest. In combination with other provisions which likewise 
cancel out or curtail major elements of the Federal commitment to 
social justice--provisions such as the Medicare cutbacks and the cut in 
funding for the earned income tax credit--they serve to demonstrate how 
negative and regressive this resolution truly is.
  The pity is, Mr. President, that much of this programmatic slaughter 
may be needless. The fact is that it was ordained by a commitment to 
suspect goals which were dictated by political expediency rather than 
national selection, namely, the idea that the Federal budget must be 
brought into exact balance, and the corollary idea that it must be 
brought into balance in the arbitrary time frame of 7 years.
  With all due respect to the leadership of my own party, I must simply 
say that in my view these goals are specious and should not be the 
driving force for this sweeping revision of Federal policy.
  When I opposed the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 
earlier this year, I took the position that the Federal budget is not 
supposed to be in perpetual balance, but that, as John Maynard Keynes 
wisely noted, it should remain a flexible
 instrument of national economic policy, registering a surplus in good 
times and engaging in stimulative spending in downtimes.

  The resolution before us puts us on an inflexible course, both in 
terms of achieving absolute balance and doing so by a date certain. It 
makes no allowance for all of the unforeseen contingencies, including 
natural disasters, international emergencies, or economic recessions, 
that might require us at some point in the next 7 years, to engage in 
unexpected spending and thus not meet the goal so confidently embraced.
  And even if the magical goal were somehow to be reached, there is a 
respectable body of opinion that warns that the deliberate withdrawal 
of $1.3 trillion in Federal spending in the arbitrary timeframe of 7 
years could wreak havoc with the economy.
  It seems to me that the far wiser course would be to continue a 
vigorous but more reasoned program of deficit reduction that would not 
rule out revenue increases and certainly would not exempt defense from 
further budget cuts. I would generally avoid tax cuts, although I must 
say that I continue to believe that a more liberal treatment of capital 
gains would have a beneficial effect in promoting economic growth.
  Further, it seems to me that we ought to substitute flexible and 
rational measures of deficit control for the arbitrary goals which I 
believe have been too hastily accepted as a basis for a wholesale 
change of approach of Government. One useful measure is the ratio 
between the annual deficit and gross domestic product. Just as any 
prudent household should limit debt in proportion to income, it would 
make sense for the Federal Government to do likewise with respect to 
its annual deficit.
  For the present, we must act on the basis of goals and assumptions 
that, while widely accepted, may not be valid. To my mind, the budget 
resolution takes us in the wrong direction and does so for the wrong 
reasons. I hope the time will come when others will see the matter in 
the same light.
 OPPOSITION TO CHANGES IN THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT--A TAX INCREASE 
                          ON WORKING FAMILIES

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the proposed cut in the earned income tax credit [EITC].
  The other day I spoke about this budget, its attacks on Medicare and 
how it affects senior citizens and their families. Today, I rise to 
speak about how the reduction in the earned income tax credit will 
affect their families and their children.
  Today, I want to speak about how this is also a fight for the 
children and grandchildren of the senior citizens who are hit by cuts 
in Medicare.
  In 1993 we dramatically increased the earned income tax credit, which 
cut taxes for middle and lower income families.
  We cut taxes for parents working hard to stay out of poverty and off 
welfare. The first step to welfare reform is to make work pay. The EITC 
helps us to make work pay.
  If this budget resolution passes we will increase taxes on millions 
of working parents. What do we say to these mothers and fathers? What 
do we say to any working family making less than $28,000 a year?
  Who is affected? A mother who makes ends meet by waiting on tables. A 
mother who counts on every tip, every nickel and quarter left on the 
lunch counter. A mother who can make ends meet because of the earned 
income tax credit. [[Page S7450]] 
  A father who lost a good-paying factory job and lost a piece of the 
American dream. A father who works a second job just to support his 
children, but still makes less than $28,000.
  This budget cuts taxes for the wealthy by taking $21 billion from the 
EITC and the families who use it. This budget cut will hit over 12 
million taxpayers, 199,000 in Maryland alone. For those Marylanders 
making $28,000, they will pay $1,500 in taxes if the EITC is cut.
  This is not welfare reform. We cannot tell people to get off welfare 
and then cut what they will get in a paying job, and cut their 
Medicaid.
  We cannot tell a mother on welfare to take a low-paying job that will 
be even lower paying if we cut this program. We must reward people who 
work.
  It is time that we returned to the bipartisan spirit of this tax 
break. Let us return to the support that had President Reagan praise 
the EITC as, ``the best antipoverty and pro-family'' measure to ever 
come out of Congress.
  When I spoke the other day on another occasion, I reminded the 
audience of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and how she explained that 
this is ``no ordinary time.'' This is no ordinary time. It is a time to 
fight for these families who have worked hard and have earned a break.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I reluctantly voted against the budget 
resolution, but I believe it does represent a serious, and significant 
statement on my highest priority: deficit reduction.
  My own 82-point plan reduces the deficit further and faster than this 
budget resolution does, and I cosponsored and voted for an alternative 
on the floor of the Senate that reduces the deficit more and achieves 
true balance sooner than the budget resolution. Nevertheless, the 
budget resolution does achieve significant deficit reduction, and if 
nothing else, it clearly demonstrates that we do not need to change our 
Constitution in order to balance the Federal books.
  The purpose of a budget resolution is to establish the boundaries 
within which we formulate the details of the Federal budget. The most 
significant flaw in this resolution is that those boundaries 
effectively preclude us from going after three sacred cows: tax cuts, 
tax loopholes, and the defense budget.
  If those three areas had been left on the table, we could have taken 
a much more balanced approach to deficit reduction, lessening the 
severity of the cuts to those on Medicare and Medicaid, farmers, 
students, veterans, and others, while also eliminating the deficit by 
the year 2000, not 2002 or 2004 or 2008.
  There were some bright points to the resolution. One important 
improvement the Senate resolution makes to the one passed by the House 
is the elimination of what has been called the crown jewel of the 
Contract With America: the fiscally irresponsible $350 billion tax cut. 
In a resounding, bipartisan vote of 69 to 31, the Senate rejected an 
amendment to implement that reckless policy.
  There are also a number of provisions assumed in the resolution that 
rightly slate outdated, wasteful, or low priority programs for cuts or 
elimination.
  I was particularly pleased to see the Helium program terminated under 
this budget resolution. I introduced legislation on the first day of 
the 104th Congress to kill the national helium program, and this budget 
resolution is an important step in eliminating this vestige of the 
1920's.
  Though the broad budget outlines established by this resolution are 
skewed, I very much hope we will approach the details of the budget 
with the kind of bipartisan spirit demonstrated by the strong, 
bipartisan vote defeating the reckless House Republican tax cuts.
  If the Senate takes that approach to the specific budget bills, and 
especially the reconciliation legislation that will determine how cuts 
are made to Medicare and Medicaid, we may be able to fashion a sensible 
budget that achieves the significant deficit reduction envisioned in 
the resolution without harming the most vulnerable.
                           amendment no. 1150

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep regret 
that the amendment offered by Senators Roth and Lieberman seeking to 
protect one of the last pristine wilderness areas of this Nation, the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR], was defeated.
  In 1980, the 96th Congress approved the Alaska National Interest Land 
Conservation Act. This important law, which set aside over a million 
acres of Federal land for national parks, wildlife refuges, and other 
conservation areas, prohibited oil and gas development in 1.5 million 
acres of ANWR's coastal plain, leaving the fate of this land in the 
hands of future Congresses.
  Since 1980, the Congress has vigorously and consistently expressed 
its opposition to oil and gas leasing in the biological heart of the 
Arctic Refuge. This area on the coastal plain of ANWR, often referred 
to as the ``American Serengeti,'' is home to about 165 different 
species of animals. It is the calving ground for the Porcupine Caribou 
herd, the denning area for the Beaufort Sea polar bear population, and 
the nesting habitat for a variety of waterfowl and shorebirds, 
including snow geese, tundra swans and black brant.
  There is little doubt that extensive development of this sensitive 
wilderness area would have a negative impact on the vast wildlife 
resources located there. A 1987 report prepared by the Department of 
the Interior and submitted to the Congress stated that oil development 
in ANWR would result in long-term changes in the wilderness 
environment, wildlife habitat, and Native subsistence hunting 
opportunities.
  In my view, it is critical that we as a nation do not allow the 
destruction of one of our last remaining unprotected ecosystems. The 
Republican budget proposal recommends that the Federal Government lease 
8 percent of ANWR for oil and gas development. While this backdoor 
assault on the Arctic Refuge claims to affect only a small portion of 
the wilderness area, oil development activity will affect the entire 
coastal plain. In addition, the expectations for oil and gas finds are 
excessive. The 1987 Interior Department report found there to be only a 
one in five chance of finding an economically viable oil field on the 
coastal plain.
  Wilderness areas constitute only 2 percent of all land in the United 
States. If we fail to protect the integrity of the Arctic Refuge now, 
its wealth of natural beauty and treasures will be lost to future 
generations. This is too precious a resource to squander.


