[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15773-S15840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S15773]]


               BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand Senator Kassebaum is 
prepared to offer an amendment with reference to education. I 
understand we have 10 minutes on our side and they have 10 minutes on 
their side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is not correct in 
that. There is 10 minutes equally divided, 5 minutes to a side.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 2962

   (Purpose: To strike the provisions relating to loan payments from 
institutions, the elimination of the grace period interest subsidy, and 
                the PLUS loan interest rate and rebate)

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Coats, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
Frist, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Gorton, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], for herself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Coats, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Frist, Mr. 
     DeWine, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Gorton, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2962.

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

       On page 1421, beginning with line 15, strike all through 
     page 1423, line 13.
       On page 1424, beginning with line 2, strike all through 
     page 1426 line 9.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
strike the provisions relating to loan payments from institutions, the 
elimination of the grace period interest subsidy, and the PLUS loan 
interest rate and rebate.
  I will just briefly speak to this, Mr. President, because this has 
been something the Labor and Human Resources Committee has worked long 
and hard on. We passed the budget resolution earlier this year in the 
U.S. Senate. The Labor Committee, as a whole, expressed reservations at 
that time about the magnitude of the cuts that the resolution directed 
us to make in the Federal student loan programs. However, we agreed to 
try and meet the reconciliation instruction, and we did so.
  As chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, on behalf 
of the majority members of this committee, we worked to get a package 
that met the reconciliation instruction and had the least impact on 
students.
  Much has been said on the Senate floor about the impact on students. 
We consciously directed the effort so that it would not impact strongly 
on students. This amendment would reduce savings by about $6 billion 
from the original $10.8 billion that was requested from and produced by 
the committee. Those costs will be offset by excess savings from the 
entire budget package.
  Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate the provision of the 
bill that would require students to pay for the interest on their 
subsidized Stafford loans in the 6 months after they leave school. This 
would have only applied to new borrowers, but we now eliminate that 
provision. It would eliminate a raise in interest rate and the interest 
rate cap on the PLUS parent loans and would also repeal the assessment 
of a participation fee on institutions of higher education.
  The main difference between this amendment and the amendment offered 
by Senator Kennedy, is that we leave intact provisions in the budget 
bill that would decrease the size of the direct loan program to a more 
appropriate demonstration size, until we can fully assess the merits 
and feasibility of direct lending. Direct lending does not affect 
student eligibility for Federal student loans, nor does it affect the 
amount of funds available for loans or the rates and fees charged to 
students. They do not make financial aid more affordable or more 
accessible.
  Mr. President, I just add that there are two members--one, a member 
of the committee, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, and the other is 
Senator Snowe from Maine--who have felt strongly from the very 
beginning that we simply should not cut into the education funds as 
much as the reconciliation request required. They have fought long and 
hard.
  I will yield what time I have remaining to Senator Jeffords and 
Senator Snowe but I want to point out that a majority of the committee 
is cosponsoring this amendment. We are all united behind this 
amendment, and it has been a dedicated effort on the part of the 
committee majority members.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute, 21 
seconds.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me briefly remind everybody that a 
while back, when we were dealing with the budget resolution, 67 of us 
voted not to cut more than $4 billion out of higher education. This 
amendment would bring this level closer to where we in the Senate voted 
earlier this year to be--a $5 billion cut from the $10.8 billion. I 
remind my colleagues of that. I hate to see anybody be inconsistent 
with their voting, and since 67 voted for something a little more 
draconian than this, I hope those Senators will stay with us on this 
amendment.

[[Page S15774]]

  I will also say, while I believe that we should have direct lending 
stay in as it creates great competition for the programs, and am in 
favor of having a rate higher than 20 percent that is in the bill now, 
I could not go with the Democratic amendment because it essentially 
opens up direct lending fully. I will therefore be voting against the 
Kennedy amendment. But I will be voting in favor, obviously, of the 
Kassebaum-Snowe-Jeffords amendment.
  Our amendment restores the 6-month grace period, eliminates the .85 
percent institution fee, and lowers the interest rate on PLUS loans. 
Reducing the labor committee's instruction from $10.85 billion over 7 
years to $5 billion.
  Let me lay aside the issue of reducing education cuts for one quick 
moment and explain why this amendment is so important.
  The amendment offered by my democratic colleagues restored direct 
lending to current law--or a transition to 100 percent. I simply could 
not support such a provision.
  I have always been a supporter of testing the direct lending program 
and am on record as opposing the labor committee's bill to limit it to 
20 percent. Twenty percent in my view is too small, it cuts out schools 
that currently participate in the program--that to me is wrong.
  However, as I stated during debate of the 1993 reconciliation, I 
believe in a slow, implementation of direct lending. It should be 
undertaken thoughtfully and carefully. The amendment offered by my 
democratic colleagues is tantamount to a phase-in of direct lending. A 
phase-in suggests something very different than a thoughtful analysis 
of the two programs. My fear is that we have already made the decision 
to go full force without really looking at the advisability of such a 
move. It is like saying ``ready, fire, and then aim.''
  For this reason I support a firm cap on direct lending. That cap, in 
my mind should be set at a point which protects the schools that are 
current participants and allows some room for growth. I suggest that 
number be set between 30-40 percent.
  Mr. President, that is not the amendment we are currently 
considering. I offered that suggestion to my colleagues as a bipartisan 
approach. Unfortunately, that amendment coupled with billions of 
dollars in additional student aid, was rejected by the democrats and 
interestingly also by groups purporting to represent higher education. 
In particular the council on education.
  I am truly disheartened that today we may have lost an opportunity to 
demonstrate to this Congress, the administration and the people of this 
country that education is not a partisan issue. Unfortunately, we gave 
up the chance to show that politics takes a back seat to sound policy.
  I wish we could have put differences aside and discussed the real 
issue--reducing the labor committee's instruction and restore funding 
for education.
  Certainly, we must balance the budget but we must cut expenditure not 
investment. That is what this amendment does. It strikes the .85 
percent institution fee, restores the 6-month grace period, and 
eliminates the increase in the PLUS interest rate. Support for this 
amendment will provide savings to parents, students, and institutions.
  Eliminating the interest subsidy during the 6-month grace period 
could increase the debt of an undergraduate who borrows the maximum 
$23,000 by almost $1,000, resulting in additional payments of nearly 
$1,400 over the life of the loan. For a graduate student who borrows 
the maximum $65,500, the result would be $2,700 in additional debt and 
almost $4,000 in additional payments.
  Raising the interest rate and the interest rate cap on PLUS loans 
would increase the total payments of parents who borrow $20,000 for 
their children's education by $1,300.
  It simply doesn't pay to cut education.
  Consider the following: More highly educated workers not only earn 
more, but they work and pay taxes longer then less educated workers.

       Between 1973 and 1993, median family income dropped by over 
     20 percent for families headed by a person with a high school 
     diploma or less; but it held steady for those families headed 
     by someone with 4 years of college; and increased for 
     families head by someone with 5 years of college or more. 
     (Mortenson, June 1995)

  We need to encourage our young people to pursue higher education both 
to keep us competitive and to help balance the budget.
  Higher education funds cannot be cut any further.
  Unfortunately, the opportunity for individuals to go on to 
postsecondary education is getting slimmer and slimmer. Pell grant 
awards have not kept pace with college costs. Students have had to 
increase borrowing in order to make up the difference.
  In 1985-86, the actual maximum Pell grant of $2,100 paid 58 percent 
of the total annual cost of attendance for a 4-year public institution 
$3,637. In 1993-94, the maximum Pell grant of $2,300 paid only 36 
percent of the total cost, $6,454.
  Because Federal grant programs have grown much more slowly than the 
cost of attending college, loans now, 1994-95 account for 56 percent of 
all student aid, up from 49 percent in 1985-96.
  Borrowing has skyrocketed in recent years to such an extent that the 
amount borrowed through the FFEL program from 1990 to 1995 is greater 
than the total amount borrowed from its inception in 1965 through 1989.
  With such statistics it is no wonder that polls show more and more 
students and families deciding that college is simply out of their 
reach. In fact, close to 20 percent of students consider leaving school 
because of debt. Considering the impact on our economy and the future 
earning potential of individuals with a postsecondary degree, this 
statistic is most disheartening.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and tell the nation 
that the issue of education spending is a bipartisan issue.
  I see that the Senator from Maine has arrived. I am happy to yield to 
her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 5 minutes, as I understand it. I 
will speak for 2 minutes and then yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the Senator 
from Illinois.
  Mr. President, this is, first of all, an extraordinary moment because 
it is an initial victory for the students of this country and their 
parents that our Republican friends are hearing their message about the 
unfair, unwise, unjustified additional burden on working families. So 
that is the good news.
  The bad news is that what Senator Kassebaum's amendment will 
effectively do is to say to the 1,400 schools that now have direct 
lending that half of them are out. Half of them are out. There is no 
suggestion about how you are going to cut those out.
  Under our amendment, we are leaving the choice to the schools, to the 
colleges. It is so interesting that our Republican friends want to 
close the option for local control out. We leave it up to the schools. 
If they want to get in, they can--maximum choice--and we leave it up to 
the schools to have competition between the direct loan program and the 
guaranteed loan program.
  Under the amendment of the Republicans, they will be preserving the 
$77 billion that will flow through the guarantee agencies and guarantee 
$5 million in profits. That is not competition. Where is the voice for 
competition among the Republicans? Where is the description about what 
colleges are going to be in and what colleges are going out?
  The amendment that has been introduced by myself and Senator Simon 
goes back to what was agreed to in terms of direct loans in 1993. We 
permit the colleges that want to get in, and we establish a ceiling. 
That was bipartisan. Someone tell me what happened in the 1994 election 
that was to say that we are going to jiggle the system and force the 
students into the guaranty system.
  I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I agree this is a step forward. But it 
eliminates--cuts down to 20 percent direct lending. This is, frankly, a 
brazen kind of pandering to the banks and the guaranty agencies. There 
is not a college or university in this Nation that has a direct lending 
program that does not want to keep it. And as our friend and former 
colleague, Dave Durenberger, said, ``This is not free enterprise, the 

[[Page S15775]]

old system, this is free lunch for the guaranty agencies and the 
banks.'' We write into the law their profit.
  In terms of the taxpayer, we wrote the budget resolution so that you 
would count the administrative cost for direct lending but not for the 
guaranty student program. CBO says, under current law, that leaving 
this 20 percent, as the Kassebaum amendment does, will cost the Nation 
$4.64 billion. All colleges and universities, again, who are in the 
program like it. It saves a huge amount of paperwork. Students like it, 
parents like it, taxpayers like it.
  The Kennedy amendment is budget neutral. We do not add to the 
deficit. Why are we doing something that colleges like, students like, 
and taxpayers benefit from? We are doing it for one reason and one 
reason only: To benefit the banks and the guaranty agencies.
  If we want to call this a bank assistance bill--and they have record-
breaking profits right now--we ought to do that. If we want to call 
this an assistance to guaranty agencies, we ought to do that; but if we 
want to call it an assistance to students bill, then we ought to vote 
for the Kennedy amendment. Let me just point out that this idea came 
from Congressman Tom Petri, a Republican from Wisconsin. Dave 
Durenberger, Republican from Minnesota, was the chief cosponsor of 
this.

  This should not be a partisan thing. I hope Members on both sides 
will vote for the Kennedy-Simon amendment. It makes sense for everyone. 
I just appeal to you on behalf of America's students.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Do I have 30 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Ten seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a clear attempt to strike one of 
the initiatives of President Clinton--eliminate National Service, 
eliminate Goals 2000, eliminate direct lending for education.
  Our Republican friends cannot stand a good idea when they see one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time under the amendment has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a letter from the Congressional Budget Office dated 
October 26 saying there has been no scorekeeping activities that try to 
prejudice one of the programs versus another; that is, that guaranteed 
one versus another.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In your letter of September 5, 1995, you 
     asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to respond to 
     several questions regarding the Credit Reform Act and section 
     207 of the 1966 budget resolution related to the treatment of 
     administrative expenses in the student loan programs. 
     Attached are CBO's responses to your questions.
       If you wish further details, we will be pleased to provide 
     them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Kalcevic.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.
       Attachment.

             Responses to Questions From Chairman Domenici

       The Credit Reform Act of 1990 provided that the federal 
     budget would record the cost of direct loans and guaranteed 
     loans on a subsidy basis rather than a cash basis. The act 
     defined the subsidy cost of a loan to equal the present 
     discounted value of all loan disbursements, repayments, 
     default costs, interest subsidies, and other payments 
     associated with the loan, excluding federal administrative 
     costs. Federal administrative costs of loan programs 
     continued to be accorded a cash-accounting treatment. 
     Estimates of proposals affecting student loans made from 1992 
     through early 1995 used the accounting rules established in 
     the Credit Reform Act.
       The budget resolution for fiscal year 1996, adopted in June 
     1995, specified that the direct administrative costs of 
     direct student loans should be included in the subsidy 
     estimates of that program for purposes of Congressional 
     scorekeeping. Since June, for estimating legislation under 
     the 1996 budget resolution, the Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO) has used this alternative definition of subsidy costs. 
     In addition, changes in economic and technical estimating 
     assumptions complicate the comparison of estimates made at 
     different times. The following questions and answers explore 
     the implications of the change in accounting for direct 
     student loans.
       Question 1: The President proposed, and signed into law in 
     1993, the Federal Direct Student Loan Program to replace the 
     guaranteed lending program. What was the time frame adopted 
     for the phase-in of that program when it was initially 
     enacted and what savings estimate was provided by CBO?
       Answer: The President's fiscal 1994 budget proposed 
     expanding the direct student loan program from a pilot 
     program (which was about 4 percent of loan volume) to a 
     program that would provide 100 percent of all student loans 
     by the 1997-1998 academic year. As part of the request, the 
     President proposed to lower interest rates to borrowers as of 
     July 1997, substantially increase the annual capped 
     entitlement levels for direct loan administrative costs, and 
     subsidize schools for loan origination. The budget proposed 
     no changes in the guaranteed loan program except to phase it 
     out. CBO estimated that the proposal would save $4.3 billion 
     over the 1994-1998 period. These estimates were completed 
     using the CBO February 1993 baseline economic and technical 
     assumptions. The President's proposal became the policy 
     assumed in that year's budget resolution.
       The legislation passed by the Congress differed 
     significantly from the policies assumed in the budget 
     resolution. The bill met the requirement to save $4.3 billion 
     by limiting the volume in the direct lending program to 60 
     percent of the total and substantially cutting subsidies in 
     the guaranteed loan program. Specifically, direct loans were 
     to represent 5 percent of total volume for academic year 
     1994-1995, 40 percent for 1995-1996, 50 percent for 1996-1997 
     and 1997-1998, and 60 percent for 1998-1999. The legislation 
     also provided that the ceiling could be exceeded if demand 
     required it.
       Question 2: In his FY96 budget, the President proposed an 
     acceleration of that plan so that all student loans would be 
     provided directly from the government no later than July 1, 
     1997. What ``additional'' savings did CBO estimate for the 
     accelerated phase-in under the Credit Reform Act?
       Answer: The President's fiscal year 1996 budget request 
     included a proposal to expand the direct student loan program 
     to cover 100 percent of loan volume by July 1997. This 
     proposed change was estimated to save $4.1 billion from the 
     CBO baseline over the 1996-2002 period. That baseline 
     incorporated CBO's February 1995 economic and technical 
     assumptions and the direct loan phase-in schedule provided 
     under current law. This baseline reflected the rules that are 
     currently in law for estimating the cost of credit programs.
       The 1996 budget resolution specified that the direct 
     administrative costs of direct student loans should be 
     included in the subsidy estimates for that program for 
     purposes of Congressional scorekeeping. This change conformed 
     the treatment of the administrative costs of direct student 
     loans with that for guaranteed student loans. For purposes of 
     Congressional budget scorekeeping, the change overrides the 
     Credit Reform Act, which requires that the federal 
     administrative costs for direct loan programs be accorded a 
     cash-accounting treatment.
       For estimating legislation under the 1996 budget 
     resolution, CBO modified its baseline for direct student 
     loans to include in the subsidy calculations the present 
     value of direct federal administrative costs, including the 
     loans' servicing costs. This change means that direct loans 
     issued in a given year have their administrative costs 
     calculated over the life of the loan portfolio, with 
     adjustments for the time value of the funds. Therefore, the 
     subsidy costs of any year's direct loans will include the 
     discounted future administrative costs of servicing loans 
     which may be in repayment (or collection) for as long as 25 
     to 30 years. The inclusion of these administrative costs in 
     the subsidy calculations for direct loans increases the 
     subsidy rates for these loans by about 7 percentage points. 
     Consequently, the resolution baseline for student loans is 
     higher than the current CBO baseline. Under the assumptions 
     of the budget resolution baseline, the President's 100 
     percent direct lending proposal would save $115 million over 
     the 1996-2002 period.
       Question 3: What would be the long term costs, under 
     scoring rules in effect prior to the 1995 budget resolution, 
     for the above proposal? How would those savings be affected 
     over the life of the loan? How would those costs be compared 
     with the same volume of loans made under the guaranteed 
     program?
       Answer: The response to the first part of this question is 
     addressed in the previous answer. Compared to the CBO 
     baseline, the President's 1996 budget proposal was estimated 
     to save $4.1 billion over the next seven years. In order to 
     provide an estimate of a proposal to return to 100 percent 
     guaranteed lending by July 1997 under either the CBO or the 
     resolution baseline, we would need more detail than has been 
     provided on how the program would be restructured.
       Question 4: Did the credit reform amendment adopted as part 
     of the budget resolution direct the Congressional Budget 
     Office to exclude any costs for guaranteed loans?
       Answer: This year's budget resolution addressed only the 
     budgetary treatment of the administrative costs of direct 
     student loans. By defining the direct administrative costs of 
     direct loans and requiring these costs be calculated over the 
     life of the loan portfolio, the resolution allowed for the 
     costs of direct and guaranteed loans to be evaluated on a 
     similar basis. Thus, all of the program costs for both 
     programs are included in the resolution baseline and are 
     accounted for in the same way, whether they are calculated on 


[[Page S15776]]

     the basis of subsidy or cash-based accounting.
       Question 5: Are there any expenses of direct or guaranteed 
     loans that are currently excluded from the government subsidy 
     costs that would be more appropriately be included in that 
     subsidy? If so, what are they and why have they been excluded 
     from the subsidy cost? For example, some have argued that the 
     credit reform amendment did not include the administrative 
     cost allowance which is paid to guarantee agencies.
       Answer: Indirect administrative costs--those not directly 
     tied to loan servicing and collection--are included in the 
     budget on a cash basis for both programs. Some have asked 
     whether these costs would be more appropriately included in 
     the loan subsidy calculations. Although it might be 
     appropriate to include some or all of these costs in the 
     subsidy calculation, as a practical matter it is not 
     straightforward to determine which costs to account for in 
     this manner. For the most part the costs of government 
     oversight, regulation writing, Pell grant certification, and 
     other similar expenditures are personnel costs of the 
     Department of Education or contracted services. In addition, 
     many of the costs, such as program oversight, are not tied to 
     a single loan portfolio but affect many portfolios and both 
     programs. Allocating these costs to specific portfolios and 
     programs for specific fiscal years would be difficult.
       The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA-93) 
     eliminated administrative cost allowance (ACA) payments to 
     guaranty agencies. Until that time, the volume-based payments 
     were always included in the subsidy costs of guaranteed 
     student loans. However, OBRA-93 gave the Secretary of 
     Education authority to make such payments out of the $2.5 
     billion capped entitlement fund for the direct loan program. 
     Any expenditures from this fund would be accounted for on a 
     cash basis. If the Secretary chose not allocate any funds for 
     this purpose, then there would be no payments to guaranty 
     agencies.
       As part of its current services budget estimates, the 
     Department of Education announced plans to use funds 
     available under the capped entitlement to pay administrative 
     cost allowances to guaranty agencies at one percent of new 
     loan volume for the next five years. Both the CBO baseline 
     and the budget resolution baseline include these planned 
     administrative expenses on a cash basis under the capped 
     entitlement account at the Department's current services 
     levels.
       It makes little budgetary difference whether these payments 
     are computed on a cash or subsidy basis. Because the payments 
     are made at the time of loan disbursement, their estimated 
     costs on a cash basis or subsidy basis would be essentially 
     the same. As a result, over the 1996-2002 period the cost of 
     the student loan programs and the budget totals would be 
     changed only marginally by accounting for these payments on a 
     subsidy basis.
       Question 6: What possible mechanisms exist to reclassify 
     these costs as part of the federal subsidy, to be scored on a 
     present value basis?
       Answer: The guaranty agency cost allowance could again be 
     made an automatic government payment under the guaranteed 
     student loan law. Including the current cash-based indirect 
     administrative expenses for both the direct and guaranteed 
     loans in the subsidy estimates would require amending the 
     Credit Reform Act, but it would be difficult to estimate a 
     wide range of federal personnel-related expenses over a 25- 
     to 30-year period. Determining whether some types of 
     expenditures that are now accounted for on a cash basis 
     should be included in the subsidy calculation would require a 
     more thorough review of the current expenditures of the 
     Department of Education than has been conducted to date.
       Question 7: Does the credit reform rule adopted as part of 
     the budget resolution provide the proper framework to fairly 
     assess all direct federal expenses of guaranteed and direct 
     loans?
       Answer: In general, the Credit Reform Act amendment allows 
     direct comparisons between the costs of the guaranteed and 
     direct loan programs.
       Question 8: Some have claimed that savings associated with 
     the Goodling proposal to repeal direct lending were a result 
     of excluding administrative costs of guaranteed loans. What 
     is the primary reason for the $1.5 billion in savings 
     associated with the Goodling proposal under the new scoring 
     rule?
       Answer: On July 26, 1995, CBO prepared an estimate of the 
     original Goodling proposal. The proposal had three 
     components: (1) eliminate the authority for new direct 
     student and parent loans effective in academic year 1996-
     1997; (2) change the annual and cumulative budget authority 
     levels under Section 458 to reflect the elimination of 
     indirect administrative cost anticipated for new direct loans 
     and the termination of payments of Section 458 funds to 
     guarantee agencies and limit the funds to $24 million 
     annually; and (3) reestablish an administrative cost 
     allowance (ACA) for guarantee agencies at 0.85 percent of new 
     loan volume or 0.08 percent of outstanding volume, with an 
     annual limitation on ACA subsides of $200 million. Assuming 
     an enactment date of October 1995, the proposals would reduce 
     outlays for student loans by $227 million for fiscal year 
     1996 and by $1.5 billion over the 1996-2002 period.
       Relative to the budget resolution baseline, shifting loan 
     volume to guaranteed loans would save $855 million over the 
     1996-2002 period. Administrative expenditures would be 
     reduced by $1.97 billion over the next seven years by 
     lowering the cap. Of this amount, $824 million reflects the 
     elimination of the discretionary guaranty agency payments, 
     and the remainder reflects the elimination of the 
     discretionary guaranty agency payments, and the remainder 
     reflects the elimination of the indirect costs for the 
     phased-out direct loan program. Reestablishing the ACA for a 
     100 percent guaranteed loan program would cost $1.3 billion 
     over seven years.
       Although the Goodling proposal would have eliminated most 
     of the funds to funds a oversee the phased-out direct loan 
     program by reducing the capped entitlement level for these 
     funds, it did not address the level of appropriated funds 
     that would be necessary to oversee the larger guaranteed loan 
     program.
       Question 9: Did the Goodling proposal to eliminate the 
     direct loan program and make changes to the guaranteed 
     program you were asked to score, address all federal 
     administrative costs of direct and guaranteed loans? When you 
     applied the new scoring rule, were you able to properly 
     categorize those expenses to provide a completed fair 
     calculation of the cost differential?
       Answer: All of the cost analyses of the Goodling proposal 
     for both the direct and guaranteed loan programs were 
     completed using the same budgetary treatment for both 
     programs. The Goodling proposal, however, did not address the 
     level of discretionary appropriations necessary to oversee 
     the larger guaranteed loan program.

  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. SIMON. Under the scorekeeping in the budget resolution, you say 
count the administrative costs for direct lending but not for the 
guaranteed program, and we asked CBO, how do you score it under current 
law? There is a savings of $4.6 billion under direct lending.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is a statement in the letter from CBO on that 
issue.
  Mr. SIMON. I will read it, and I thank my colleague.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want 30 seconds to say thanks to Senator Kassebaum 
and the other Senators who worked on our side. I think they have come 
up with a very good amendment, and I think ultimately the students 
across America who have been concerned will find they have done an 
excellent job in taking care of an overwhelming percentage of their 
issues.
  We thank you for it.


                  Vote on Rockefeller Motion to Commit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion of the Senator from West Virginia. The yeas and 
nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The question is on the motion. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as 
follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 499 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     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
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the motion to lay on the table the motion to commit was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S15777]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2950

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of explanation equally divided on the Abraham amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Chamber?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chamber will be in order.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the next amendment before us is very 
simple.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the remarks do not mean anything if we 
cannot hear them. May we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chamber will be in order.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank you, Mr. President.
  The next amendment I will offer is pretty straightforward. It 
basically creates a mechanism by which the Medicare beneficiaries can 
be rewarded for assisting us in ferreting out the waste, the fraud, and 
abuse in the Medicare program.
  Under the amendment, the Secretary of HHS has the responsibility of 
setting up two programs--one program that in effect is a whistle-blower 
program which would provide bonuses to Medicare beneficiaries who will 
identify Medicare fraud and abuse. The other program would be designed 
to provide bonuses to Medicare beneficiaries who identify waste, and to 
streamline and make more efficient and less costly the Medicare system.
  Mr. President, I think this will help us to achieve cost savings in 
Medicare while at the same time providing benefits to Medicare 
beneficiaries who assist us in that effort.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Nebraska for yielding.
  As I said, I support the Abraham amendment. It is not a bad 
amendment. It is a good amendment. There is nothing wrong with it. I 
would just point out it is sort of voluntary on the Secretary's part. 
It does not mandate that they have to do this. It says the Secretary 
may set these up. That is fine, as far as it goes. I would just say 
that probably later on today or tomorrow, the amendment that I had 
offered to the Abraham amendment last night will be coming up for a 
vote, which provides for some tough measures. We will talk about that 
later. This amendment is a good amendment. I intend to support it. It 
is in keeping with trying to give the Secretary more power to cut down 
on waste, fraud, and abuse.
  So it is a good amendment. We will certainly support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Michigan. 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 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 500 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So, the amendment (No. 2950) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        Bradley Motion to Commit

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I understand that the Bradley motion is 
next. I would appreciate, if possible, the Chair recognizing the 
Senator from New Jersey for the purpose of a 1-minute statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this amendment eliminates the tax 
increase on people making under $30,000 a year. This bill contains a 
tax cut for estates of $5 million, a tax cut in the amount of $1.7 
million.
  We are not touching that tax cut, but we are trying to prevent the 
tax increase that will come in this bill for people making under 
$30,000 a year. The EIC offsets income taxes, Social Security, and 
excise taxes. The other side has talked only about income taxes.
  Last year, with $114 billion in Federal taxes, only $12 billion of 
that was income taxes from people making under $30,000 a year. Why 
increase taxes on those hard-working Americans? These are Americans who 
work every day, and they pay their taxes, and they support their 
families.
  This motion is progrowth and profamily. It deserves to be supported 
because it is a tax cut for individual working families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield our time to Senator Nickles.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one, let me just tell my colleague from 
New Jersey, and other colleagues, there is no tax increase for 
individuals making less than $30,000. That claim has been refuted by 
the Joint Tax Committee. It is totally false, and people making that 
claim should really be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. President, I am going to put in the Record the facts. The facts 
are, the earned income tax credit grows even under our proposal. It 
grows. The maximum benefit that anybody can receive today is $3,100. It 
grows next year to $3,200. And in 7 years it grows to $3,888. It is an 
increase.
  This is a program that is a cash outlay program. Eighty-five percent 
of this program is Uncle Sam writing checks, not reducing liability, 
but writing checks. And it is the most fraudulent program we have in 
Government today. GAO said 30 to 40 percent of it was in fraud and in 
error.
  It needs to be reformed. That is what we do. This program should be 
reformed. These proposals that we have made, I think, are the right 
things to do for American families.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the table be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

....................................................................... 

[[Page S15778]]
                                                       FISCAL YEAR 1996: TWO PARENTS, TWO CHILDREN                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   EIC: Two or more                    Tax burden               EIC relief: As a percent
                                                                       children         ---------------------------------------       of tax burden     
                            Income                            --------------------------                                       -------------------------
                                                                               Senate       Income     FICA (15.3     Total                     Senate  
                                                               Current law     reform       taxes       percent)                Current law     reform  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1...........................................................           $0           $0           $0           $0           $0          261          235
$1,000.......................................................          400          360            0          153          153          261          235
$2,000.......................................................          800          720            0          306          306          261          235
$3,000.......................................................        1,200        1,080            0          459          459          261          235
$4,000.......................................................        1,600        1,400            0          612          612          251          235
$5,000.......................................................        2,000        1,800            0          765          765          261          235
$6,000.......................................................        2,400        2,160            0          918          918          261          235
$7,000.......................................................        2,800        2,520            0        1,071        1,071          251          235
$8,000.......................................................        3,200        2,880            0        1,224        1,224          261          235
$8,910.......................................................        3,564        3,208            0        1,363        1,363          261          235
$9,000.......................................................        3,564        3,208            0        1,377        1,377          259          233
$10,000......................................................        3,564        3,208            0        1,530        1,530          233          210
$11,000......................................................        3,564        3,208            0        1,683        1,683          212          191
$11,630......................................................        3,564        3,208            0        1,779        1,779          200          180
$12,000......................................................        3,486        3,124            0        1,836        1,836          190          170
$13,000......................................................        3,275        2,912            0        1,989        1,989          165          146
$14,000......................................................        3,065        2,700            0        2,142        2,142          143          126
$15,000......................................................        2,854        2,488            0        2,295        2,295          124          108
$16,000......................................................        2,644        2,276            0        2,448        2,448          108           93
$17,000......................................................        2,433        2,065           15        2,601        2,616           93           79
$18,000......................................................        2,222        1,853          165        2,754        2,929           76           63
$19,000......................................................        2,012        1,641          315        2,907        3,222           62           51
$20,000......................................................        1,801        1,429          465        3,060        3,525           51           41
$21,000......................................................        1,591        1,218          615        3,213        3,828           42           32
$22,000......................................................        1,380        1,006          765        3,366        4,131           33           24
$23,000......................................................        1,169          794          915        3,519        4,434           26           18
$24,000......................................................          959          583        1,065        3,672        4,737           20           12
$25,000......................................................          748          371        1,215        3,825        5,040           15            7
$26,000......................................................          538          159        1,365        3,978        5,343           10            3
$26,731......................................................          384            0        1,475        4,090        5,564            7            0
$27,000......................................................          327            0        1,515        4,131        5,646            6            0
$28,000......................................................          116            0        1,665        4,284        5,949            2            0
$28,553......................................................            0            0        1,748        4,369        6,117            0            0
$29,000......................................................            0            0        1,815        4,437        6,252            0            0
$30,000......................................................            0            0        1,965        4,590        6,555            0            0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Bradley motion and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
motion to table the Bradley motion to commit. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 501 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     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
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So, the motion to lay on the table the motion to commit was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        Graham Motion to Commit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The pending business is the 
motion of Senator Graham to commit the bill with instructions. There 
are 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this reconciliation proposal is filled 
with risk--risk of the unknown, risks that have consequences that are 
beyond our ability to forecast. There is no area in this entire 
legislation that has a greater risk to the people of this country than 
the proposals in Medicaid.
  We are proposing to cut Medicaid by $187 billion--I repeat, a program 
which, last year, had a total Federal expenditure of $89 billion, we 
are going to cut, over 7 years, by $187 billion. It is at risk because 
we are proposing, for those funds that are left, to place them in an 
inflexible block grant, without Federal participation, in terms of 
dealing with unexpected circumstances, and we are freezing in many of 
the inequities that have made this program inappropriate in the past.
  Mr. President, we are putting at risk poor children, our elderly and, 
particularly, the States of America, as they are all being removed from 
the safety net that Medicaid has provided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the biggest risk is that we not balance 
our budget, and that we continue to spend your children's and 
grandchildren's money to pay for programs we cannot afford.
  Obviously, this program is growing so fast, it is unsustainable. 
Anyone who thinks it is being cut is not hearing the facts. We are 
going to increase this program to more than $94 billion next year, $124 
billion in 2002. And over the entire period of time, this program will 
increase at a rather healthy rate, while most programs in the National 
Government are either frozen or reduced.
  It is time that we reform this system so we can deliver on what we 
promise. But we also have to deliver on a promise to get interest rates 
down, to have growth and jobs for our children. We cannot have the 
status quo and do that also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New Mexico has 
expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the motion 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 the motion to table the 
motion to commit proposed by the Senator from Florida.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[[Page S15779]]


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 502 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the Graham motion to commit was 
agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2959

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I understand the next vote is on the Kennedy 
amendment. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 2959 by the 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and others.
  The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Until conversations cease, we will just have 
to hold up.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. This is an easy 
choice. My amendment strikes all provisions of the bill that increase 
the cost for students and families, and preserves choice and 
competition in the student loan program at the local level.
  Senator Kassebaum's amendment rightfully pulls back the unfair and 
extreme provisions that increase the costs for students. It wrongfully 
prevents schools from choosing the loan program that best serves their 
students at the local level, and wrongfully provides a Government-
mandated monopoly to the powerful special interests in the student loan 
industry.
  I hope my amendment will be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate will vote on an amendment 
offered by Senators Kassebaum, Jeffords, and Snowe that removes all 
cuts affecting students. The Senate Republicans do this without raising 
taxes or taxing investment. The Republican plan will result in lower 
interest rates which will benefit all students and all Americans. That 
is what our entire deficit reduction package is all about.
  I yield any time I have and I move to table.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to lay on the 
table the amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 503 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2959) 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. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Could I be advised how long that vote took?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The last rollcall lasted approximately 13 
minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me remind my colleagues three times 60 is a long time--
we were about 3 minutes late on that vote--if we start slipping these 
votes for everybody who wants to step out for 5 minutes. If we just 
stay in the Chamber, we can do this in 10 minutes. I say to my 
colleagues, we are going to start ringing the bell here in 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. It also slows 
down the Senate when conversations are going on during debate time.