                           amendment no. 1166

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment was submitted on behalf 
of myself, Senators Rockefeller, Murray, Harkin, Wellstone, Reid, 
Daschle, and Mikulski.
  The Senate considered this amendment yesterday. Mr. President, this 
amendment could not be more simple. It closes the ``Ex-Patriots'' 
billionaires tax loophole and takes the money and restores some of the 
drastic cuts in veterans programs contained in this resolution. I call 
this amendment--take from ``ex-patriots and give to American 
patriots.''
  This is the same amendment that I offered in committee. While this 
amendment failed on a tie 11 to 11 vote, it did enjoy bi-partisan 
support. The distinguished junior Senator from Maine [Senator Snowe] 
voted for my amendment.
  Mr. President, we have now all heard about this so-called ``Benedict 
Arnold'' tax loophole. This loophole allows billionaires and multi-
millionaires who have made their fortunes in this country to renounce 
their citizenship and avoid paying Federal taxes like estate taxes and 
flee to some Caribbean island with their money.
  This is no minor loophole. It costs the Treasury more than $3 billion 
over 10 years. And as a recent story in Fortune Magazine showed, 
wealthy individuals deliberately look at using this loophole to avoid 
paying taxes.
  My amendment will close this loophole. And it will take the proceeds 
and put them into restoring the massive cuts in veterans programs 
contained in the Republican budget.
  This Republican budget cuts discretionary spending on veterans 
programs by a whopping $26 billion over the next 7 years. But this is 
only discretionary spending on items like VA hospitals and outpatient 
clinics.
  This budget also cuts veterans' entitlement programs by $10 billion 
over 7 years. That is a $36 billion slap in the face to our Nation's 
veterans.
  What kind of reward is this for our Nation's veterans? Isn't it 
ironic that [[Page S7451]] on the 50th anniversary of V-E Day, we are 
destroying the VA system for those heros who saved us from Fascism?
  The Republican budget will force cuts in veterans' pensions, payments 
to those with service-connected disabilities, the GI bill, and numerous 
other health and benefit programs.
  My amendment will help alleviate some of these cuts. It will not 
restore all of the funding but it will make a start in trying to 
cushion the coming blow.
  Mr. President, the men and women who have put their lives on the line 
for this country deserve better. They deserve to be treated with 
respect.
  Their benefits should not be cut while we are providing tax cuts for 
the rich. The Republican budget represents the wrong priorities.
  Mr. President, I want to deal with one issue up front. Republicans 
may argue that we passed an amendment in the Budget Committee to close 
the Benedict Arnold tax loophole.
  The fact is we did not. We passed a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment concerning this issue. However, we did not change any numbers 
in the resolution to force the Finance Committee to in fact close this 
loophole.
  So the Finance Committee can do as it wishes regarding this tax 
loophole. It will not be required to do this in any way. So if 
Republican say that they already voted to get rid of the loophole, they 
are not shooting straight with the American people.
  This amendment again poses the same question to the Senate as other 
amendments. The question is, ``Whose side are you on?''
  Are you on the side of billionaires who revoke their citizenship to 
avoid paying taxes? Or are you on the side of our Nation's veterans--
the men and women who have fought for their country--who have laid 
their lives on the line to defend freedom?
  I stand firmly with American Patriots not ex-patriots.
  I hope my colleagues will do the same. The veterans of our country 
deserve much better than the cuts contained in this Republican budget.
  (The following statement was inadvertently omitted from the Record of 
May 24, and appears here at the request of Mr. Rockefeller.


                           Amendment no. 1166

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, Senators 
Lautenberg, Daschle, Mikulski, Wellstone, Murray, Harkin, and Reid, in 
cosponsoring an amendment to the budget resolution, Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 13.
  This amendment--known as the ``Ex-Patriots to Patriots'' amendment--
would assume the repeal of the tax loophole that enables U.S. citizens 
to renounce their citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes. This would 
generate $3.633 billion in revenues for the Treasury over 10 years, 
from 1995 to 2005. Our amendment would restore funds from this 
revenue--$1.7 billion over the 7 years covered by the resolution--to 
Function 700, veterans programs, so as to offset some of the $15.4 
billion in reductions contained in the budget resolution.
  Mr. President, emigration and expatriation are fundamental rights of 
all Americans. They are guaranteed by the American Constitution and 
international human rights laws. Expatriation to avoid taxation is 
permitted by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
  We believe this provision in the Tax Code should be repealed for 
several reasons. First, it is unfair to all Americans who work hard 
every day to support their families and who pay taxes to support their 
country. It offends our sense of justice that some of the wealthiest 
Americans--who can afford to pay taxes, whose fortunes blossomed in the 
freedom and bounty of our Nation--can take such a drastic measure to 
avoid paying their fair share. Second, at a time when we are all 
committed to reducing the Federal deficit, the Treasury losses 
significant revenue because of the actions of the approximately 25 
individuals a year who choose expatriation to take advantage of this 
tax loophole. And finally, if these funds were available, they could be 
targeted toward needed programs and services which are in jeopardy--and 
which benefit far more than 25 people.
  Mr. President, the matter of this ``Ex-Patriots'' tax loophole has 
come before the Senate earlier in this session of Congress and is on 
the table again. We passed the ``Ex-Patriots'' provision as part of the 
small business health care deduction bill in March, but it was dropped 
in the House-Senate conference in April. Later, the Senate voted again 
to repeal this tax loophole, this time by a vote of 96-4 in a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution. And on May 15, Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, 
as passed by the Budget Committee, does repeal this tax loophole for 
wealthy Americans. However, it does not go far enough, it does not 
target any of the revenue for veterans' programs.
  On May 11, Senate Lautenberg wisely linked the two issues--repeal of 
the expatriates' tax break and restoration and funding
 to America's true patriots--in Budget Committee action. The tie vote 
of 11-11 demonstrated the bipartisan support for changing the tax code 
and helping maintain veterans' programs. Our amendment links the repeal 
of the tax loophole for expatriates to the restoration of funds for 
America's true patriots--her veterans. It does so because approximately 
$15 billion in reductions for veterans programs--including health care 
services for service-connected veterans and poor veterans--are on the 
chopping block. As ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, I believe the patriotism demonstrated by the men and 
women who have worn our country's uniform--those who put themselves in 
harm's way, those whose lives have been irrevocably changed by injuries 
sustained in the line of duty, those who lost comrades in the heat of 
battle--speaks for itself. The repeal of the expatriates' tax loophole 
makes sense, and our veterans deserve no less.

  Let us remember once again, in this 50th anniversary year of the end 
of World War II, the persons who enlisted in service to their country 
when tyranny threatened to obliterate peace and prosperity for 
generations to come. Science fiction writers and filmmakers have 
conjured up images of the unimaginable--what the world would have been 
like had our soldiers and sailors not made the world safe for 
democracy, safe for their children and grandchildren. Thankfully, many 
of these men and women are alive and well. But while many have their 
memories, their honor, and their dignity, they may not have their 
health or the material wealth with which to purchase the care they 
need.
  Mr. President, I want my colleagues to understand some of the ways 
the underlying budget resolution, as reported by the Budget Committee, 
will affect the people who use the VA health care system. Under the 
resolution, VA would be forced to operate at a level below current 
services. In human terms, almost 150,000 eligible veterans would be 
denied inpatient and outpatient care in 1996 alone, and almost 1 
million veterans would be denied care in 2002. In terms of VA's 
capacity to provide a full range of health care services nationwide, 
the equivalent of 5 VA hospitals would have to be shut down in 1996, 
and 35 VA hospitals would have to close their doors in 2002. In the 
first year of implementation, 8,200 VA health care professionals would 
lose their jobs, and by the end of this 7-year period, 53,000 VA 
medical facility employees would lose theirs.
  Another equally disturbing effect of the Budget Committee's action 
would be the cut in VA research programs of $15 million and 142 FTEE. 
This amounts to 10 percent of all VA research projects, or 150 fewer 
medical research projects each year. VA research is geared toward some 
of the special illnesses and disabilities which affect veterans, among 
them blindness,
 posttraumatic stress, and spinal cord injury. These and other subjects 
of VA research endeavors--everything from Alzheimer's disease to heart 
disease to women's health--also benefit the general population by 
finding the causes of disease and aiding in developing the best 
diagnostic, treatment, and preventive methods. Today's research results 
are tomorrow's cures. By eliminating the opportunity for our Nation's 
medical professionals--VA research is conducted by VA clinicians and 
researchers and also by those from our Nation's medical schools which 
are affiliated with VA medical centers--we cut off a source of 
knowledge that is crucial to the health of our Nation's citizens.

  Last, Mr. President, under the resolution, VA's construction program 
would be affected beyond repair. In [[Page S7452]] fact, the program 
would be decimated. This program, which upgrades and maintains VA's $25 
billion physical plant infrastructure, should cease to exist. All 200 
pending projects, totaling $3.4 billion, would have to be canceled. 
These are not new projects, new hospitals, or new buildings. These are 
essential modernization projects. They are essential because 65 percent 
of VA medical centers, or 114 hospitals, are at least 30 years old. And 
73 percent of VA hospital, domiciliary, and nursing home beds, that is 
more than 74,000 beds, do not comply with patient privacy standards. In 
this day and age, no hospital should have more than two beds per room, 
congregate bathing facilities, or inadequate space. If we suspend all 
work on these projects, VA's plans to upgrade its patient environment 
will never be realized.
  Mr. President, because this amendment is budget neutral, there is 
every reason why we should use these new funds to minimize the negative 
impact on veterans' programs of the Budget Resolution. The link between 
the two, thoughtfully and rightfully, proposed by Senator Lautenberg 
should be adopted by the full Senate. It is within our power to do so, 
and it is the right to do. As ranking minority member of the Veterans 
Affairs Committee, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.
  (The following statement was inadvertently omitted from the Record of 
May 24, and appears here at the request of Ms. Mikulski.)


                           amendment no. 1166

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Senators Lautenberg and Rockefeller that would partially 
restore funding for VA programs by closing the ex-patriot tax loophole.
  The ex-patriot tax loophole is a provision of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 that allows billionaires to renounce their citizenship and 
avoid paying Federal taxes. By closing this loophole, an additional 
$3.6 billion will be added to the Treasury between 1995 and 2005. I 
think it is appropriate, Mr. President, that we apply the revenues 
generated by closing the ex-patriot loophole to help restore funding 
for veterans programs.
  In supporting the Lautenberg/Rockefeller amendment, I rise in defense 
of the GI Joe generation--the World War II generation--our fathers who 
fought on the battlefront overseas and our mothers who fought on the 
homefront here in our communities.
  Those wonderful Rosie the Riveters who kept the United States of 
America running while the men fought for democracy around the world.
  These are the women--the Rosies--who made sure that not only the 
schools and businesses operated, but that we built airplanes, mobilized 
our defenses.
  Mr. President, these are the men who fought from the shores of 
Normandy to Iwo Jima. America's veterans fought to save Americans; they 
fought to save Western civilization; and they fought to save the very 
principles that this country was founded upon.
  And when the war was over, the GI Joe generation went back home to 
raise their families and contribute to the greatest prosperity that 
this country has ever known.
  Mr. President, we would not be here as a nation today, we would not 
be a superpower today, if it had not been for the GI Joe generation.
  We just commemorated V-E Day. In a few months we will commemorate V-J 
Day and the end of World War II. And now, here we are on the eve of 
Memorial Day.
  And, how are we remembering these gallant men and women? With our 
thanks, with our commitment, with our compassion?
  No, Mr. President. With this budget resolution, we are telling the GI 
Joe generation that promises made are not promises kept. We are telling 
these brave men and women that we intend to cut VA medical care by more 
than $5.5 billion over the next 7 years.
  What we are telling our mothers and our fathers is that we are going 
to close 35 VA medical centers and that we are canceling 200 medical 
construction projects needed to bring existing facilities up to current 
health delivery standards.
  Mr. President, this budget resolution will force the VA to eliminate 
53,000 full-time jobs including physicians, nurses, lab technicians, x-
ray technicians, and mental health counselors.
  Treatment will be denied to over 1 million patients, including deep 
reductions in patient visits for primary care, acute medical and 
psychiatric care, treatment for the chronically mentally ill, post-
traumatic stress disorder, cardiovascular disease, and extended care.
  In addition, this budget resolution adds insult to the injury we 
would inflict on our veterans. By forcing the elimination of almost 
1,000 VA jobs in benefit services, the VA claims backlog will increase 
from 500,000 to over 1 million claims. Having served on the front 
lines, we will now ask our veterans to stand in line for 2 to 4 years 
in order to receive their benefits.
  Finally, this budget resolution would limit future benefits for 
disabilities to those resulting directly from a veteran's performance 
of military duty, would phase in higher veteran prescription 
copayments, and increase the amount a servicemember must contribute in 
order to be eligible for benefits under the Montgomery G.I. bill.
  Mr. President, we have gone from the New Deal and the Fair Deal--to 
the raw deal in this budget. I urge my colleagues to honor our veterans 
this Memorial Day with more than parades, plaques, and platitudes. Let 
us honor the GI Joe generation with our gratitude and our commitment. 
Let us stand and fight for them, the way they fought for us.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lautenberg-Rockefeller 
amendment.
                           amendment no. 1179