                           Amendment No. 2962

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The issue before the Senate is amendment No. 
2962 by the Senator from Kansas, [Mrs. Kassebaum]. There are 2 minutes 
equally divided.
  Senator Kassebaum will be recognized when the Senate is in order.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield the time remaining to the 
Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Kassebaum for yielding.
  Mr. President, I want to first recognize several of my colleagues who 
have been instrumental in helping to craft this amendment and reach a 
compromise on student loan funding.
  First, the chairwoman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, 
Senator Kassebaum, who has been a real leader on this issue. She has 
had to make difficult choices and tough decisions throughout this 
process--especially meeting instructions of $10.8 billion in savings 
for her committee, so I thank her for her work and for offering this 
amendment.
  Second, the majority leader and the chair of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Dole and Senator Domenici--for meeting our concerns and being 
responsive to our requests all along. Their support was obviously 
instrumental in crafting this amendment.
  Finally, one of the main cosponsor of this amendment, Senator 
Jeffords of Vermont, for his concern, his support, and his compassion 
for the needs of America's students.
  Mr. President, let there be no doubt about it, we are setting a 
course for America for the next 7 years and beyond as we debate the 
measure before us today. That is a heavy responsibility.
  But the image of a better America, a stronger America, and a more 
fiscally secure America is incomplete for the next generations without 
one critical component: that is, a commitment to education funding and 
to students.

[[Page S15780]]

  I believe one of our duties in this process is to keep the American 
Dream alive for our generation as well as the next generation of 
students--because we all know that educating today's students is also 
about preparing tomorrow's workers.
  While I firmly believed that balancing the budget is the greatest 
legacy we can bequeath to our children and grandchildren, I do not 
believe it requires the sacrifice of educational opportunities to the 
children and students today.
  Let us be clear about this: our two objectives--balancing the budget 
and providing quality educational opportunities--are not mutually 
exclusive entities.
  I believe we can identify and set budget priorities within the 
framework of a balanced budget. I believe it is possible to be fiscally 
responsible and also be visionary about our education needs into the 
next century for the next generation.
  That is basically what this amendment accomplishes. It is prudent. It 
is responsible. It's fair. And it maintains our commitment to 
excellence in education.
  The amendment we are offering today would restore $5.9 billion in 
student loan funding that is sorely needed by America's youth to 
continue their education.
  Basically, we are removing the most onerous and punitive provisions 
on students that are currently contained in this package.
  Those provisions we are targeting for removal include the following: 
the imposition of a 0.85 percent fee on the student loan volume of 
institutions of higher learning; the provision increasing the interest 
rate on parent PLUS loans from T-bill plus 3.1 percent, to T-bill 4.0 
percent; and--most importantly--the provision charging interest on 
student loans during the so-called 6-month grace period.
  I believe we must support this amendment because student loans level 
the education playing field for so many in this country. In the world 
of education, student loans are the great ``enabler''. They afford 
everyone the equal opportunity to profit from a college education.
  I should know, I owe my education and much of my career in public 
service to the student loan program, which sustained me at the 
University of Maine.
  Now, it is important to add that the Senate has already gone on 
record and has made a strong statement in support of increased student 
loan funding.
  Back in May, when the Budget Committee reported out a resolution that 
included a cut of more than $13 billion in student loan funding over 7 
years--and when the House reported out a version that included a cut of 
over $18 billion, I joined several of my colleagues in taking action--
because student loan funding programs would clearly result in leaving 
some needy students locked out of our Nation's colleges and 
universities, and therefore locked out of America's work force and a 
successful career.
  And, with bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle, my 
colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon, and I authorized and passed an 
amendment that restored $9.4 billion for student loans. No other 
amendment, except one, received as much bipartisan support during the 
consideration of the Senate budget resolution.
  We should reaffirm that same level of commitment again today, and 
with this amendment, we now have an opportunity to do so.
  If we pass this amendment, the Senate's strong support for this level 
of funding will be a strong instruction to the Senate conferees to 
maintain this level of funding during the upcoming House-Senate 
Reconciliation conference.
  Now, I know that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
would have wanted more, especially when it come to direct lending. 
Obviously, there is a difference of opinion on direct lending.
  While the amendment we are offering restores critical funding for 
loans, it maintains the bills current cap on direct lending at 20 
percent. I could support raising this cap to 30 percent, which would 
cover the 1,300 education institutions currently involved in the direct 
lending program.
  However, the sole purpose of this amendment is to restore funding for 
student loan programs. other opportunities may arise on the floor today 
or tomorrow to increase the cap on direct lending.
  I have worked with many of my colleagues across the aisle, and I know 
that--in the final analysis--we share the same goals on funding for 
student education. That is the most important--the most critical-issue 
here.
  Why is this amendment important to our students and to our future as 
a nation? What is the value of student loans?
  it is unmistakable. Student loans have a tremendous impact on our 
nation's economy . . . on personal incomes . . . on careers . . . and 
especially on providing education to needy citizens.
  Student loans have given millions of young Americans a fighting 
chance at reaching their own American Dream: in 1993, it gave 5.6 
million Americans that chance, and that was almost double the number of 
loans made 10 years earlier, when it was 3 million, in fact, statistics 
show that almost half of all college students receive some kind of 
financial aid--many through student loans.
  They have become especially important considering that the cost of 
college education and post-secondary education has become a very, very 
expensive proposition for students, as well as their families.
  For example, a College Board survey says that 1995-1996 is the third 
straight year that tuition costs have risen by 6 percent. Since this 
rise outpaces income growth in America, there's heavy borrowing for a 
college education--up an average of 17 percent yearly since 1990.
  Each year, college costs rise 6.6 percent for private college while 
we have recorded a rise in disposable personal income of only 4.4 
percent. That 2 percent disparity is what is making student loans a 
pipe dream for our college-bound students.
  In fact, since 1988, college costs have risen by 54 percent--well 
ahead of a 16 percent increase in the cost of living. And, more 
tellingly, student borrowing has increased by 219 percent since that 
time.
  Without student aid, increasing costs make higher education out of 
reach for millions of Americans.
  We should not have to bankrupt the families of students in order to 
allow them to send their children to receive a solid college education.
  You see, when we allow students to get the loans they need to 
complete their college education, we are making a sizable, long-term 
investment in not only personal incomes, but our economy as well.
  Men and women who continue their education beyond high school, as we 
have seen in study after study, have consistently earned more money on 
average each year than those who do not.
  In 1990, for example, the average income for high school graduates 
was almost $18,000. For those who had 1 to 3 years of a college 
education, earned on the average $24,000. Those who graduated from 
college and received a college diploma received on average salary of 
$31,000.
  According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, a person with a 
bachelor's degree will average 50 to 55 percent more in lifetime 
earnings than a person with a high school diploma.
  The entire country benefits, as well from student loans. For every $1 
we invest in education we get enormous returns as a result. Back in 
1990, another study was conducted that analyzed the school assistance 
that was provided to high school students back in 1972.
  For every $1 that the Federal Government invested in the student loan 
programs at that time, the Government received $4.3 in return in tax 
revenues.
  According to a study by the Brookings Institute, over the last 60 
years, education and advancements in knowledge have accounted for 37 
percent of America's economic growth.
  At a time in which education is becoming paramount in this global 
arena, where it is going to make the difference for an individual and 
the kind of living that can be enjoying for themselves and their 
families, education puts them on the cutting edge.
  Most of all, it puts America on the threshold of competition for the 
future.
  If we deny individuals the opportunity to receive an education 
because 

[[Page S15781]]

they lack the financial assistance or the access to financial 
assistance, clearly, we--as a nation, a superpower, and the world's 
greatest democracy--are going to suffer.
  Today, let's make sure that we retain policies that will make higher 
education accessible to millions of low--and middle-income families.
  Today, let us make a significant contribution to students pursuing a 
higher education. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President and Members of the Senate, I am very pleased to have 
joined Senator Kassebaum and Senator Jeffords offering this amendment 
that essentially restores $5.9 billion to the student loan program. 
This essentially reaffirms the position that has been taken by 67 
Members of this body when we had a vote on this issue last spring to 
the budget resolution.
  This amendment removes the provision that increases the origination 
fee on student loans. It removes the provision that allows interest 
rates to accrue during the so-called 6-month grace period, and it also 
eliminates the provision that allowed interest rates to increase on the 
PLUS loans from 3.1 percent to 4 percent.
  I think we all acknowledge that college costs have increased in this 
country. In fact, since 1988, they have increased more than 54 
percent--16 percent beyond the growth of income for most families in 
America. That has resulted in increased borrowing of 219 percent for 
individuals and families all across this Nation so that their family 
and their children can pursue higher education.
  I think it essential for this country to retain the policies that 
ensure access for low- and middle-income families through these 
policies.
  I also ask unanimous consent to include as cosponsors of this 
amendment Senators Roth, Domenici, Pressler, Stevens, and Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine has 
expired.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kassebaum 
amendment which strikes from the budget reconciliation bill the 
provisions relating to a .85 percent school fee, the elimination of the 
grace period interest subsidy, and the PLUS loan interest rate 
increase.
  Mr. President, I am committed to balancing the budget--this is 
probably the single most important thing we can do for our children and 
our country. Today's students will save money if we succeed in 
balancing the budget. According to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan, a balanced budget will lower interest rates by 1-2 percent 
for everyone.
  I am pleased that the leadership has found offsets which will make 
the Kassebaum amendment revenue neutral. It will allow us to balance 
the budget without imposing additional costs on students, their parents 
or schools.
  This bill also benefits students by allowing those who have paid 
interest on education loans a credit against income tax liability equal 
to 20 percent of such interest up to $500.
  As the father of three young children, I believe that education is 
one of the most important issues facing our nation today. We must 
continue to offer students across the country the opportunity to excel 
and obtain their goals. Many students depend on the federal student 
loan programs as their only chance to go to college. This amendment 
will allow us to preserve those programs without imposing additional 
costs on students.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I shall vote for the Kassebaum amendment, 
but I have to say I am doing it with real mixed feelings because it 
fails to address something that every higher education association 
favors, and that is direct lending. The colleges and universities in 
your States want direct lending. The bankers in your States and the 
guarantee agencies do not want it because they have a cushy deal going 
right now.
  The Kassebaum amendment is an improvement over the resolution as it 
is right now, so I will vote yes for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are requested.
  Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 504 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 2962) was 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.


                        Bumpers Motion to Commit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order of business is the Bumpers motion to 
commit to the Committee on Finance with instructions.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, in 1981, this body, all but 11 Senators, 
voted for a massive tax cut on the argument that it would help balance 
the budget. Eight years and $2 trillion later, we all knew we had made 
a massive mistake. We are about to repeat it, though not quite the 
magnitude of that.
  This amendment simply says what my good friend from New Mexico, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, said on May 30 of this year, that 
there is one thing our side has agreed on: There will be no tax cut 
until we balance the budget.
  Senator Domenici was right on May 30, and to vote a different way now 
is wrong.
  The New York Times this very morning shows that a vast majority of 
the American people, even the wealthy who benefit most from this, are 
all opposed to a tax cut until we balance the budget. It is fiscal 
responsibility, and that is the reason we call this the fiscal 
responsibility amendment.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment, I think, points up the 
difference between the two parties. We have a balanced budget. It has 
been certified by the Congressional Budget Office. Once we adopt this 
reconciliation instruction, we will have a balanced budget. Then it is 
time to give the taxpayers of America some relief.
  We get a $170 billion economic dividend for getting a balanced 
budget. What should we do with that money? Should we spend it, or 
should we give it back to Americans, especially families who are having 
difficulty raising their children because we whittled down their 
deduction such that they are kind of on their own?
  I believe it is right when you have made savings and have a balanced 

[[Page S15782]]

budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that you ought to 
give money back to the people and not let the dividends sit around so 
we can spend it. The people want to spend their own money. It happens 
to be theirs, not ours.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Bumpers motion, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Bumpers motion to commit. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 505 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the Bumpers motion to commit was 
agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        Baucus Motion to Commit

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, according to the pending business, the next 
item of business is the rural restoration motion.
  I yield to the Senator from Montana for 1 minute.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the budget bill before us is a raid on 
rural America. It cuts the farm program and begins to eviscerate, 
obliterate the farm program by cutting $13.4 billion over 7 years, 25 
percent cut. The budget bill cuts health care, disproportionately 
affecting rural America because our hospitals have so many seniors. 
Medicaid is cut, hurting rural America. There is already a tendency for 
people to leave the farm and go to the city to seek some job to 
survive. We here should be sensitive to rural America, not insensitive, 
by raiding rural America. This bill before us raids rural America, 
accelerates the transfer of people from rural America to the city, 
which is something we should not do.
  So my amendment simply says to the Finance Committee, go back and 
restore some of these provisions that affect rural America, but still 
balance the budget.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, under the proposed reforms in this bill, 
the Federal Government will be spending and continue to spend $64.8 
billion in outlays over the next 7 years for commodity-related 
programs.
  Farmers will benefit the most of all groups of Americans if interest 
rates come down because they rely most on borrowed money, as compared 
with any other group of business men or women in the country.
  Farmers and rural America will also benefit from the capital gains 
reduction in this bill.
  In addition, this amendment instructs the Finance Committee to make 
changes in programs that are not even within their jurisdiction.
  Mr. President, since that makes it not germane, I raise a point of 
order that this motion violates the Budget Act.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for the consideration of the pending motion, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays on the motion to waive.
  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 
waive the Budget Act.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 506 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 46, the nays 
are 53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the motion falls.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that time be charged to neither side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that it is our turn for 
three successive amendments, and the first of those three that we have 
on our side will be the Social Security earnings test by Senator 
McCain.
  Will the Chair announce how much time is on these three amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just a minute? We 
were looking for what these amendment are. Can we have those? It just 
says ``Finance Committee amendment,'' and we do not know what it is. We 
need a little bit of information. That was required of us last night.
  I thank the Chair.
  I am grateful to the Senator. I thank him.


                           Amendment No. 2964

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the need to 
               raise the Social Security earnings limit)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), for himself, Mr. 
     Dole, Mr. Coats, and Mr. 

[[Page S15783]]

     Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 2964.
       At the appropriate place in the Act, add the following:
       Sec.   . Sense of the Senate.--The Senate finds that
       (a) The Senate has held hearings on the social security 
     earnings limit in 1994 and 1995 and the House has held two 
     hearings on the social security earnings limit in 1995;
       (b) The Senate has overwhelmingly passed Sense of the 
     Senate language calling for substantial reform of the social 
     security earnings limit;
       (c) The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed 
     legislation to raise the exempt amount under the social 
     security earnings limit three times, in 1989, 1992, and 1995;
       (d) Such legislation is a key provision of the Contract 
     with America;
       (e) The President in his 1992 campaign document ``Putting 
     People First'' pledged to lift the social security earnings 
     limit;
       (f) The social security earnings limit is a depression-era 
     relic that unfairly punishes working seniors; therefore,
       (g) It is the intent of the Congress that legislation will 
     be passed before the end of 1995 to raise the social security 
     earnings limit for working seniors aged 65 through 69 in a 
     manner which will ensure the financial integrity of the 
     social security trust funds and will be consistent with the 
     goal of achieving a balanced budget in 7 years.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment signals the Senate's intent 
to move forward expeditiously on reforming the earnings test. The 
majority leader has let it be known that he will move this matter soon, 
as early as next week depending on the action of the House of 
Representatives. I appreciate the leadership of the majority leader, 
and I also want to thank former Finance Committee chairman, Senator 
Packwood, and Senator Moynihan for their help and for their support on 
this matter.
  Additionally, I want to note that the House of Representatives today 
passed a similar amendment by the overwhelming vote of 414 to 5.
  Mr. President, the Social Security earnings test was created during 
the Depression era when senior citizens were being discouraged from 
working. This may have been appropriate then when 50 percent of 
Americans were out of work. But it is certainly not appropriate today. 
It is not appropriate today when seniors are struggling to get ahead 
and survive on limited incomes. Many of these seniors are working to 
survive and make it on a day-to-day basis.
  Mr. President, most Americans are amazed to find that older Americans 
are actually penalized by the Social Security earnings test for their 
productivity. For every $3 earned by a retiree over the $11,160 limit, 
they lose $1 in Social Security benefits. Due to this cap on earnings, 
our senior citizens, many of whom are existing on low incomes, are 
effectively burdened with a 33-percent tax on their earned income.
  I want to point out this only applies to people who have to go to 
work. If someone is very rich and has a trust fund, pension, stocks, 
all of the gain that is accrued from that is not taxable. It only 
applies to low-income and middle-income Americans who in our society 
today have to go to work tragically for a broad variety of reasons.
  Mr. President, there has been a lot of partisanship back and forth 
today, some regrettably and some of it is a natural happenstance when a 
revolution is taking place because that is basically what this is all 
about.
  Let me point out that I heard a lot of pleas and cries in behalf of 
seniors on the part of friends on the other side of the aisle. In 1987, 
I came to the floor of this body and sought repeal of the Social 
Security earnings test. There was a hearing in the Finance Committee 
chaired by former chairman and former Secretary of Treasury Bentsen.
  In 1988, I brought this amendment to the floor, and in 1989 I brought 
it to the floor, and in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994. And each time 
on the other side of the aisle it was turned down.
  I am happy to say that now this side is in the majority. In both 
bodies we will repeal the onerous and outrageous earnings test which on 
the other side they failed to do.
  Mr. President, if I sound a little excited about that, it is because 
we have had a lot of rhetoric today about how cruel Members on this 
side of the aisle are to senior citizens.
  The best way, the most effective way that we can help senior citizens 
today is for those who seek to go to work and have to work for a broad 
variety of reasons to be allowed to keep their earnings. And, by the 
way, it would only be raised up to $30,000.
  Mr. President, there is a couple who are friends of mine who live 
near me in northern Arizona. They are low-income Americans. They have a 
son who had prostate cancer. The son has a daughter that he has to take 
care of in a home. My friend's wife had to go back to work in order to 
support her son and her granddaughter. She went to work in a hospital 
where she has been working. She dramatically increased her hours 
because she is now helping her son who had prostate cancer and was out 
of work. And she gets what? She found out 2 weeks ago that she owes the 
Federal Government $1,200 because she exceeded the $11,000 limit.
  So her ability to care for herself, her husband, her son and her 
granddaughter is dramatically penalized because this earnings test puts 
her in the highest tax bracket of anyone in America, amongst the 
richest.
  Mr. President, as I said before, there is also a myth that repeal of 
the earnings test would only benefit the rich. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. The highest effective marginal rates are imposed on the 
middle-income elderly who must work to supplement their income.
  Mr. President, finally it is simply outrageous to continue two 
separate policies that both keep people out of the work force who are 
experienced and who want to work. We have been warned to expect a labor 
shortage. Why should we discourage our senior citizens from meeting 
that challenge?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in order to move things along, we have a 
great amount of work to do, we yield back our allotted 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that editorial 
endorsements from several newspapers, and also from various 
organizations, ranging from the Seniors Coalition to the National 
Council of Senior Citizens, and others, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Editorial Endorsements

       Chicago Tribune: The skill and expertise of the elderly 
     could be used to train future workers, while bringing in more 
     tax dollars and helping America stay competitive in the 21st 
     century.
       Los Angeles Times: As the senior population expands and the 
     younger population shrinks in the decades ahead, there will 
     be an increasing need to encourage older workers to stay on 
     the job to maintain the nation's productivity.
       The Baltimore Sun: The Social Security landscape is 
     littered with a great irony: While the program is built on 
     the strength of the work ethic, its earnings test actually 
     provides a disincentive to work . . . One consequence of this 
     skewed policy is the emergence of a gray, underground 
     economy--a cadre of senior citizens forced to work for 
     extremely low wages or with no benefits in exchange for being 
     paid under the table.
       Dallas Morning News: Both individual citizens and society 
     as a whole would benefit from a repeal of the law that limits 
     what Social Security recipients may earn before their 
     benefits are reduced.
       The San Diego Tribune: The benefit-reaction law made some 
     economic sense when Social Security was established in the 
     1930s and the government wanted to encourage the elderly to 
     leave the labor force and open up jobs for younger workers. 
     But with declining birth rates and the nation's need for 
     more, not fewer, experienced workers, the measure is bad for 
     the nation as well as its older workers.
       Wall Street Journal: The punitive taxation of the earnings 
     limit sends the message to seniors that their country doesn't 
     want them to work, or that they are fools if they do.
       The New York Times: . . . it is not wrong to encourage 
     willing older adults to remain in the work force.
       The Orange County Register: Indeed, repealing the tax might 
     actually increase revenues. More people would be working, 
     paying more taxes of all kinds, including the Social Security 
     tax. If our government bureaucrats want us to keep paying 
     their salaries, the least they can do is make it possible to 
     work in the first place.
       Houston Post: Equity and common sense demand that this 
     disincentive to work be scrapped.
       The Cincinnati Enquirer: No American should be discouraged 
     from working, as long as he wants to and is physically able 
     to do so.

[[Page S15784]]

       The Indianapolis Star: On the face of it, the game appears 
     rigged in favor of those who stop working at 65 and against 
     those who keep working, in favor of well-to-do retirees and 
     against middle- and low-income retirees who need a part-time 
     job to help with expenses.
       Forbes: Moreover, people are living longer; the economy is 
     hurt when artificial barriers block the full use of our most 
     productive asset, people.
       Detroit News: Work is important to many of the elderly, who 
     are living longer. They shouldn't be faced with a 
     confiscatory tax for remaining productive.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 17, 1991]

                       Why Push Them Out of Work?


    congress should eliminate outmoded social security earnings test

       There are more than 40 million Americans age 60 or older, 
     many of whom are eager to work beyond normal retirement age 
     but can't afford to, thanks to an outmoded earnings test 
     applied to Social Security recipients. The Senate, in a 
     provision attached to the extension of the Older Americans 
     Act, has voted to eliminate this punitive restriction. The 
     measure now goes to a congressional conference committee, 
     where House conferees will have a chance to accept the 
     Senate's provision. They should do so, and the House should 
     adopt it. Millions of workers would be the better for it, and 
     so would government and society.
       Current law says that people between the ages of 65 and 70 
     who draw Social Security and who earn more than $9,720 a year 
     must lost $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 they 
     earn over that limit. This rule effectively applies to those 
     workers a 33% marginal tax rate--higher than anyone else must 
     pay--but there is more. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says that 
     when federal, state and other Social Security taxes are 
     factored in, the tax bite approaches nearly 70%. If that 
     isn't age discrimination, McCain suggests, nothing is.
       There is no earnings ceiling for Social Security recipients 
     age 70 or older. It's nonsensical to have one for those 
     younger. Maintaining the arbitrary ceiling and taxing away 33 
     cents out of every dollar earned from those who exceed it 
     drives millions of productive workers into forced retirement. 
     The nation's economy is not so robust that it can afford to 
     lose willing, able and experienced employees. Federal and 
     state treasuries are not so flush they can pass up the 
     revenues that could be had from taxes on the higher earnings 
     of older workers.
       Why chase people who want to work out of the labor force? 
     Why make this pool of talent lie stagnant? The earnings 
     ceiling is an echo of an earlier time when it was argued that 
     older workers had to be pushed into retirement to make jobs 
     available for new entrants into the work force. Demographics 
     and the needs of the economy have changed. Millions of those 
     older workers want to go on working without being punished if 
     they earn too much. The time has come to let them do so.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Arizona Republic, Nov. 17, 1991]

                 Age Discrimination: Lift Earnings Cap

       Congress dotes on its anti-discrimination record. How then 
     to explain why its continuing prejudice is targeted at a 
     particular minority?
       The earnings cap on Social Security benefits is a form of 
     discrimination. ``The earnings test translates into an 
     effective tax burden of 33 percent,'' Sen. John McCain told a 
     Senate committee. ``Combined with federal, state and other 
     Social Security taxes, it can amount to a stunning tax bite 
     of nearly 70 percent.''
       The cap on earnings--set at $9,720 for retirees age 65 to 
     70--is ``age discrimination of the worst kind,'' the senator 
     said, and that ``is plainly wrong.'' For every $3 earned 
     above the cap, seniors lose $1 in benefits.
       As Mr. McCain points out, it is foolish to maintain a 
     policy that keeps people with experience and a willingness to 
     apply their skills out of the work force, especially when the 
     country faces economic stagnation and declining international 
     competitiveness.
       Punishing people for working is wrong in an even more 
     fundamental way. It violates an American principle known as 
     the work ethic. Surely it is poor social policy to maintain 
     disincentives to productive labor. Better to let seniors who 
     have something to contribute slip back into harness. Besides, 
     many of them need the extra income.
       The Bush administration argues that eliminating the 
     earnings test would cost $3.9 billion in fiscal 1992. Sen. 
     McCain disagrees. He argues that lifting the cap would save 
     money, both through the collection of additional taxes on the 
     earnings of seniors and administrative savings.
       A Senate-passed measure to lift the cap is now in a 
     conference committee, where it must be reconciled with a 
     House-approved bill that would not eliminate the earnings 
     penalty. If the House cares anything at all about fairness, 
     it will end the discrimination now in place and free older 
     Americans to work.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 5, 1991]

                   End Social Security Earning Curbs

                    (By U.S. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert)

       When a country doesn't support its stated goals by adopting 
     policies to achieve those goals, its aims become 
     unattainable. Such is the case with our goal of restoring 
     U.S. competitiveness in the global market. We say we want to 
     regain our competitive edge, yet we follow obsolete policies 
     that preclude us from fielding the most productive work force 
     possible.
       The most pernicious example of this practice is the 
     continued application of the Social Security Earnings Test, a 
     Depression-era relic that penalizes senior citizens who work 
     after they retire. By forcing seniors to, forfeit one-third 
     of their Social Security benefits after they earn more than a 
     ridiculously low amount, the Earnings Test tells the elderly 
     we no longer value their expertise and experience.
       Seniors between 65 and 70 who earn more than $9,360 are 
     slapped with a 33 percent penalty. In short, the government 
     siphons $1 in penalties for every $3 a productive senior 
     earns over the limit. When coupled with federal taxes, 
     seniors who earn a penalty $10,000 a year are faced with a 56 
     percent marginal income tax rate--twice the rate of 
     millionaires.
       The Social Security Earnings Test is age discrimination, 
     pure and simple. Not only does it discriminate against one 
     age group, it also afflicts the seniors who need extra income 
     the most. Seniors can receive stock dividends and interest 
     payments without losing Social Security benefits, but those 
     who work at low-paying jobs to make ends meet are punished 
     for attempting to remain financially independent.
       At a time in our nation's history when the operative buzz 
     word is ``competitiveness,'' policymakers are hypocrites when 
     they preach the gospel of working harder while retaining 
     outdated policies that strip our labor force of productive 
     and experienced workers. Just as business leaders must 
     modernize their factories, congressional leaders must update 
     public policy.
       The Social Security Earnings Test was instituted in the 
     1930s to discourage seniors from working and make room for 
     younger Americans to enter the work force. Whether this was a 
     good idea at the time is hardly relevant; as the U.S. 
     population ages, seniors are becoming an increasingly 
     important segment of the labor force. The government should 
     support them, rather than financially penalize them, for 
     remaining active and productive.
       By the end of this decade, there will be 1.5 million fewer 
     members of the work force aged 16 to 24. Coupled with this 
     trend is the fact that there is a sharply increasing number 
     of older persons relative to the working population. To 
     respond to these challenges, the United States needs to 
     attract more people to participate in the labor force.
       I have introduced legislation that would help our 
     businesses adapt to the demands of the international 
     marketplace by making our work force more productive. My 
     bill, H.R.   , the Older Americans Freedom to Work Act, has a 
     majority of House members as co-sponsors, as well as 
     considerable support in the Senate (Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, R-
     Minn., introduced the Senate version). But many in the House 
     leadership remain opposed to it. The Ways and Means Committee 
     chairman, Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), and Social 
     Security subcommittee chairman, Rep. Andrew Jacobs (D-
     Ind.), are laboring under the incorrect assumption that 
     repeal of the Earnings Test will lead to a shortfall in 
     government revenue, when exactly the opposite is true.
       If the Earnings Test is repealed, more seniors--up to 
     700,000, according to the National Center for Policy 
     Analysis, an economic research group--would rejoin the work 
     force, expanding the tax base and increasing the amount of 
     tax revenue the government receives from these returning 
     workers and taxpayers. As a result, the NCPA reported, the 
     annual output of goods would increase by at least $15.4 
     billion.
       The NCPA, in concert with the Institute for Policy 
     Innovation, another research group, revealed these findings 
     in a recently published report, ``Paying People Not to Work: 
     The Economic Cost of the Social Security Earnings Limit.''
       Repealing the Earnings Test would also be a federal revenue 
     gainer, the groups reported. ``Government revenue would 
     increase by $4.9 billion, more than offsetting the additional 
     Social Security benefits that would be paid,'' the report 
     stated.
       The few remaining naysayers who continue to oppose repeal 
     of the Earnings Test base their opposition on the belief that 
     Social Security is an insurance policy. Specifically, Jacobs 
     argues that benefits should be allocated only to those who 
     are ``retired''--and if someone is still working, and hence 
     not ``retired,'' he or she should not receive full benefits.
       This reasoning ignores the difficulty seniors encounter in 
     attempting to survive solely on Social Security or working at 
     a job; seniors frequently need both to make ends meet. 
     Because economic realities necessitate more money than Social 
     Security or, say, a job at McDonald's provides, the Earnings 
     Test must be repealed. Jacobs is simply out of step with the 
     realities of the cost of living in the 1990's.
       It is disturbing that two powerful committee chairmen are 
     in a position to block landmark legislation that has the 
     official support of a majority in the House.
       It would be one thing to have the Older Americans Freedom 
     to Work Act deliberated on the House floor and tabled. At 
     least then the merits--or what some believe to be the lack 
     thereof--would have been put in the open and subject to 
     public inspection.

[[Page S15785]]

       But a powerful minority of House leaders are doing 
     everything in their power to make sure this bill is never 
     debated on the House floor. Because of their refusal to allow 
     deliberation on the proposed repeal of the Earnings Test, one 
     can only conclude that they are fearful open discussion would 
     lead to an even greater groundswell of public support and a 
     demand that Congress move swiftly to approve the bill.
       As our country takes steps to make itself more economically 
     competitive for the 21st Century, it is clear that we will 
     have to use every available resource, especially in the U.S. 
     work force. Remaining competitive in the next century 
     requires adopting policies that foster economic vibrancy and 
     doing away with outdated policies that inhibit it. Repealing 
     the Social Security Earnings Test will both encourage a large 
     portion of the population to remain productive and help 
     bolster the economy. The realities of our economic situation 
     demand that we do so.
                                                                    ____

                                  Air Force Sergeants Association,


                                   International Headquarters,

                                Temple Hills, MD, January 8, 1992.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator McCain: The Air Force Sergeants Association 
     strongly supports your amendment to S. 243 to repeal the 
     Social Security Earnings Test. We have written to the House 
     and Senate conferees expressing this support and are ready to 
     assist in any way possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James D. Staton,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                                        The Seniors Coalition,

                                 Washington, DC, January 26, 1995.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I wanted to take just a moment to 
     thank you for introducing the Senate measure to repeal the 
     Social Security Earnings Test.
       The Seniors Coalition has made this issue the cornerstone 
     of our legislative agenda over the past three years. We have 
     worked closely with Rep. Dennis Hastert in the House of 
     Representatives and will continue to work with the House 
     Republican Conference now that the Contract With America 
     addresses the earnings limit.
       I am enclosing for your information our Issue Paper on the 
     earnings limit, as well as my recent testimony to the Ways 
     and Means Social Security Subcommittee. The Seniors Coalition 
     is ready to assist you in any way possible to ensure the 
     success of your measure. This issue is very important to our 
     two million members and they love being asked to get involved 
     with legislative issues.
       Please feel free to contact may assistant, Kimberly Schuld 
     at (703) 591-0663 if there is anything we can do to help.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jake Hansen,
     Vice President for Government Relations.
                                                                    ____



                                        Walt Disney World Co.,

                                                     June 9, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain. We fully support your proposal to 
     eliminate the Social Security Earning Limit for senior 
     citizens age 65 to 69. Furthermore, we favor additional 
     relief for senior citizens in the age group 62 to 64 who are 
     faced with an even more stringent limit on their earnings.
       In today's society, Social Security is a supplement to a 
     senior's income which is traditionally pension and 
     investments. Unfortunately, some must continue to work to 
     maintain a quality of life that is becoming evermore 
     expensive.
       Our opinion is formulated by the following compelling 
     issues:
       Our nation is faced with a shrinking labor supply for one 
     of the fastest growing sectors of the economy--the service 
     sector. Many seniors are fully capable of and interested in 
     filing these openings.
       As stated in your fact sheet, we should not have a system 
     that has built-in disincentives that inhibit seniors from 
     working.
       The current ``cap'' of $8,040 does not permit a senior in 
     the 62-64 age group to work in a minimum wage ($4.25/hour) 
     job for an entire year without incurring a penalty on the 
     last 10% of their income.
       Seniors represent a growing part of our population who 
     possess skill and attributes that employers are seeking. 
     Seniors offer experience and an excellent work ethic to an 
     employer.
       Also, in light of the health care reform issue that is on 
     everyone's mind, by raising the earnings ``cap,'' this will 
     allow seniors to avoid the Catch-22 of not being able to work 
     enough hours to qualify for health care at most corporations.
       In conclusion, we believe that seniors should always be 
     able to work in a minimum wage paying job full time (40 hours 
     per week) without being penalized. To ensure that this is not 
     a future problem, we recommend that the Social Security 
     Earnings Limit be indexed at 25% above the annual full time 
     income based on prevailing federally mandated minimum wage. 
     Currently, that would increase the cap to $11,050. 
     Internally, this would allow us to hire a senior, have them 
     work 30 hours per week, and penetrate the rate range to the 
     second step before reaching this new ceiling.
       Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
     Dianna Morgan.
                                                                    ____



                          National Council of Senior Citizens,

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 1992.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: We urge your support of an early and 
     positive vote for S. 3008, the Older Americans Act (OAA) 
     reauthorization. We believe that further delay in 
     reauthorizing the Act is a disservice to the millions of 
     seniors and their families who depend on vital OAA programs.
       The National Council of Senior Citizens, comprised of five 
     million seniors active in five thousand clubs and Councils, 
     has made passage of the OAA reauthorization one of our 
     highest priorities for this Session. The Council has 
     historically supported a sound Social Security retirement 
     test amendment has caused a yearlong delay in final passage 
     of the OAA. The two issues should be separated now and 
     support of S. 3008 is the best way of resolving this matter.
       Inaction on S. 3008 will be the cause of further loss of 
     resources and a weakening of the national commitment to meet 
     the needs of older persons at risk. We trust that we can 
     count on your vigorous support of S. 3008.
           Sincerely,
                                              Lawrence T. Smedley,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                                Council of Jewish Federations,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 1992.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Council of Jewish 
     Federations, I am writing to urge the immediate passage of 
     the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, S3008. 
     Millions of older citizens depend on the programs funded in 
     this Act for community and social services, nutrition 
     programs, senior centers, legal assistance, homebound care 
     and assistance, research and demonstration, and employment 
     opportunities.
       As a network of over 200 Jewish Federations and their 
     affiliated social service agencies, we are charged with the 
     responsibility for providing thousands of elderly people with 
     a life of quality. The Older Americans Act, with its 
     coordination between local, state, and federal agencies, 
     enables us to do this.
       The Older Americans Act, originally enacted in 1965, has 
     been a framework for providing vital nutritional and social 
     services to the elderly community for over 25 years. At a 
     time when seniors are growing as a population, the Older 
     Americans Act should not be pulled from them. By passing the 
     Older Americans Act the Senate will move one step further 
     along in the process necessary to ensure that the elderly may 
     continue to receive the quality care they need.
       We urge you to pass this critical legislation immediately.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Mark E. Talisman,
     Director.
                                                                    ____



                                         Older Women's League,

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 1992.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Older Women's League, I am 
     writing to urge you to pass the Older Americans Act, S.3008, 
     before Congress adjourns.
       I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is to pass 
     the Older Americans Act. The reauthorization of this 
     legislation and its programs is critical to providing 
     continuing supportive services for millions of older 
     Americans, most of whom are low-income and women. Without 
     final passage, important new programs cannot be initiated and 
     the White House Conference on Aging cannot take place. 
     Amendments of particular importance to OWL are those 
     requiring data collection on long-term care workers, and 
     supportive services for family caregivers.
       From its inception, the Older Women's League has sought 
     changes in Social Security that would make the system more 
     equitable for women. While OWL has endorsed the Social 
     Security provisions attached to the OAA conference bill 
     passed by the House of Representatives, we believe that these 
     and other changes to Social Security should be dealt with in 
     a more appropriate legislative measure. We hope to continue 
     working with Congress next year to make Social Security 
     equitable for beneficiaries, particularly women.
       Passage of the Older Americans Act is long overdue. The Act 
     is the cornerstone of services for this country's most 
     vulnerable older population. Congress must reaffirm its 
     commitment to assure the quality of life sought for older 
     Americans as declared in Title I of the Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Lou Glasse,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                          National Council on the Aging, Inc.,

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 1992.
       Dear Senator: The National Council on the Aging, Inc. urges 
     you to support for immediate Senate action to reauthorize the 
     Older Americans Act, S. 3008.
       Today, we are joining forces with many other national 
     organizations to seek your help in passing a clean Older 
     Americas Act.
       For the past two decades, the OAA has provided vital 
     services including congregate and home-delivered meals, 
     transportation, information and referral, advocacy 
     assistance, visiting and telephone reassurance, homemaker 
     services, legal and employment services.

[[Page S15786]]

       Failure to take action on the reauthorization means that 
     none of the many significant improvements in OAA services 
     crafted after long Congressional scrutiny will be initiated. 
     Inaction has already had an effect on the current 
     appropriation process in the House.
       The delay in passing the OAA jeopardizes those services 
     that allow millions of older Americans to maintain their 
     independence and dignity. This year's amendments, many of 
     which enhance services under the Act, cannot be implemented 
     until it passes. Failure to pass the reauthorization will 
     create a major rift in the covenant between Congress and the 
     older population of our country.
       I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of passage 
     of S. 3008, the Older Americans Act at this time.
           Sincerely,
                                                Dr. Daniel Thursz,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                           National Association of


                                       Area Agencies on Aging,

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 1992.
     John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the members of the 
     National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, I am writing 
     to urge you to take immediate action to pass the Older 
     Americans Act reauthorization legislation, S. 3008. Thousands 
     of older Americans in Arizona and millions of elders across 
     our nation depend on the services provided under the Act--
     information and referral, supportive services, nutrition 
     programs, transportation, in-home care and assistance, and 
     the long-term care ombudsman program.
       Senate inaction on S. 3008 is placing low-income, minority, 
     and frail elders in jeopardy. Because of resulting funding 
     problems, older persons are being denied services, there are 
     increases in service waiting lists, and higher levels of 
     unmet need.
       As you are probably aware, passage of the Older Americans 
     Act has been stalled by provisions to amend the exemption 
     level of the Social Security earnings test. For the past nine 
     months Congress has been unable to reach an agreement on the 
     earnings test issue. We strongly believe it is time Congress 
     moved beyond this impasse by decoupling the earnings test 
     from the Older Americans Act--by passing S. 3008. Further 
     delay will do a disservice to older persons who depend on 
     Older Americans Act services. We, therefore, urge you to take 
     the necessary steps to obtain immediate passage of this 
     crucial legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Cheryll Schramm,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                           National Association of


                                    Retired Federal Employees,

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 1992.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The National Association of Retired 
     Federal Employees (NARFE), and its nearly 450,000 members, is 
     greatly concerned that the Older Americans Act has not yet 
     been reauthorized.
       Today, we are joining forces with many other national aging 
     organizations to seek your help in passing a clean Older 
     Americans Act, S. 3008. Unless the Act is reauthorized soon, 
     we fear that service programs that benefit low-income, 
     minority and frail elders will be jeopardized.
       We hope that you will join with us to urge passage of S. 
     3008 so that Older Americans Act programs for community and 
     supportive services, nutrition programs, senior centers, 
     legal assistance and elder opportunities serving millions of 
     older Americans will be able to continue uninterrupted.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Harold Price,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                     National Association of State


                                               Units on Aging,

                                  Washington, DC, August 28, 1992.
       Dear Senator McCain: The National Association of State 
     Units on Aging urges your support for immediate Senate action 
     to reauthorize the Older Americans Act, S. 3008. While the 
     Older Americans Act itself has received almost unanimous 
     support on the floor of both Houses, it has been held captive 
     for months by a host of seemingly never ending congressional 
     procedural roadblocks and controversial and non-germane 
     amendments.
       Failure by the Senate to act swiftly will result in an 
     unconscionable reduction in funds available across the nation 
     to provide meals, transportation, in-home services, jobs, 
     advocacy for nursing home residents, elder abuse prevention 
     and similar, often life-sustaining, services to millions of 
     low-income and frail older persons.
       NASUA's members are the nation's 57 state agencies on 
     aging, designated by Governors and state legislatures to 
     represent and serve older persons in their states. They have 
     tried to explain to older persons that these frustrating 
     delays do not indicate a lack of congressional support for 
     this program which is so important to them. However, their 
     questions have turned to anger, their frustration to 
     disillusionment.
       Once again, we urge the Senate's immediate passage of S. 
     3008. Swift action can still avoid unnecessary and 
     unwarranted reductions in Older Americans Act service funds 
     and rescue literally years of congressional work to 
     strengthen the Act from being lost when this Congress 
     adjourns in a few short weeks.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views on this issue 
     of critical importance to millions of older persons.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Daniel A. Quirk,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                    National Committee to Preserve


                                 Social Security and Medicare,

                                 Washington, DC, October 25, 1995.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Last year, Congress authorized a 
     Commission to study the Social Security Notch Inequity as a 
     way to examine the merits of the arguments for and against 
     legislative action.
       The National Committee welcomed the opportunity this 
     Commission presented to adjudicate the merits of this long 
     standing issue.
       The Congress is to be congratulated for its efforts to 
     bring this Commission to life.
       This year, the leaders of both parties in both Chambers 
     have made all of the eight Congressional appointments.
       This month as a part of the Labor/HHS Appropriation 
     Conference report, Congress appropriated $1.8 million so that 
     the Commission can carry out its mandate and report back by 
     the end of the year.
       As soon as the President appoints his four members and 
     designates a Chairperson, the Commission will proceed.
       I hope that you will agree that the Notch Commission, when 
     activated, will study the issue and note findings which will 
     produce a recommendation. Please do your part to move this 
     Commission into action.
           Sincerely,
                                                Martha A. McSteen,

     President.
                                                                    ____



                             The Retired Enlisted Association,

                                 Alexandria, VA, January 14, 1992.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell SOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the more than 54,000 
     members of The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA) it is my 
     pleasure to offer TREA's support to you in your efforts to 
     repeal the Social Security Earnings Test.
       We of TREA appreciate your willingness to address what we 
     believe is a penalty imposed upon older Americans having a 
     strong work-ethic.
       Should you or a member of your staff have any specific 
     tasking suggestions for this office on this issue, please 
     don't hesitate to contact me.
            Very respectifully,

                                                John M. Adams,

                                                 MCPO, USN (Ret.),
                                   Director of Government Affairs.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand this amendment is stacked 
now. We do not vote on it now. We go next to another Republican 
amendment. We had a change in what our next amendment would be. But the 
Democrats have been advised. This will be the Helms amendment. Senator 
Helms is ready on the floor, and they have a copy of it on the other 
side.


                           Amendment No. 2965

(Purpose: To allow senior citizens to continue to choose their doctors)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2965.
       On page 461, line 13, after the period, insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) Point-of-service coverage.--If a Medicare Choice 
     sponsor offers a Medicare Choice plan that limits benefits to 
     items and services furnished only by providers in a network 
     of providers which have entered into a contract with the 
     sponsor, the sponsor must also offer at the time of 
     enrollment, a Medicare Choice plan that permits payment to be 
     made under the plan for covered items and services when 
     obtained out-of-network by the Individual.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am sure that I am not alone in my strong 
feelings that the senior citizens of America must not be deprived of 
their right to choose their own doctors.
  The text of my amendment has been modified to address both my strong 
desire to preserve the right of the senior citizens and the concerns of 
a number of Senators relating to options.
  The pending amendment stipulates that if a Medicare choice plan 
offers a closed plan HMO within the Medicare margin, that plan must 
also offer a point-of-service plan enabling senior citizens to exercise 
their freedom of choice regarding the selection of physicians.
  Three summers ago, I had a little encounter with some remarkable 
medical doctors, who are also my personal friends, in my hometown of 
Raleigh. I was at that time, of course, free to 

[[Page S15787]]

choose the team of surgeons who performed my heart surgery.
  The point is that all senior citizens enrolled in Medicare should 
have the same choice that I had. And the pending amendment will enable 
senior citizens to preserve their right to choose their doctors.
  Most Americans, whether their health is insured by private firms or 
by Medicare, enjoy their freedom to decide which medical professionals 
will perform their care and treatment. In reforming Medicare, Congress 
must make sure that senior citizens know their options and can choose 
their doctors and other medical providers instead of being required to 
accept somebody else's lineup of physicians and surgeons.
  Mr. President, the Senate is considering major reforms to save 
Medicare and prevent its being pushed over the cliff. Medicare must be 
reformed before it goes bankrupt. We agree on that. Otherwise, the 
Medicare trust fund will be flat broke when the 21st century rolls 
around just a few years hence.
  America's senior citizens--and I am one of them--depend on the health 
care coverage provided by the Medicare system, and those of us in 
Congress have a duty to make sure that they will not be forced to give 
up their right to choose their doctors. It is vital to their future 
security that our senior citizens retain this right. The power to 
choose will place senior citizens firmly in control of their health 
care.
  Senior citizens may be enticed to join an HMO because they will gain 
coverage for prescription drugs and eyeglasses and hearing aids--
coverages not presently provided by Medicare.
  However, without some moderating legislation, senior citizens could 
very well find themselves locked into coverage that limits them to 
services provided by HMO-affiliated doctors, other professionals and 
hospitals. No longer would senior citizens have the freedom to choose 
their own doctors.
  So, Mr. President, these are the reasons why I am introducing this 
amendment, to make sure that all Medicare-eligible Americans who choose 
to enroll in an HMO know their options of choosing the closed panel HMO 
or the point-of-service plan offered by the same insurance company.
  Mr. President, consider if you will the predicament of a patient who 
requires heart surgery, and whose HMO will not approve the cardiologist 
with whom the senior has built up a longstanding relationship. My 
amendment will enable women being treated for breast cancer to have 
more options when choosing a lower cost plan that will allow them to 
continue to see the specialists familiar with them and their 
conditions. For this reason, more than a hundred patient advocacy 
groups have voiced their support for this amendment.
  Point-of-service plans provide a safety valve to protect seniors who 
find themselves in the position of needing to see a doctor of choice. A 
point of service plan enables patients to see physicians and 
specialists inside and outside the managed care network. If seniors 
citizens are satisfied with the care they receive within the network, 
they will feel no need to choose outside doctors and specialists.
  Mr. President, CBO has given me repeated assurances that a built-in 
point-of-service feature--the technical term for freedom of choice--
would not increase the cost of Medicare. In fact, in testimony before 
the Senate Budget Committee, CBO stated that ``the point of service 
option would permit Medicare enrollees to go to providers outside the 
HMO's panel when they wanted to, and yet it need not increase the 
benefit costs to HMOs or to Medicare. . . .''
  Moreover, the actuarial firm of Milliman and Robertson concluded that 
depending on the terms of the plan and a reasonable cost sharing 
schedule, there should be no increase in cost to the HMO. In fact, 
there could actually be a savings.
  The fastest-growing health insurance product is a managed care plan 
that includes the point-of-service feature. In fact, in 1993, 61 
percent of all HMOs offer a point of service option.
  Building a point-of-service option into health plans under Medicare 
will not interfere with the plan's ability to contain cost, nor will it 
limit their efforts to encourage providers and patients to use their 
health care resources wisely. It simply will ensure that health plans 
put the patient's interest first.
  We can save Medicare. We can extend its benefits while lowering the 
towering costs that beset us today. And my amendment, we can also 
preserve a basic American freedom to choose one's own doctor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that at the expiration or 
yielding back of debate time on each amendment, the amendment be laid 
aside to consider the next amendment in order, and that when the next 
order of stacked votes begins, each amendment be voted on in the order 
in which it was offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and that 
it be charged to the 5 minutes on our allocated time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could you hold up on the quorum?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold?
  Mr. EXON. Be glad to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Are we charging time because we have not given you this 
amendment?
  Mr. EXON. We are having a great deal of difficulty. Since you have 
changed the order of offering amendments, our Senator was not alerted, 
and we are having trouble getting him here.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would you like to have 5 minutes and charge it to no 
one while the Senator gets down here?
  Mr. EXON. I would appreciate that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are just going to do that.
  I ask unanimous consent we go into a quorum call for 5 minutes and 
that it not be charged to the bill or to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend for his courtesy.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have a very 
brief, 2-minute colloquy with Senator Helms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I say to Senator Helms, just briefly, there was a little 
evolutionary process that we went through with this amendment. I think 
the amendment is very good, and I am in support of the amendment. 
Initially the Senator had it that under a managed plan, if a person 
wanted to leave the managed plan in one area of specialty, there was a 
split between the additional costs, if there were additional costs, of 
70-30 percent. My suggestion in talking with the Senator and with his 
staff was it might be a better idea if we had a managed plan that 
allowed the market to take care of that differential so that if an 
individual went into a managed plan and at a later date wanted to go to 
another specialist, that individual would pay the differential himself 
so that the patient would have the choice of any practitioner he wanted 
to use and yet the savings of the managed plan would be effected.
  My question would be, does the Senator think that perhaps this might 
avoid a duplication of all kinds of actuarial calculations, just to 
have one? And maybe we could talk about this or bring this up during 
the conference.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator's suggestion was excellent, and as he knows we 
undertook to adjust and modify the amendment to conform with the 
Senator's excellent suggestion.
  Now, the HMO may set up a cost sharing plan in the manner that the 

[[Page S15788]]

Senator from Oklahoma suggested. A plan may require that the senior 
citizen pay up to 100 percent of the difference between what a network 
doctor would charge and what the HMO would pay for the doctor. And that 
is, of course, one of the many options.
  My amendment is intentionally silent as to how an HMO should set its 
cost sharing schedule, but as the Senator has suggested, HMO's could 
set deductibles and other specific cost sharing arrangements.
  So I commend the Senator on his suggestion. The modified version of 
the amendment is at the desk.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from North Carolina.
  I thank the Chair.
  I would like to have a chance to look at that. I think we all want to 
accomplish the same low cost and choice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HELMS. I give the Senator a copy of the modified amendment which 
is now pending.
  Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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. Now, Mr. President, could I get back to understanding 
where we are. We were on a 5-minute kind of recess waiting for the 
Democrats to have an opportunity and then we got a discussion going, 
which I think was good, for the record. Now where are we 
parliamentarywise?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 5 minutes 
remaining on his time on the amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague.
  I yield back the 5 minutes of time that was allotted to us in the 
interest of conserving time and moving ahead.
  Let me say the next amendment that we have now, which we do not have, 
is the amendment to be offered by Senator Brown, as I understand it. We 
are having a great deal of difficulty with this shifting back and 
forth, trying to accommodate an awful lot of people. We do not mind 
accommodating people, but it is very difficult for us to make a 
determination on these things and get the proper people here the way we 
are receiving the amendments, or not receiving them, before they are 
introduced.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, I say to Senator Exon, I am willing to accommodate 
whichever way he would like. We are not ready with the amendment that 
we styled for, the Finance Committee amendment. That is being worked on 
now. I mean, that is just a matter of fact. We cannot bring it until it 
is done.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  Mr. FORD. We have a Brown amendment, and Senator Brown is not even on 
the list of 17 given to us. And the first four that were given to us--
--
  Mr. DOMENICI. He is No. 17.
  Mr. EXON. That is a question mark, yes.
  Mr. FORD. Brown is a question mark?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We never thought he was a question mark.
  Mr. FORD. That is a question mark on the list the Senator gave to us?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. FORD. Now, am I to understand that there will only be 10 out of 
the 17 that the Senator will give us?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. There are only going to be 10 that we will have 5 
minutes on a side. Any that are left over go into the----
  Mr. FORD. Third tier.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The third tier with no time.
  Mr. FORD. The only thing we have on the Brown amendment is a question 
mark?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. FORD. We just got it. We do not know who to go to here or to have 
debate or if we want to even debate. This is getting completely out of 
hand, and we are not doing it properly. We are not being fair to either 
side. I think that we should stop now and go back and get it in order. 
And we will have ours. You had the first three, and then we get one, 
and we can tell you who that is and what it is about.
  But I think we ought to take a few minutes, get them in order so we 
will know and we can have a decent 5-minute debate on each amendment on 
the floor.
  Now, I think the Senator from New Mexico agrees with me because he 
has been a little bit frustrated by not being able to get them in the 
order in which he told me that we were going to get them.
  So, Mr. President, I urge that we just take some time to get the 
amendments, because we do not know what the Senator from Colorado is 
going to offer, except the question mark.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I suggest in the interest of an orderly 
process--I already yielded back 10 minutes of our time, which still 
holds--therefore, I would suggest possibly it might be a good idea to 
take a 15-minute quorum call without being further charged to each 
side, and to come up with an orderly process so we can move 
expeditiously ahead.
  Would the Senator from New Mexico respond?
  Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to yield.
  Yes, I say to Senator Brown, I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. BROWN. I did not mean to interfere. I think the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky raises a very valid point. As far as I am 
concerned, I would be happy to limit my remarks to 1 minute and then to 
defer for a response time, which would give the distinguished Senator 
some additional time to review it. I think this is very 
straightforward.
  Mr. FORD. We do not even know what it is yet.
  Mr. BROWN. I delivered a copy.
  Mr. FORD. We just now got it.
  Mr. BROWN. I will try to accommodate any way I can.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, let me say we are in very good 
shape, comparatively speaking. So, I hope nobody is taken in by my 
exaggerations, or perhaps the exaggerations of the other side, on how 
muddled we are. We are not muddled at all. We were going to offer a 
Finance Committee amendment which is a very important amendment. We 
have been very forthright. It is not ready.
  Now, having said that, we do not have your No. 1 amendment from the 
second tier. We have a statement of it. We have the Biden tax credit. 
We have not seen it either. And the Breaux child tax credit has been 
circulating around, so maybe we have seen it.
  Now, what we would like to do is to have Senator Brown go next. And, 
I say to the Senator, his is an important amendment, so I would ask him 
not to take less than 5 minutes. The Senator is entitled to explain it.
  So we have that. And there are two changes. Let me see if we can help 
to get something done. I do not like being in this position either. So 
what we need to do is to get the Brown amendment. Or does the Senator 
have it now?
  Mr. BROWN. We have copies, and both sides have it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We ask the Senator that he give us the remainder of his 
first three that we do not have.
  We would like 15 minutes; do it the Senator's way. And we will try to 
get our amendments and get them to the other side. We are having some 
difficulty because our people did not know exactly when they were going 
to come up. We drew some arbitrary lines on who was in and who was out, 
which is tough for some of them.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have a 15-minute 
quorum call--
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator withhold?
  Instead of the quorum call, could others address generalities in the 

[[Page S15789]]

measure rather than just have a quorum call put in? This Senator would 
require about 6 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. Sure.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that we have 15 minutes without 
an amendment, divided equally, for any Senators, half on the other 
side, half on ours, that might want to speak to the bill, and that it 
not be charged to anything, because we are getting very short of time 
and it is sort of combined--our fault for the time. So let us not 
charge it to anyone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have been listening with great attention 
and interest to this very important debate on both sides of the aisle 
regarding the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995.
  I am pleased to support the budget which follows through on our 
promise to balance the budget by the year 2002, protect Social 
Security, and save Medicare from threatened bankruptcy.
  While there has been much debate focused on the details of this 
massive package, I would like to address the promise to the American 
people, present and future, that this bill represents. This is not just 
a budget for another year. This is not a package of routine legislative 
changes. This is a historic commitment to America that deficit spending 
is about to come to an end and has been brought about during this first 
year of the Republican majority in the U.S. Congress.
  The net result of a balanced budget will be lower interest rates for 
years to come and as many as 6 million new jobs. The reforms in this 
bill will give the States more control over critical entitlement 
programs that have become inflated with the Federal bureaucracy 
mismanagement of many years. These programs range from Aid to Families 
With Dependent Children to Medicaid. I strongly support these 
initiatives which will let the States decide how best to solve and 
serve the problems associated with their own citizens.
  What is best for Virginia is not necessarily the same as what is best 
for another State. And this Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act will 
move more power and money out of Washington back to State governments 
and local communities where it properly, in my judgment, belongs.
  I have received correspondence from many Virginians who support this 
bill because it will both balance the budget for the sake of future 
American families, particularly our children, Mr. President, and will 
pave the way for needed relief for the heavy tax burden on our present 
American families.
  When this budget reconciliation bill is signed into law, we will not 
be at the end of the trail, but only at the beginning. We will have 
identified the path and the course, but each year we will have to make 
spending decisions that will keep us on the road that is being defined 
here today and tomorrow.
  During my nearly 17 years as a privileged Member of this body, I have 
seen many instances where unforeseen spending requirements from 
hurricanes to peacekeeping operations have arisen and been funded by 
the Congress. These will surely occur from now until the year 2002 when 
the deficit is projected to disappear.
  We are now committed to making our Government live within the funding 
levels contained in this bill. If emergencies occur, we will have to 
offset their costs with spending reductions. Those budget decisions 
will be as difficult in the year 2000 as they are this year. But this 
package is a commitment by the Republican majority and eventually by 
the entire Congress that we will stay the course.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


           CAPITAL GAINS TAX CUTS: A BOOST TO ECONOMIC GROWTH

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the capital gains tax 
cut provisions in the budget reconciliation bill that lies before us 
today.
  I would like to focus my remarks on the economic effects that these 
provisions will have on our country.
  Mr. President, what often seems to get lost in all of the debate 
about capital gains is economics.
  Opponents of the capital gains tax cut seem content to promote class 
warfare while ignoring the economic effects of such a change.
  It seems to me, however, that instead of worrying about whether the 
so-called rich will pay less in taxes under this bill, the most 
important thing to focus on is how to sustain and boost economic growth 
so we can balance the budget and create the jobs needed by the next 
generation.
  The respected economic forecasting firm of DRI/McGraw Hill has 
studied our capital gains tax provisions very carefully. Their findings 
appear on this chart 1 following this statement.
  First, we should note that between now and 1999, DRI projects that 
about 600,000 new jobs will be created as a direct result of the 
capital gains provisions contained in this bill.
  Of paramount concern to all of us is the need to expand the job base 
so that no matter where one is on the ladder of success, there is 
opportunity to move up economically.
  As this chart 2 shows, most of the new job creation taking place in 
this country is provided by new companies and those that are in the 
early phases of their growth cycles.
  Look at the figures--while large companies are in the down-sizing 
mode, small and medium companies are expanding.
  The expanding companies are not the long established blue chippers. 
There is more risk involved investing in these emerging enterprises 
than in mature companies.
  By lowering the effective capital gains tax rates, the risk threshold 
for all investors will decrease and this will cause more equity funds 
to become available to companies that are in the growth stage.
  To illustrate this dynamic, Mr. President, consider the following 
facts.
  From 1969 to 1971, there were on average 510 new public offerings in 
this country per year.
  From 1972 to 1976, when the effective capital gains rates jumped to 
just over 49 percent, only 145 new public offerings occurred on average 
each year.
  When the effective capital gains rate fell to 20 percent between 1981 
and 1986, the average annual new public offerings figure jumped to 577.
  Between 1987 and 1992, when the capital gains tax rate jumped up 
again to 28 percent, the number of public offerings dropped to only 
431.
  While some growth in new company formations can be attributed to the 
fact that our economy was growing during those years, one wonders how 
much more it might have benefited if we had not increased the capital 
gains tax rate.
  Obviously, there is a relationship between the capital gains tax rate 
and the rate at which new companies start and grow.
  And, because these new and expanding companies are fueling most of 
our job growth--more than 70 percent of all new jobs are in small 
business--we can see that lowering the capital gains tax rate will 
increase the number of jobs in this country.
  Mr. President, DRI has made three other projections on chart 1.
  Because of the capital gains provisions in this bill, we should 
experience a 4.1 percent increase in our capital stock, a 5.1 percent 
increase in fixed investments and a 1.2 percent increase in labor 
productivity.
  What does capital stock refer to? It refers to our investment in 
plant, equipment, and technology. Even a ditch digger needs a shovel.
  While hundreds of millions of laborers around the world work for mere 
pennies per hour, how is it that most of our American jobs have not 
already been exported outside of our country? The answer is capital 
stock.
  We have one of the highest ratios in the world of capital stock per 
labor hour worked.
  In other words, for each hour a laborer works, we have more capital 
invested to support that worker in his or her job than most of our 
competitors around the world.
  As a result, on a per capita basis, American workers are the most 
productive in the world.
  This explains how our country grew from a predominantly agricultural 
economy to a predominantly manufacturing and services economy without 
reducing our agricultural output.
  It has been estimated that at the turn of the century, about two-
thirds of the American work force were in farming.

[[Page S15790]]

  Today, only about 3 percent of Americans work in farming. Yet, our 
grocery stores and storage facilities are filled to overflowing even 
though the number of mouths to feed has gone up and the number of 
agricultural workers has gone down dramatically.
  But for this tremendous infusion of capital stock into the equation, 
our American farmers would probably be about as productive and well 
paid as their counterparts in China.
  Because of the capital investment supporting our workers, we have 
made their services more valuable which, in turn, has prompted higher 
real wage rates here than most other countries in the world.
  Mr. President, the critical relationship between capital stock and 
real wage rates is illustrated by chart 3. Note that as our capital 
stock grows, real wages increase almost in lock-step. Thus, it is 
critical that we maintain growth in both capital stock, fixed asset 
investment, and worker productivity.
  And, as the DRI projections show, the capital gains provisions of 
this bill will do just that.
  Please note, Mr. President, the DRI projection in chart 1 that our 
collective cost of capital will drop by 8 percent as a result of the 
capital gains tax reductions in our bill.
  Many believe that our relatively high cost of capital is a critical 
area of U.S. weakness when competing in the international marketplace.
  Thus, in passing a capital gains tax reduction, we can take a 
meaningful step today toward narrowing this critical competitive gap 
and helping all Americans in the process.
  It should go without saying that growth in our collective standard of 
living depends upon growth in our gross domestic product.
  Mr. President, a 1.4 percent increase in GDP in the DRI projections 
contained in chart 1 might not seem like very much, but when applied to 
a $7 trillion economy, we are talking about an additional $100 billion 
of growth.
  As can be seen from this chart 4, Mr. President, we treat capital 
gains more punitively than most of our major international competitors.
  We can also see why the competitors in the Far East are gaining on 
us. We need to respond to this challenge in order to enhance our 
international competitive position.
  Mr. President, much has been said about the wisdom of lowering 
capital gains taxes at a time when we are trying to balance the budget.
  In my opinion, tax cuts and balancing the budget are not mutually 
exclusive, especially in the area of capital gains.
  Before the Hatch-Lieberman capital gains proposal underwent minor 
changes in the Senate Finance Committee, the Joint Committee on 
Taxation projected that it would result in about $89 billion in lost 
Federal revenues over 10 years.
  I very much doubt that this projection will be accurate, for a couple 
of reasons.
  First, both the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation have a poor 
track record in estimating the revenue effects of capital gains tax 
rate changes, as can be seen from this chart.
  In connection with estimated capital gains realizations for 1991, CBO 
originally projected realizations of $269 billion while the Joint 
Committee on Taxation projected realizations of $285 billion.
  In reality, there were only about $108 billion worth of realizations 
for that year. In other words, the CBO was off by 60 percent and the 
Joint Committee on Taxation was off by 62 percent.
  Estimating errors of a similar magnitude were made for 1990. In this 
case, the Bush Treasury Department projected capital gains revenues of 
$48 billion, while CBO projected $53 billion for that same year.
  In reality, the revenue only amounted to $28 billion. The cumulative 
gap from 1989 to 1992 between the Bush Treasury's revenue estimates and 
what actually was realized totaled $85 billion. The CBO was $118 
billion off the mark over the same period.
  The problem is that the economic models used by CBO, the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, and the Treasury do not adequately take into 
account the macroeconomic feedback effects caused by changes in the 
capital gains tax rates.
  This explains the wide divergence between their projections and 
reality.
  It is a fundamental law of economics that people respond to 
incentives. If we tax a good or service more, people buy or produce 
less of it. If we tax capital more, we get less.
  If we lower the tax on capital, we will create more of it.
  For years, the revenue estimating agencies of the Federal Government 
have failed to adequately account for the feedback effects of taxation.
  DRI has included these feedback effects in its estimate.
  As the DRI study indicates in chart 1, rather than the loss projected 
by the Joint Committee on Taxation, we should actually experience at 
least a $12 billion increase in Federal revenues over the next 10 
years.
  Personally, I believe this estimate to be on the conservative side. I 
believe a 50-percent capital gains deduction will unlock the floodgates 
of capital gains realizations.
  There is an estimated $8 trillion in unrealized capital gains in this 
country. Even if this bill only unlocks a small percentage of this vast 
mountain of capital, we will have unleashed a tremendous force for 
growth in our economy.
  With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see that we made a 
serious mistake in raising the effective tax rates on capital gains 
after 1986.
  Chart 5 shows the foregone realizations that we missed by the 1986 
capital gains tax increase.
  The lighter bars indicate actual realizations. Notice, Mr. President, 
how they drop off and stagnate after 1986 while the Standard and Poors 
stock index [S & P Index] continued to rise.
  The dark bars represent what taxable capital gains realizations would 
likely have occurred if they had kept pace with the S&P Index, as they 
did before the capital gains tax increase.
  This helps explain why our capital gains tax revenues have been so 
anemic since 1986.
  After jacking up the top effective capital gains tax rate by 40 
percent, from 20 to 28 percent, some might have expected a similar 40 
percent increase in capital gains tax revenues.
  However, we have only managed to generate an average of about 64 
percent per year of the capital gains revenue received in 1986; 28 
percent is clearly higher than the tax rate that maximizes capital 
gains revenues to the Treasury.
  Mr. President, recent history has made it clear that there is a 
direct relationship between capital gains tax rates and the amount of 
revenue from capital gains realizations received by the Treasury.
  Experience shows that reducing the capital gains tax rate actually 
increases government revenues.
  Consider the period from 1978 to 1985. On November 1, 1978, the top 
capital gains rate dropped from an effective 49 percent to 28 percent. 
It fell again in the middle of 1981 to 20 percent.
  Rather than experiencing a similar reduction in capital gains 
revenue, as some might predict, we saw the sharpest increase in such 
revenues since World War II.
  Annual capital gains tax receipts grew from $9.1 billion in 1978 to 
$26.5 billion in 1985.
  In other words, at the same time we experienced a 59 percent decrease 
in the top capital gains tax rate, our annual capital gains tax 
revenues increased by 191 percent.
  Mr. President, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are, in effect, saying that no tax benefits should go to the so-called 
wealthy.
  This is ludicrous. How do we expect to attain the economic objectives 
that we all are seeking if the wealthy stay on the sidelines as mere 
spectators, rather than as active participants?
  Some of my colleagues seem to hold that no matter how beneficial a 
certain course of action is to the economy and to average Americans, 
that action is totally unacceptable if the rich get any benefit from 
it.
  Abraham Lincoln once observed that you cannot help the weak by 
weakening the strong.
  Likewise, we cannot help all Americans by punitively taxing wealth. 
Our progressive income tax already does a good job of that.
  Trying to craft a set of incentives that exempts from coverage the 
very 

[[Page S15791]]

people whose conduct is critical to the attainment of our economic 
goals just will not work.
  By giving an across-the-board capital gains tax deduction to everyone 
alike, we will encourage an efficient reallocation of resources in such 
a way as to stimulate economic growth for all Americans.
  As I mentioned earlier, at stake in all of this is about $8 trillion 
of locked-in capital gains, which if unlocked, would produce 
substantial revenue gains to the Treasury, as well as create more jobs 
and economic growth for all Americans.
  Let me close Mr. President, with a real-life example that indicates 
that all of the economic principles I have talked about actually work 
and are not just theories that sound good.
  As a division of a major parent company, Sungard Data Systems had $30 
million in annual sales but was losing money.
  The parent company decided to sell this division. Venture capitalists 
believed that they could turn things around and return Sungard to 
profitability. The new buyers were correct.
  After the sale, the new management generated over $440 million in 
revenues and about $70 million in operating income.
   What used to be a 400-employee division before the sale turned into 
a 2,400-employee company after the sale. This represents a 500-percent 
increase in jobs.
  Did the rich venture capitalists get richer from all of this? Of 
course they did. But most importantly, 2,000 people had good jobs that 
did not exist before. This is the way our economy has always worked.
  This is America, where it is possible to create wealth for oneself by 
investing one's sweat, one's brains, and taking a risk. By so doing, 
the risk taker creates wealth and opportunity for those around him or 
her.
  Now is not time to abandon the economic principles that made this 
country the greatest economic powerhouse the world has ever known.
  Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
tax package reported out of the Finance Committee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that items referred to above 
be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       September 1995 DRI/McGraw Hill study projects the specific 
     economic benefits that will result from a 50 percent capital 
     gains deduction as follows:
       150,000 new jobs created each year from 1997-2000.
       4.1 percent increase in capital stock.
       5.1 percent increase in fixed investment over 10 years.
       1.2 percent increase in labor productivity.
       8 percent reduction in the cost of capital.
       1.4 percent increase in GDP over 10 years.
       $12 billion increase in federal tax revenues over 10 years.
       Who Generates the New Jobs?
       Answer: New Companies and Those in the Early Stages of 
     Expansion:
       Small Companies: Added 1.6 million net jew jobs in 1993; 
     and 25% job growth per year from 1989 to 1993.
       Large Companies: Industries dominated by large companies 
     had a net decrease of 200,000 jobs in 1993; and Fortune 500 
     companies lost about 3% of their jobs from 1989 to 1993.