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate adopted an 
amendment, numbered 1179, proposed by Senator Levin, to express the 
sense of the Senate that overhead expenses of defense agencies should 
be reduced in fiscal year 1996 by at least 3 percent. I supported that 
amendment.
  With the serious and continuing decline in the defense budget, it is 
imperative that every defense dollar be spent wisely. Cutting back on 
overhead expenses by 3 percent, or even more, is necessary to ensure 
that more of our scarce defense resources will be available for high-
priority military requirements. Because the level of defense spending 
provided in the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution is, in my view, 
seriously inadequate to meet our national security needs, I supported 
the amendment to minimize low-priority and wasteful administrative 
expenses of the Department of Defense and defense agencies.
  However, because of the rather vague language of the amendment, there 
may be some confusion as to its intent. Let me state my understanding 
of the content of the amendment.
  The amendment merely expresses the sense of the Senate that 
unnecessary overhead costs be reduced by 3 percent this fiscal year. 
The amendment makes no change whatsoever in the functional totals for 
National Defense, function 050, nor does it reduce the total amount of 
discretionary spending available for defense in fiscal year 1996.
  It is my understanding that, since the amendment did not explicitly 
reduce either the defense functional totals or the discretionary 
spending cap for defense, savings achievable by reducing overhead 
expenses will remain available for defense programs. Certainly, this 
understanding was central to my support for the amendment.
  I will work to reduce the overhead expenses of all defense agencies 
and departments, as I will do for all Federal agencies. Unnecessary 
expenditures of taxpayer dollars, in whatever account, should be 
eliminated. However, any savings from reduced overhead, in DOD may, 
under this amendment, be reallocated to other defense programs. In my 
view, such savings must be used to fund force modernization, readiness, 
and quality of life programs which are inadequately funded under the 
Clinton adminsitration defense budget proposals incorporated into this 
resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President. I cannot support Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 13, the congressional budget resolution which has been 
presented to the Senate by the Republican majority. That budget 
proposal which the Senate will likely approve today, has been described 
by our Republican colleagues as balanced in the year 2002 although it 
will not be. It relies heavily on surpluses in the Social Security 
trust funds to achieve balance. In fact, in 2002, there will remain, 
under the terms of the budget before us, a more [[Page S7453]] than 
$113 billion deficit, masked by the use of the Social Security trust 
funds. This is one crucial reason that I supported the Conrad 
substitute which would have reduced the deficit even farther than the 
Republican budget by 2002 and which is truly balanced, without the use 
of Social Security funds, by the year 2004.
  The Republican proposed budget resolution before us is unbalanced in 
another important way. The budget blueprint penalizes middle-income 
working families, reduces our investment in education, and penalizes 
our senior citizens, in order to provide for a tax reduction which will 
benefit mostly the wealthiest of Americans. The budget before us has 
its priorities wrong. It is simply a question of fairness.
  The Conrad substitute and the Bradley substitute, each while not the 
budget in every respect that I would have crafted, reflected a more 
equitable set of priorities than the Republican budget.
  One of the most inequitable aspects of the Republican proposal before 
us is that to pay for tax cuts which will principally benefit the most 
well off among us, it raises taxes on working families. The proposal to 
cut back the earned income tax credit for working families making less 
than $28,000 per year would, for instance, raise taxes by $354 on a 
single parent with two children making only $8,840 a year. That is 
minimum wage.
  The earned income tax credit has a long history of bipartisan 
support. President Reagan called the EITC, ``The best anti-poverty, the 
best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of the 
Congress.'' The EITC has played an important role in providing 
incentives to keep people working who are struggling to get on the 
lowest rungs of America's economic ladder and to stay off the welfare 
roles.
  The budget resolution before us aims a $21 billion tax increase at 
the working families. In Michigan, this means a $457 million tax hike 
over 7 years on nearly 316,000 hard-working taxpayers making less than 
$28,000 a year. Over the next 7 years, they will pay an average of 
nearly $1,500 more.
  While working families making less than $28,000 pay more, there is no 
effort in this budget to control the growth of corporate tax 
deductions, no effort to restrain the growing tax breaks for the 
largest and wealthiest among us.
  The Republican budget also hits our senior citizens very hard. 
Medicare would be cut by $256 billion, by far the largest Medicare cut 
in history. It is the most vulnerable who are hit hardest. Nearly 83 
percent of Medicare benefits go to beneficiaries with incomes less than 
$25,000. Two-thirds are below $15,000. Only 3 percent go to individuals 
or couples with incomes in excess of $50,000.
  I supported the Rockefeller amendment which would have restored $100 
billion for Medicare to the budget, without changing the target date 
for a balanced budget, and without increasing the deficit, by cutting 
funds the Republicans have earmarked for a tax cut for the wealthiest 
among us. The Rockefeller amendment was also defeated on a near party 
line vote.
  Another $175 billion, under the Republican budget, is cut from 
Medicaid. Many people don't realize that 70 percent of Medicaid costs 
are long-term care for the elderly and the disabled. Many middle-income 
elderly wind up relying on Medicaid for nursing home and other care 
after their resources are expended.
  The Conrad substitute, which I supported, provided more funds for 
Medicare and Medicaid, reduced the deficit by more than the Republican 
budget does by 2002, and would have balanced the budget honestly 
without using the Social Security trust fund to mask the real deficit.
  Another way in which the Republican priorities are wrong is that in 
order to pay for a tax increase for the most well-off among us, they 
have cut funding for college loans and educational improvement. This is 
perhaps the most short-sighted aspect of their budget proposal. 
Investment in the education of our children is investment in America's 
future. There are few ways to better and more efficiently spend our 
dollars than educating America's future generations.
  The Republican budget before us would increase college loan costs for 
four million students each year, by eliminating the in-school interest 
subsidy. The average student could pay $2,000-$3,000 more for his or 
her education and an additional 1 million college students could lose 
their financial aid or have their aid drastically reduced under the 
plan to freeze Pell grants.
  I supported the Harkin-Hollings amendment which would have used funds 
which the Republicans have reserved for a tax cut for wealthier 
Americans to restore $40 billion in funds for affordable student loans 
and for better schools. That amendment which was rejected on a near 
party line vote would have provided the additional funding to invest in 
the education of our children without adding to the deficit or changing 
the target date for a balanced budget. The Conrad substitute which I 
also supported would include more funding for education and would 
balance the budget without using funds from the Social Security trust 
fund as the Republican budget does.
  The majority also made clear their intentions when they rejected the 
Boxer amendment on Wednesday. That amendment, which I supported, would 
have assured that any tax cut be targeted to middle-income people. The 
Boxer amendment was defeated on a near party line vote.
  Mr. President, the issue before us is not whether the Federal budget 
should be balanced in years ahead. The issue is how we do that. What 
are the priorities and who bears the burden. I believe that the 
priorities in the budget which our Republican colleagues have proposed 
are wrong. They place the burden squarely on the backs of the elderly, 
students in school, and working families, while cutting taxes for the 
most well off. That budget is simply not fair. And, Mr. President, it 
fails to get the job done. It continues to use the Social Security 
trust fund to hide the real deficit.
  I have supported many amendments aimed at improving the budget 
resolution, making it more fair, without affecting the deficit 
reduction Virtually all were rejected by the Republican majority along 
nearly straight party lines. I cannot support the resolution before us.
            the budget resolution and the agriculture budget

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like today to make a very 
simple point. It is a point that I and other of my colleagues have been 
making over the course of recent weeks since the ``Chairman's Mark'' of 
this fiscal year 1996 budget resolution was issued. My point is this. 
The cuts to the agriculture category of spending in this budget 
resolution will cause significant harm--harm both to rural America and 
to low-income Americans throughout the country. That is why I have been 
voting for a number of amendments to reduce the size of the cuts to 
agriculture spending in this resolution.
  As my colleagues know, the resolution proposes dramatic cuts to the 
agriculture category of the Federal budget. It proposes cuts of $28 
billion over 5 years to the agriculture category, and suggests cuts of 
$45 billion over 7 years.
  Mr. President, these cuts will seriously reduce farm income, and they 
will damage our rural economy. They will drive down agricultural land 
values, and they will diminish conservation benefits that are important 
to our quality of life--both in the present and in the future. 
Reductions of this magnitude will take from $380 to $400 million from 
farmers in my State over just 5 years. Furthermore, if we pass cuts 
this dramatic, we will devastate nutrition programs such as food 
stamps, the WIC Program, and the Child Adult Care Feeding Program.
  Cuts to nutrition programs are contained in the same budget category 
as cuts to farm programs. As a result, it is clear that reductions as 
drastic as those in this resolution--$28 billion over 5 years, to be 
found by the Agriculture Committee--will pit struggling farmers against 
low- and moderate-income families for increasingly scarce Federal 
dollars.
  We all support Federal deficit reduction. Every farmer knows the 
value of lower interest rates, which would be one result of Federal 
fiscal responsibility. Indeed American agriculture and rural America 
have contributed a heavy share to deficit reduction. They 
[[Page S7454]] will continue to do their share to reduce the deficit, 
and they will do so willingly.
  But why must this budget impose the most pain on those for whom it 
will be most difficult to bear? Why are we not cutting more unneeded 
military and corporate-welfare spending? Why are we not eliminating 
lucrative tax breaks for special interests? Why are we, in fact, 
considering a tax cut for wealthy Americans? This resolution makes the 
wrong choices and takes our country in the wrong direction.
  Mr. President, now is not the time to abandon rural America or the 
nutritional needs of struggling families. I share with the President 
and the Secretary of Agriculture a desire to have a real debate on a 
real 1995 farm bill--not just a budget-cutting exercise. There are 
exciting prospects for rural America, and we are at a crucial historic 
moment for the social and economic health of our rural communities. We 
cannot simply slash and burn in such an important area of Federal 
policy and the Federal budget.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as I pointed out in my remarks earlier this 
week, this is not the first budget resolution to project a balanced 
budget. In fact, it is the fifth budget resolution to do so. The budget 
resolutions of 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1991 also purported to balance the 
Federal budget. The latest of these prior budget resolutions, 1991, was 
passed by both Houses of Congress after the 1990 Budget Summit was 
completed. That budget resolution conference report (101-820) purported 
to balance the Federal budget over a five-year period without using the 
Social Security surplus. In fact, for the fifth year of that budget 
resolution--fiscal year 1995--the 1991 budget resolution conference 
report showed a surplus of $20.5 billion without using the Social 
Security surplus.
  As has been noted repeatedly during the debate on the pending budget 
resolution, it does not balance the budget even at the end of seven 
years without using the Social Security surplus. In other words, the 
budget resolution before the Senate purports to balance the Federal 
budget in the year 2002 and, in fact, shows a surplus in that year of 
$1.3 billion, but only does so by using the Social Security surplus to 
mask the true deficit. The committee report on page 5 states that if 
one does not use the Social Security surplus to mask the deficit, there 
will in fact be a deficit of $113.5 billion in the year 2002.
  As I also noted in my earlier remarks, all of the previous efforts to 
achieve a balanced Federal budget, while being undertaken based on the 
best information available at the time of passage of the budget 
resolutions that purported to balance the budget, nevertheless failed 
to do so. This is because human beings cannot accurately predict the 
future and, therefore, cannot accurately project inflation, interest 
rates, revenues, etc., for a period of even one year, much less for a 
period of five years or seven years, as the pending budget resolution 
attempts to do.
  Having said that, however, I again applaud the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici, for his efforts to reduce the Federal 
deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next seven years.
  I do not agree in a number of areas with the specific proposals 
contained in the pending budget resolution. For example, the budget 
resolution proposed by the Budget Committee would not make any cuts in 
military spending over the next seven years, but would cut non-military 
discretionary spending by $190 billion below a freeze, or $300 billion 
below the amounts contained in the President's budget. This amounts to 
an overall non-military discretionary spending cut of almost one-third. 
Further, the existing hold-harmless provisions under the Budget 
Enforcement Act would be eliminated, thereby jeopardizing even the 
reduced funding levels for non-military discretionary spending 
contained
 in the resolution. Additionally, emergency spending in the future, in 
order to be exempt from the discretionary caps, would require 60 votes 
in the Senate.