                    Comparative capital gains rates

                                                                Percent
United States........................................................28
Japan.............................................................(\1\)
France.............................................................18.1
Germany...............................................................0
South Korea...........................................................0
Taiwan................................................................0
Singapore..............................................................

                                                                      0
Lesser of 1 percent of gross sale price of 20 percent of gain.


                     U.S. AFFILIATED INSULAR AREAS

  Mr. AKAKA. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and my 
good friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, on a matter of very great 
concern to me--a provision in the House reconciliation bill that is 
inconsistent with House and Senate Appropriations Committee actions and 
would eliminate our ability to meet some of the most basic needs in the 
U.S. affiliated insular areas.
  What the House Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs 
has proposed, and the House has accepted, may appear to many to be 
relatively noncontroversial--the repeal of a $27.7 million mandatory 
annual appropriation to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands [CNMI] for infrastructure improvement projects. The reality, 
however, is that this recommendation would wreck--before it can even be 
implemented--a carefully negotiated bipartisan, bicameral agreement 
made by the Conference Committee on Appropriations for Interior and 
Related Agencies.
  After outlining the facts in this case, I would hope and urge that 
the Senate conferees conclude that this proposal is misguided and must 
be rejected.
  In the administration's budget request it was recognized that the 
needs of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for Federal 
financial assistance were decreasing due to local economic growth. 
Therefore, the level of financial assistance could be decreased. 
However, the Administration and the Appropriations Committees also 
recognized that there continue to be significant future needs and 
obligations to be met in other island insular areas.
  The first of these other obligations is fulfilling the intent of 
section 103(i) of Public Law 99-239, the Compact of Free Association 
Act of 1985, which obligates the United States to undertake radiation 
mitigation measures and to resettle the people of Rongelap who were 
irradiated during the United States' nuclear testing program in the 
Marshall Islands.
  Second, Public Law 99-239 also authorizes immigration from the former 
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to the United States and its 
territories. In recognition of the impact which this immigration would 
have on social services, particularly in Guam, section 104(e)(6) of 
Public Law 99-239 authorizes compensation to assist in offsetting the 
negative impacts of immigration under the compacts.
  Third, economic development in remote American Samoa is still unable 
to generate sufficient revenue to meet all of the territory's basic 
needs. Of greatest concern is the Environmental Protection Agency's 
estimated $30 million backlog in waste water construction. If these 
projects are not undertaken, then the community will face an increasing 
risk of contamination of its groundwater, as well as destruction of its 
protective and productive surrounding coral reefs. In addition, 
American Samoa's hospital facilities are nearing the end of their 
useful life. The Department of the Interior and the Army Corps of 
Engineers estimate renovation or replacement costs for healthcare 
facilities to be between $20 and $60 million.
  Finally, the fourth obligation facing the Federal Government with 
respect to the islands is fulfilling our commitment to the CNMI. In 
1992, the previous administration and representatives of the CNMI 
reached an agreement under which the Federal Government would provide 
$120 million in financial assistance to the CNMI, to be matched by $120 
million from the CNMI, to meet the capital infrastructure needs of 
their rapidly growing population and economy. From 1993 to 1995 much of 
these funds were provided to the CNMI under the mandatory appropriation 
established by section 702 of Public Law 94-241, the Covenant to 
Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. However, $77 
million remains to be paid under the agreement.
  Given the extreme pressure on the budget, how were these needs and 
obligations to the islands to be met? Fortunately, the administration 
proposed a solution which would allow the appropriations committees to 
avoid the nearly impossible task of meeting these needs through large 
annual discretionary appropriations. The proposal, contained in the 
Insular Development Act (S. 638), was to reallocate the CNMI's $27.7 
million mandatory annual appropriation to meet needs among all of the 
islands. The Energy Committee held a hearing on this bill on May 25, 
1995, and the full Senate passed the bill on July 20. The Office of 
Management and Budget and the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees supported the proposal because it would allow for 
significant discretionary savings.
  In short, there is a solution to a set of difficult problems. The 
administration's original concept was adopted and modified to specify 
priorities and funding levels among these needs. It was then agreed to 
on a bipartisan basis by 

[[Page S15792]]

the Conferees on Interior Appropriations, who could now also agree to 
eliminate discretionary funding to meet these needs.
  Mr. President, it is with the greatest disappointment that I view the 
House recommendation to repeal the CNMI mandatory appropriation. This 
proposal completely wrecks the carefully crafted policy to meet the 
public health needs of Samoa, fulfill our commitment to the CNMI, 
compensate Guam for the negative social impacts resulting from compact 
immigration, and to acquit ourselves with respect to our commitments to 
the nuclear testing victims of Rongelap Atoll.
  I would like to call on my good friend, the Senior Senator from 
Louisiana and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, to confirm my presentation of the facts in this matter.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is absolutely correct. The provisions of 
the Interior conference report were the result of weeks of careful 
bipartisan effort. As ranking member of the authorizing committee I 
have been familiar with each of these issues for many years and have 
shared with the Senator from Hawaii the frustration of trying to find a 
solution. This is why I joined with my chairman, the senior Senator 
from Alaska, in writing to the chairman and ranking member of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee urging that the administration's 
proposal, as modified and reported by the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, be included in the Interior appropriations bill.
  I have been dealing with territorial issues since I first came to the 
Senate in 1972, and I can assure my colleagues that although these 
islands are small and remote, their needs are just as real as those of 
the States. We have responsibilities to U.S. citizens and nationals and 
citizens of the former Trust Territory that we simply cannot turn our 
backs on. After three long years we have finally come up with a 
solution to meet four of our most pressing problems in the islands. I 
simply cannot understand how the House justifies its proposal, which 
would ignore these responsibilities and commitments.
  Let me reassure my colleague from Hawaii that I will do all that I 
can to ensure that the Senate position prevails on this matter.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank my good friend and would also like to ask the 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, whether my 
understanding on these matters is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree with the Senator's statement. In fact, I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter sent by our Committee to the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee requesting the adoption of S. 638 be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,    
                                           Committee on Energy and


                                            Natural Resources,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 1995.
     Senator Slade Gorton,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 
         Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to you concerning the 
     funding for the Department of the Interior's responsibilities 
     for territories and insular areas, including the freely 
     associated states. We are concerned over the action taken by 
     the House in eliminating funding for staffing and for very 
     important programs, such as technical assistance, operations 
     and maintenance improvement, insular management control, and 
     disaster assistance. Each of these programs, while relatively 
     small, have proved to be of critical importance in assisting 
     the various island governments. We understand that both the 
     Departments of Defense and the Interior have also expressed 
     their concern over this action.
       The elimination of the salaries for all staff is 
     perplexing. Including the FY '95 appropriation, there are 
     over $900 million in funding for the territories and freely 
     associated states that the Department of the Interior is 
     responsible for. The Department has reorganized and placed 
     responsibility under the Assistant Secretary for Policy, 
     Management and Budget. As part of that reorganization, the 
     core permanent staff has been reduced from 45 to 25. We 
     believe that the staffing level should be kept to the minimum 
     necessary to enable the Secretary to fully discharge his 
     responsibilities. We have strongly suggested that they give 
     serious consideration to using at least a portion of the 
     savings to obtain details from other agencies to enhance the 
     Department's ability to deal with problems in the islands and 
     to reduce the need for permanent staff. We expect that 
     further adjustments will be made in the future as the 
     responsibilities of the Secretary change. The expected 
     efficiency and greater emphasis on technical and financial 
     management assistance to the areas will be completely 
     frustrated by the House action.
       We do not see how the reductions proposed by the House can 
     be supported. As you may be aware, the Senate has passed S. 
     638, which in part would redirect the permissible uses of 
     that portion of the current entitlement for the Northern 
     Marianas not needed to meet the 1992 Agreement on future 
     funding so that the excess could be used for long-term 
     infrastructure planning. Those funds would also provide the 
     ability to meet United States responsibilities in areas such 
     as assisting in the resettlement of Rongelap. In part, the 
     Committee felt that this action would increase the 
     flexibility of the Appropriations Committee to address 
     critical needs such as financial management. Enactment of 
     that provision would also provide a significant portion of 
     the infrastructure funding for American Samoa needed to meet 
     critical health and safety concerns. Given the increasing 
     pressures on the budget, we see no alternative other than 
     reallocation of the excess CNMI funding if essential needs 
     are to be met.
       Accordingly, we urge you to reject the action taken by the 
     House in eliminating funding for staff and for essential 
     programs for the insular areas. If you agree with the action 
     taken by the Senate with respect to the use of excess funding 
     for the Northern Marianas, we suggest that you seriously 
     consider adopting such a provision as part of the 
     Appropriation measure.
           Sincerely,
     J. Bennett Johnston,
       Ranking Minority Member.
     Frank H. Murkowski,
       Chairman.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me also reassure my colleague of my strong desire 
to see that our agreement, as set forth in the Appropriations 
conference report, not be undermined by the House reconciliation 
proposal which contradicts that agreement.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chairman for his reassurance. Mr. President, 
finally I would like to ask the Senior Senator from Hawaii, for his 
support on this matter.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct. It comes as a great 
disappointment to me that just as the United States was finally coming 
to a resolution on how to meet its obligations on these issues, the 
House has proposed to repeal the source of funding that had been agreed 
upon.
  I stand with my colleagues on the authorizing and appropriations 
committees in urging that the Senate insist on its position in 
conference--that the CNMI's mandatory funding be preserved in order to 
implement the bipartisan, bicameral agreement to reallocate these funds 
as set forth in the Interior Appropriations conference report.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank my colleagues for their support in ensuring that 
the Senate position prevails on this issue.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of 
passage of the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. This is not 
only good legislation. It is historic legislation. For the first time, 
in a long time, Congress has the opportunity to vote for a truly 
balanced budget--not just a theory, not just rhetoric but an action 
plan to realize the goal that many thought impossible.
  Only once in the past 30 years has the Federal Government had a 
balanced budget. Every other year we ``deficit spent'' our way toward a 
national debt that now stands at nearly $5 trillion dollars. That is 
$19,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in the United States. 
Because the interest on the debt is threatening to consume ever larger 
portions of the budget, this national debt is currently one of the 
greatest threats to our children's future.
  For the fiscal year that ended on September 30 the Federal Government 
ran a deficit of $161 billion. If nothing is done, and we don't change 
our spending habits, that deficit will rise to $256 billion by 2002. We 
must stop borrowing from the future and learn to live within our means. 
This budget reconciliation bill gives us the blueprint to accomplish 
that task.
  While the American people made it clear that they wanted the Federal 
budget balanced, they also made it clear that they wanted meaningful 
tax relief. The Republican leadership heard that message loud and 
clear. Besides balancing the Federal budget by the year 2002, the 
Reconciliation Act of 1995 provides the biggest tax cut in history--
more than $245 billion. Of 

[[Page S15793]]

these cuts 84 percent go to those making less than $100,000 and 70 
percent go to those making less than $75,000. These tax cuts are real, 
significant tax relief for the families of America. For example:

       A $500 per child under 18 tax credit for couples earning 
     $110,000 or less annually.
       20 percent credit of interest paid on student loans up to 
     $500 per year, per borrower, for couples with an adjusted 
     gross income of $60,000 or less.
       Raising the income limits for eligibility for IRA's by 
     $5,000 annually until they reach $100,000 for couples and 
     $85,000 for singles and indexing for inflation and creating a 
     $2,000 IRA for homemakers.
       Capital gains reform that deducts 50 percent of the gain 
     for individuals that have owned property at least 1 year, 
     which effectively lowers the tax rate to 19.8 percent A 
     reduction of the corporate rate on tax gains to 28 percent. 
     Both changes are effective 10-13-95.
       Estate tax reforms that will allow more Americans to 
     continue operating family owned business after the death of 
     the primary owner/founder. The first $1.5 million in value of 
     family owned businesses and farms are exempt from tax and the 
     tax on the next $3.5 million is reduced by 50 percent.

  These tax cuts are both responsive and responsible solutions to the 
excessive taxation that is stealing the financial independence from 
American families across this country.
  The Medicare portion of the budget reconciliation package is, in 
every sense of the word, true reform. It takes the current system, 
which is so obviously flawed and damaged beyond simple Band-Aid fixes, 
and transforms it into something which will truly work. It will work 
not only to meet the health care needs of current and future senior 
citizens, it will work to allow the marketplace, and therefore the 
people, to shape the future of health care.
  We all know the level of political rhetoric which has surrounded the 
issue of Medicare reform. The fact remains, however, unless something 
is done, and done soon, Medicare will go bankrupt. This is not a 
political issue. This is not a matter of just whether or not 
Republicans want to change the system. It is a question of whether or 
not we have the courage to make the tough decisions needed to save the 
system. Simply delaying the pending bankruptcy for a couple of years 
will not be sufficient. We have had enough of that attitude. It is time 
to stand firm and to stop avoiding the difficult decisions before us. I 
believe the Republican Medicare reform package does just that.
  The contents of the Medicare reform proposal have been significantly 
misrepresented. I believe it is important to point out what the measure 
reported out of the Finance Committee does.
  The first thing the plan does is provide choice. For too long we have 
told this Nation's senior citizens that they may not have a choice. 
When they turn 65, they are placed on Medicare, whether they want it or 
not. Until recently, only a few were even allowed to choose managed 
care options instead of fee-for-service. I believe this is outrageous. 
To tell people in this country that they may not provide for their own 
health care as they see fit violates the basic principles of freedom 
for which so many of our seniors fought and sacrificed. Some have 
claimed seniors have all the choice they need, but that is simply not 
true. When older people are turned away from a health care provider's 
office because the provider no longer wishes to struggle with the 
regulations and bureaucracy surrounding the Medicare Program, they have 
no choice. This must simply change.
  So what kind of choice will seniors get to make? Under the Republican 
proposal they can stay enrolled in the current Medicare program. Those 
wishing to go beyond the present system may choose from traditional 
fee-for-service indemnity health plans--(just like many of them had 
before retirement), coordinated care plans, and high-deductible health 
plans with medical savings accounts, also known as MSAs. In addition, 
the Medicare reform plan allows future enrollees to select from yet 
unforeseen health options as they become available, provided the plans 
meet minimum Federal standards. This, I would say to my colleagues, is 
the kind of choice most Americans already have. Do our senior citizens 
deserve any less?
  The Medicare reform plan we are debating also addresses another 
issue, fraud, which Idahoans have told me should be one of the primary 
focal points of any reform effort. I am pleased our plan takes serious 
efforts to reduce health care fraud and abuse. Specifically, the bill 
provides for the establishment of coordinated efforts by Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement officials to combat fraud. The bill 
also instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to exclude 
individuals convicted of health care fraud from receiving payments 
under Medicare and Medicaid. Furthermore, the reform package would 
establish a new criminal statute, with specific criminal penalties, and 
would also increase fines and civil penalties for health care fraud.
  With expanded choice and reduced fraud, one must wonder why there is 
so much opposition to our Medicare reform plan. I believe it stems from 
fear based on misinformation. In an attempt to set the record straight, 
I would like to take this opportunity to point out what the reform 
package does not do.
  First, this proposal does not cut Medicare. Under the Republican 
plan, Medicare will continue to grow by 6.4 percent each year. Over the 
next 7 years, expenditures for Medicare will grow by nearly $2,000 per 
recipient. Only in Washington could a $2,000 increase in payments per 
person be labeled, by some, as a cut.
  The GOP plan also does not force people to give up Medicare or to 
join managed care organizations. As I stated before, the plan offers 
seniors a choice. It lets them, rather than the Government, decide how 
one will receive health care. I believe this Nation's senior citizens 
can make those choices.
  In addition, the spending reductions included in the Medicare reform 
package are not, and I will repeat this, are not, related to a tax cut. 
The bill explicitly states that savings generated from reforming the 
Medicare system may not be used for any purpose other than saving and 
preserving the Medicare system. Whether or not we adopt any tax cuts, 
we need these savings to preserve the system for current and future 
recipients.
  Finally, to those who say smaller savings would be sufficient, I 
would ask them to define ``sufficient.'' While the Democrat's proposal 
would prevent the system from going bankrupt in 2002, as it is 
currently on a pace to do, it would allow the system to fail only 2 
years later. This attitude of ``put it off until it is someone else's 
problem'' is precisely why the United States is in the economic mess it 
is. As the Medicare trustee's said, ``prompt, effective, and decisive 
action is necessary.'' Simply delaying the inevitable is not a 
solution.
  I was pleased to note that my hometown newspaper, The Idaho 
Statesman, shares this view. In a recent editorial the newspaper 
stated, ``Without enormous changes like those proposed by the GOP, the 
program will go broke soon after the turn of the century.'' The 
editorial went on to say, ``somebody finally has the courage to begin 
fixing what's been broken for a long time.''
  Since before I first came to the Senate, Idahoans have told me they 
want Congress to face the important issues head on, to try to set this 
country on solid economic footing. The Medicare reform plan which the 
Senate Finance Committee approved does just that. It will not be easy, 
and it will not be painless, but it will achieve our goals. It will 
correct the financial difficulties the program faces, bring the 
efficiencies of the market into play, and give senior citizens the 
freedom to choose.
  The Idaho Statesman's editorial ended with the following statement, 
``The numbers clearly show that Medicare, which served one generation 
well, cannot serve the next one without significant reform.'' The 
Republican package is just that, significant, and serious, reform.
  The Finance Committee has also used this bill as a vehicle to 
redirect and energize the earned income tax credit. The EITC is a well-
conceived and well-intended program designed to encourage work over 
welfare for low-income families. Unfortunately this worthy intent has 
been lost in what has become the fastest growing entitlement program we 
have. Just since 1986 it has grown from 7 million families receiving an 
average of $281 to 18 million 

[[Page S15794]]

families receiving an average of $1,265. The EITC no longer benefits 
only families with children but provides benefits to both individuals 
and families without children.
  The Senate proposal redirects the EITC back to the truly needy, 
reduces the potential for fraud and abuse and puts money where we need 
it, in the hands of low income families with children. We will increase 
spending on the intended beneficiaries at the same time we save the 
taxpayers more than $32 billion.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act. It is good, smart legislation that demonstrates to 
the American taxpayer that Republicans are serious about changing the 
business as usual attitude in Congress.


                          s-corporation reform

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are aware, there 
are a number of tax issues of significant importance to the 1.9 million 
American businesses that are S corporations that did not get resolved 
during the Finance Committee markup last week. Many of those issues--
which include the current law's severe limitations on capital 
formation, growth, corporate streamlining, family business planning, 
estate planning, and tax simplifaction--are addressed in a bill I 
introduced earlier this year with my colleague from Utah, Senator 
Hatch. That bill, S. 758, the S Corporation Reform Act of 1995, has the 
bipartisan cosponsorship of a third of the Senate.
  While it is unfortunate that none of the provisions of S. 758 were 
included in the bill reported by the Finance Committee and made part of 
the Budget Reconciliation Bill that is before us, I am pleased to note 
that many of these provisions were included in the tax bill passed by 
the House Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I, too, share the concerns of my colleague 
from Arkansas and see S corporation reform as an important step in 
helping this nation's S corporations stay competive and grow. I firmly 
believe that S corporation reform is long overdue, and hope that we can 
work through the conference process and during the rest of this 
legislative session, not simply to adopt the key S corporation 
simplification provisions that have already been included in the House 
bill, but also to address and include several additional provisions 
that are critical components of S. 758.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Utah. 
Specifically, I believe that it is very important that we extend the S 
corporation reform initiative in the budget process to include all the 
items in the House bill, as well as such provisions as:
  The ability of S corporations to issue preferred stock and general 
convertible debt;
  The ability of S corporations to form ESOPs, so their employees can 
share in the success of the business;
  The ability of financial institutions to be shareholders of an S 
corporation's stock, which is often a critical element of obtaining 
financing for corporate growth; and
  The ability of all members of a family to be counted as a single 
shareholder of an S corporation, since family-owned S corporations are 
frequently stifled as they continue to grow from one generation to the 
next.
  I hope that these issues will be on the table for discussion, and 
that my colleagues will be willing to help S corporations--most of 
which are small and/or family owned businesses--be more effective 
competitors in the marketplace.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand the concerns of my colleague 
from Arkansas, and also hope that we will be able to resolve these and 
other critical issues in conference. I will be working closely with 
Senator Pryor in the coming weeks on these very important legislative 
objectives.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators seeking 
recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. 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. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1995 which, for the first time in many years, 
controls entitlement spending, restrains the growth of Government and 
eliminates annual deficits.
  What a refreshing contrast this balanced budget reconciliation bill 
is to the budget proposals submitted over the past 2 years by the 
President. Those budgets enacted the largest tax increase in history, 
contained no plan to balance the budget, significantly increased the 
national debt, failed to restrain growth in nondefense Government 
spending and proposed dangerous reductions in national defense 
spending.
  Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 
reverses direction on those policies which are strapping our economy 
and burdening all Americans with an overwhelming national debt.
  I remind my colleagues that the national debt now stands at over $4.9 
trillion. Outlays for interest on the public debt is well over $300 
billion per year, exceeding outlays for any other Government Department 
or program, except Social Security.
  Furthermore, failure to adopt this reconciliation act will result in 
annual deficits exceeding $200 billion for as far as can be projected. 
That is not an acceptable alternative. We must reduce Government 
spending. We must eliminate these annual deficits, and we must reduce 
the national debt. The Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act puts us on 
track to accomplish those objectives.
  Mr. President, I support the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1995. I vote yes for reducing the deficit. I vote yes for controlling 
the growth of Government spending. I vote yes for our families by 
reducing their tax burden. I vote yes for restoring the economic future 
of our Nation. Therefore, I will vote yes for this bill and encourage 
my colleagues to do likewise.
  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. COHEN. 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. COHEN. Mr. President, I was here listening to the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina talking a moment ago. As always, I am 
impressed with his vigor, vitality, and enthusiasm and, indeed, his 
stamina.
  I also found myself in agreement with much, if not most, of what he 
was saying. I agree that we should vote yes on deficit reduction, and I 
see my friend from New Mexico here. I want to tell him how much I 
admire him personally, the job he has done and the work that he has put 
in over the years on the Budget Committee, the years he has spent 
dedicating himself to budget reductions and trying to achieve a 
balanced budget for this country. So I do not want him in any way to 
regard the comments I might make in the next few moments as being in 
derogation of my respect and admiration for him.
  I agree with what Senator Thurmond said; we have to vote yes on 
deficit reduction. I believe that. I believe we have to vote yes on 
cutting spending. I believe we have to vote yes on reforming programs 
which have heretofore been regarded as untouchable, being third rails 
we cannot touch. I think we have reached the point in our history where 
we have to look at virtually every program and not decide that any of 
them are immune from reform, from trimming, from cutting, maybe even 
elimination.
  But there are other items in this package that I do not support. I do 
not support drilling in ANWR. I do not support opening that up. I do 
not, frankly, support calling for tax reductions at a time when we are 
calling for deep budget cuts. For me, it is the equivalent of putting 
our foot on the brake and putting our foot on the pedal at the same 
time. It is a personal decision on my part. I feel that I can support 
virtually all the cuts that are necessary to achieve a balanced budget 
by the year 2002.
  I was pleased to hear President Clinton indicate that he, No. 1, 
believes we should strive for a balanced budget. Initially he said 10 
years, then it was 9 years, and now I believe it is even 7 

[[Page S15795]]

years. I think that is quite a concession on his part, that he agrees 
that we ought to have a balanced budget within a 7-year timeframe.
  The dilemma that I face is like that of several other of my 
colleagues. This may be the only vehicle to date that we have for 
achieving a balanced budget by the year 2002. This may be only part of 
the process that is underway.
  This may be act II of a three-part drama that has to be played out 
that was initiated by the Contract With America, as being part one in 
its adoption, and part two being our deliberations and debate, and, 
ultimately, votes here in the Senate and conference with the House, to 
present a package that will be sent to the President that most, if not 
all, of us anticipate will be vetoed by the President because it does 
not include some of his priorities. That may be act II.
  Ultimately, we have to come to act III, which is where we sit down 
with the President and work out our differences--again, being committed 
to a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  So I will listen with some interest as we proceed throughout the 
evening and into tomorrow as to whether or not I can support the final 
package. But I indicate today, as I did last evening, I think it is 
inappropriate that we have massive tax reductions at a time when we are 
trying to balance the budget and cut the deficit to achieve a balanced 
budget by the year 2002. And so I intend to support various amendments 
that will be offered.
  I may, in fact, offer an amendment to strike the tax cuts in their 
entirety. But it may be that that matter has already been debated long 
enough on the Senate floor. It is my personal judgment that we ought to 
do everything we can to make the reductions that we have long deferred 
in making, that we ought to do it within a 7-year timeframe, that we 
should support our chairman in his efforts for what he has done to 
produce that.
  But I must say, Mr. President, that I have great reservations about 
calling for substantial tax reductions at the same time we are asking 
for substantial cutbacks in programs.
  So I will listen with interest as we proceed throughout the evening 
and tomorrow. But I indicate my great admiration and respect for 
Senator Domenici and the effort he has undertaken to produce a 
reconciliation package that, perhaps, is only part two or act II of the 
three-act drama that has to be played out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 15 minutes called for under the previous 
order has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is Senator 
Brown's amendment before the Senate, on which he has 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator needs to call that amendment up.


                           Amendment No. 2969

  (Purpose: To provide that the $1,000,000 limit on deductibility of 
   compensation paid to an employee is extended to employees of all 
  businesses, and to use the resulting revenues to reduce the Social 
                       Security earnings penalty)

  Mr. BROWN. 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 Colorado [Mr. Brown], for himself, Mr. 
     Abraham, Mr. Santorum, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Craig, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2969.

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

       At the end of chapter 8 of subtitle I of title XII, insert 
     the following:

     SEC.  . $1,000,000 COMPENSATION DEDUCTION LIMIT EXTENDED TO 
                   ALL EMPLOYERS OF ALL CORPORATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 162(m) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``publicly held corporation'' in paragraph 
     (1) and inserting ``taxpayer (other than personal service 
     corporations)'',
       (2) by striking ``covered employee'' each place it appears 
     in paragraphs (1) and (4) and inserting ``employee'', and
       (3) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and redesignating 
     paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995, except that there shall not be taken into account with 
     respect to any employee to whom section 162(m) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 applies solely by reason of 
     such amendments remuneration payable under a written binding 
     contract which was in effect on October 25, 1995, and which 
     was not modified thereafter in any material respect before 
     such remuneration is paid.
       (c) Use of Revenues.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Commissioner of Social Security shall increase 
     the earnings limit otherwise determined for each year under 
     section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) by an 
     amount which takes into account the increase in revenues for 
     such year as estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury 
     resulting from the amendment to section 162(m)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 made by the Balanced Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1995.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment, 
and it deals with an area this Congress legislated on in 1993.
  In 1993, Congress passed a tax provision that placed a limitation of 
a million dollars on the deductibility for publicly held corporations. 
The limit of a million dollars was on the amount they could deduct on 
the salary of an employee of that corporation.
  I might say, just in retrospect, that statute had other provisions. 
In other words, it was possible to earn over a million dollars and have 
it deductible but only if it was incentive pay or fit into other 
provisions. So it is not an absolute limitation. But that limitation, 
in this Senator's view, was somewhat limited and deficient. It was 
deficient in that it was not applied evenhandedly, fairly; it was not 
applied to everybody who had a salary in excess of a million dollars; 
it was only applied to a special few. So the suggestion of the first 
half of this amendment is simply to be evenhanded and apply that same 
limitation to employees of all businesses. Again, the tax is on the 
business, not on the employees.
  Mr. President, I might say two important things here. We have not 
changed any of the exceptions to this provision. In other words, 
included in it was a provision that allowed incentive payments, and so 
on. None of that has been changed.
  In addition, included here is a provision that prohibits them from 
being retroactive. That is, if you have an employment contract signed 
prior to today, that is valid and not affected by this provision. But 
it does raise, according to the preliminary estimates we have, $800 
million. That $800 million, according to the amendment, is then used to 
ameliorate the impact of the penalty on Social Security tax.
  As I think Senators are well aware right now, above the threshold 
level a very high tax is placed on Social Security recipients, many of 
whom are not wealthy at all, but are low-income or middle-income and 
struggling, and they are put into a very difficult penalty situation. 
So this is a net, even with regard to tax revenue to the Federal 
Government.
  What it does is take that $800 million that will be raised and use it 
to offset the earnings penalty. It will not eliminate the Social 
Security earnings penalty. My guess is it will only have a small affect 
on it. It will only increase the threshold a small amount of money. But 
that amount of money will go to working men and women, who retire 
without adequate resources and need that money and need to work to make 
their household expenses fit.
  In my view, it is an excellent transfer. It applies even tax 
philosophy to those who receive over a million dollars in compensation. 
It provides evenhandedly and uses the money to ameliorate that Social 
Security earnings penalty that is so burdensome for so many working 
people.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment and checked 
it with the Finance Committee sources. I am prepared to yield back the 
full 5 minutes in order to move this thing along. Once again, I would 
like to take the opportunity to thank the chairman of the committee for 
his diligence and consideration, in allowing a 15-minute discussion 
period when we worked this out.
  Let me say this. We have unnecessarily delayed the process here, 
though, because both sides have not been as forthcoming as I think we 

[[Page S15796]]

should be--or that we intend to be, for that matter--in supplying 
copies of the amendments to the other side. I am not saying it is just 
on your side, it is on our side as well.
  Suffice to say, I am ready to yield the remainder of my time. I 
believe--if the chairman agrees--that would take us to the Harkin 
amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. EXON. Yes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, simply to affirm what the Senator 
from Nebraska says, I think it is, in fact, part of the agreement 
between the leaders that we will know what we are voting on, that we 
will have copies of these amendments. I have a list here of 17 of what 
are called Republican amendments, and three of them are question marks. 
There are all kinds of words. There is a word that says kickback, one 
that says taxes, health care, sugar. There is no way to make any kind 
of a judgment.
  So I just affirm the view of the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee that we need to have these amendments. It is part of the 
agreement that we would have these amendments and our amendments in 
writing before we act on them.
  Otherwise we are just singing in the dark.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time 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 are ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2970

  (Purpose: To strengthen efforts to combat Medicare waste, fraud and 
                                 abuse)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment in order is the 
amendment to be offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. How much time do we 
have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment that I am sending to the desk, and I 
ask for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. Graham 
     and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 2970.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, if you believe that waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare 
is just a small problem, then you want to just support the bill and the 
Abraham amendment that was added to it and vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  If you have followed the hearings that I have held over the last 5 
years showing that what GAO says amounts up to 10 percent of Medicare 
spending goes for waste, fraud and abuse, this is up to $17 billion a 
year.
  If you have followed those hearings or read the numerous GAO and 
Inspector General reports, then you know we just cannot go after the 
small things in waste, fraud and abuse. We have to go after the big 
game. We have to take a truly comprehensive approach to combatting this 
bilking of the taxpayers and our elderly.
  Now, the bill has some good provisions in it. I will not deny that. 
The Abraham amendment which I voted for is also pretty good. But that 
just takes a nick out of it. What we have to do is go after it with 
every thing we can. The taxpayers and the elderly deserve no less.
  My amendment, cosponsored by Senators Graham and Biden, both of whom 
who have worked hard to tackle this problem, makes a number of 
important changes. It requires Medicare within 6 months must use state-
of-the-art commercial software to find billing abuse. GAO estimated the 
first full year savings of making this common sense idea at $640 
million.
  Next, my amendment prohibits Medicare payments for unnecessary and 
inappropriate items like fines owed by health care providers for 
violations of Federal, State or local laws, personal auto use, tickets 
to sporting events, entertainment, and other things like that. Believe 
it or not, Medicare still has no specific prohibition against paying 
for those kind of items.
  Third, my amendment reforms payments to ambulances as recommended by 
the inspector general. It also reduces paperwork by requiring a 
standardized claim form for Medicaid and Medicare.
  Most important, and the heart and soul of this, it requires 
competitive bidding for durable medical equipment, medical supplies, 
and oxygen paid for by Medicare. The Veterans Administration has been 
doing this a long time and the difference in payments is dramatic.
  How can you say you do not support it in Medicare when you have it in 
the VA, when the VA spends 4 cents for the same bandage that Medicare 
spends 86 cents for? Oxygen--Medicare spends $3,600 for rental of 
oxygen; the Veterans Administration pays less than half that.
  That is because the Veterans Administration has competitive bidding 
and Medicare does not. It is time we have good old competitive bidding 
in Medicare. That is what this amendment does.
  I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I compliment the Senator from Iowa.
  Put bluntly, there is no legitimate reason not to be for this 
amendment. None. Zero. None. I challenge anyone to tell us why this 
amendment does not make sense.
  Going after fraud should be our top priority, our first priority. The 
bill makes progress but it does not go far enough.
  At least it is not what the Gingrich bill in the House does which 
makes it easier for health care providers to engage in fraud. 
Literally, not figuratively.
  Last, the point made by the Senator, there is $18 billion in Medicare 
fraud a year and $16 billion in Medicaid fraud a year. I see no 
legitimate rationale for not tightening this up unless there is some 
outrageous special interest that thinks it would benefit from it. I see 
none. Prosecutors want it. Prosecutors ask for it.
  I held a hearing in my State where I had the top prosecutors from 
Philadelphia and the top prosecutors from the State of Delaware. They 
point out that the House bill, which set them back decades--this bill 
would not do much. Our bill would make a significant impact on their 
ability to deal with health care fraud.
  I thank my colleague for his leadership and allowing me the minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute and 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will reserve my time if the other side wants to speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes in opposition to Senator Cohen.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, ordinarily I find myself in agreement with 
the Senator from Iowa, dealing with health care fraud, but I must say 
in this particular circumstance I have to rise in opposition, not 
because I am opposed to what he is seeking to do but rather I believe 
that while his proposal for addressing fraud and abuse in the health 
care system has merit, they also compromised some of the more important 
facets of the health care fraud bill we were successful in including in 
the Finance Committee package as such.
  For the past several years, we have been holding hearings. As a 
matter of fact, it was a report that the minority staff issued on 
health care fraud which produced the estimates from GAO, as well as our 
own staff, showing that there is $100 billion being lost annually in 
our health care system.
  As far as the Federal portion of that, it is anywhere from $27 to $40 
million, depending on which Federal programs are included. We are 
losing billions of dollars through our health care system through fraud 
now.
  What we have tried to do in the proposal that was agreed to by the 
Finance Committee is to structure it in a way that actually produces 
savings--this $4.2 billion.
  The amendment of the Senator from Iowa, as I understand it--
unfortunately, because of the time limitations we have, I believe some 
of my provisions have been deleted that are in the health care fraud 
bill. I am advised that CBO has concluded that this dilutes some of the 
$4.2 billion in savings.

[[Page S15797]]

  One of the justifications for persuading the Finance Committee to 
include the health care fraud bill that I had authored was to get some 
savings. CBO now scores it at $4.2 billion. This at least raises a 
question as to whether or not we have diluted that and it calls into 
question in terms of how much we will save.
  The Senator from Iowa may use a different method of calculating those 
savings.
  What we have tried to do is structure it in a way which we could get 
the provider groups to agree. This has been no easy task. We have met 
with provider groups, with consumers, with health care advocates, with 
the FBI, with the Justice Department, with the White House.
  We put together a package which we believe enjoys broad support which 
has been scored as saving $4.2 billion. Under these circumstances, I 
find myself compelled to rise in opposition not because I am opposed to 
what the Senator from Iowa seeks to do, but by virtue of the fact this 
may undermine to some degree and dilute to some degree, which I do not 
know what extent, the $4.2 billion which has currently been scored by 
CBO.
  For those reasons I rise in opposition to the amendment of the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 1 minute and 
50 seconds and the Senator from Iowa has 1 minute and 14 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am somewhat disappointed. I thought this 
was perhaps one amendment that we could get Republican agreement on.
  This is a good amendment. There may be reasons to oppose it, but I do 
not know what they are and they have not been explained to me.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am befuddled, Mr. President, because I say to my friend 
from Maine, the CBO--which I want on the record--the CBO has scored our 
amendment as saving more money than is in the bill. I want that on the 
record. That is so.
  We did not weaken the provisions in the bill, we significantly 
strengthened them. For example, as I pointed out, we require the 
commercial software, we reduce the paperwork by having one claim form. 
We required the competitive bidding and we prohibit the Medicare 
payments for unnecessary things like personal use of automobiles, 
tickets to sporting events, things like that.
  And CBO has certified that this amendment saves more money than the 
underlying bill's provisions.
  Mr. COHEN. We are basically in accord with what we are seeking to do, 
but I have been advised that CBO indicates this would reduce the $4.2 
billion by----
  Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely not. CBO said today it would save $4.7 
billion, considerably more than the underlying bill. Let there be no 
question about that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa is expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Harkin amendment to remove fraud and 
abuse from Medicare is a giant step in the right direction--saving 
taxpayer money, urging us toward a balanced budget, and striving for 
greater efficiency.
  However, the amendment is based on a concept both necessary and 
controversial. This amendment would require competitive bidding for 
Medicare part B items and services.
  I have heard from owners of numerous medical supply businesses in my 
State who tell me they will be driven out of business by this amendment 
provision. They tell me services will be cut to rural areas. They tell 
me services involved with setting up and instructing about medical 
equipment is essential for patients, and will be threatened under this 
amendment.
  Senator Harkin has made changes to his amendment language, to 
maintain access to services for rural and underserved areas. He has 
made changes to assure quality assurance standards, so that large 
companies are not able to undercut their competition simply by 
providing shoddy supplies and equipment.
  He points out the large difference between prices for supplies at 
Veterans Administration hospitals--which have competitive bidding--and 
prices from providers under Medicare part B. He makes a good case for 
solving some of our Medicare cost problems with a clear goal to find 
efficiency through competitive bidding, rather than just a budget 
decision.
  In light of these changes, I will vote for the amendment, but I want 
to be sure that we are doing everything we can to make this transition 
survivable for small business.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds in 
order to have items printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record 
various documents, including a letter from the inspector general of the 
Department of HHS and statements by the Secretary of the Department and 
the Attorney General. They all go to the point that we need to have as 
strong an antifraud position as possible in the Senate version of the 
Medicare bill, because the House version is woefully weak. I support 
the joint efforts of my colleagues from Iowa and Maine in assuring that 
goal.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the documents be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Department of Health and Human Services, Office of 
           Inspector General,
                               Washington, DC, September 29, 1995.
     Re H.R. 2389: ``Safeguarding Medicare Integrity Act of 
         1995.''
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: You requested our views regarding the 
     newly introduced H.R. 2389, which we understand may be 
     considered in the deliberations concerning the ``Medicare 
     Preservation Act.'' We strongly support the expressed 
     objective of H.R. 2389 of reducing the fraud and abuse which 
     plagues the Medicare program. The proposed legislation 
     contains some meritorious provisions. However, if enacted, 
     certain major provisions of H.R. 2389 would cripple the 
     efforts of law enforcement agencies to control health care 
     fraud and abuse in the Medicare program and to bring 
     wrongdoers to justice.
       The General Accounting Office estimates the loss to 
     Medicare from fraud and abuse at 10 percent of total Medicare 
     expenditures, or about $18 billion. We recommend two steps to 
     decrease this problem: strengthen the relevant legal 
     authorities, and increase the funding for law enforcement 
     efforts. Some worthy concepts have been included in H.R. 
     2389, and we support them. For example, we support:
       A voluntary disclosure program, which allows corporations 
     to blow the whistle on themselves if upper management finds 
     wrongdoing has occurred, with carefully defined relief for 
     the corporation from qui tam suits under the False Claims Act 
     (but not waiver by the Secretary of sanctions);
       Minimum periods of exclusion (mostly parallel with periods 
     of exclusion currently in regulations) with respect to 
     existing exclusion authorities from Medicare and Medicaid; 
     and
       Increases in the maximum penalty amounts which may be 
     imposed under the civil monetary penalty laws regarding 
     health care fraud.
       As stated above, however, H.R. 2389 contains several 
     provisions which would seriously erode our ability to control 
     Medicare fraud and abuse, including most notably: making the 
     civil monetary penalty and anti-kickback laws considerably 
     more lenient, the unprecedented creation of an advisory 
     opinion mechanism on intent-based statutes, and a trust fund 
     concept which would fund only private contractors (not law 
     enforcement). Our specific comments on these matters follow.


 1. making civil monetary penalties for fraudulent claims more lenient 
   by relieving providers of the duty to use reasonable diligence to 
               ensure their claims are true and accurate

       Background: The existing civil monetary penalty (CMP) 
     provisions regarding false claims were enacted by Congress in 
     the 1980's as an administrative remedy, with cases tried by 
     administrative law judges with appeals to Federal court. In 
     choosing the ``knows or should know'' standard for the mental 
     element of the offense, Congress chose a standard which is 
     well defined in the Restatement of Torts. Second, Section 12. 
     The term ``should know'' places a duty on health care 
     providers to use ``reasonable diligence'' to ensure that 
     claims submitted to Medicare are true and accurate. The 
     reason this standard was chosen was that the Medicare system 
     is heavily reliant on the honesty and good faith of providers 
     in submitting their claims. The overwhelming majority of 
     claims are never audited or investigated.
       Note that the ``should know'' standard does not impose 
     liability for honest mistakes. If the provider exercises 
     reasonable diligence and still makes a mistake, the provider 
     is not liable. No administrative complaint or decision issued 
     by the Department 

[[Page S15798]]

     of Health and Human Services (HHS) has found an honest 
     mistake to be the basis for CMP sanction.
       H.R. 2389 Proposal: Section 201 would redefine the term 
     ``should know'' in a manner which does away with the duty on 
     providers to exercise reasonable diligence to submit true and 
     accurate claims. Under this definition, providers would only 
     be liable if they act with ``deliberate ignorance'' of false 
     claims or if they act with ``reckless disregard'' of false 
     claims. In an era when there is great concern about fraud and 
     abuse of the Medicare program, it would not be appropriate to 
     relieve providers of the duty to use ``reasonable diligence'' 
     to ensure that their claims are true and accurate.
       In addition, the bill treats the CMP authority currently 
     provided to the Secretary in an inconsistent manner. On one 
     hand, it proposes an increase in the amounts of most CMPs 
     which mnay be imposed under the Social Security Act. Yet, it 
     would significantly curtail enforcement of these sanction 
     authorities by raising the level of culpability which must 
     be proven by the Government in order to impose CMPs. It 
     would be far preferable not to make any changes to the CMP 
     statutes at this time.


   2. Making the Antikickback Statute more Lenient by Requiring the 
 Government to prove that the significant Intent of the Defendant was 
                                unlawful

       Background: The anti-kickback statute makes it a criminal 
     offense knowingly and willfully (intentionally) to offer or 
     receive anything of value in exchange for the referral of 
     Medicare or Medicaid business. The statute is designed to 
     ensure that medical decisions are not influenced by financial 
     rewards from third parties. Kickbacks result in more Medicare 
     services being ordered than otherwise, and law enforcement 
     experts agree that unlawful kickbacks are very common and 
     constitute a serious problem in the Medicare and Medicaid 
     programs.
       The two biggest health care fraud cases in history were 
     largely based on unlawful kickbacks. In 1994, National 
     Medical Enterprises, a chain of psychiatric hospitals, paid 
     $379 million for giving kickbacks for patient referrals, and 
     other improprieties. In 1995, Caremark, Inc, paid $161 
     million for giving kickbacks to physicians who ordered very 
     expensive Caremark home infusion products.
       Most kickbacks have sophisticated disguises, like 
     consultation arrangements, returns on investments, etc. These 
     disguises are hard for the Government to penetrate. Proving a 
     kickback case is difficult. There is no record of trivial 
     cases being prosecuted under this statute.
       H.R. 2389 Proposal: Section 201 would require the 
     Government to prove that ``the significant purpose'' of a 
     payment was to induce referrals of business. The phrase ``the 
     significant'' implies there can only be one ``significant'' 
     purpose of a payment. If so, at least 51 percent of the 
     motivation of a payment must be shown to be unlawful. 
     Although this proposal may have a superficial appeal, if 
     enacted it would threaten the Government's ability to 
     prosecute all but the most blatant kickback arrangements.
       The courts interpreting the anti-kickback statute agree 
     that the statute applies to the payment of remuneration ``if 
     one purpose  of the payment was to induce referrals.'' United 
     States v. Greber, 760 F.2d 68, 69 (3d Cir. 1985) (emphasis 
     added). If payments were intended to induce a physician to 
     refer patients, the statute has been violated, even if the 
     payments were also intended (in part) to compensate for 
     legitimate services. Id. at 72. See also: United States v. 
     Kats, 871 F.2d 105, 108 (1989); United States v. Bay State 
     Ambulance, 874 F.2d 20, 29-30 (1st Cir. 1989).
       The proposed amendment would overturn these court 
     decisions.
       However, the nature of kickbacks and the health care 
     industry requires the interpretation adopted by Greber and 
     its progeny. To prove that a defendant had the improper 
     intent necessary to violate the anti-kickback statute, the 
     prosecution must establish the defendant's state of mind, or 
     intent. As with any intent-based statute, the prosecution 
     cannot get directly inside the defendant's head. The 
     prosecution must rely on circumstantial evidence to prove 
     improper intent. Circumstantial evidence consists of 
     documents relevant to the transaction, testimony about what 
     the defendant said to business associates or potential 
     customers, etc. These types of evidence are rarely clear 
     about the purposes and motivations of the defendant. The 
     difficulties of establishing intent are multiple by the 
     complexity, size, and dynamism of the health care industry, 
     as well as the sophistication of most-kickback scheme 
     participants. Documents are ``pre-sanitized'' by expert 
     attorneys. Most defendants are careful what they say. In most 
     kickback prosecutions, the Government has a difficult task to 
     prove beyond a reasonable doubt that even one purpose of a 
     payment is to induce referrals.
       If the Government had to prove that inducement of referrals 
     was ``the significant'' reason for the payment, many common 
     kickback schemes would be allowed to proliferate. In today's 
     health care industry, very few kickback arrangements involve 
     the bald payment of money for patients. Most kickbacks have 
     sophisticated disguises. Providers can usually argue that any 
     suspect payment serves one or more ``legitimate purposes.'' 
     For example, payments made to induce referrals often also 
     compensate a physician who is providing health care items or 
     services. Some payments to referral sources may be disguised 
     as returns on investments. Similarly, many lease arrangements 
     that indisputably involve the bona fide use of space 
     incorporate some inducement to refer in the lease rates. In 
     all of these examples, and countless others, it is impossible 
     to quantify what portions of payments are made for nefarious 
     versus legitimate purposes.
       Where the defendant could argue that there was some 
     legitimate purpose for the payment, the prosecution would 
     have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, through 
     circumstantial evidence, that the defendant actually had 
     another motive that was ``the significant'' reason. For the 
     vast majority of the present-day kickback schemes, the 
     proposed amendment would place in insurmountable burden of 
     proof on the Government.


   3. CREATION OF AN EASILY ABUSED EXCEPTION FROM THE ANTI-KICKBACK 
             STATUTE FOR CERTAIN MANAGED CARE ARRANGEMENTS

       Background: There is great variety and innovation occurring 
     in the managed care industry. Some managed care 
     organizations, such as most health maintenance organizations 
     (HMOs) doing business with Medicare, consist of providers who 
     assume financial risk for the quantity of medical services 
     needed by the population they serve. In this context, the 
     incentive to offer kickbacks for referrals of patients for 
     additional services is minimized, since the providers are at 
     risk for the additional costs of those services. If anything, 
     the incentives are to reduce services. Many other managed 
     care organizations exist in the fee for service system, where 
     the traditional incentives to order more services and pay 
     kickbacks for referrals remain. In the fee for service 
     system, the payer (like Medicare and private insurance plans) 
     is at financial risk of additional services, not the managed 
     care organization. While broad protection from the anti-kick 
     statute may be appropriate for capitated, at-risk entities 
     like the HMO described above, such protection for managed 
     care organizations in the fee for service system would invite 
     serious abuse.
       H.R. 2389 Proposal: Section 202 would establish broad new 
     exceptions under the anti-kickback statute for ``any 
     capitation, risk-sharing, or disease management program.'' 
     The lack of definition of these terms would result in a huge 
     opportunity for abusive arrangements to fit within this 
     proposed exception. What is a ``disease management program?'' 
     Does not that term include most of health care?
       Nefarious organizations could easily escape the kickback 
     statute by simply rearranging their agreements to fit within 
     the exception. For example, if a facility wanted to pay 
     doctors for referrals, the facility could escape liability by 
     establishing some device whereby the doctors share in the 
     business risk of profit and loss of the business (i.e., they 
     would share some risk, at least theoretically). Then, the 
     organization could pay blatant kickbacks for every referral 
     with impunity.
       If the concern is that the kickback statute is hurting 
     innovation, as observed above, there is now an explosion of 
     innovation in the health care industry, especially in managed 
     care. No one in Government is suggesting that HMOs or 
     preferred provider arrangements, etc., formed in good faith, 
     violate the kickback statute. There has never been any action 
     against any such arrangement under the statute.


   4. Inappropriate expansion of the exception to the anti-kickback 
                         statute for discounts

       Background. Medicare/Medicaid discounts are beneficial and 
     to be encouraged with one critical condition: That Medicare 
     and/or Medicaid receive and participate fully in the 
     discount. For example, if the Medicare reasonable charge for 
     a Part B item or service is $100, Medicare would pay $80 of 
     the bill and the copayment would be $20. If a 20 percent 
     discount is applied to this bill, the charge should be $80, 
     and Medicare would pay $64 (80 percent of the $80) and the 
     copayment would be $16. If the discount is not  shared with 
     Medicare (which would be improper), the bill to Medicare 
     would falsely show a $100 charge. Medicare would pay $80, but 
     the copayment would be $0. This discount has not been shared 
     with Medicare.
       Many discounting programs are designed expressly to 
     transfer the benefit of discounts away from Medicare. The 
     scheme is to give little or no discount on an item or service 
     separately billed to Medicare, and give large discounts on 
     items not separately billed to Medicare. This scheme results 
     in Medicare paying a higher percentage for the separately 
     billed item or service than it should.
       For example, a lab offers a deep discount on lab work for 
     which Medicare pays a predetermined fee (such as lab tests 
     paid by Medicare to the facility as part of a bundled 
     payment), if the facility refers to the lab its separately 
     billed Medicare lab work, for which no discount is given. The 
     lab calls this a ``combination'' discount, yet is a discount 
     on some items and not on others. Another example is where 
     ancillary or noncovered items are furnished free, if a 
     provider pays full price for a separately billed item, such 
     as where the purchase of incontinence supplies is accompanied 
     by a ``free'' adult diaper. Medicare has not shared in these 
     combination discounts.
       H.R. 2389 Proposal. Section 202 would permit discounts on 
     one item in a combination to be treated as discounts on 
     another item in the combination. This sounds innocent, but it 
     is not. Medicare would be a big loser. Discounting should be 
     permissable for a supplier 

[[Page S15799]]

     to offer a discount on a combination of items or services, so 
     long as every item or service separately billed to Medicare 
     or Medicaid receives no less of a discount than is applied to 
     other items in the combination. If the items or services 
     separately billed to Medicare or Medicaid receive less of a 
     discount than other items in the combination, Medicare and 
     Medicaid are not receiving their fair share of the discounts.


   5. UNPRECEDENTED MECHANISM FOR ADVISORY OPINIONS ON INTENT-BASED 
             STATUTES, INCLUDING THE ANTI-KICKBACK STATUTE

       Background: The Government already offers more advice on 
     the anti-kickback statute than is provided regarding any 
     other criminal provision in the United States Code.
       Industry groups have been seeking advisory opinions under 
     the anti-kickback statute for many years, with vigorous 
     opposition by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the HHS 
     Office of Inspector General (OIG) under the last three 
     administrations, as well as the National Association of 
     Attorneys General. In 1987, Congress rejected calls to 
     require advisory opinions under this statute. As a 
     compromise, Congress required HHS, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General, to issue ``safe harbor'' regulations 
     describing conduct which would not be subject to criminal 
     prosecution or exclusion. See Section 14 of Public Law 100-
     93.
       To date, the OIG has issued 13 final anti-kickback ``safe 
     harbor'' rules and solicited comment on 8 additional proposed 
     safe harbor rules, for a total of 21 final and proposed safe 
     harbors. Over 50 pages of explanatory material has been 
     published in the Federal Register regarding these proposed 
     and final rules. In addition, the OIG has issued six general 
     ``fraud alerts'' describing activity which is suspect under 
     the anti-kickback statute. Thus, the Government gives 
     providers guidance on what is clearly permissible (safe 
     harbors) under the anti-kickback statute and what we consider 
     illegal (fraud alerts).
       H.R. 2389 Proposal. HHS would be required to issue advisory 
     opinions to the public on the Medicare/Medicaid anti-kickback 
     statute (section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act), as 
     well as all other criminal authorities, civil monetary 
     penalty and exclusion authorities pertaining to Medicare and 
     Medicaid. HHS would be required to respond to requests for 
     advisory opinions within 30 days.
       HHS would be authorized to charge requesters a user fee, 
     but there is no provision for this fee to be credited to HHS. 
     Fees would therefore be deposited in the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       Major problems with anti-kickback advisory opinions 
     include:
       Advisory opinions on intent-based statutes (such as the 
     anti-kickback statute) are impractical if not impossible. 
     Because of the inherently subjective, factual nature of 
     intent, it would be impossible for HHS to determine intent 
     based solely upon a written submission from the requestor. 
     Indeed, it does not make sense for a requestor to ask the 
     Government to determine the requestor's own intent. 
     Obviously, the requester already knows what their intent 
     is.
       None of the 11 existing advisory opinion processes in the 
     Federal Government provide advisory opinions regarding the 
     issue of the requestor's intent. An advisory opinion process 
     for an intent-based statute is without precedent in U.S. law.
       The advisory opinion process in H.R. 2389 would severely 
     hamper the Government's ability to prosecute health care 
     fraud. Even with appropriate written caveats, defense counsel 
     will hold up a stack of advisory opinions before the jury and 
     claim that the defendant read them and honestly believed 
     (however irrationally) that he or she was not violating the 
     law. The prosecution would have to disprove this defense 
     beyond a reasonable doubt. This will seriously affect the 
     likelihood of conviction of those offering kickbacks.
       Advisory opinions would likely require enormous resources 
     and many full time equivalents (FTE) at HHS. The user fees in 
     the bill would go to the Treasury, not to HHS. Even if they 
     did go to HHS, appropriations committees tend to view them as 
     offsets to appropriations. There are no estimates of number 
     of likely requests, number of FTE required, etc. Also, HHS is 
     permanently downsizing, even as it faces massive structural 
     and program changes. The possible result of the bill is a 
     diversion of hundreds of anti-fraud workers to handle the 
     advisory opinions.
       For the above reasons, DOJ, HHS/OIG and the National 
     Association of Attorneys General strongly oppose advisory 
     opinions under the anti-kickback statute, and all other 
     intent-based statutes.


    6. Creation of trust fund mechanism which does not benefit law 
                              enforcement

       Background: In our view, the most significant step Congress 
     could undertake to reduce fraud and abuse would be to 
     increase the resources devoted to investigating false claims, 
     kickbacks and other serious misconduct. It is important to 
     recognize that the law enforcement effort to control Medicare 
     fraud is surprisingly small and diminishing. There is 
     evidence of increasing Medicare fraud and abuse, and Medicare 
     expenditures continue to grow substantially. Yet, the staff 
     of the HHS/OIG, the agency with primary enforcement authority 
     over Medicare, has declined from 1,411 employees in 1991 
     to just over 900 today. (Note: 259 of the 1,411 positions 
     were transferred to the Social Security Administration). 
     Approximately half of these FTE are devoted to Medicare 
     investigations, audits and program evaluations. As a 
     result of downsizing, HHS/OIG has had to close 17 OIG 
     investigative offices and we now lack an investigative 
     presence in 24 States. The OIG has only about 140 
     investigators for all Medicare cases nationwide. By way of 
     contrast, the State of New York gainfully employs about 
     300 persons to control Medicaid fraud in that State alone.
       Ironically, the investigative activity of OIG pays for 
     itself many times over. Over the last 5 years, every dollar 
     devoted to OIG investigations of health care fraud and abuse 
     has yielded an average return of over $7 to the Federal 
     Treasury, Medicare trust funds, and State Medicaid programs. 
     In addition, an increase in enforcement also generates 
     increased deterrence, due to the increased chance of fraud 
     being caught. For these reasons, many fraud control bills 
     contain a proposal to recycle monies recovered from 
     wrongdoers into increased law enforcement. The amount an 
     agency gets should not be related to how much it generates, 
     so that it could not be viewed as a ``bounty.'' The Attorney 
     General and the Secretary of HHS would decide on 
     disbursements from the fund. We believe such proposals would 
     strengthen our ability to protect Medicare from wrongdoers 
     and at no cost to the taxpayers. The parties who actually 
     perpetrate fraud would ``foot the bill.''
       H.R. 2389 Proposal: Section 106 would create a funding 
     mechanism using fines and penalties recovered by law 
     enforcement agencies from serious wrongdoers. But none of the 
     money would be used to help bring others to justice. Instead, 
     all the funds would be used only by private contractors for 
     ``soft'' claims review, such as, medical and utilization 
     review, audits of costs reports, and provider education.
       The above functions are indeed necessary, and they are now 
     being conducted primarily by the Medicare carriers and 
     intermediaries. Since the bill would prohibit carriers and 
     intermediaries from performing these functions in the future, 
     there appears to be no increase in these functions, but only 
     a different funding mechanism.
       These ``soft'' review and education functions are no 
     substitute for investigation and prosecution of those who 
     intend to defraud Medicare. The funding mechanism in H.R. 
     2389 will not result in any more Medicare convictions and 
     sanctions.
       In summary, H.R. 2389 would:
       Relieve providers of the legal duty to use reasonable 
     diligence to ensure that the claims they submit are true and 
     accurate; this is the effect of increasing the Government's 
     burden of proof in civil monetary penalty cases;
       Substantially increase the Government's burden of proof in 
     anti-kickback cases;
       Create new exemptions to the anti-kickback statute which 
     could readily be exploited by those who wish to pay rewards 
     to physicians for referrals of patients;
       Create an advisory opinion process on an intent-based 
     criminal statute, a process without precedent in current law; 
     since the fees for advisory opinions would not be available 
     to HHS, our scarce law enforcement resources would be 
     diverted into hiring advisory opinion writers; and
       Create a fund to use monies recovered from wrongdoers by 
     law enforcement agencies, but the fund would not be available 
     to assist the law enforcement efforts; all the monies would 
     be used by private contractors only for ``soft'' payment 
     review and education functions.
       In our view, enactment of the bill with these provisions 
     would cripple our ability to reduce fraud and abuse in the 
     Medicare program and to bring wrongdoers to justice.
       Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                 June Gibbs Brown,
     Inspector General.
                                                                    ____


 Press Conference of Attorney General Janet Reno on Health Care Fraud, 
                            October 18, 1995

       Attorney General Reno. Thank you, Secretary Shalala.
       The House Medicare bill would make it more difficult for us 
     to prosecute medical providers for fraudulent conduct against 
     patients and the Medicare system. These provisions are 
     totally inconsistent with the provisions in the Senate bill, 
     which would facilitate our law enforcement efforts against 
     health care fraud that harms us all, and particularly our 
     most vulnerable.
       I understand that some members of the House have indicated 
     that law enforcement should not be criminally prosecuting 
     health care providers who engage in fraud. I just don't 
     understand that, for I believe that health care fraud is so 
     detrimental to the health and to the pocketbook of all 
     Americans that I made health care fraud one of my priorities 
     in the Department of Justice. I believe perpetrators of 
     health care fraud should not be immune from criminal 
     prosecution because they commit a crime in an office, in a 
     boardroom, in a laboratory, rather than in the street. White 
     collar crooks who pay or take kickbacks endanger the health 
     of patients and steal money from us all.
       Experts estimate it may cost Americans as much as $100 
     billion a year. That is why we need stronger, not weaker, 
     provisions in the House bill. The Senate bill, under the 
     leadership of Senator Cohen and with bipartisan support, 
     provides those strengthened provisions.

[[Page S15800]]

       Particularly at this time, we need to preserve every 
     Medicare trust fund dollar; we cannot allow Medicare money to 
     be spent on bribes paid to doctors and others as inducement 
     for the referral of Medicare patients. Even more importantly, 
     we cannot allow financial inducements to corrupt the 
     professional judgment of medical providers--providers who 
     Americans have been taught to trust. Decisions which 
     physicians make day in and day out--whether and where to 
     hospitalize a patient, what laboratory tests to order, what 
     surgical procedure to perform, what drug to prescribe, and 
     how long to keep a patient in a psychiatric facility--affect 
     the health and well-being of our elderly patients and our 
     children. Allowing these decisions to be made under the 
     influence of kickbacks is just plain wrong.
       The House bill would place a very high, additional burden 
     on the Government in its attempts to prosecute those who pay 
     or receive kickbacks for the purpose of inducing the referral 
     of Medicare business. Existing law requires the Government to 
     prove that one purpose of the kickback was to induce the 
     referral of health care business. The language of the House 
     bill would require that the Government prove that the payment 
     was made for the significant purpose of inducing the 
     referral. That's language that would immunize arrangements 
     that are dressed up to disguise the payor's motive. This 
     would seriously undermine our efforts and it would place 
     beyond the reach of prosecution many kickbacks which are 
     calculated to induce referrals and which adversely affect the 
     judgment of medical providers. From the perspective of 
     Federal law enforcement and, I believe, from the perspective 
     of patients who seek their doctors' advice, this result is 
     simply not acceptable.
       Ultimately, this isn't a choice between prosecuting violent 
     crime and prosecuting health care fraud. Both of them do real 
     harm to real people and both deserve vigorous enforcement 
     action. I hope that the House legislation will support, 
     not undermine, our efforts.
       Question. Why are the Republicans gutting the statutes?
       Attorney General Reno. You would have to ask them, but I 
     have heard it said that they said we shouldn't prosecute 
     these cases while we have robbers and murderers on our 
     streets. And my response is we need to do both with vigor.
       Question. Secretary Shalala, what's your theory about why 
     this is happening up in the House?
       Secretary Shalala. Well, I have long ago learned not to 
     anticipate the motivations, but they clearly are weakening 
     our ability to get fraud out of the system, particularly--
     it's particularly damaging during an era, as the Attorney 
     General pointed out, where we need to squeeze every dollar we 
     can out of Medicare to invest in the trust fund. And the last 
     things we should be doing is wasting money or letting people 
     rip off the program.
       Question. [inaudible] uniform deadly health policy that you 
     approved yesterday. Tell us, do you think it will clear up 
     some of the confusion left over from the Ruby Ridge damage?
       Attorney General Reno. Again, I think this is an important 
     step forward because for the first time, all of the major law 
     enforcement agencies in the Federal Government have joined 
     together in a uniform policy. And I think it will help people 
     to understand when deadly force can be used. It will apply to 
     each agency and I am very delighted about that.
       Question. What is the real change that this policy makes?
       Attorney General Reno. This policy will--the real change.
       Question. What's the difference from the way it would be.
       Attorney General Reno. Different departments had different 
     provisions and this consolidated in one, I think, a very firm 
     statement on the policy of both the Treasury Agency and the 
     Department of Justice.
       Question. What tangible impact do you expect the changes to 
     have on the deadly force policy.
       Attorney General Reno. I think it will enable those 
     enforcement officers involved to understand when they can and 
     can't use deadly force and I think the message will be clear.
       Question. Secretary Shalala, will you ask the President to 
     veto this bill unless this is modified?
       Secretary Shalala. There are so many provisions in the 
     Republicans bill that I have already sent a letter to the 
     Hill, indicating that if they adopt the bill as it's now 
     written that I will recommend that the President veto it. I 
     will join with the Attorney General after we review these 
     provisions in an additional comment for the President, 
     advising him on the bill. But these are simply unacceptable 
     and I think that's our point today.
       Question. Are all these are provisions for Medicare and 
     Medicaid violations only or do some of them include kickback 
     statutes that cover general medical operations, not 
     Government programs?
       Attorney General Reno. No, it covers some Government 
     programs. We would like to see it expanded to others: to the 
     Federal Health employees benefits program, to the 
     CHAMPUS program on behalf of the Department of Justice.
       Question. But it doesn't cover kickbacks----
       Attorney General Reno. In the private sector.
       Question [continuing]. Not involving Medicare or Medicaid?
       Attorney General Reno. That's correct.
       Question. Do you know, as a practical matter, how the 
     change in the standard of proof would affect the prosecution?
       Secretary Shalala. I think the cases that we gave you as an 
     example we would probably not be able to prosecute.
       Attorney General Reno. If I can prove one purpose is to 
     induce the referral of Medicare business, that's one thing. 
     But to have to prove that the significant purpose is to 
     induce the referral of Medicare business significantly 
     heightens the standard. I think it produces confusion as to 
     what is meant by significant. And I think it undermines what 
     the kickback statute is trying to prevent.
       Any time you bribe someone to get business you are 
     impairing or presenting a chance for the impairment of 
     judgment. That should never--the fact that you get money for 
     referring business, particularly medical business, should 
     never be a factor in the physicians' or the providers' 
     judgment. It should be what is in the best interest of that 
     patient, what is the most cost-effective medical treatment. 
     And a significant purpose or one purpose, it is critically 
     important that there not be bribery to secure Medicare 
     business.
       Question. How does that, in turn, make it harder to 
     prosecute?
       Attorney General Reno. I might be able to prove that it is 
     one purpose, but having to prove that it is the significant 
     purpose heightens the standards of proof.
       Secretary Shalala. In fact, the Inspector Generals--all of 
     them have signed on to a letter to the Hill that basically 
     said it would bring those kinds of cases to a standstill 
     because it raises the bar pretty high.
       Question. It sounds like it would make it pretty easy for 
     those involved in the kickbacks to get around it, doing 
     something illegal by masking and not making----
       Attorney General Reno. All they would have to do is 
     disguise it and say it's for this reason or for that reason 
     or it has something to do with the patient's care and I might 
     not be able to prove that it is a significant purpose. It has 
     that chance of disguising what is really a bribe.
       Question. Attorney General Reno, on another subject, what 
     is the Justice Department's position on the U.S. Sentencing 
     Commission's guidelines on crack cocaine versus powder 
     cocaine and the pending legislation that deals with that?
       Attorney General Reno. We have said and made clear that 
     prosecutors, police officers, and most of all, the residents 
     of communities across this nation that have been impacted by 
     crack cocaine, understand that the marketing and distribution 
     systems and nature of the drug have had a terrible, terrible 
     impact on many neighborhoods and that its impact reflects the 
     need to have some distinction in the manner in which crack is 
     treated. But the Justice Department has made clear that it 
     favors a review of the 101 ratio, to adjust it, to make 
     it fairer.
       It is our hope that legislation that is pending now which 
     rejects the one-to-one ratio because of the impact on 
     communities across this nation also would provide--ask the 
     Sentencing Commission to study it again in this coming year 
     to come up with a recommendation that reflects the impact of 
     crack on the community but also achieves fairness.
       Question. What would you suggest would be a good ratio?
       Attorney General Reno. We are going to be reviewing with 
     all concerned--as part of--I serve as part of the ex officio 
     members of the Sentencing Commission--that balance.
       Question. Secretary Shalala, given that the [inaudible] is 
     taking a completely different approach, isn't there every 
     reason to believe it will be worked out in Congress?
       Secretary Shalala. We long ago have learned not to depend 
     on one House versus another House. I think we are pointing 
     the contrast out between this House bill, which is going to 
     the floor tomorrow, and our ability to work in a bipartisan 
     manner with the Senate. Obviously, we hope in conference we 
     will be able to work it through, but we want to make it very 
     clear that what the House is doing is unacceptable. And most 
     members of Congress probably don't know what's in the bill, 
     since it was moved so quickly.
       Question. Have you considered asking the American Medical 
     Association to join you in urging the Republicans to change 
     this?
       Secretary Shalala. There are numerous organizations that 
     have now spoken out on this issue. Most of them have been the 
     State Attorney General, for example, and the Inspector 
     Generals. The American Medical Association, with a handful of 
     important exceptions, have joined us on all issues that are 
     related to fraud and abuse because they are absolutely 
     opposed to, number one, having to police themselves; and 
     number two, I think they very much favor anything we can do 
     to help them to clean up the profession.
       Question. So where exactly are they on this?
       Secretary Shalala. You will have to go ask them.
       Question. Are you talking about the American Medical 
     Association or American medical associations of various 
     types?
       Secretary Shalala. Well, of various types.
       Question. Not the American Medical Association?
       Secretary Shalala. I don't know the position of the AMA at 
     this moment.
       Question. [inaudible.]
       Secretary Shalala. Well, the self-referral changes that are 
     being referenced is whether 

[[Page S15801]]

     a doctor can own a laboratory and then refer his own patients 
     to a laboratory in which he has a financial interest. That 
     law was changed a number of years ago because of the abuse 
     that was found in the system. There were 45 percent more 
     referrals if the doctors owned the lab. And that was barred 
     by the law. And the American Medical Association has favored 
     repealing the law which we are, of course, opposed to.
       Question. Are there any examples of fraud cases that stand 
     out that would be good to pinpoint, related to this?
       Attorney General Reno. One of the cases--where is Jerry 
     Stern--is NME case of last year. Our recovery in that case 
     was $379 million and that was based in significant part on 
     this provision that we are trying to defend today in terms of 
     kickbacks.
       Question. Do you have any idea what would have happened had 
     the law been [inaudible]?
       Attorney General Reno. I think, again, you can't quantify 
     it. But any time you have to prove that some--rather than 
     just one purpose, that it was the significant purpose, you 
     raise the bar real high. Thank you.
       (Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the press conference adjourned.)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could I ask if it will be in order to 
ask for the yeas and nays or to table the Harkin amendment even if we 
now proceed to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be in order to do that when the 
amendment recurs for a vote.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 2971

     (Purpose: To eliminate corporate welfare in Federal programs)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Faircloth, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2971.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President I yield myself 4 minutes of the 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment, which has 
been endorsed by the Citizens Against Government Waste and Citizens for 
a Sound Economy, which would terminate or substantially reform a dozen 
Federal programs identified by the Progressive Policy Institute and the 
Cato Institute as amongst the most egregious forms of corporate welfare 
in the Federal budget. These amount to savings of about $60 billion 
over the next 7 years. They are the Marketing Promotion Program, the 
advanced light water reactor, Forest Road Construction Program, highway 
demonstrations, military export sales, broadcast spectrum auction, 
Export/Import Bank, the B-2 bomber, Travel and Tourism Administration, 
sub- and supersonic research----
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a friendly 
inquiry?
  Mr. McCAIN. I only have 4 minutes, I say to my colleague.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May I have 5 seconds?
  Mr. McCAIN. If you ask unanimous consent, I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Can the Senate get a copy of your amendment now? We 
have nothing.
  Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I do not want to embarrass the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will make sure the Senator gets a copy of the 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We delivered a copy of the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. A copy of the amendment, I understand, has been delivered 
to the Senator from West Virginia. I certainly understand his 
frustration if he did not have a chance to see the amendment.
  Mr. President, continuing--sub- and supersonic research; terminates 
the NASA program which conducts aircraft design activities, which can 
be undertaken by the private sector; oil and gas research and 
development; rural electric utilities service.
  Mr. President, there is nothing new about these programs. They are 
items we have been discussing on the floor of the Senate for many 
years. They each have one thing in common; in a time of fiscal 
necessity, we can no longer afford them.
  We are considering historic legislation to place the Federal budget 
on a 7-year path toward balance and to reform unsustainable entitlement 
programs which threaten to bankrupt our Nation. If we are going to 
restore fiscal sanity and if we are going to ask poor people to take 
cuts in their programs, if we are going to reduce the rate of growth of 
many, many programs that have been designed as a safety net for those 
less well off in our society, if we are going to have credibility with 
the American people, we had better go after this corporate pork and we 
better do it soon. Otherwise, we will open ourselves to justifiable 
criticism that we take care of corporate America while we do not take 
care of citizens who are less fortunate than we in our society.
  I think it is an important amendment. I think it is going to put the 
Senate on record as to exactly where we stand on some of these programs 
that have clearly, clearly not required Federal funding in order to 
continue.
  We owe a debt of gratitude to the Cato Institute and Progressive 
Policy Institute. Although they represent different ideological 
perspectives, they joined together to identify corporate welfare 
programs and to articulate the destructive role that they play in the 
Federal budget and the economy.
  As time is limited on debate, I offer these insights as offered by 
these groups. The Cato Institute says:

       Corporate welfare is an enormous drain on the Federal 
     Treasury for little economic benefit.