  For these reasons, plus the fact that this resolution would take a 
so-called ``fiscal dividend'' of $170 billion and apply that phantom 
dividend toward a massive tax cut for the wealthy, I shall vote against 
the pending budget resolution.
  In doing so, however, I am not unaware of the fact that we must 
continue our efforts to achieve a balanced budget just as quickly as is 
prudently possible. But, we must do so in a way that is fair and in a 
way that does not negatively impact on the overall economy.
  I believe that the alternative budget by the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Conrad] which I cosponsored, laid out a far superior 
blueprint for balancing the Federal budget by the year 2002 (if one 
uses the Social Security surplus to offset the deficit), and by 2004 
without using the Social Security surplus.
  Under the Conrad amendment, which I was pleased to co-sponsor and for 
which I voted, non-military discretionary spending would be frozen over 
seven years. This would have amounted to an increase of $190 billion 
above the committee-reported budget resolution. Medicare would have 
been reduced by $156 billion, or $100 billion less than under the 
committee-reported resolution. No tax cut would have been provided for 
under the Conrad amendment, rather $228 billion in additional revenues 
would have been achieved through the closing or tax loopholes for the 
wealthy and big corporations. Four trillion dollars was projected to be 
spent on tax preferences over the next seven years. The Conrad 
amendment would have limited the growth in such preferences by $228 
billion, or 5.7 percent. In other words, even under the Conrad 
amendment, tax preferences would have still grown at the rate of 
inflation plus one percent.
  For all of these reasons, the Conrad amendment was, in my view, a far 
more rational, fair, and even-handed approach toward balancing the 
Federal budget. It would have removed many of the deficiencies in the 
committee-reported budget resolution by restoring funding for 
investments in the nation's future through discretionary spending on 
physical and human infrastructure, and it would have been far less 
devastating to the nation's elderly and those who could least afford to 
take cuts necessary to balance the Federal budget. Rather, it required 
those who are the wealthiest in our nation to pay their fair share.
  Finally, the Conrad alternative budget proposal proved the point that 
I have made repeatedly during debate on the constitutional balanced 
budget amendment--namely, that Congress does not need a constitutional 
amendment to enable it to balance the Federal budget. Rather, as I have 
pointed out, the Conrad amendment did all that is humanly possible in 
attempting to balance the Federal budget based on the best information 
available at this time in a fair, responsible, and even-handed way.
  It is for these reasons that I voted for the Conrad ``Fair Share 
Balanced Budget Proposal'' and why I shall vote against the committee-
reported budget resolution.
                              function 150

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President--

       Once upon a time the oceans were moats around our bastions. 
     Once upon a time it was a miracle to travel round the world 
     in 90 days. Now it is done in as many hours. Once upon a time 
     we were a comfortably isolated land. Now we are unavoidably 
     the leader and the reliance of freemen throughout this free 
     world. We cannot escape from our prestige nor from its hazard 
     * * * There is no longer such a thing as isolated security.

  In 1949, when the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, made these remarks he was urging 
his colleagues to ratify NATO. He made his case before a reluctant 
Senate, one weary of the costs of war in blood and treasure. But, 
Vandenberg understood that the defense of our Nation and the conduct of 
its foreign policy were the unique responsibilities of the Federal 
Government. He persuaded his colleagues not only to support NATO, but 
pay the costs of containment spelled out in the Truman Doctrine and the 
Marshall Plan.
  Senator Vandenberg was not indifferent to his colleagues caution. He 
took note of their objections--he understood that many of President 
Truman's initiatives, and NATO in particular, were considered by some a 
sharp departure from our historic foreign policy of nonentanglement in 
the affairs of others.
  Senator Vandenberg was a Republican who closely cooperated with a 
Democratic President and his administration. That bipartisan 
cooperation [[Page S7455]] secured the foundation for treaties and 
alliances that continue to guard our interests to this day. That 
cooperation rebuilt Europe yielding trade, prosperity, and stability.
  Today, the challenge is to rebuild Armenia and Ukraine, not Belgium 
and France. Our challenge is to include Poland and the Czech Republic 
and other nations in a new European security alliance.
  Our challenge is a choice much like that faced by the Senate in 
1949--to provide the resources to support American resolve, to secure 
American interests.
  Today, the choice is to advance democracy and free markets or retreat 
in our fight against the threats of international terrorism, nuclear 
proliferation, crime, and narcotics. Today, we win exports, jobs, and 
partners in peace or we lose to ethnic genocide, trade wars, 
terrorists, and tyrants.
  I am not so naive as to believe the choices we face are simple and 
stark. In some ways, if the choices were crystal clear,
 absolutely obvious, support for foreign aid and our global role would 
be much stronger. But it is the murky ambiguities of this day and age 
that give rise to both confusion and a general apathy about our place 
in the world. And, it is that confusion that risks our isolation.