  The Progressive Policy Institute says:

       The President and Congress can break the [budget] impasse 
     and substantially reduce most spending and projected deficits 
     * * * if they are willing to eliminate or reform scores of 
     special spending programs and tax provisions narrowly 
     targeted to subsidize influential industries.

  I reserve my 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at a time when deep cuts are being 
proposed in Medicare, Medicaid, education, the earned income tax 
credit, welfare benefits, and other important programs for senior 
citizens, children, and working families, it is essential to see that 
corporate welfare--government subsidies to wealthy corporations--bears 
its fair share of the sacrifices needed to put the Nation's fiscal 
house in order.
  I welcome the opportunity to work with Senator McCain and other 
Senators in this bipartisan effort. We have identified a dirty dozen 
examples of corporate welfare that ought to be ended or drastically 
reduced.
  My hope is that the current efforts will become the foundation for a 
longer-term initiative to deal more effectively with the wider range of 
corporate welfare provisions on both the spending side and the tax side 
of the Federal budget.
  At a time when we are cutting billions of dollars from health 
benefits for the elderly, it makes no sense to continue to give away 
billions to wealthy telecommunications corporations by failing to 
obtain fair market value by auctioning electronic spectrum.
  At a time when we are imposing billions of dollars in taxes on our 
working families, it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars on 
additional B-2 bombers that the Pentagon doesn't want and the Nation 
doesn't need.
  At a time when we are imposing new burdens on education, it makes no 
sense to confer excessive subsidies on oil and gas companies.
  At a time when we are cutting benefits for the disabled, it makes no 
sense to continue to provide subsidies for major companies to market 
their goods overseas.
  Our current amendment will end these and several other forms of 
corporate welfare. It also calls for a base-closing type Federal 
Commission to deal with this equally flagrant type of corporate 
welfare--the lavish Federal subsidies dispensed to wealthy individuals 
and corporations through the Tax Code.
  Over the next 7 years, these tax subsidies will cost the Treasury a 
total of $4.5 trillion. Yet they undergo no annual review during the 
appropriations process or during reconciliation. Once enacted, they can 
go on forever, with no effective oversight by Congress.

[[Page S15802]]

  The Commission we are proposing will examine all existing tax 
subsidies and make recommendations to Congress that will be subject to 
a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote by the Senate and the House.
  I commend Senator McCain and our other colleagues for their work on 
this important issue, and I am hopeful that the Senate will approve our 
amendment. Our action on this legislation is part of a longer-term 
initiative to insist on congressional scrutiny of all Federal 
subsidies.
  At a time when so many individuals and families are being asked to 
bear a heavy burden of budget cuts, there should be no free rides for 
special interest groups and their cozy subsidies.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant support of the amendment 
from the Senator from Arizona to cut spending from 12 programs.
  I am supporting the amendment because, at a time when we are debating 
a budget bill to cut programs and assistance for the most needy in our 
society, I find it hard to pass up an opportunity to cut billions of 
dollars from programs like the B-2 bomber, and oil and gas subsidies.
  However, while I will support this amendment, I am extremely unhappy 
with the decision by the proponents of this amendment to cut loan 
programs for rural electric cooperatives, who depend on those funds to 
keep utility rates reasonable for rural residents.
  I am equally unhappy with the choice of the proponents of this 
amendment to eliminate the Market Promotion Program, on the heels of 
the successful effort to eliminate the corporate subsidies from that 
program, and target it toward small businesses and cooperatives.
  So while I must reluctantly vote in support of this amendment to cut 
billions of dollars, if it does prevail, I will work to have the Rural 
Utility Service loans and the Market Promotion Program restored in 
conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment has very broad jurisdictional 
problems with a whole series of committees. It is the opinion of this 
Senator that probably the primary committee of jurisdiction would again 
be the Finance Committee. Therefore, I will yield to a member of the 
Finance Committee, the Senator from West Virginia, for remarks to be 
included in our 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I appreciate the action of the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  This amendment which we have not yet--let me say first of all, it 
will be my hope that our side will not take a position on this, because 
we are simply unaware of what it is. In fact, it appears to be many, 
many things.
  It starts out with the elimination of the Market Promotion Program 
for agriculture, I think. It appears to be part Agriculture, part 
Finance, part Commerce Committee. It gets into the termination of the 
Advanced Light Water Reactor Program. I am thoroughly unqualified to 
review that. It talks about timber access roads. That is an Energy 
Committee matter. It talks about United States Travel and Tourism, 
USTTA. That is something I strongly support. Other Members may not. I 
suspect the Senator from Arizona does not.
  There is a private sector funding for certain research and 
development by NASA relating to aircraft performance. That is the 
formal title. What that means I have absolutely no idea, and I have no 
way of finding out in the next 2 or 3 minutes.
  There are many other things--the recoupment of certain Department of 
Defense costs for equipment sold directly by contractors to foreign 
countries and international organizations.
  So, my plea would be for all my colleagues to take this 21-page 
amendment, between the time now--having no position on it, as would be 
my recommendation to my ranking member on the Budget Committee--and the 
time that we vote, and Senators make up their minds as best they can.
  I am absolutely unable, having had this for a period of 2\1/2\ 
minutes, to make heads or tails of it, since it is many things and, I 
suspect, many things to many people. This is not, it strikes me, in 
terms of process, one of the Senate's finer moments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, following up the inquiry that was made just 
a few moments ago by the chairman of the committee, I would also 
presume we have not made up our minds on this side of the aisle on this 
amendment. I also assume that, without taking action now, it would not 
preclude us from making a point of order which might lie against this 
amendment at some future date before the vote is taken; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order can be made when the 
amendment comes up again.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does Senator McCain have any additional time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 51 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senator from West 
Virginia, we did distribute this amendment much earlier today. I am 
sorry he did not get it.
  Also, I would like to point out that Senators Feingold, Kerry, and 
Kennedy are also cosponsors of this amendment. So some Members on his 
side of the aisle obviously are aware of it.
  I am also aware that a budget point of order can be lodged against 
this amendment, and I do not expect it to pass, Mr. President. I am 
being very frank. But I will tell you what. We are going to be on 
record as to what we support and what we do not support in the way of 
corporate pork and whether we are really willing to make the sacrifices 
necessary to reduce this unconscionable debt of $187,000 per child in 
America while we support corporations all over America with taxpayers' 
dollars.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona's time has expired.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Is there any time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a minute and 40 seconds available to 
the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. We have 40 seconds left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A minute and 40 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. I am prepared to yield that back in a moment.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from West Virginia----
  Mr. EXON. I see the majority leader in the Chamber. Is he seeking 
recognition?
  Mr. DOLE. No.
  Mr. EXON. I yield back the remainder of our time.
  I thought Senator Rockefeller was finished.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. In responding to the Senator from Arizona and what I 
am sure is a very good-faith--I know is a very good-faith effort, if 
Senators Feingold, Kennedy and others are in fact cosponsors of it, one 
would never know by looking at the amendment because only the name of 
the Senator from Arizona is listed. And this is part of what I am 
talking about. If we are going to make serious decisions about the 
enormous variety of programs, we have to do this in some kind of more 
intelligent way. Now, the rules may preclude us from doing that because 
the agreement has already been made, but this is many things to many 
people.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Has all time expired?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 30 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, the yeas and nays are being 
requested. Again, I want to make it clear that would not preclude us 
from making a point of order before the vote is taken. That is correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Arizona. We imposed on him 
this afternoon, having called down and you were not ready, and I 
apologize for that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is it appropriate for the Senator from Nebraska to make a 


[[Page S15803]]

point of order at this point and we move to waive the point of order, 
or does that take place at the time of the vote?
  Mr. EXON. I simply say we are looking at this. I do not know whether 
we are going make a point of order against this or not.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. EXON. We are simply reserving the right to do that at a certain 
time, and I will not give that up at this juncture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Is it not Senator Byrd's 
amendment that is next pursuant to the previous agreement?
  Mr. FORD. That would be the Senator's prerogative.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am just asking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has no specified list and therefore 
presumes it is to up to the managers of the bill.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Byrd will be next in line, and I am 
pleased to yield to him whatever time we have on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for up to 5 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2972

 (Purpose: To strike the reductions in highway demonstration projects 
             and to provide an offsetting revenue increase)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Ford, proposes an amendment numbered 2972.

  Mr. BYRD. 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:

       Strike section 6002.
       On page 1746, line 11, strike ``2001'' and insert ``2000''.
       On page 1747, strike the matter between lines 7 and 8, and 
     insert:

For calendar year:                                   The percentage is:
  1995..............................................................100
  1996...............................................................80
  1997...............................................................60
  1998...............................................................40
  1999...............................................................20

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, less than 4 years ago, Congress passed the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA. That 
legislation modernized our Federal Aid Highway Program by targeting 
available resources on the most critical needs. The bill before us 
would rescind $712 million for certain highway projects funded in ISTEA 
and previous appropriation acts. This represents a substantial retreat 
from the commitments made in ISTEA and in those appropriations acts.
  Mr. President, my amendment will restore full funding for these 
important highway projects in 48 States. By rescinding these Federal 
funds, the bill before us would require States to cough up an 
additional $712 million for these projects. In effect, this would cause 
States to have to increase their matching share from 20 percent to as 
much as 32 percent in order to complete these projects.
  Currently, the Department of Defense shows a total unobligated 
balance in excess of $10 billion for ongoing military construction 
projects, yet no one--no one--suggests that we should rescind 15 
percent of these unobligated balances in defense and thereby ensure 
that these projects cannot be completed.
  If we seek to reduce our Federal budget deficit by worsening our 
investment deficit in our Nation's infrastructure, we will have done 
absolutely nothing to improve our national prosperity. We will only dig 
our Nation into a deeper hole characterized by excessively congested 
and deteriorating roads and bridges.
  According to the Department of Transportation, there are currently 
more than 234,000 miles of nonlocal roads across the Nation which 
require improvements immediately or within the next 5 years. 
Additionally, 118,000 of the Nation's 575,000 bridges, more than one in 
five, are structurally deficient. Our current highway capacity is being 
stretched beyond its limits, and what is our response at the Federal 
level? Just as is the case with our Federal budget deficit, we are 
leaving the mess to our grandchildren.
  To fully offset the effects of the restoration of these critical 
highway projects, my amendment includes a modification to section 12803 
of the reconciliation bill which phases out the tax deductions 
presently allowed for the interest paid on company-owned life insurance 
policies over the period 1996 to 2001. Companies have used this 
loophole to earn profits at the expense of the taxpayer by insuring 
employees, then borrowing on the policy and deducting the interest on 
company tax returns. Both the Senate and House bills proposed to phase 
out this loophole.
  My amendment would simply require the phaseout in the Senate bill to 
be completed in 4 years rather than 5 years. My proposal would retain 
the key employee exception as contained in the Senate bill. My 
amendment would restore highway moneys to 48 States, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Bumpers and Mr. 
Pryor be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Now, Mr. President, 48 States will lose money unless my 
amendment is adopted. They will lose money for highways. I do not blame 
the committee that had to meet its instructions and did so by 
rescinding $712 million in highway funds. But I have provided an 
offset, and therefore I hope that this amendment will be adopted.
  I have received letters of support of my amendment from the American 
Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American Trucking 
Association, and the Associated General Contractors of America.
  Mr. President, let me just read a few of those States that lose 
money. Alabama will lose $12.8 million; Arizona, $2.8 million; Arizona, 
$31.5 million; California, $43.8 million; Connecticut, $5 million; 
Florida, $27.9 million; Georgia, $10.8 million; Hawaii, $3 million; 
Idaho, $8 million; Illinois, $29 million; Indiana, $8 million; Iowa, $9 
million; Kansas, $9 million; Kentucky, $4.6 million; Louisiana, $13.8 
million; Maine, $10.9 million; Maryland, $12.6 million; Michigan, $23 
million; Minnesota, $23.5 million; Mississippi, $2.9 million; Missouri, 
$9.3 million; Montana, $3 million; Nebraska, $2.8 million; Nevada, $5.8 
million; New Hampshire, $4.3 million; New Jersey, $29.3 million; New 
York, $40 million----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from West Virginia has 
expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have on each desk the table of the amount 
that the various States would lose. I ask unanimous consent that this 
table, along with three letters in support of my amendment, be printed 
in the Record. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     HIGHWAY FUNDS TO BE RESTORED BY BYRD AMENDMENT                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                     Estimated fiscal                   
                States                     Appropriated      1982 act demos     1987 act demos   Unobligated ISTEA   1996-1997 ISTEA         Total      
                                              demos                                                    demos              demos                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Alabama..............................            600,000                  0             29,259          3,983,891          8,205,463         12,818,613
 Alaska...............................                  0                  0                  0                  0                  0                  0
 Arizona..............................          1,492,206                  0                  0            773,238            633,033          2,898,477
 Arkansas.............................            417,552                  0             67,578         13,433,012         17,670,188         31,588,330
 California...........................          3,920,286             11,849          1,637,734         19,165,117         19,154,455         43,889,441
 Colorado.............................                  0                  0                  0                 90            150,475            150,565
 Connecticut..........................            100,200                  0            324,603            531,450          4,119,907          5,076,160
 Delaware.............................                  0                  0                  0                  0                  0                  0
 District of Columbia.................                  0                  0            812,253          2,069,040          1,146,724          4,028,017
 Florida..............................          3,233,284                  0          2,547,679         12,885,327          9,317,009         27,983,299


                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page S15804]]
                                               HIGHWAY FUNDS TO BE RESTORED BY BYRD AMENDMENT --Continued                                               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Estimated fiscal                    
                States                    Appropriated      1982 act demos     1987 act demos   Unobligated ISTEA   1996-1997 ISTEA          Total      
                                             demos                                                    demos              demos                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Georgia.............................            582,750                  0                  0          4,548,971          5,758,944         10,890,665 
 Hawaii..............................          1,200,000                  0            931,285            568,800            311,328          3,011,413 
 Idaho...............................                  0                  0             17,587          4,455,415          3,652,915          8,125,917 
 Illinois............................            435,951            119,805            163,132         16,152,427         13,015,067         29,886,382 
 Indiana.............................            866,448                  0                 15          2,459,368          4,924,171          8,250,002 
 Iowa................................            654,678                  0                  0          2,592,174          5,901,066          9,147,918 
 Kansas..............................          2,287,280                  0                  0          3,624,030          3,787,824          9,699,134 
 Kentucky............................          1,662,456                  0                  0          1,827,894          1,120,780          4,611,130 
 Louisiana...........................          1,725,000                  0          2,997,515          5,475,780          3,630,344         13,828,639 
 Maine...............................                  0                  0                  0          1,291,604          9,708,244         10,999,848 
 Maryland............................          5,269,652                  0            244,012          2,113,169          4,986,436         12,613,269 
 Massachusetts.......................            438,000                  0            598,349            559,320            306,139          1,901,808 
 Michigan............................         14,042,211                  0                  0          2,898,416          6,437,225         23,377,852 
 Minnesota...........................          7,722,427                  0              8,968          4,965,669         10,831,101         23,528,165 
 Mississippi.........................             60,000                  0                  0          1,222,950          1,713,600          2,996,550 
 Missouri............................             96,000                  0                  0          1,812,401          7,475,659          9,384,060 
 Montana.............................            640,542                  0                  0          1,429,242            933,984          3,003,768 
 Nebraska............................                  0                  0                  0          1,576,152          1,298,237          2,874,389 
 Nevada..............................            197,415                  0                  0          1,267,384          4,363,780          5,828,579 
 New Hampshire.......................          1,159,504                  0                640          1,571,425          1,665,604          4,397,173 
 New Jersey..........................          6,306,751                  0          2,350,069         10,125,842         10,528,075         29,310,737 
 New Mexico..........................          1,318,693                  0                 38                  0            560,390          1,879,121 
 New York............................          7,696,917                  0                  0         14,391,838         18,515,195         40,603,950 
 North Carolina......................            769,500                  0            141,337          5,440,685          7,586,025         13,937,547 
 North Dakota........................                  0                  0            102,955              9,505          3,684,048          3,796,508 
 Ohio................................          1,159,275                  0          1,306,292         12,078,132          8,206,606         22,750,305 
 Oklahoma............................            674,695                  0                  0          1,447,826          4,594,163          6,716,684 
 Oregon..............................             98,954                  0             80,300          5,208,840          2,386,848          7,774,942 
 Pennsylvania........................          6,949,575                  0          2,446,078         56,843,233         45,750,168        111,989,054 
 Rhode Island........................                  0                  0            704,318          2,438,042          2,978,890          6,121,250 
 South Carolina......................                  0                  0                  0                  0          2,008,065          2,008,065 
 South Dakota........................            794,400                  0                  0          1,523,616            971,343          3,289,359 
 Tennessee...........................                  0                  0                  0          1,830,312          2,142,662          3,972,974 
 Texas...............................          3,035,244                  0                  0         13,800,624         12,590,892         29,426,760 
 Utah................................          2,919,008                  0                  0            379,200            565,579          3,863,787 
 Vermont.............................                  0                  0                  0          1,655,358          1,037,760          2,703,118 
 Virginia............................            885,868                  0            259,584          6,238,310          7,238,376         14,622,138 
 Washington..........................                  0                  0                  0          1,290,000          4,649,164          5,939,164 
 West Virginia.......................         27,556,841                  0          1,701,531         20,905,207         16,178,678         66,342,257 
 Wisconsin...........................                  0                  0                  0                  0          3,709,992          3,709,992 
 Wyoming.............................                  0                  0                  0                  0          1,037,760          1,037,760 
 American Samoa......................                  0                  0             90,479            113,760            119,342            323,581 
 Virgin Islands......................            321,600                  0                  0          1,263,900          1,042,948          2,628,448 
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..........................        109,291,163            131,654         19,563,590        272,247,986        310,302,671        711,537,064 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    American Road & Transportation


                                         Builders Association,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The documented backlog of highway and bridge 
     needs in the United States was estimated at more than $290 
     billion by the Department of Transportation in its 1993 
     report to the Congress. Despite this huge deficiency in 
     infrastructure investment, the reconciliation bill (S. 1357) 
     now before the Senate would reduce funding for highways by 
     $522 million in fiscal year 1996 and an additional $165 
     million in fiscal year 1997.
       The 4,000 members of the American Road & Transportation 
     Buildings Association (ARTBA) strongly urge that you support 
     an amendment to S. 1357 to be offered by Sen. Robert C. Byrd 
     that would preserve existing funding levels.
       Cutting highway funding at this time would be in conflict 
     with the conference report on the fiscal 1996 transportation 
     appropriations bill (H.R. 2002). That measure reflects the 
     importance of highways to the country by increasing funding 
     for their improvement. The federal highway program was, in 
     fact, the only mode to receive a higher funding level than in 
     fiscal 1995.
       According to the Federal Highway Administration, America's 
     highways provide 88 percent of the nation's personal 
     transportation in addition to a large proportion of its 
     commercial movement. Congress is expected shortly to approve 
     designation of the National Highway System, a 159,000-mile 
     network of roads intended to be the nation's backbone 
     transportation system and the focus of federal highway 
     investment in the years ahead. Clearly, this is no time to 
     cutting already-inadequate funding for highway improvements. 
     Furthermore, most of the proposed reduction is for activities 
     supported by the Highway Trust Fund, a pay-as-you-go 
     financing system supported by user fees. The sought budget 
     savings can be found in other areas less crucial to this 
     country's future.
       ARTBA's nationwide membership is involved in the planning, 
     design, construction, financing and operation of all forms of 
     transportation facilities. It includes contractors, engineers 
     and planners, equipment manufacturers, materials suppliers, 
     public officials, financial institutions and educators. 
     Again, we urge you to support Senator Byrd's amendment to S. 
     1357.
           Sincerely,
                                                   T. Peter Ruane,
     President & CEO.
                                                                    ____



                               American Trucking Associations,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Byrd: I am writing to indicate the support of 
     the American Trucking Associations for your efforts to 
     restore $712 million in badly needed highway funding.
       A Department of Transportation report estimated that the 
     backlong of highway and bridge needs in the United States was 
     in excess of $290 million. The conference report on the FY 
     '96 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill (H.R. 
     2002) recognized this problem by increasing highway funding. 
     Your efforts to restore that funding is in line with the 
     priorities set out in H.R. 2002.
       We support your amendment to S. 1357, the Budget 
     Reconciliation Act, and urge your Senate colleagues to 
     approve this amendment.
           Sincerely yours,
     Timothy P. Lynch.
                                                                    ____

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Byrd: The 33,000 members of the Associated 
     General Contractors of America strongly support your 
     amendment to S. 1357 that will restore much needed funding 
     for highway projects.
       Your recognition of the problems that the existing 
     provision (section 6002) will cause the highway program are 
     greatly appreciated. As you are so keenly aware, your 
     amendment restores $715 million in highway funding for 48 
     states (only Alaska and Delaware escape the cuts included in 
     Section 6002). Elimination of this funding mid stream will 
     simply delay needed construction and could cost as many as 
     36,000 jobs.
       In addition to eliminating current funding for projects 
     (many of which are under construction) that have been 
     previously approved by both the House and Senate, Section 
     6002 also sets a bad precedent by using highway trust fund 
     money to offset the general fund deficit and will adversely 
     impact the baseline for highway funding which could lower the 
     amount of resources made available for critical highway 
     construction in the future.
       Thank you for your continued vigilance in ensuring adequate 
     investment in the Nation's Surface Transportation Programs.
           Sincerely,

                                          Stephen E. Sandherr,

                                               Executive Director,
                                          Congressional Relations.

  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was not privy to drafting the 
provisions in the Finance Committee, and from the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, I wonder if Senator Chafee might take half my 
time and explain this as he sees it.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this provision that is referred to as a 
loophole was entirely legal over the years that it was enforced, and in 
the Finance Committee, after considerable 

[[Page S15805]]

negotiation in what we are doing in retroactively repealing something, 
if you would, the belief was that doing it over 5 years was a fair 
method of proceeding.
  And the belief was that to do it in 4 years--a very abbreviated 
time--was just not fair. So, Mr. President, this is an intricate, 
complicated system, and a complicated piece of legislation. But we felt 
in the Finance Committee that indeed there was considerable pressure to 
give a longer time to phase it out. But we arrived at 5 years thinking 
that was a fair way of doing it, and the 4 years just does pose a 
severe problem and difficulty upon those who chose to use this type of 
company-owned life insurance policies. So, Mr. President, that was the 
rationale for going to the 5 years.
  Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the House phases it out in 4 years. The 
Senate phases it out in 5 years. So either way it gets phased out. I 
suggest we phase it out in 4 years, and apply that money to these 
infrastructure projects in 48 States of the country. Let us cast a vote 
for America and the future of America.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I do not want to look at this in terms of 
whether we are voting for America or not. People would not want to 
stand up here and suggest they were not voting for America. I suspect 
they believe the amendments are for America.
  What I am saying, Mr. President, is that we are doing something 
retroactively. And it was our belief that 5 years was the fair way. 
Now, I suppose you could do it in 1 year. But that does not make it any 
fairer. So, Mr. President, that was the basis on which we did the 5 
years in the Finance Committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes and 20 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would just make a couple of quick 
points. Senator Byrd knows that I have great respect for him and I am 
fully aware of his constant and persistent desire that we spend money 
on infrastructure. But I think the only possible way, assuming it is 
not subject to a point of order, that this amendment should be adopted 
is if the U.S. Senate thinks that the demonstration highway projects 
were a good thing.
  The demonstration highway projects did not treat all States equally. 
As a matter of fact, by being demonstration projects, some States got a 
lot more than others. So the distinguished Senator is now looking at 
that and saying some States would lose and some States would gain, but 
this is not a formula where everyone was allowed demonstration 
projects. This is a nonformula.
  The demonstrations were established by committee or by appropriation 
or in that way. And anybody interested in whether this is a fair 
distribution among our States can just look at the list which I do not 
chose to read here tonight, but there are some very disproportionate 
returns of money to certain States and very little to other States that 
should have the same amount on population and highways. But the 
demonstrations were not set out in any fair way in the beginning.
  So if you think the highway demonstration programs were great, then 
obviously you ought to put them back in here whereas the committee 
decided that they did not think they ought to be in and we ought to 
save money. So that is going to be the issue. That is if it is not 
subject to a point of order. And the reason I say ``if,'' my instinct 
tells me it is, but then I think of who offered it, and I am quite sure 
he made sure it was not subject to a point of order.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. If we do not adopt this amendment, then we are 
retroactively wiping out those infrastructure projects in 48 States of 
this country. I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment. I did not 
mention Pennsylvania, $111 million; Ohio, $22 million; Texas, $29 
million; Virginia, $14 million; West Virginia, $66 million. I have only 
read some of them.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator mentioned West Virginia?
  Mr. BYRD. I mentioned West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New Mexico has 
expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not going to ask for the yeas and nays or move to 
table. I will wait for the vote, the time that it comes up.
  Senator Chafee, I believe, is the next one.
  Does the Senator have a copy of Senator Chafee's amendment?
  Mr. EXON. We do. I might say at this time, following Senator Chafee's 
presentation, I will yield our 5 minutes, which is the jurisdiction of 
the Finance Committee, to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair would be good enough 
to tell when I have used 3 minutes.
  As I understand it, we have 5 minutes on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. If the Chair could tell me at the end of 3 minutes, I 
would appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator is offering an amendment, he 
needs to send it to the desk.


                           Amendment No. 2973

  (Purpose: To guarantee coverage under the medicaid program for low-
income aged, blind, and disabled individuals eligible for supplemental 
  security income benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act)

  Mr. CHAFEE. I am sending the amendment to the desk, an unprinted 
amendment, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for himself and 
     Mr. Conrad, proposes amendment numbered 2973.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would ask that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 767, strike lines 12 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) provide for making medical assistance available to 
     any individual receiving cash benefits under title XVI by 
     reason of disability (including blindness) or receiving 
     medical assistance under section 1902(f) (as in effect on the 
     day before the date of enactment of this Act); and''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of 
Senator Conrad and myself. What it does, it guarantees Medicaid 
eligibility for low-income individuals with disabilities. Under the 
language reported by the Senate Finance Committee, States are required 
to provide coverage to persons with disabilities.
  However, and here is the hitch--the States are given complete 
latitude in establishing the definition of who is disabled. It could be 
only those who are quadriplegics who are blind are considered disabled. 
I mean, they can have any definition the States wish. What our 
amendment does is it sets a minimum standard by requiring States to 
provide coverage to children and adults with disabilities who receive 
benefits under the Supplemental Security Income Program [SSI].
  But here are the important words, the SSI Program, as amended by the 
welfare reform bill which we passed here a month or so ago, we passed 
here by a vote of 87 to 12. So this is a very restricted group. This is 
not the SSI group that we worry about that included substance abusers, 
for example. That is not in this category. Only the neediest 
individuals qualify for SSI. They all have incomes below the poverty 
level and indeed currently they have to--they cannot be above 75 
percent of the poverty level and qualify. Now, this is a pretty low-
income group.
  Why is this amendment important? Without this requirement, States 
will have the ability to exclude from coverage a group of individuals 
who depend on this Medicaid coverage as their only source of health 
insurance coverage. There is no place else they can go. You say get 
private insurance. Well, they first cannot afford it. And second, they 
all have preexisting conditions, and so therefore would not be 
qualified.
  Mr. President, there is no mandated benefit package in this proposal. 
These are the facts. We do not mandate a benefit package. We leave that 
up to the States. All we are saying is, you have to cover this group. 
And how do you describe this group? You describe them 

[[Page S15806]]

by the SSI description as we had it in the welfare program. So, indeed, 
with no mandated benefit package, the States could say, ``For this 
group there will be one aspirin a year.'' That could be done. But at 
least you have to cover everybody in the group with whatever the 
benefit package is.
  Mr. President, I think it is very important to remember that we are 
giving the States, over the next 7 years, $800 billion--$800 billion, 
Mr. President. And they are going to receive their allocations based on 
the fact of those whom they covered in 1995, and in the group that they 
covered in which they got their money are these disabled. So, Mr. 
President, these are a very, very low-income group in our society. They 
are being cared for very frequently by their parents and others, kept 
in the community. And without this safety net they would have to in 
many cases be institutionalized at a far higher cost. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in preserving this critical safety net.
  I yield time to Senator Conrad.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Chafee in 
offering this amendment. Mr. President, simply put, this provides 
health care support to the most severely disabled individuals in our 
society. Senator Chafee and I received a letter of support from the 
Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities, 30 national organizations 
that work to support the disabled. They said, and I quote:

       We believe that your amendment to establish a minimum floor 
     of eligibility for children and adults with disabilities is a 
     fundamental component of ensuring a basic safety net for low-
     income people with severe disabilities.

  Mr. President, health care is not an option for these people, it is a 
necessity. They have it today. They should not be at risk for losing it 
tomorrow.
  During Finance Committee deliberation, we received this 
communication. It said:

       Mr. Senator, if you are a person with mental retardation, 
     these services are not optional. Remember, this is a lifelong 
     condition which cannot be cured like substance abuse or 
     unemployment. Also remember, it is not a self-inflicted 
     condition, but rather one that a person is born with.

  Mr. President, States should not cut severely disabled people from 
Medicaid. That is the premise of this amendment. I hope our colleagues 
will support it.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, first, I want to compliment the 
Senator from Rhode Island, because actually it was the Senator from 
Rhode Island and myself in the Finance Committee who put up this 
amendment, which won 17 to 3, and then it sort of disappeared. It 
particularly disappeared with respect to the disabled. It should be 
understood the Senator is entirely correct in his amendment, and I urge 
my colleagues to support his amendment.
  On the other hand, it is also important to understand that by voting 
for this amendment that we are not going to be making a prince out of a 
frog; that the underlying Medicaid bill which encompasses this 
amendment is, in the judgment of this Senator, a disaster.
  This amendment will help. I do not want to in any way diminish that. 
This is pregnant women, children, and the disabled, and it is a 
guarantee. The guarantee was not there before.
  The Senator is right when he says the States now have to make a 
determination under the current law what ``disabled'' means. Good 
heavens, 50 different definitions coming in on ``disabled.''
  The point is, it is a good amendment in a bad bill. The States will 
still lose 30 percent of their Medicaid funding. In the case of my 
State, it is a little more than that. On nursing home protection, 
Federal standards are wiped out. That really does bring up the specter, 
and some say, ``Well, you are just making a fuss over this.'' What a 
fuss. The standards we passed in 1987 by which you could no longer 
tether, that is tie down, an elderly person in a nursing home or drug 
into passivity an elderly person, is wiped out. So that is now possible 
under the underlying bill.
  These are terrible things. Children with primary care needs, early 
detection, early protection, no immunization--it is not a good bill. 
But the amendment is good and the Senator from Rhode Island has 
suggested an amendment that ought to be adopted.
  So I just simply make that point and compliment the Senator 
significantly for now getting the word ``guaranteed'' coverage into the 
legislation. I compliment him on that and urge my colleagues to support 
the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Has all time been used on the amendment before us?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska controls 1 minute, 
50 seconds.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if I could have just a portion of that.
  Mr. EXON. I will be glad to yield half of it to my colleague.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Wait a minute; wait a minute. How do we get all 10 
minutes in favor of the amendment? I do not want to argue against it. 
You cannot allocate the time to the other side if they are in favor of 
the amendment. Is that not the rule? If it is not, I am mistaken.
  Mr. EXON. I do not think the rule specifies that. But in a matter of 
fairness, I agree to the chairman's--who wishes to speak in opposition?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is such an outstanding amendment. I do 
not think there is any opposition.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not so sure but you are right. But I want to make 
sure we do not have all 10 minutes. I thought we were going to save 5.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Why do we not save time and just adopt it?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We cannot do that right now. It may come to pass.
  Mr. EXON. I yield half my time to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield? Will the 
Senator from Rhode Island correct the misstatement of the Senator from 
West Virginia about pregnant women, children and disabled as opposed to 
the elderly?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am going to stick what we have here, which is we are 
solely dealing with low-income individuals with disabilities. Mr. 
President, I tell you, when you are talking 75 percent of poverty, you 
are really talking about poor people.
  But the key thing I want to stress here is these folks are being 
cared for in the community very frequently by their parents. And do not 
think these are 6-year-olds and their parents are 35. Their parents are 
frequently 65 and these individuals are 40 years old. But they are 
being cared for in the community, because they have this safety net of 
Medicaid coverage that is there in case they get ill. Otherwise, I am 
certain that they would end up in institutions at a far greater cost to 
the public and all of us.
  So, Mr. President, I hope the amendment will be adopted.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield? I indicate my support for the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired. If the manager wishes to 
speak in opposition, he is entitled to have 5 minutes restored in 
opposition.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not choose to speak in opposition. Does any 
Senator want to speak in opposition? What I would like to do is take my 
5 minutes and I would like to yield 2 minutes of that to Senator Cohen. 
He can speak in favor of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes has expired in support.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have 2 minutes 
to speak in favor of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager is entitled to 5 minutes in 
opposition. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend. I rise in support of the 
Chafee amendment. Senator Chafee has tried valiantly to include the 
poorest of the poor in our system, and for anyone to object to having 
the disabled included--I might say, it does not go far enough perhaps, 
because as I understand the Senator's amendment, it includes pregnant 
women and children and does not include elderly; it includes disabled 
but it leaves it up to the States to define what ``disabled'' is.
  I know the Senator was eager to use the SSI determination for 
``disabled.'' Is that the Senator's amendment?
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is right. It has already been adopted. Pregnant 
women and children up to the age of 12 and 100 

[[Page S15807]]

percent of poverty, that is covered. And also the disabled are to be 
covered, but the definition of ``disabled'' was not made.
  Mr. COHEN. My understanding is now you have included the definition 
that has been acknowledged under the SSI determination.
  Mr. CHAFEE. As changed by the welfare bill.
  Mr. COHEN. Then please let me lend my strong support for that, and I 
want to thank my friend from New Mexico for allowing me a moment or two 
to express my support.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, is this the proper time to ask for the 
yeas and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be appropriate.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I do so. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank everyone.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thought he was next. I was mistaken. I 
believe Senator Breaux is next.
  I yield our 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 2963

   (Purpose: To provide for a partially refundable child tax credit)

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask it 
be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2963.

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

       On page 1469, beginning on line 2, strike all through page 
     1471, line 20, and insert the following:

     SEC. 12001. CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 is amended by redesignating section 35 as section 
     36 and by inserting after section 34 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 35. CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
       ``(1) General rule.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year 
     an amount equal to $500 multiplied by the number of 
     qualifying children of the taxpayer.
       ``(2) Limitation based on amount of tax.--The credit 
     allowed by paragraph (1) for a taxable year shall not exceed 
     the sum of--
       ``(A) the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year 
     (reduced by the credits allowable against such tax other than 
     the credit allowable under section 32), and
       ``(B) the taxes imposed by sections 3101 and 3201(a) and 50 
     percent of the taxes imposed by sections 1401 and 3211(a) for 
     such taxable year.
       ``(b) Adjusted Gross Income Limitation.--The aggregate 
     amount of the credit which would (but for this subsection) be 
     allowed by subsection (a) shall be reduced (but not below 
     zero) by 20 percent for each $3,000 by which the taxpayer's 
     adjusted gross income exceeds $60,000.
       ``(c) Qualifying Child.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualifying child' means any 
     individual if--
       ``(A) the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151 
     with respect to such individual for such taxable year,
       ``(B) such individual has not attained the age of 16 as of 
     the close of the calendar year in which the taxable year of 
     the taxpayer begins, and
       ``(C) such individual bears a relationship to the taxpayer 
     described in section 32(c)(3)(B) (determined without regard 
     to clause (ii) thereof).
       ``(2) Exception for certain noncitizens.--The term 
     `qualifying child' shall not include any individual who would 
     not be a dependent if the first sentence of section 152(b)(3) 
     were applied without regard to all that follows `resident of 
     the United States'.
       ``(d) Certain Other Rules Apply.--Rules similar to the 
     rules of subsections (d) and (e) of section 32 shall apply 
     for purposes of this section.''
       ``(c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     subpart C is amended by striking the item relating to section 
     35 and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 35. Child tax credit.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''

       ``(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my colleagues, the largest item in the 
Finance Committee bill, by far, is the $500 per child tax credit. It 
cost $141 billion over 7 years. That is a lot of money. Some people 
think we should not have a tax cut at all. But this bill is going to 
have a tax cut in it. The largest one is going to be a per child tax 
cut at $500 per child. I would think that all of us, if we know it is 
going to pass, should at least agree on one thing--the largest number 
of families that need it should get it.
  Here is what my amendment does. It addresses a problem that is very 
real. Simply stated, the Republican proposal only is a credit against 
income tax. It is not a credit against the largest tax that people pay 
in this country, that is, the payroll tax. For 75 percent of American 
families, they pay more in payroll tax than in income tax. This child 
tax credit is not an offset against the payroll tax. This chart shows 
that. The blue line is the payroll taxes that people pay on average. 
The orange line is an estimate of their income tax.
  So you see, families making $16,000, all the way up to families on 
this chart making almost $27,000, are paying far more in payroll taxes 
than they are paying in income taxes.
  The figures show that under the Republican proposal, something like 
44 percent of all the children in America would only get a partial or 
no credit at all, because the credit is only against the income tax. 
Many families do not even pay that much in income tax.
  If you have a family that has two children, that is a $1,000 credit. 
But if they are only paying $700 or $500 in income tax, they do not get 
to use the credit. Therefore, simply stated, my amendment makes the 
$500 per child tax credit a credit against both the income tax or the 
payroll tax. We spend the same amount of money--not a dime more, not a 
dime less. But we cover 44 percent more children. We cover about 31 
million more children living in families, and if we are going to spend 
this money for a credit, let us make sure they get it.
  The second chart tells you what we are talking about when we look at 
family earnings and how much they pay in income taxes--the actual 
numbers. A family making $20,000 a year is at about $458 in income tax. 
That would not even pay for the credit for one child. But that same 
family is spending over $1,500--$1,530--in payroll tax. My amendment 
says that the $500 per child tax credit can be used as a credit against 
the payroll tax, as well as an income tax, so that the family making 
$20,000 will get some of the benefits of this massive program that we 
are passing. What is wrong with saying let us make sure that the most 
number of children get the benefit?
  I have seen some of the Republican charts that say, well, under this 
credit, this proposal, we get a huge credit against income tax. Sure, 
the problem that is most families pay more in payroll tax, and it is no 
offset whatsoever against the payroll tax. So for families making under 
$30,000 a year, for most of them it is no benefit at all.
  Look at this chart. This is every State in the country. This is the 
median household income. In Louisiana, it is $25,000. Under the 
Republican proposal, if you are in a family making less than $30,000 a 
year, you are not going to get the benefit of a per child tax credit. 
So my proposition is very simple. If you want to add about 31 million 
more people to the rolls and give them the benefit, for the same amount 
of money--exactly the same amount of money--my credit goes out to 
families making up to $75,000 a year. It starts to phase out at $60,000 
and eliminates it at $75,000 per family, but it makes it refundable 
against a payroll tax. By spending the same amount of money, we cover 
31 million more children. I think that is what we are trying to do.
  I got this wonderful note from the Christian Coalition saying they 
are going to target this amendment. They say, ``We are going to portray 
this amendment as a vote to gut the $500 per child tax credit.'' It 
does not gut it; it is the same amount of money. We are just covering 
31 million more children in this country by making it a credit against 
the payroll tax. They say they want to make sure they get the most 
number of people covered. That is exactly what my amendment does. They 
say, well, his starts to phase out at $60,000 per year. That is true, 

[[Page S15808]]

but it goes up to the same amount, $75,000, that the original 
Republican proposal did. Just by making it refundable against the 
payroll tax----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BREAUX. Forty-four percent more children are covered.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, first let me say that I agree with the 
Senator from Louisiana in wanting to make this tax cut refundable 
against the FICA or payroll tax, because I argued many months and many 
times that we should do this and expand the tax credit, because FICA is 
one of the most regressive.
  But this is not the way to do it. This is not the way to pit one 
group of hard-working, tax-paying families against another group of 
families that struggle every day to try and make ends meet, to provide 
for his or her family.
  Nearly 75 percent of the tax credits in the Republican plan go to 
families making under $75,000 a year, those hard-working families who 
have been asked to pay.
  This is the real crux of the argument: They have been asked to pay 
more of their income to Federal taxes every year, year after year. Our 
plan does target low-income families with increases in the EITC credit, 
already giving $24 billion this year, growing to like $30 billion, and 
in the next year, $40 billion plus. So those families are seeing an 
increase in their earned-income tax credit. They are getting tax relief 
or more money in their pockets.
  But who is forgotten? The families forgotten are those making between 
$30,000 and $75,000 a year. They are forgotten for the EITC program. 
They do not get the benefits here. Yet, they are remembered one day of 
the year--tax day--when they are asked to spend more and more of their 
money. I would like to work with the Senator from Louisiana to try and 
define ways to shrink the size of the Federal Government, to save 
additional moneys, to be able to expand even farther the tax credits, 
to give more persons tax relief. But let us not pit one group who are 
asked to pay and pay, and pay more of their income, as well as their 
FICA. Their FICA taxes are also being deducted.
  Let us give them credits and not pit one against the other. Let us 
not take money from the taxpayers. Let us work to shrink the size of 
the Government and give more Americans more of their money back in the 
form of tax credits. I would like to work with the Senator from 
Louisiana in doing that. But I do not support this, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield me 60 seconds? I 
do not think I have any time left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has used his time. 
The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
First of all, everybody should know this amendment starts phasing out 
the child tax care credit at $60,000. The credit that we have in the 
Senate bill, when coupled with the earned-income tax credit, achieves 
the same goal as the Breaux amendment. It relieves the lower-income 
folks of the payroll burden. His would be to the contrary. The child 
credit and EIC is already in excess of the family's Federal payroll 
taxes. The employee and the employer share for families living at or 
near the poverty line. A family earning under $12,500, with two 
children, and families with earnings under $15,500 will have the same 
effect under our bill. Yet, we will be able to cover more Americans 
because we do not stop it at $60,000.
  So I do not believe we ought to do this. Frankly, I am not a great 
fan of refundable anything because I believe they are rampant with 
fraud. We just got through a situation with EITC, and it is about 25 
percent fraudulent because we are giving people a check back as a 
refundable tax credit. Some may be for that. I do not think it is a 
very good policy. The same thing will happen to this one if we do it 
this way.
  Mr. GRAMS. If the Senator will yield, the Senator from Louisiana said 
more children would be covered. Actually, under his bill, because he 
would limit the age at 15 and not 17, as in our proposal, 5 million 
children between the ages of 16 and 17, whose families' income fall 
below $75,000 a year, would not be denied this child tax credit. It 
would cover fewer children and not more. So I think the whole crux of 
this plan is to give tax relief for families.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in closing, I do not believe we ought to 
stop a child tax credit at 16 years of age. I have been through this, 
and that is about the time they start to get really expensive. There we 
are stopping it just about at that time, while in our bill we add two 
more years, which is much better in terms of really helping middle 
income families when they need it the most.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will vote against the Breaux amendment. 
Although I have expressed support for making the $500-per-child tax 
credit refundable against the FICA tax, this amendment is the wrong way 
to achieve this objective. First, it dramatically limits the $55 credit 
for many middle-class families. Second, it limits the number of 
children who would qualify for the credit.
  For families earning between $60,000 and $75,000, this amendment 
would unfairly prevent them from receiving the $500 child tax credit.
  It is my hope that FICA refundability will be raised during 
conference and that a solution will be adopted which will provide much 
needed tax relief to all American families.
  Mr. BREAUX. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table that 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.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think it comes to our side. Senator Bond is next.
  Mr. EXON. When Senator Bond finishes, I wish to yield the 5 minutes 
on our side to the discretion of the Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 2975

(Purpose: To increase the health insurance deduction for self-employed 
   individuals and to strike the long-term care insurance provisions)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and eminent leader of 
the Budget Committee for this time. I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Pryor and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Mr. 
     Pryor, proposes an amendment numbered 2975.

  Mr. BOND. 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 1553, beginning with line 13, strike all through 
     page 1588, line 24, and insert:

   Subchapter A--Health Insurance Costs of Self-Employed Individuals

     SEC. 12201. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS 
                   OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Increase in Deduction.--Section 162(l) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``30 percent'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``the applicable percentage'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage shall be determined as 
     follows:

``For taxable years                                   The applicable in
  beginning in                                           percentage is:
    1996 and 1997................................................... 60
    1998 and thereafter..........................................100.''

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.

  Mr. BOND. There is a great injustice in our tax law, an injustice 
that I suspect everyone in this body has addressed at some time or 
another. That is the inequity in the deductibility of health insurance 
costs.
  I do not think I need to tell my colleagues that corporations 
historically can deduct 100 percent of the health care insurance 
premium that they pay for employees, and the employees do not have to 
declare any of the employer-paid health insurance premiums as income. 
At the same time, the self- 

[[Page S15809]]

employed farmers, the small business men and women of this country 
cannot deduct more than 30 percent.
  This body took a great step forward earlier this year when we 
reinstated for last year the 25-percent deduction and increased that to 
30 percent. Frankly, that is not enough.
  In my role as chairman of the Small Business Committee, I have heard 
from small businesses in my State and across the country who are 
concerned, and greatly concerned, rightfully so, about health care.
  The occupant of the chair and I know, because we have worked on 
health care issues over recent years, one of the biggest problems we 
face are those who are uninsured, because they are limited to a 30-
percent deduction as self-employed people for health care insurance 
premiums.
  Under the amendment that I am offering today with Senator Pryor, we 
will increase the deduction for self-employed to 60 percent next year, 
60 percent the following year, and then in the year 1998, increase that 
to 100 percent. Mr. President, I believe that is the way to achieve 
equity and ensure that more of the self-employed are insured.
  The offset to this provision--we seek to offset by taking out the new 
program for long-term care insurance included in the Finance Committee 
markup. I think it is a good idea down the road, or perhaps even before 
we complete work on this bill, to start providing some incentives for 
long-term insurance. I think it makes a great deal of sense. I think 
first we have to address the basic inequity.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Missouri for 
yielding to me, and I thank the distinguished manager, Senator Exon of 
Nebraska, for giving me the opportunity to address this issue.
  We all know last spring the Congress passed and the President signed 
into law H.R. 831. This was a bill to restore the 25-percent health 
care deduction for the self-employed and for the farmers of America. As 
my colleagues may remember, Mr. President, this deduction had expired 
and the self-employed were receiving absolutely no health care 
deduction at all for a period of time. It was an absurd position in 
which to place small businesses and the family farm.
  H.R. 831 also increased the deduction for 30 percent for 1995 and for 
all years in the future. It was a very good step, a positive step for 
small business and for the family farm.
  I was proud, by the way, to join Senator Roth and Senator Bond and 
others in a letter with 73 of our colleagues who promised not to offer 
or support any amendment on the floor. It was a strong statement, but 
we underscored our recognition of the importance of the health care 
deduction for the self-employed.
  Last week when the tax bill came before the Senate Finance Committee, 
I was disappointed that the chairman's markup did not include any 
progress on the deduction front. I offered an amendment to increase 
this deduction to 50 percent--from 30 percent to 50 percent. I was 
further disappointed when this amendment failed on a party-line vote.
  I am very proud to join with Senator Bond this evening on the floor 
of the Senate in an amendment to increase the self-employed deduction 
not to 50 percent, Mr. President, but to 100 percent. There is where it 
should be, and that is what our amendment does.
  It is an issue of parity. It is an issue of increasing coverage for 
small business and for farmers, for making insurance more affordable. 
It would move the 30-percent rate to 60 percent in 1996 for deduction. 
In 1997, it would continue at 60 percent. By 1998, Mr. President, we 
would have a 100-percent deduction for small businesses, for the self-
employed, and for the farm families of America. I think it would do 
more to basically make insurance more affordable and to provide 
insurance for many, many more millions of Americans that have labored 
under a very inequitable situation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Arkansas, who has been a champion of this deduction for a long time. It 
is a pleasure to work with him on this amendment.
  I want to advise my colleagues that we have received strong letters 
of support from a whole host of organizations--agriculture and small 
business, including the Farm Bureau Federation, ABC, Chamber of 
Commerce, H.E.A.L., Association for Self-Employed, Association of Home 
Builders, Cattlemen's Association, National Restaurant Association, 
NFIB, National Retail Federation, Small Business Legislative Council, 
Society of American Florists.
  I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Support the Bond/Pryor Amendment

                                                 October 25, 1995.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: We, the undersigned organizations, 
     support your and Senator Pryor's amendment to Reconciliation 
     to increase health insurance deductibility for the self-
     employed.
       For years, large corporations have been deducting 100 
     percent of the cost of their health insurance while self-
     employed business owners like sole proprietors, Subchapter S 
     corporations and partnerships have been limited to 30 
     percent--which was just increased five percent this year. 
     This is simply unfair and must be changed.
       We believe that before the Congress authorizes a costly, 
     new deduction for any other kind of health care benefit self-
     employed small business owners and farmers should get 100 
     percent health insurance deductibility.
       Thank you for your leadership on behalf of the self-
     employed. We look forward to working with you to pass this 
     important amendment. We urge all of your colleagues to 
     support your amendment.
           Sincerely,
         American Farm Bureau Federation, Associated Builders and 
           Contractors, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, 
           H.E.A.L. (Healthcare Equity Action League),\1\ National 
           Association for the Self-Employed, National Association 
           of Home Builders, National Cattlemen's Association, 
           National Federation of Independent Business, National 
           Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, 
           Small Business Legislative Council, Society of American 
           Florists.
     \1\The Healthcare Equity Action League (HEAL) was formed in 
     1991, and is the oldest and largest business community 
     coalition supporting healthcare reform. It is comprised of 
     over 600 companies, associations, and local Chambers of 
     Commerce, representing over 1 million employers and 35 
     million employees.
                                                                    ____

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Small Business,


                                          Legislative Council,

                                 Washington, DC, October 24, 1995.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     Chairman, Committee on Small Business, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We strongly support your amendment to 
     the budget reconciliation bill to increase the deduction the 
     self-employed may take for their own health care expenses.
       As you know, sole-proprietors, partners and S Corporation 
     shareholders can now deduct 30 percent of such costs. For 
     many years, these individuals were not allowed to deduct 
     health care costs at all. For a time, the deduction was 25 
     percent, but it was a temporary deduction and we found 
     ourselves fighting each year to justify a provision that 
     should not require a constant defense.
       The prohibition on such deductions is an anachronism from 
     the 1950s, based on an outdated concept of how business 
     entities should be taxed under our system. In the modern day 
     business environment, this policy is simply unfair. Frankly, 
     we believe, if not for the issue of revenue, Congress would 
     have already changed this law. It is time to address this 
     inequity once and for all time.
       The Small Business Legislative Council [SBLC] is a 
     permanent, independent coalition of nearly one hundred trade 
     and professional associations that share a common commitment 
     to the future of small business. Our members represent the 
     interests of small businesses in such diverse economic 
     sectors as manufacturing, retailing, distribution, 
     professional and technical services, construction, 
     transportation, and agriculture. Our policies are developed 
     through a consensus among our membership. Individual 
     associations may express their own views. For your 
     information, a list of our members is enclosed.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Gary F. Petty,
     Chairman of the Board.
                                                                    ____



           Members of the Small Business Legislative Council

       Air Conditioning Contractors of America,
       Alliance for Affordable Health Care,
       Alliance of Independent Store Owners and Professionals,
       American Animal Hospital Association,
       American Association of Equine Practitioners,
       American Association of Nurserymen,
       American Bus Association,
       American Consulting Engineers Council,
       American Council of Independent Laboratories,

[[Page S15810]]

       American Gear Manufacturers Association,
       American Machine Tool Distributors Association,
       American Road, Transportation Builders Association,
       American Society of Interior Designers,
       American Society of Travel Agents, Inc.,
       American Subcontractors Association,
       American Textile Machinery Association,
       American Trucking Associations Inc.,
       American Warehouse Association,
       AMT--The Association of Manufacturing Technology,
       Architectural Precast Association,
       Associated Builders & Contractors,
       Associated Equipment Distributors,
       Associated Landscape Contractors of America,
       Association of Small Business Development Centers,
       Automotive Service Association,
       Automotive Recyclers Association,
       Automotive Warehouse Distributors Association,
       Bowling Proprietors Association of America,
       Building Service Contractors Association International,
       Christian Booksellers Association,
       Cincinnati Sign Supplies/Lamb and Co.,
       Council of Fleet Specialists,
       Council of Growing Companies,
       Direct Selling Association,
       Electronics Representatives Association,
       Florists' Transworld Delivery Association,
       Health Industry Representatives Association,
       Helicopter Association International,
       Independent Bankers Association of America,
       Independent Medical Distributors Association,
       International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses,
       International Communications Industries Association,
       International Formalwear Association,
       International Television Association,
       Machinery Dealers National Association,
       Manufacturers Agents National Association,
       Manufacturers Representatives of America, Inc.,
       Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Inc.,
       National Association for the Self-Employed,
       National Association of catalog Showroom Merchandisers,
       National Association of Home Builders,
       National Association of Investment Companies,
       National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling 
     Contractors,
       National Association of Private Enterprise,
       National Association of Realtors,
       National Association of Retail Druggist,
       National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds,
       National Association of Small Business Investment 
     Companies,
       National Association of the Remodeling Industry,
       National Chimney Sweep Guild,
       National Electrical Contractors Association,
       National Electrical Manufacturers Representatives 
     Association,
       National Food Brokers Association,
       National Independent Flag Dealers Association,
       National Knitwear & Sportswear Association,
       National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association,
       National Moving and Storage Association,
       National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association,
       National Paperbox Association,
       National Shoe Retailers Association,
       National Society of Public Accountants,
       National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association,
       National Tooling and Machining Association,
       National Tour Association,
       National Wood Flooring Association,
       NATSO. Inc.,
       Opticians Association of America,
       Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small 
     Telephone Companies,
       Petroleum Marketers Association of America,
       Power Transmission Representatives Association,
       Printing Industries of America, Inc.,
       Professional Lawn Care Association of America,
       Promotional Products Association International,
       Retail Bakers of America,
       Small Business Council of America, Inc.,
       Small Business Exporters Association,
       SMC/Pennsylvania Small Business,
       Society of America Florists,
       Turfgrass Producers International.
                                                                    ____

                                              National Association


                                        for the Self-Employed,

                                 Washington, DC, October 25, 1995.
     Hon. Kit Bond,
     Chairman, Senate Small Business Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bond: It is my understanding that you intend 
     to offer an amendment during the budget debate that would 
     raise the health insurance deduction for the self-employed 
     from the current 30 percent level to 100 percent. On behalf 
     of the National Association for the Self-Employed, I 
     completely support your efforts.
       Raising this deduction level would create tax equity 
     between corporate America and small business. Currently, 
     large businesses can deduct 100 percent of the premiums they 
     pay on behalf of their employees for health insurance 
     coverage. The self-employed can only deduct 30 percent of 
     their costs. And the self-employed who pay for their own 
     insurance are primarily paying with after-tax dollars, 
     effectively making the policies more expensive. A 100-percent 
     deduction would give the self-employed the equity they 
     deserve.
       Also a 100-percent deduction would enable many self-
     employed to purchase a health insurance policy, a luxury many 
     cannot currently afford. I believe passing a 100-percent 
     deduction would significantly decrease the number of 
     uninsured individuals in this country.
       We have polled our 320,000 self-employed members and 100-
     percent deductibility of health insurance premiums is the No. 
     1 issue of concern to them. Please do not hesitate to call on 
     me. I stand ready to assist your efforts in any way I can.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Bennie L. Thayer,
     President/CEO.
                                                                    ____

         Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     Chairman, Small Business Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Kit: The U.S. chamber of Commerce Federation of 
     215,000 businesses (96% of whom are small businesses), 3,000 
     state and local chambers of commerce, 1,200 trade and 
     professional organizations, and 75 American chambers of 
     commerce abroad strongly supports your small business 
     amendment to the Balanced Budget Reconciliation bill. Your 
     amendment would allow the self-employed and small businesses 
     to deduct 100% of their health insurance costs, a benefit 
     currently available only to large corporations.
       As you know, the Chamber has long maintained that the self-
     employed and unincorporated small businesses should receive 
     the same tax treatment currently available to corporations. 
     Sound tax policy dictates full deductibility of premium of 
     self-insurance cost as ordinary and necessary business 
     expenses. There is no valid tax policy reason for treating 
     the smallest businesses any differently. It is vitally 
     important to the nation's economic security that the smallest 
     businesses, frequently new and often struggling, should be 
     granted a measure of security equal to that of larger 
     corporations.
       Once again, the Chamber commends your work on behalf of our 
     nation's small businesses and looks forward to working with 
     you towards resolving this issue. The inability of the 
     nation's smallest businesses to deduct the full cost of their 
     health insurance, and the inequity in being denied an 
     advantage granted to their incorporated fellows, has been a 
     thorn in the side of small business and the self-employed for 
     years. It is time that thorn is removed and equality is 
     restored.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                                                    ____

                                              Promotional Products


                                    Association International,

                                     Irving, TX, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the Promotional Products 
     Association International (PPA), I wish to express our 
     support for your amendment to increase the deduction the 
     self-employed may take for their own health care costs.
       Under current law, they may deduct only 30 percent of their 
     health care costs, and the current deduction was only 
     recently made permanent. For the millions of sole 
     proprietors, partners, and S Corporation shareholders, 
     including PPA members, this is an unfair penalty with no 
     sound basis in tax policy.
       The current policy dates back to another era in tax policy, 
     when business entities such as sole proprietorships were 
     viewed upon with great suspicion. Now, decades later, 
     economic and social policy has evolved to the point where we 
     find more and more individuals opting to structure their 
     small business in such a fashion. These small businesses are 
     an increasingly important source of strength in our economy.
       It is time to give them the same opportunity to deduct 
     their health care costs as any other business.
       The promotional products industry is the advertising, sales 
     promotion, and motivational medium employing useful articles 
     of merchandise imprinted with an advertiser's name, logo, or 
     message. Our industry sales are over $6 billion and PPA 
     members are manufacturers and distributors of such goods and 
     services.
           Sincerely,
                                                H. Ted Olson, MAS,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                                     National Home


                                      Furnishings Association,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     Chairman, Committee on Small Business, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the National Home 
     Furnishings Association [NHFA], I wish to express our strong 
     support for your amendment to the budget reconciliation bill 
     to increase the deduction the self-employed may take for 
     their own health care costs. It is long overdue.

[[Page S15811]]

       It is unfair to penalize small business owners solely 
     because they elect to do business as a sole proprietorship, 
     partnership, or S Corporation, yet that is what the current 
     tax code does with respect to their own health care costs.
       As you know, for the first time this year, the self-
     employed can deduct 30 percent of their health care costs. 
     For many years, they were not allowed to deduct even that 
     much. We all know what health care costs these days, and it 
     is simply unfair to impose such a harsh penalty which does 
     not have any sound tax policy justification to support it.
       The NHFA represents approximately 2,800 retailers of home 
     furnishings throughout the United States. Thank you for your 
     efforts on our behalf.
           Sincerely,
                                              Patricia N. Bowling,
     Executive Vice President.
                                                                    ____

                                                       World Floor


                                         Covering Association,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     Chairman, Committee on Small Business, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the World Floor Covering 
     Association [WFCA], representing floorcovering retailers 
     throughout the United States, I wish to express our strong 
     support for our amendment to the budget reconciliation bill 
     to increase the deduction the self-employed may take for 
     their own health care costs. It is about time this inequity 
     in our tax policy was resolved once and for all.
  Mr. BOND. Now, Mr. President, I know there are a number of my 
colleagues who feel very strongly about the long-term care insurance 
program. We have had discussions about finding other offsets to this 
amendment so that we may be able to start on that long-term care 
prospect. I will be most anxious to work with my colleagues because I 
think everybody here at one time or another has expressed his or her 
strong support for the full deductibility of health care.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to modify the 
amendment prior to a vote on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I do not understand what 
that means.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if I could respond.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You mean, if you find another source of revenue?
  Mr. BOND. There are minds far brighter than mine and people with far 
greater access to the intricacies of this measure who are embarking on 
a good-faith effort to find offsets to get them scored by the Joint Tax 
Committee.
  I sincerely hope we can find a way to accommodate both the long-term 
insurance and the health care. I believe very strongly that the health 
care deductibility for self-employed must be done. I would like to be 
able to work with my colleagues who support the long-term insurance 
program so that can be accomplished.
  At this point we do not have an offset. I want to make sure this 
measure is before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Dole wants to be recognized in opposition.
  Mr. DOLE. Only in opposition to the long-term care.
  I think in this matter, a lot of the debate in the last 2 or 3 days 
has been long-term care--Medicare, Medicaid. We are trying to get the 
younger people involved in long-term care so that when they arrive at 
their senior years, they will have long-term care through the private 
sector.
  It is something we have worked on in a bipartisan way in the Finance 
Committee for years. We finally have it in the bill. We believe it is a 
very good provision.
  I do not object to the amendment that is pending. I hope they can 
find another revenue source. I support what Senator Bond and Senator 
Pryor are trying to do. The self-employed should have the same rights 
as everyone else, the same deduction. I hope that if we can find 
another revenue source--because I really believe the long-term care 
amendment, although this is very important, is just as important, or we 
will be back here in 10, 15, 20 years, somebody will be back here 
wondering why we did not do something to get people interested in 
buying insurance and getting a deduction.
  I hope we can resolve it before we have the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we said we had no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is agreed to.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we were entitled to 5 minutes in 
opposition, because the other side was in favor. But I am just going to 
take a minute and say I compliment Senator Bond for what he is trying 
to do. But I, too, hope he will find another offset, because I truly 
believe, in the midst of a national debate on Medicare and Medicaid, 
much of which is long-term care, we have come to the conclusion that 
the missing link out there is that not many people have long-term care 
protection.
  That is getting to be a bigger and bigger burden of our Government. 
We are going to be less and less able to do it. That we start, in this 
bill, moving in the direction of letting that happen for people who 
want to save for themselves and buy insurance and get an appropriate 
credit, seems to me to be very positive. I hope the Senator from 
Missouri, for whom I have great respect, would agree with that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I cannot disagree with a thing my 
distinguished colleague from New Mexico has said. I had the pleasure of 
meeting with business men and women in his State. Both of these are 
important in his State, my State, and the rest of the country.
  I do want to make sure this bill has the deductibility phased in, 
full deductibility for the self-employed and small businesses. We are 
most anxious to work cooperatively with colleagues on both sides to 
accomplish this.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time I had in opposition.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 2 minutes and 9 
seconds.
  Mr. PRYOR. Will Senator Exon like some time?
  Mr. EXON. I will wait until the Senator finishes.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, just for 1 minute. On many occasions we, 
all of us, I assume, have gone to town meetings or wherever and said we 
believe the self-employed, small business, farmers of our country need 
to have the same rights and same deductibility, especially in 
purchasing their health care coverage for themselves and their 
employees. This is exactly what Senator Bond and I are trying to craft 
tonight, that opportunity. I hope we can give that to these individuals 
who truly create the jobs in America and who really are deserving of 
this opportunity to participate in the health care system of America.
  I hope we can work out something and I pledge my best efforts to do 
so.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 1 minute and 15 
seconds.
  Mr. EXON. I would like to use that 1 minute, if I might, for a brief 
colloquy between myself and the chairman of the committee. I think we 
can jointly announce some good news. I think we are moving quite well 
here. The amendments I have next, that I think are agreed to on the 
other side--next will be Senator Biden, then Senator Snowe, then 
Senator Dorgan, then Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, and then Senator 
Kerry of Massachusetts.
  I am pleased with the way we are cooperating on both sides and the 
fact the Senators are here, prepared to offer their amendments in a 
timely fashion.
  Is that the schedule for the next amendments, in that order?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I would make sure and confirm on our side that, 
when we have done Senator Gramm of Texas, it is my calculation that we 
will have had 8 of our 10, still leaving us with 2. If that is 
everybody's understanding, then I am perfectly in accord.
  Mr. EXON. It appears to me that is accurate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for just a moment? I did not 
hear the Senator from Nebraska. What was the order of the next 50 
minutes, did he say?
  Mr. EXON. The next amendments, 10 minutes each, equally divided. The 
next will be Senator Biden followed by Senator Snowe followed by 
Senator Dorgan followed by Senator Phil 

[[Page S15812]]

Gramm of Texas followed by Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Biden, from the State of 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                            Motion To Commit

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send a motion 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 Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes a motion to 
     commit with instructions.