  In his State of the Union Address in January 1945, President 
Roosevelt issued a sharp warning to the Nation. ``Let us not forget 
that the retreat to isolationism a quarter of a century ago was started 
not by a direct attack against international cooperation but against 
the alleged imperfections of the peace.''
  Every one of us has been critical of the imperfections of foreign 
aid. Every Member has expressed opposition to waste, fraud, and abuses. 
A majority could identify programs, embassies, and consulates which 
could be shut down.
  But, the costs of these imperfections should not be our international 
leadership. We must not pay the permanent price of retreat from the 
world, because we were troubled by the inefficiencies or problems in 
our foreign aid program.
  Foreign aid must be fixed. It must more clearly serve our national 
political, economic, and security interests. The public must understand 
exactly what we do with the 1 percent of the Federal budget foreign aid 
expends.
  Like many of my colleagues, I hear from constituents who are 
uncertain about why we have a foreign aid program at all. To each of 
them, I offer my firm commitment that we will reduce spending by 
eliminating unnecessary programs, consolidating responsibilities, and 
assuring we only spend our spare resources where we can achieve 
concrete results.
  I believe foreign aid is an important tool essential to maintaining 
our leadership around the globe. We cannot preserve, let alone promote, 
our interests for free.
  And, why should that matter. First, we are a compassionate nation by 
tradition; in fact it is one of our finest traditions as exemplified by 
the outpouring of support for Oklahomans. But for the moment let's set 
aside altruistic motives--set aside what I like to call the CNN 
syndrome--where they broadcast a famine, funds will naturally follow.
  Effective foreign assistance serves our interests. Let me review what 
I think we lose by the cuts proposed in the budget resolution.
  First and foremost, the budget resolution assumes we will cut nearly 
$800 million from the trade promotion activities. Programs at the 
Export Import Bank, OPIC, and the Trade Development Agency are not 
lining the pockets of foreigners. These are programs which directly 
affect American jobs and exports.
  Over the past 2 years Ex-Im has supported over $32 billion in exports 
and 300,000 jobs. In key sectors, such as power, telecommunications, 
and major construction, Ex-Im financed accounts for close to 30 percent 
of all new sales to developing countries and 15 percent of all U.S. 
production. In high growth developing markets, Ex-Im is financing 
anywhere from 10 to 40 percent of all U.S. capital goods.
  That is why the Coalition for Employment through Exports is 
supporting an increase in the Function 150 account--a Coalition that is 
a broad based organization of exporters, labor unions, and State 
governors enjoying substantial bipartisan support. That is why I have 
heard from bankers and businessmen across the country supporting an 
increase in the Function 150 account. They understand that this is 
about American jobs, American exports, American income.
  But there are other constituents who are concerned about the budget 
resolution cuts. The resolution assumes all aid to Eastern Europe and 
the Baltic nations will be zeroed out. Let me tell you what that means 
for just one country--Poland. After considerable effort by Congress, I 
think the administration has turned the corner and made the commitment 
to expand NATO. Poland is clearly first in line of the potential 
entrants. Just as the point where we are likely to make this offer, we 
zero out military assistance and training key to the effective 
integration of their forces.
  Criteria under consideration for admission to NATO is civilian 
control of the armed services and transparency of the defense budget. 
Here too, we would be cutting off parliamentary exchanges, expanded 
IMET and democratization initiatives key to meeting these admission 
standards.
  The budget resolution also assumes we will cut our program to the NIS 
from nearly $800 to $100 million. Just at the point when we are finally 
shifting emphasis from Russia to the other republics, we gut the 
program. Armenia and Ukraine are important partners in the region. 
Millions of Americans trace their roots to these countries--nations 
which deserve our support as they struggle down the perilous road of 
economic and political reforms. For the benefit of some of my 
colleagues who may not know about this constituency, let me offer a few 
statistics drawn up by the census bureau. Central and Eastern Europeans 
constitute: 18 percent of Pennsylvanians; 17 percent of New Jersey; 12 
percent of Ohio; 18 percent of Connecticut; 15 percent of Illinois; 11 
percent of Massachusetts; and nearly 2 million Californians.
  Which one of us wants to apologize to our children for a nuclear 
catastrophe because we failed to help Ukraine safeguard its aging 
Chernobyl reactors? Which one of us wants to answer to the American 
Armenian with a grandmother in Yerevan who has not had heat or light 
for months? Which one will shrug their shoulders at the market 
opportunities to a region of hundreds of millions of people?
  And, let's not forget Russia. With over 5,000 organized criminal 
enterprises with tentacles reaching our shores and access to nuclear 
material, do we really want to terminate the FBI's joint training and 
investigation efforts?
  Mr. President, the budget resolution decimates support for these new 
republics and that is why many of us have heard from local, State, and 
national organizations representing Americans of European descent who 
support increasing the level of the 150 account to guarantee adequate 
funding for foreign aid programs. The Central and Eastern European 
Coalition which includes the Armenian Assembly, the Estonian World 
Council, the Lithuanian American Community, the Polish American 
Congress, the Ukrainian Congress Committee, the Ukrainian National 
Association, the Joint Baltic American National Committee, the U.S. 
Baltic Foundation, the Hungarian American Coalition, the Czecho-Slovak 
Council of America, the National Federation of Hungarian Americans, and 
several other groups all support this amendment.
  I have only highlighted some of my specific concerns about the 
assumptions included in the budget resolution. I did not mention the 
fact that it assumes a cutoff of assistance to Greece and Turkey. I did 
not detail the devastating impact it will have on development 
assistance, peacekeeping, and the National Endowment for Democracy. I 
did not review country by country the consequence of terminating 
international lending to the world's poorest countries. I have only 
highlighted my concerns--concerns shared by many of our constituents. I 
hoped that this discussion would help all of us understand that this is 
not a debate about giving away tax dollars to foreigners or pouring our 
money down rat holes.
  [[Page S7456]] Our constituents recognize, as I do, that the budget 
resolution before the Senate will leave this President, the next 
President, our Nation and citizens with virtually no options except 
military intervention. In the last decade foreign aid has already 
suffered a 40- percent reduction. The reductions in the budget 
resolution, to an account that already represents only 1 percent of our 
spending, amounts to eliminating foreign aid.
  I think that is a mistake which jeopardizes our interests. 
Eliminating foreign aid does not eliminate crises and needs. 
Eliminating foreign aid will not constrain a President from addressing 
these reqirements--from carrying out his policies, from serving our 
national interests.
  Eliminating foreign aid will simply transfer the burden directly to 
the Pentagon. The costs DOD assumed for taking care of Cuban and 
Haitian refugees at Guantanamo will become routine, not rare. We can 
support private voluntary organizations carrying out feeding missions 
in Rwanda or we can deploy our National Guard. We can help train the 
military in Mexico to interdict narcotics, or we can drain the 
Pentagon's accounts to patrol our borders intercepting drug flights. We 
can fund the FBI's work with their Russian counterpart's to combat 
criminal organizations engaged in smuggling chemical, biological, and 
nuclear material, or the Pentagon can pay a price to manage the threat.
  Crisis prevention costs less than crisis.
  Much has been made by the administration of the isolationist symptoms 
twitching in this body. And there certainly are Members, Senators who I 
have a deep respect for who believe the United States should withdraw 
from the world stage.
  But, I do not believe we have that option any more. The world is no 
longer conveniently divided into cold war camps. Our friends and 
allies, the emerging democracies, all turn to the sole remaining 
superpower for leadership and support. A time when the international 
landscape is troubled and confused is precisely the wrong time to 
withdraw. It is precisely the wrong time to create a vacuum for the 
Saddam Husseins and other ambitious tyrants to fill. We can pay a small 
price now to secure American interests or we will surely pay an 
enormous cost later.
  Mr. President, Senator Sarbanes and I had intended to offer an 
amendment to increase the level of the function 150 account. We were 
supported in this effort by Senators Hatfield, Leahy, and other members 
of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee and Foreign Relations Committee 
who were concerned about the budget resolution's impact.
  We had worked hard to achieve a bipartisan base of support for an 
amendment to raise the level of resources for function 150. 
Unfortunately, these efforts were undercut by comments made by 
Secretary Christopher before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. 
The Secretary made clear he was concerned about the level of resources 
the Congress might make available. Nonetheless, when I asked him, as I 
had asked the Administrator for A.I.D. and other members of the Clinton 
administration, to work to secure congressional support to increase the 
account, he declined. He made it absolutely clear to all of us that the 
administration intended to sit on the sidelines as the resolution was 
debated.
  I believe this reluctance directly affected our support for an 
amendment. many Members I spoke with commented that if it isn't 
important enough to the President and the State Department to work to 
improve the resolution, why should I go out on a limb to increase 
foreign aid?
  Ironically, just yesterday the President decided to lash out and 
threaten to veto the House bill which authorizes priorities and 
policies related to foreign assistance spending. The President is a day 
late and is attacking a bill that the budget process leaves billions of 
dollars short.
  He refused to weigh in at the time that the crucial battle was being 
fought--the administration simply did not show up to participate in a 
bipartisan effort to secure adequate funds to administer our Nation's 
foreign affairs.
  On other occasions in the course of our history similar mistakes have 
been made. By the time Gen. J.E.B. Stuart showed up at Gettysburg, 
General Lee had not only lost the battle, but ultimately the war. 
Stuart had wandered Pennsylvania aimlessly, leaving his commander blind 
to the strength and the position of Union troops.
  This week, we saw aimless wandering not in the hills of Pennsylvania, 
but down the Avenue. Many of my colleagues understood the importance of 
the budget battle--understood it has significant implications for our 
long-term national interests. But the critical support for an effort to 
save the 150 account failed to arrive in time.
                          transportation cuts

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President the Senate proposal before us reduces 
transportation spending significantly more than the House. The 
difference between the Senate and the House is primarily attributable 
to unrealistic savings associated with privatizing certain air traffic 
control functions of the FAA. Beginning in 1997, the Senate assumes 
that this proposal will achieve savings of $3.675 billion a year.
  The feasibility of the Senate Republican's air traffic control 
privatization proposal is highly suspect because it asks users to pay 
twice. Not only will users continue to pay the Federal Government, via 
the ticket tax, but users will have to pay an additional tax to the new 
private entity.
  While the Republican plan may help reduce the deficit, it is clearly 
not fair. Asking users to continue to pay the ticket tax to help reduce 
the deficit and then asking them to pay an additional tax to pay for an 
air traffic control service they already receive is asking too much and 
has little chance of succeeding.
  Given the fact that the Senate Republican's FAA proposal is totally 
unrealistic, the Department of transportation would then be forced to 
virtually eliminate new highway, Transit, and Airport Improvement Grant 
funding in fiscal year 1997 to even get close to achieving its Senate 
fiscal year 1997 budget
  In addition, deep cuts of 20 percent or more in Coast Guard and FAA 
operations would be required to actually make the cuts proposed in 
Senate budget for fiscal year 1997.
  We should not jeopardize the safety and viability of the Nation's 
transportation system with unrealistic budget assumptions. Let's have a 
more realistic budget for transportation, a budget that won't put vital 
transportation functions at risk.
                  privatization of air traffic control

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, for 50 hours, we have debated the real 
impacts of the Republican budget proposal. I have talked at length 
about the Republican budget, and I won't restate my objections here. I 
do, however, want to point out the folly of one part of this plan.
  All too often around here, someone hears an idea and runs with it. 
Buried in this budget is an assumption that the air traffic control 
services now provided by the Federal Aviation Administration will be 
privatized. The savings, through the year 2000, are projected to be 
$14.7 billion. The assumption raises many serious concerns, not the 
least of which are the potential impacts on safety, the traveling 
public, the airline industry, and travel and tourism.
  Travel and tourism is the largest service export of the United 
States, producing a $22 billion export surplus. The industry employs 
six million Americans, and generates a $99.2 billion payroll. Travel 
and tourism is dependent on a U.S. aviation industry that over the last 
5 years has lost $13 billion. We have seen carriers like Eastern 
Airlines and Pan American Airways, which paved the way for 
international aviation in the world, shut their doors. In reviewing the 
Domenici budget, and in particular the assumption to privatize air 
traffic control, it is important to bear in mind the tourism industry's 
importance to our economy and the airlines' current financial morass.
  No matter what, we know that air traffic control services and the 
other FAA safety programs must continue. Someone will have to pay for 
those services. Right now, the users pay money into an airport and 
airway trust fund. It is a dedicated fund. The users pay approximately 
$6 billion per year into the trust fund.
  Under the Domenici assumption, Federal spending for the FAA would be 
cut by a total of $14.7 billion, or $3.7 [[Page S7457]] billion per 
year. We can cut the Federal Government's outlays for the FAA, but the 
need for the services does not end. This is not one of those unneeded 
services or programs that ceases as soon as Federal funding stops. Air 
traffic control services will need to be provided and paid for no 
matter what happens under the Budget resolution. Yet, Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 13 asks the users to continue to pay $6 billion to the 
Federal Government, but then calls for air traffic control services to 
be privatized. As a result, the Federal Government will not use the 
trust fund for those services, and the users must pay again for them. 
Essentially, the users will get double billed. We could solve the 
deficit very quickly if we charged every industry twice for the service 
provided by the Government, or simply continued to charge them for 
services that the Federal Government would no longer provide.
  Over the last year, there has been a prolonged battle over the future 
of the FAA. The administration came up with a proposal to split up the 
FAA into a successor FAA and a Government corporation for air traffic 
control, which I and many others oppose. The plan was never proposed as 
a way to save money, but rather as a way to modernize the system and to 
maintain the current safety standards of the system. The Secretary of 
Transportation did not state that he expected huge savings from the 
breakup; instead he expected a more effective organization. The 
commercial aviation industry, initially thought to favor the air 
traffic control corporation, ultimately concluded that it could not 
endorse the Secretary's program. The general aviation sector also said 
no. So has Congress.
  Now we get an assumption to privatize a key element of the FAA in 
this budget plan. What are we talking about? There are many 
privatization options that I can think of, but all of them would wreak 
havoc with the world's safest air transportation system. For example, 
do we really want to create a Postal Service for the air traffic 
control system? I get mad when
 letters are misplaced, but to think of misplacing aircraft is 
something else.

  Should we consider contracting out these services to a private group? 
Do you really want your air traffic control system being run by the 
lowest bidder? In the alternative, we could auction off the system to 
the highest bidder, gaining lots of revenue for the Federal Government. 
Stop and think about those two possibilities. Consider the winner of 
the auction--the winning bidder would need to recoup its investment, 
operate and modernize the system, and earn a return on the investment. 
Doing a little shorthand math, let's say the air traffic control system 
is worth $15 billion, and using the Domenici assumption of $14.7 
billion, it would cost another $15 billion to modernize and operate the 
system. The company also would want at least a 10 percent return on the 
investment. Congress would have created a winning formula for helping 
the aviation industry--a $30-$35 billion increase in costs. Remember, 
the industry lost $13 billion over the last 5 years. An industry 
further weakened could result in safety problems.
  In addition, the winner of the auction would then be running a 
monopoly. Do we really want to have a complete laissez-faire attitude 
toward safety? Let's stop and think about this for a minute: a monopoly 
would need to be regulated--fees for air traffic control services would 
need oversight and safety functions would need monitoring. Are we 
really willing to tell the traveling public that the Government is no 
longer responsible for aviation safety? This proposal to privatize does 
not create efficiencies or facilitate competition for air traffic 
control services. It merely turns over to a private entity the function 
of providing those services. That corporation would have no incentives 
to make the system efficient--it would be a monopoly.
  We could avoid the monopoly situation by creating competing air 
traffic control systems, so that New York could have its own system, 
Chicago another, and so on. Of course, small communities might have 
trouble paying for high quality air traffic control services. So they 
would either have to sacrifice safety by providing inferior services or 
close down their airports for lack of services. The free market can be 
counted on to eliminate inefficiencies, but our constituents can't be 
blamed for not applauding such results.
  Let's begin by understanding that the air traffic control system is 
the heart of the safety network that the Government provides to people 
who fly. Admittedly, the system is not perfect, but most agree that it 
is by far the best in the world. Comparisons to other countries that 
have privatized air traffic control services are irrelevant and 
ridiculous. These countries--New Zealand, Switzerland, and Germany--
combined probably have less air traffic than Atlanta. Our system is 
much more complex, much more integrated. Privatization of the air 
traffic control system is opposed by the vast majority of aviation 
industry experts.
  The General Aviation manufacturers Association [GAMA] recently wrote 
to me and reminded me that the Office of Technology Assessment in 1988 
stated that ``the ATC function is inextricably linked with aviation 
safety and is a central component of an integrated FAA safety system.'' 
The GAMA letter went on to say that the Aviation Safety Commission, 
appointed by President Reagan, ``stressed that the Federal government 
must continue to play the central role in ensuring safe operation of 
the U.S. aviation system.'' The GAMA letter included the following 
quotation from that Commission's report: ``Since the Commission is not 
inclined to gamble in sorting out conflicting assertions about whether 
safety regulatory functions can be separated organizationally from air 
traffic control and facilities operations activities, the Commission 
cannot endorse the proposition that the air traffic control function 
should be privatized.'' The Senate Budget Committee's assumptions take 
that gamble.
  We do not want to put the safety of the national air transportation 
system at risk. Ask the controllers who toil throughout the country if 
they want to privatize. Those folks work hard to make sure that all of 
us get home safely. They oppose privatization and seek meaningful 
reform.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on meaningful reform--
not privatization or corporatization of air traffic control services. 
The process should proceed with caution before we assume in this or any 
budget that we should destroy the safest air traffic control system in 
the world.
                food and nutrition programs for children

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on March 29 of this year, the Senate 
unanimously adopted a resolution I offered opposing any measure that 
would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. Now, less 
than 2 months later, here we are considering a budget resolution that 
would drastically cut funding for important nutrition programs, 
including the Food Stamp Program and the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program. The cut would be $20 billion over 5 years in these programs.
  This budget represents a massive set-back in fighting hunger in this 
country. We do know the following about who is hungry in this country:
  In 1991 FRAC's Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project 
estimated that there are 5.5 million children under 12 years of age who 
are hungry in the United States.
  The group Second Harvest estimated that in 1993, the emergency food 
programs served 10,798,375 children.
  The U.S. Council on Mayor's Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness 
in America's Cities: 1994 found that 64 percent of the persons 
receiving food assistance were from families with children.
  A Tufts University Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy 
Study estimated that 12 million children were hungry in the United 
States in 1991.
  A Carnegie Foundation study found that 68 percent of public school 
teachers in 1987 reported that undernourished children/youths are a 
problem in school.
  There is a serious problem with hunger in this country--particularly 
for children. Our reaction should be outrage, but instead we are 
responding by cutting the most important nutritional program this 
country has. These two programs are critical supports to children's 
nutrition.
  The Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP] is designed to ensure 
that children up to age 12 enrolled in child care centers, family care 
centers, [[Page S7458]] before-and-after school programs, as well as 
Head Start centers receive nutritious meals. In 1994 the program cost 
about $1.3 billion and served slightly more than two million children. 
The budget proposal will cut at least $1.9 billion over 5 years and 
$3.21 billion over 7 years. This is the only program that is easily 
accessible to family day care centers, the majority of day care 
providers in this country. The
 CACFP is the single biggest incentive for family day care providers to 
become licensed or registered.

  The chairman's assumption is that the savings will come from 
targeting lower income children through census tract eligibility. I 
worry how such a strategy will work in Minnesota, where rural districts 
can be rich or poor depending upon a very small number of people. The 
alternative that these homes will have is to means test each family 
monthly, an appalling paperwork morass for such small operations. We 
are afraid these homes may go back underground by leaving the program.
  An even larger concern is the impact of this budget resolution on the 
Food Stamps Program. Food Stamps is the program that feeds the hungry 
in this country.
  Who are the people on Food Stamps? Well, we know that over half of 
Food Stamp recipients are children. Some 13 million children received 
benefits in 1992. Families with children received 81.9 percent of food 
stamp benefits. Elderly and disabled households received 12.9 percent 
of food stamp benefits. The program targets the population in need very 
well with 56 percent of food stamps benefits going to households with 
gross incomes below half of the poverty line and 76 percent are at or 
below the poverty level. So you see, most of the people we will be 
cutting off or restricting benefits to will be the most vulnerable, the 
poorest in our society. And yet again we are making poor children pay. 
Over half of these benefits go to poor children, but that is the 
program we pick to slash.
  The Food Stamp Program works. A recent overview of the literature 
indicated there is considerable evidence that the Food Stamp Program is 
an important factor in helping low-income households have better 
nutrition intakes. Participants have a higher level of recommended 
dietary allowances than do eligible nonparticipants. Under-nutrition 
has serious health consequences and is associated with an array of 
medical problems including longer healing of wounds and injuries, 
susceptibility to disease and extended recovery time when contracted. 
In children, under-nutrition is associated with cognitive deficits and 
impaired development.
  This is a temporary program for the majority of recipients. Half of 
all food stamp recipients leave the program within 6 months and two-
thirds leave within 1 year. This is not a dependency-producing subsidy, 
a point of great concern to many.
  Yet the program does this with very little money. In 1994, the 
program provided an average benefit of $69 per person per month, or 76 
cents per person per meal. The maximum benefit--received by less than 
23 percent of households--is $368 for a family of four or $1.06 per 
person per meal. All food assistance programs represent only 2.4 
percent of Federal outlays and this percentage is expected to decline 
slightly in the future as a
 share of total spending.

  This is not to say that the Food Stamps Program does not have its 
problems. There is evidence of fraud and waste, yet one estimate is 
that the amount of money saved by fraud will only make up 0.1 percent 
of the savings the House welfare reform bill intends to gain by cutting 
the food program. I certainly agree with those who would like to reduce 
fraud through reasonable means. Those who waste these benefits or who 
fraudulently use them are wasting taxpayers' money. I am afraid that 
the desire to cut this program is too strongly influenced by a run-away 
desire to correct this wrong-doing, with little examination of the 
consequences to those in need.
  People will go without because of the reductions proposed in this 
resolution, and we need to recognize that. These cuts are massive, and 
will dramatically reduce the money available to feed hungry people. 
Given the very real possibility that this body will pass a welfare 
reform bill which ends the AFDC entitlement, food stamps will be the 
only program with entitlement status that will cushion our poor 
families against recessions. We are shortsighted in taking food from 
those who need it to pay for tax cut primarily for wealthy people and 
corporations.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose these unwise reductions, and to 
support amendments to restore critically needed food assistance to 
children and others who rely on these programs.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Grams.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the time and effort 
the majority leader has put into this bill.
  Mr. President, during my campaign for the Senate, I promised the 
people of Minnesota I will do everything that I can do to get 
government off their backs and out of their back pockets. I told them 
my fight for them was to turn legislation like my families first plan, 
and its $500 per child tax credit and economic growth incentives, into 
law. I believe that this tax credit should be available starting next 
year for all children under age 18. Today, I am pleased that the U.S. 
Senate has taken the first step to provide families with the tax relief 
they want and deserve. The budget resolution reported out of the Budget 
Committee included a substantial fiscal dividend which may have been 
used for family tax relief. The Grams-Abraham amendment guarantees that 
the dividend will be used for family tax relief. Mr. Leader, I would 
like you to clarify the phrase ``tax relief.''
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator for his inquiry. While the
   phrase ``family tax relief'' is not specific, my interpretation is 
that the phrase could include a $500 per child family tax credit. It is 
of course up to the Finance Committee to determine exactly how the 
fiscal dividend will be given back to Americans in the form of tax 
cuts. But I can assure you that as a senior member of the Finance 
Committee and its former chairman, and a majority leader, when the 
Finance Committee determines how to provide specific tax cuts, I will 
be there fighting for tax credits for children, such as that provided 
by the $500 per child credit. We should provide tax credits for 
families that adopt children, expanded IRA's for homemakers, estate tax 
relief for family businesses, and other benefits targeted to the 
family.

  The amendment also calls for the fiscal dividend to be used for tax 
incentives for savings and investment, job creation and economic 
growth. I would work to ensure that, as a result of the Grams-Abraham 
amendment, we cut the capital gains tax to stimulate economic growth 
and create jobs.
  Mr. GRAMS. Also, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I would like to ask 
if spousal IRA's would be included in the definition of ``family tax 
relief''?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would say while the specifics of family 
tax relief and incentives to increase savings and investment will be 
determined by the Finance Committee, expanded spousal IRA's would 
certainly be considered in the context of providing family tax relief.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Would the majority leader yield for another question?
  Mr. DOLE. Certainly.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Like the Senator from Minnesota, I also campaigned on a 
platform that emphasized tax relief for all Americans including the 
$500 per child family tax credit, and savings and investment incentives 
such as estate tax reform for family-owned businesses. The fiscal 
dividend included in the budget resolution will provide approximately 
$79 billion in tax relief over the next 5 years. Now, our amendment 
directs the Committee on Finance to use this dividend for family tax 
relief and incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, 
and economic growth. By including these directions, I believe we have 
substantially improved the Senate's position when entering into 
negotiations with the House over tax cuts. Is it the majority leader's 
intention to work for additional tax cuts in the budget resolution 
conference to ensure that the largest possible family
 and pro-growth cuts are enacted this year?

  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator for the question. Let me indicate as I 
have before, I have always said that balancing the budget is my first 
priority. But we can balance the budget and cut [[Page S7459]] taxes 
too. The Senate budget resolution will ensure that we do both. Any 
fiscal dividend that results from enacting balanced budget legislation 
will be returned to the American people in the form of reduced taxes. 
There are significant differences between the House and Senate budget 
resolutions, and I will encourage the Senate conferees to increase the 
deficit reduction achieved in this budget to the maximum extent 
possible. If we achieve even more savings, then I will fight to ensure 
that further tax cuts are provided to the American people.
  Let me just say to both my colleagues from Minnesota and Michigan 
that I appreciate their willingness throughout the last several days to 
try to come to some agreement that would provide the relief that they 
were seeking. This does not quite reach everything they wanted, but I 
commend them for their efforts.
  I think this is a very significant amendment that was adopted today 
on the floor, with bipartisan support, I might add. And it was due to 
the efforts of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], and the Senator 
from Michigan [Mr. Abraham].
  If I can say one word that would follow the statement of the Senator 
from Delaware on the antiterrorism bill, I thank Senator Hatch and 
Senator Biden for their willingness to try to pass this bill. I urge my 
colleagues, particularly on this side of the aisle, to help us enter 
into some time agreements to make it possible. It might be--and it may 
not happen--that we can reach a time agreement on a number of 
amendments and not be in very long tomorrow. We will have a couple of 
votes, and we will take it up the day we are back. I promised we would 
take up telecommunications on that day. Without an agreement, I do not 
have any idea how long it will take if we bring up or continue on this 
bill when we come back on June 5.
  I will be working with Senators Daschle and Biden and Hatch. We 
promised the President we would bring this up before the Memorial Day 
recess, and we have done that now. We have not completed action, but we 
have had a little debate. Had we been able to start on this last night, 
we may have been able to finish it tonight or tomorrow. It may not be 
possible to do that now. I know colleagues have other commitments 
starting early afternoon tomorrow, and some have them in the morning. I 
hope that on both sides we can have the cooperation of our colleagues 
working with the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch, and the 
ranking Democratic member, Senator Biden.
  Mr. BIDEN. While the majority leader is still on the floor, I can say 
for the minority that I am confident we can agree on time agreements on 
all of the amendments I am aware of thus far. We are continuing to 
hotline this to see if there are any amendments other than the ones 
that I am aware of.
  I doubt whether we can get an agreement on a final passage time. But 
I would suggest that if we can get narrowed down time agreements 
tomorrow on each of the amendments, we should do all we can to lock it 
in. I thank the leader for honoring his commitment to bring this up. It 
was a bit beyond his control, having 50 some votes in the last 2 days. 
To the best of my knowledge, the House has not acted on this at all. 
Even if we passed a bill tonight, we are not in a position to be able 
to send it to the President or even go to conference. I do not think 
there is any damage done by not doing that.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________