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


                   motion to commit with instructions

       Mr. President, I move to commit the bill S. 1357 to the 
     Committee on Finance with instructions that the Committee on 
     Finance report the bill back to the Senate within 3 days (not 
     to include any day the Senate is not in session) with 
     identical language, except that the Committee on Finance 
     shall include a provision in the bill which would provide tax 
     relief to middle-class American families and which would help 
     middle-class families meet the rapidly rising costs of a 
     higher education by providing a tax deduction of up to 
     $10,000 per year for the costs of a college education for 
     individual taxpayers with adjusted gross income of not more 
     than $90,000 and for married couples with adjusted gross 
     incomes of not more than $120,000. The Committee on Finance 
     should also include a provision which offsets the costs of 
     this proposed tax deduction by restricting the growth of tax 
     expenditures, except for the deductions for mortgage 
     interest, health insurance, state and local taxes, and 
     charitable contributions.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this goal is straightforward. It is simple 
and I think consistent with what I heard everyone over the last 2 years 
talk about. We all stand before this body, in both parties--I do not 
question the motivation of anyone in either party--and we always talk 
about the need to give immediate relief to middle-class taxpayers. 
Admittedly, in this bill there is some relief for middle-class 
taxpayers in the tax portion, and that is the $500 child care tax 
credit. I would argue--I will not take the time now--the additional 
cost to middle-class families as a consequence of the cuts in Medicare 
and Medicaid will offset that, but that is a different question.
  One of the things we also talk about is the goal and dream of every 
American family, whether it is the richest businessman or poorest 
welfare mother, and every middle-class family, and that is providing 
for the education for their children.
  Frankly, as the Presiding Officer knows, it is getting harder and 
harder for middle-class families--and I mean that in a broad range, 
people making from $30,000 to $90,000 individually or up to $120,000 as 
a family--to be able to afford a college education. I would like to 
take a look at what is happening here, very quickly, in the limited 
amount of time that I have. This is what has happened since 1980.
  The orange represents the cost of public college tuition. I want to 
make sure we understand now I am talking about State universities. I am 
not talking about private universities, whether the Syracuses or the 
Harvards or the Yales or the Georgetowns of the world, which are a 
great deal more expensive than the cost of public tuition and fees. And 
I am not even talking about room and board. I am not even talking about 
that--just college tuition and fees. Since the 1980's the college 
tuition and fees for public universities have increased 236 percent. 
The median household income in America has gone up 82 percent.
  If you go back to 1980 you can see how every single, solitary year 
the gap is widening, in what I do not know anyone would disagree with 
is the ultimate middle-class dream most American families have, like 
the one my father had, he never went to college: give my son and my 
daughter a college education.
  When I went to school, this gap was not so wide. If you take a look 
at what has happened in terms of, again, income for median families, 
middle-income families, in 1980, 4.5 percent of median household income 
was what it cost to send someone to college. Now that is almost 
doubled, it is 8.4 percent. That is for one child.
  The bottomline is it is getting incredibly difficult for middle-class 
families, or any family to send their child to college. So the result 
is, in 1980, as I said, it took 4.5 percent of the median household 
income to pay for tuition and fees. I am not talking, now, about room 
and board. Today it takes 8.4 percent, almost double, just for tuition 
and fees for a public university.
  Education is one of the best investments we can make in American 
society. I have voted for investment tax credit for businesses. I voted 
for tax credits for them buying machinery and all of those things which 
make sense in my view.
  I can think of nothing that makes more sense than encouraging 
American families to invest in a post-high school education for their 
children. It seems to me it is about time they should get a break.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, this motion to recommit is simple. It 
instructs the Finance Committee to include in the budget reconciliation 
bill a tax deduction of up to $10,000 for the costs of a college 
education.
  Let me tell you why this is important. In my years of public service, 
I have found that no matter what differences may divide us, there is 
always one constant thing that unites us. We all have the same dream.
  Think about it. No matter who you talk to--black or white, rich or 
poor--every American family dreams that their children will go to 
college. It was my dad's dream for his children, and it was, and is, my 
dream for my children. It remains the dream of every middle-class 
American family.
  But, that dream is now at risk. This last summer, a poll was 
conducted of undergraduate students and parents with children in 
college. Of those surveyed, 87 percent--nearly 9 out of every 10 
Americans--believe that the cost of college is rising so fast that it 
will soon be out of reach for most Americans.
  It should be no surprise why the overwhelming majority of Americans 
believe that. At the rate we are going, it is true. It is getting 
harder and harder for middle-class Americans to afford a college 
education.
  It makes you begin to wonder what exactly the word public means when 
you say ``public higher education.''
  A college education is slipping out of reach of middle-class 
Americans. And, if they still want to fulfill the dream, it means that 
more and more young people must borrow more and more money to go to 
college.
  One more statistic--and perhaps the one that boggles my mind the 
most. Of all the money ever borrowed under the Federal Government's 
guaranteed student loan program, 22 percent of it has been borrowed in 
the last 2 years.
  Let me say that again. The guaranteed student loan program has been 
with us for 30 years. And, of all the money borrowed during that time, 
almost one-fourth of it has been borrowed in just the last 2 years.
  We are saddling the next generation with enormous debt before their 
adult lives even begin. And, I am not talking about the abstract terms 
of the Federal debt. No, this is saddling the next generation with 
individual, personal debt.
  When today's college students walk down the aisle at graduation, they 
are handed not only a diploma, but a big i-o-u. And, for too many, it 
is either that, or no college at all.
  So, I have a very simple proposition. We should give a tax deduction 
of up to $10,000 per year for the costs of a college education. Under 
my motion to recommit, this tax deduction would be limited to single 
taxpayers with incomes under $90,000 and to married couples with 
incomes under $120,000. And, it would be paid for by limiting the 
growth--not cutting, just limiting the growth--in tax expenditures.
  Mr. President, education is one of the best investments we as a 
society can make. It is one of the best measurements of future economic 
well-being. And, it is more important now than ever before. Previous 
generations could make a solid middle-class living with only a high 
school education. No more.
  In fact, there was an interesting point made in a Wall Street Journal 
article last week. Working families save primarily by investing in 
human capital--that is, education.
  Yet, when businesses invest in machine capital, they are not taxed. 
Middle-class families, when they invest in 

[[Page S15813]]

education, are taxed to the hilt. Education is treated as consumption, 
not investment.
  And, as a Nobel Prize economist once put it, the tax code treats 
machines better than it does people.
  It is time for that to change.
  From the establishment of the land-grant university system in the 
late 1800's to the GI bill at the end of World War II to the creation 
of the Pell Grant and Guaranteed Student Loan programs in the 1960s, 
the Federal Government has been committed to seeing that young people 
desiring to go to college would not be turned away because of the cost. 
It was a national goal to see a college education within reach of every 
American.
  Now, as that goal begins to slip out of reach for many middle-class 
families, it is time to renew our commitment to ensuring access to a 
college education for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support 
this proposal.
  I reserve the remainder of my time if I have any.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I regrettably disagree with my friend 
from Delaware. Actually, to pick out two of the many tax expenditures, 
that is, two mortgage deductions--that is a very large one--and health 
insurance and freeze all the rest seems to me totally unreasonable. Let 
me just go through a couple.
  We are freezing pension contributions. That is one of the largest tax 
expenditures we have, and we think it is fair. Education that employees 
get from their corporations, you would freeze that deduction. The R&D 
tax credits for American corporations. The one thing they have asked 
for is that they get to deduct in a special way the research and 
development costs of their business, something needed to keep them 
competitive. Arbitrarily we decide those are all frozen so that we can 
provide this special tax treatment for those people with children going 
to college.
  Now, we would like to do that. We would like to do a lot of things, 
but, frankly, to take the tax code and say all these other provisions 
that are good for our country, we just decide to freeze them so we can 
do that, in light of the fact that we have provided significant 
assistance to middle-income Americans--in this bill, there is a credit 
for student loan interest, a credit for 20 percent of the interest paid 
on the student loan during the taxable year if the taxpayer has an 
adjusted gross income of $40,000 to $50,000 as a single taxpayer, 
$60,000 to $75,000 as a couple--it is capped at $500 per year per 
borrower, $1,000 per return--that is pretty fair. With all the other 
things we are trying to do, it seems to me we ought to in a more 
orderly way look at such things as the pension deductions and the 
expenditures for education that employers give to employees, and many 
other good tax expenditures that are out there right now working for 
Americans.
  So at the right time, I will move to table the amendment, but for now 
I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 53 
seconds.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know my friend has put a whole flock of 
kids through college, and so I know his commitment to college.
  Let me just say very briefly my amendment restricts the growth of tax 
expenditures in those areas. It does not in fact freeze them.
  No. 2, tell middle-class taxpayers that R&D is more important for 
corporations, which I support, than freezing--even if you were to 
freeze--than it is to be able to send their kid to college. Ask the 
average middle-class American taxpayer what is a better investment. Who 
is going to do the R&D if we do not get these kids to college?
  Lastly, I say to my friend, the $500 cap on student loan interest is 
worthwhile and is necessary but it does not compare to $10,000 that a 
middle-class family would be able to deduct. They need help now. They 
need help now, Mr. President, and this is the most direct and immediate 
way to do it.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think it returns to our side and 
Senator Snowe has an amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. EXON. Before Senator Snowe is recognized, to expedite things, 
when Senator Snowe finishes, I yield half of our 5 minutes to the 
Senator from West Virginia, who I understand also supports it.
  I reserve the other half of the time in case any opposition surfaces.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 2976

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the coverage of 
        treatment for breast and prostate cancer under Medicare)

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

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe], for herself, Mr. 
     D'Amato, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Biden, Mr. Mack, Mrs. Hutchison, and 
     Mr. Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 2976.

  Ms. SNOWE. 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 606, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 7058. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING COVERAGE FOR TREATMENT 
                   OF BREAST AND PROSTATE CANCER UNDER MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) breast and prostate cancer each strike about 200,000 
     persons annually, and each claims the lives of over 40,000 
     annually;
       (2) medicare covers treatments of breast and prostate 
     cancer including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation 
     therapy;
       (3) the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA) 
     expanded medicare to cover self-administered chemotherapeutic 
     oral-cancer drugs which have the same active ingredients as 
     drugs previously available in injectable or intravenous form;
       (4) half of all women with breast cancer, and thousands of 
     men with prostate cancer which has spread beyond the 
     prostate, need hormonal therapy administered through oral 
     cancer drugs which have never been available in injectable or 
     intravenous form; and
       (5) medicare's failure to cover oral cancer drugs for 
     hormonal therapy makes the covered treatments less effective.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     medicare should not discriminate among breast and prostate 
     cancer victims by providing drug treatment coverage for some 
     but not all such cancers, and that the budget reconciliation 
     conferees should amend medicare to provide coverage for these 
     important cancer drug treatments.

  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair.
  I am offering this amendment in conjunction with Senators D'Amato, 
Shelby, Biden, Mack, Hutchison, and Gramm that expresses the sense-of-
the-Senate that the budget reconciliation conferees should amend 
Medicare to provide coverage for certain oral cancer drugs that are of 
enormous benefit to breast and prostate cancer victims. Currently, 
Medicare discriminates among breast and prostate cancer victims by 
providing certain drug treatment coverage for some but not all such 
cancers.
  Back in 1993, when Congress expanded Medicare to help pay for the 
diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, gaps in coverage were 
inadvertently created which denied coverage for certain oral cancer 
drugs. This is because in 1993, the Medicare OBRA provisions allowed 
the coverage of oral cancer drugs that were previously available in 
injectable or intravenous form.
  However, half of all women with breast cancer, that is, 50 percent, 
and thousands of men with prostate cancer which has spread beyond the 
prostate, need hormonal therapy that is administered through oral 
cancer drugs that have never been available in injectable or 
intravenous form.
  Let us consider the potential benefit of covering these oral 
estrogen-based cancer drugs for elderly populations.
  Breast cancer and prostate cancers are very similar. First, both 
diseases strike approximately 200,000 Americans per year.
  Second, both diseases take over 40,000 lives each year. While breast 
cancer affects 1 in 9 women, prostate cancer affects 1 in 11 men every 
year, and for both diseases the number of reported cases is rising 
rapidly. In fact, the number of reported cases of prostate 

[[Page S15814]]

cancer is increasing to an alarming degree, an expected 90 percent 
increase between 1983 and the year 2000.
  Finally, these diseases are prevalent among women and men whose age 
makes them eligible for Medicare.
  The Congressional Budget Office's preliminary analysis revealed the 
coverage of the breast cancer portion of this amendment at a savings of 
$156 million over 7 years.
  So I am asking, Mr. President, that we support this resolution 
because I think it is the next logical step in fighting both breast 
cancer and prostate cancer. It does not make sense that we do not 
provide coverage for the next generation of drug treatment for both 
prostate and breast cancer treatment. It will save money in the long 
run under Medicare, and it certainly will make it easier to be 
administered to those patients, especially those who live in rural 
areas because it is an oral type of drug rather than having to be 
administered in outpatient or in inpatient facilities.
  In 1991, Congress made a significant investment under the Medicare 
provisions for breast cancer screening. It only makes sense then to 
provide this kind of extensive coverage with the new kinds of drugs 
that are coming on the market that will be reimbursed under the 
Medicare system. By denying coverage for treatment to half the 
population of breast cancer patients, we are not taking full advantage 
of the investment that Congress has already made.
  In 1994 alone, Medicare will have spent an estimated $640 million on 
breast cancer treatment. Yet, here we find that Medicare will not cover 
some of the treatments that could be provided for women because they do 
not reimburse an oral form of drug. In this case, for example, it is 
tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is a new drug on the market for the treatment of 
breast cancers at certain stages and yet because it was not available 
in intravenous or injectable form it cannot be reimbursed under the 
Medicare system because it is an oral drug. I do not think it makes 
sense. It certainly does not make sense for the future. It does not 
make sense for the lives and the health of the individuals who are 
victims of breast or prostate cancer.
  So I would urge that the Senate go on record in preventing the 
recurrence of breast and prostate cancer by advocating that Medicare 
reimburse for such coverage.
  Mr. President, I would ask for the yeas and nays, and I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include Senator 
Cohen, of Maine, as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 10 seconds to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I wish to thank my 
colleague from Maine. As an original cosponsor of her amendment, I 
would like to point out two things very quickly.
  One, this was an oversight in the first place. It was never intended 
that this drug should not be covered. And No. 2, it is vitally 
important to the health and safety of millions of Americans. I think it 
is a good amendment, and I am glad she is introducing it.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, let me put this in two forms. One is, 
I think this amendment has a virtuous purpose, and I will support it. 
It is a wish. It is just simply a wish. That is why it is put in the 
form of a sense of the Senate. We are hoping that the reconciliation 
conferees will approve Medicare. I support it. In fact, I worked on 
matters of this oral use of cancer pills and other things in the past.
  But I would be very surprised, quite frankly, if we can in Medicare 
buy a single new aspirin, much less prostate cancer and breast cancer 
remedies, under the $270 billion cut which the underlying bill of the 
majority contemplates, let alone any more coverage whatsoever for 
cancer. And I think that Senator Snowe understands that, making this, 
therefore, a sense of the Senate.
  Keep in mind, please, my colleagues, that we are cutting $270 
billion. We were devastating everything from graduate medical education 
to rural hospitals, to premiums, to original research in any area. You 
are going to find a lot of people--in fact, I notice our colleague from 
Massachusetts coming in--you will find a lot of people not going into 
research medicine to come up with new cures for prostate cancer or 
breast cancer because of what is happening to graduate medical 
institutions.
  But all we had to do to get this amendment and to be able to pass 
this amendment was, in fact, to do what the Democrats wanted to do, 
which was simply cut $89 billion from Medicare. But, no, they wanted to 
cut $270 billion in order to be able to----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator has used his 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The Senator from Nebraska controls the time.
  Mr. EXON. I will be glad to yield--has the Senator finished? Does the 
Senator need more time?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. One minute.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Medicare, let us face it, has been put on the 
chopping block. These are huge, huge cuts that are going to be made in 
the next 7 years that our people have absolutely no concept of. And 
here we are talking about adding on services. I am for that. I am for 
Senator Snowe. She is an excellent Senator, and her sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution is excellent and it should be supported.
  But the division on the one hand of the virtue of that purpose and 
the utter devastation of Medicare is a very awkward coupling, to say 
the very least. I hope and pray Medicare can do more for breast cancer, 
for prostate cancer, but I will guarantee you it cannot so long as we 
are cutting $270 billion out of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, since no others are seeking time, I will be 
glad to yield back our time.
  Is there any time on this side?
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include Senator 
Jeffords as a cosponsor of this amendment, and I will yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Has all time been yielded back on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not all time has been yielded back yet.
  Mr. EXON. May I request all time be yielded back? I yield back our 
time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator yield back all his?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine yields back. All time 
is yielded back.
  Mr. EXON. I believe the next order of business would be an amendment 
offered by Senator Dorgan of North Dakota.
  I yield 5 minutes to him at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2977

 (Purpose: To end deferral for United States shareholders on income of 
controlled foreign corporations attributable to property imported into 
                           the United States)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Feingold and Mr. Bumpers, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2977.

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

       At the end of chapter 1 of subtitle I of title XII, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 2. TAXATION OF INCOME OF CONTROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS 
                   ATTRIBUTABLE TO IMPORTED PROPERTY.

       (a) General Rule.--Subsection (a) of section 954 (defining 
     foreign base company income) is amended by striking ``and'' 
     at the end of paragraph (4), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (5) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:

[[Page S15815]]

       ``(6) imported property income for the taxable year 
     (determined under subsection (h) and reduced as provided in 
     subsection (b)(5)).''
       (b) Definition of Imported Property Income.--Section 954 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Imported Property Income.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(6), the 
     term `imported property income' means income (whether in the 
     form of profits, commissions, fees, or otherwise) derived in 
     connection with--
       ``(A) manufacturing, producing, growing, or extracting 
     imported property,
       ``(B) the sale, exchange, or other disposition of imported 
     property, or
       ``(C) the lease, rental, or licensing of imported property.
     Such term shall not include any foreign oil and gas 
     extraction income (within the meaning of section 907(c)) or 
     any foreign oil related income (within the meaning of section 
     907(c)).
       ``(2) Imported property.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     paragraph, the term `imported property' means property which 
     is imported into the United States by the controlled foreign 
     corporation or a related person.
       ``(B) Imported property includes certain property imported 
     by unrelated persons.--The term `imported property' includes 
     any property imported into the United States by an unrelated 
     person if, when such property was sold to the unrelated 
     person by the controlled foreign corporation (or a related 
     person), it was reasonable to expect that--
       ``(i) such property would be imported into the United 
     States, or
       ``(ii) such property would be used as a component in other 
     property which would be imported into the United States.
       ``(C) Exception for property subsequently exported.--The 
     term `imported property' does not include any property which 
     is imported into the United States and which--
       ``(i) before substantial use in the United States, is sold, 
     leased, or rented by the controlled foreign corporation or a 
     related person for direct use, consumption, or disposition 
     outside the United States, or
       ``(ii) is used by the controlled foreign corporation or a 
     related person as a component in other property which is so 
     sold, leased, or rented.
       ``(3) Definitions and special rules.--
       ``(A) Import.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `import' means entering, or withdrawal from warehouse, for 
     consumption or use. Such term includes any grant of the right 
     to use an intangible (as defined in section 936(b)(3)(B)) in 
     the United States.
       ``(B) Unrelated person.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `unrelated person' means any person who is not a 
     related person with respect to the controlled foreign 
     corporation.
       ``(C) Coordination with foreign base company sales 
     income.--For purposes of this section, the term `foreign base 
     company sales income' shall not include any imported property 
     income.''
       (c) Separate Application of Limitations on Foreign Tax 
     Credit for Imported Property Income.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 904(d) (relating 
     to separate application of section with respect to certain 
     categories of income) is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
     end of subparagraph (H), by redesignating subparagraph (I) as 
     subparagraph (J), and by inserting after subparagraph (H) the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(I) imported property income, and''.
       (2) Imported property income defined.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 904(d) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (H) 
     and (I) as subparagraphs (I) and (J), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(H) Imported property income.--The term `imported 
     property income' means any income received or accrued by any 
     person which is of a kind which would be imported property 
     income (as defined in section 954(h)).''
       (3) Look-thru rules to apply.--Subparagraph (F) of section 
     904(d)(3) is amended by striking ``or (E)'' and inserting 
     ``(E), or (H)''.
       (d) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Clause (iii) of section 952(c)(1)(B) (relating to 
     certain prior year deficits may be taken into account) is 
     amended by inserting the following subclause after subclause 
     (II) (and by redesignating the following subclauses 
     accordingly):
       ``(III) imported property income,''.
       (2) Paragraph (5) of section 954(b) (relating to deductions 
     to be taken into account) is amended by striking ``and the 
     foreign base company oil related income'' and inserting ``the 
     foreign base company oil related income, and the imported 
     property income''.
       (e) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     of foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 1995, 
     and to taxable years of United States shareholders within 
     which or with which such taxable years of such foreign 
     corporations end.
       (2) Subsection (c).--The amendments made by subsection (c) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.

  Mr. DORGAN. This is a very important amendment. It is one that 
actually has previously been passed by the House of Representatives a 
few years ago. My amendment simply ends something called ``deferral'' 
for someone who closes their plant in the United States, moves it to a 
tax haven country, makes the same product and ships it back to the 
United States. This is about moving jobs overseas.
  We have had a circumstance in this country for some while where we 
say to somebody, ``If you close your manufacturing plant in America, 
move the jobs overseas, make the same product, ship it back to the 
United States, we will give you a tax break. Stay here and you pay 
income taxes. Move your jobs overseas and do your manufacturing 
overseas, we will give you a tax break.''
  We have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs during the same time that 
Singapore has experienced a 46-percent increase in manufacturing jobs. 
That is not a coincidence. We give a tax break for people to ship their 
jobs overseas.
  Let me give you an example of that. Here is a company that I will not 
identify. I will just tell you it makes pants, a pants company. This 
company had 280 of its employees apply for trade adjustment assistance 
a few months ago.
  What does that mean? It means they lost their jobs because of 
overseas competition. The same company, whose employees now have lost 
their jobs here in this country, same company, describes with its 
filings what it does, performs most of its sewing and finishing now 
offshore in order to keep production costs low. It means they have 
moved their jobs out of this country.
  Then it says in its financial reports, this same company has 
undistributed retained earnings of $21 million, November 1994. No tax 
has been paid on them because the management intends to indefinitely 
reinvest them in foreign countries.
  What does this mean? It means they get a tax break. They would have 
paid $7 million in taxes had they stayed in this country and 
manufactured. But, no, we say to them, ``If you move your operation 
outside of this country, move your American jobs elsewhere, give the 
jobs to foreigners, shut your plant down here and move your jobs 
overseas, we'll give you a tax break.''
  My legislation is very simple. It says, end the tax break for people 
who want to move their jobs overseas. End the tax break. It does not 
make any sense. No one, in my judgment, can honestly defend this kind 
of practice.
  Use the money that we develop as a result of this amendment to reduce 
the Federal debt. That is what this amendment is about.
  This amendment I offer on behalf of myself and Senators Kennedy, 
Reid, Feingold, and Bumpers.
  I have heard a lot of debate about a lot of financial issues, but I 
never heard anyone in this country who can defend a part of the Tax 
Code that says, ``We will be willing to provide a tax break if you will 
only close your doors to your manufacturing plant in the U.S.A. and 
ship the jobs to some foreign land.''
  If we cannot end this sort of thing, how can we talk to the American 
people about good jobs? Sixty percent of the families in this country 
now have less income than they did 20 years ago. Why? Because good jobs 
are moving overseas. There are a lot of reasons for that, but at least 
one of those reasons is we have an insidious, perverse incentive in our 
Tax Code to reward those with a tax break who would move their jobs 
overseas.
  This amendment very simply says, ``Let's at least stop that. Let's 
decide jobs in this country are important. We want to retain good jobs, 
good-paying jobs, manufacturing jobs. Let's stop the flight of American 
jobs out of America.'' And one way to do that, among many others, is to 
decide to straighten out the Tax Code.
  The fact is, President Clinton during the last campaign talked about 
this issue. We have had people on all sides of the political aisle talk 
about it. I was helpful in getting this passed through the House of 
Representatives in 1987, I believe it was. It subsequently was dropped. 
It was subsequently dropped in conference. This bill had extensive 
hearings. I held a hearing on this bill in the U.S. Senate. So this 
bill meets the criteria. We understand what this is about. This 
amendment makes sense. I hope that this amendment will have the support 
of Members of the 

[[Page S15816]]

Senate. This makes good sense for our country.
  Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield such time as he may need to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
proposed by Senator Dorgan. In doing so, let me say at the beginning, I 
am not happy with companies that move abroad to a tax haven or cheap 
labor for the purpose of manufacturing products that are sold back to 
the United States. None of us can be happy with the export of American 
jobs.
  At the same time it is important to understand that we are in the 
global economy and that if we are to provide well-paying, good jobs for 
our people, it is important that we become a vital force in the global 
economy that is now emerging. The United States must become competitive 
in this global economy.
  My concern with the Dorgan amendment is that in hearings held before 
the Finance Committee in the past, Treasury has testified that this 
kind of legislation is very difficult to administer.
  It has been pointed out, for example, what do you do in the case of a 
plant that sells both to the United States and to other companies 
abroad? Obviously, we want to encourage American business to compete in 
foreign markets, but would that company be entitled to the deferral, or 
how would you administer it?
  Let me say that it is my intent, upon the completion of 
reconciliation, to look at a number of these important and complex 
international trade questions. We have purposely avoided in this 
reconciliation containing any amendments or provisions dealing with 
foreign trade or international matters. And as I have indicated, one of 
our reasons for taking this approach is that this is a matter of 
extreme complexity, of greatest importance to our economy and the 
creation of jobs in America. For that reason, we have not, as I said, 
included any provisions involving international trade matters in this 
legislation. For that reason, the Dorgan amendment is not appropriate 
as part of this legislation.
  Again, let me say that it is my intent as chairman of the Finance 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade, that we will be holding a 
series of hearings dealing with the kind of problems that are raised by 
this amendment. But until we have a better idea of how to address this 
problem so that we do not, in the process of trying to correct one 
problem of people fleeing abroad to tax havens that sell back here, 
that we do not hurt those who are going abroad for a legitimate 
purpose, to become competitive in international markets.
  So, for these reasons, I must respectfully disagree with this 
amendment. I yield back any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we do not need to study this; we need to 
stop it. Anybody who thinks that a tax break for moving American jobs 
overseas is good for this country probably thinks Elvis is living in a 
trailer park in St. Louis.
  Nobody I know believes it is good tax policy to spend $2.2 billion in 
the next 7 years encouraging companies to shut their doors here and 
move their jobs overseas. What kind of nonsense is this? If we cannot 
support an amendment like this, we ought to turn off the lights and 
lock the door in this place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Michigan has 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. We yield back the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. At this time, I believe the next item in order will be 
the amendment of the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2978

  (Purpose: To provide States additional flexibility in providing for 
                        Medicaid beneficiaries)

  Mr. GRAMM. 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 Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2978.
       On page 767, strike all after ``(2)'' on line 6 through 
     ``(4)'' on line 16.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield for one 
moment? After the Senator has made his presentation, I yield 5 minutes 
to Senator Rockefeller in opposition to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the whole logic of block granting Medicaid 
so that States could run the Medicaid Program with less money than if 
we had kept it as an entitlement is a belief that States can run the 
program better. In fact, both Democratic and Republican Governors have 
come to the national capital and said to us: ``If you will let us run 
Medicaid, we will provide better health care and we will do it cheaper 
and we will share the savings with you.''
  On a bipartisan basis, they have supported our efforts to block grant 
Medicaid to the States, the logic being that States are capable of 
making decisions about running Medicaid, the logic being that the 
Governor and the legislature of the various States love people who 
receive benefits from Medicaid in their State at least as much as we 
do. They know those people more intimately than we do, and, obviously, 
those people are capable of putting them out of office directly, 
whereas they may not be able to vote against a Senator from another 
State.
  In the markup in the Finance Committee before I became a member, an 
amendment was added that created a new entitlement. This is an 
entitlement imposed upon the States. The entitlement basically says 
that while we are giving States the ability to run Medicaid, that we 
are going to intervene at the Federal level and mandate that no matter 
how they structure their programs they have to provide three 
entitlements. Specifically they are told by us that there are three 
groups of people that they must cover.
  There are groups that we would not want to cover; there are groups 
that the States would cover. But every Governor I know is outraged 
about this provision that mandates a State-mandated program for 
pregnant women, for children under the age of 12, and for disabled 
individuals.
  The point is this: Not that anyone wants to deny service to pregnant 
women or children under 12 or disabled people, but who are we in 
Washington to decide how the States are going to run this program? Is 
it not the ultimate arrogance for Washington to believe that only we 
care about pregnant women, that only we care about children under 12, 
that only we care about the disabled, and if we let the uncaring 
Governors, if we let the uncaring legislators run their program in 
their State, they are not going to take care of their own people?
  I totally and absolutely reject this. This amendment flies in the 
face of everything we are trying to do in Medicare, everything that my 
party stands for, and I think this Big Brother Washington approach has 
to end.
  I do not believe we are going to strip this rotten amendment out of 
this bill, but I want to have a vote on it. The whole logic of the 
Medicaid reform is we are going to let the local leaders who know their 
people best and who care the most make the decisions. The idea that we 
are creating a new entitlement and we are imposing it on the States, 
and now in a new provision we are going to, in essence, let people go 
into Federal court and sue the States on these issues, I think that 
clearly is a retreat from what we promised the States when we gave them 
less money to let them run the program, and I reserve whatever seconds 
may remain on my time.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this amendment should absolutely be 

[[Page S15817]]

defeated on both sides. It has this wonderful kind of a kind-hearted 
title to it. It talks about ``flexibility.'' The purpose is, of course, 
to get rid of all of this. If the Senator wants to have a vote on 
getting rid of Medicaid or getting rid of care for pregnant women, for 
children under the age of 12, or the disabled, why does he not suggest 
that?
  We have been through this so many times before. ``Let the States 
decide what being disabled means.'' So then you have 50 different ideas 
of what a disabled person is, and it is complete chaos. I really do 
believe this is a country which has not given up on the idea that if a 
child is sick, no matter what its family's income is, that the child 
should get care. If a poor person is ill, or needs a test because 
something is desperately wrong and nobody knows what it is, America is 
the kind of country where you should be able to get that test without 
worrying about something called ``flexibility.''
  I believe that health care is about giving people the opportunity to 
grow up to be what they really want to be. Health care is an enormous 
part of that. This Senator, in what appears to be a ``kind'' amendment, 
but what is really, in the judgment of this Senator, a very mean-
spirited amendment, would just get as far away from doing anything for 
pregnant women and children and the disabled as the Senator possibly 
could. It is an amendment which should be absolutely crushed.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas says this is a new 
entitlement. Let us look at what the present law is. The present law 
mandates that, in every State of the Nation, the State must provide 
Medicaid coverage for every child 5 and under up to 133 percent of 
poverty, and for those over the age of 5, it is up to age 12 and lower, 
to 100 percent of poverty; and that increases it by a year each year so 
that by 2002, every child up to the age of 18 will be mandated 
coverage. So this is no new entitlement.
  Second, the Senator from Texas says, ``What arrogance for us to say 
to these States they must cover children up through the age of 12, 100 
percent of poverty and below. What right have we to levy such a mandate 
on the States?'' What he fails to mention is that we are sending the 
States $800 billion over the next 7 years--not million, but billion, 
with a ``b.''
  When you send out money like that to the States, it seems to me you 
are entitled to ask for something. What do we ask for? We say they must 
cover poor children, 100 percent of poverty, up through the age of 12. 
Do we say what kinds of coverage, what the health care package is? No. 
It could be the most modest package. Indeed, one aspirin a year could 
be the health care package.
  So to say this is arrogance, when we demand that the States cover 
this little group, come on now. I thought this was being offered with a 
sense of humor, but I see the Senator is serious about this.
  So, Mr. President, I hope this amendment is resoundingly defeated 
because we have to stand for something around this place. When we send 
out $800 billion, we are entitled to ask for something on behalf of the 
States' poor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 23 seconds. 
The Senator from Texas has 48 seconds.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield back my time.
  Mr. GRAMM. I want to conclude the debate.
  Mr. President, we are reducing funding for the existing Medicaid 
Program by $187 billion. The Governors agreed to this reduction. But on 
one basic part of the agreement, they asked that if we were going to 
reduce funding that we let them run their program, which they are 
funding in conjunction with us.
  Now what is happening is the Senator from West Virginia and the 
Senator from Rhode Island are saying, OK, we are giving you less money, 
but we are going to tell you how you have to run this program. As for 
this talk of ``getting rid of Medicaid''--nobody is talking about 
getting rid of Medicaid. And ``mean spirited''--I flatly reject the 
notion that the Senator from West Virginia loves the children in Texas 
or Rhode Island more than the Governor of Texas and the Governor of 
Rhode Island loves the children in their own States.
  The tide of history is moving against the ``Washington knows best'' 
policies advanced by the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator 
from Rhode Island, and this provision may stick today, but its days are 
numbered. We have to stop telling the States how to run programs in 
their own jurisdiction, based on our own arrogance that only we know 
best and only we care.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. I believe, under the agreement, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry is next. I yield to him 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2979

            (Purpose: To increase the Federal minimum wage)

  Mr. KERRY. 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 Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] for himself and 
     Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 2979.
       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC.  . MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) Findings.--
       ``(1) The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 
     1991; and
       ``(2) The value of the minimum wage, after being adjusted 
     for the bite of inflation, is at its second lowest annual 
     level since 1955, with purchasing power 26 percent below its 
     average level during the 1970s and 35 percent below its peak 
     value in 1968, and unless it is increased it will in 1996 
     have its lowest value in over 40 years; and
       ``(3) The value of the minimum wage as a percentage of the 
     average nonsupervisory wage averaged 52.2 percent during the 
     decade of the 1960s, 45.8 percent during the decade of the 
     1970s, 40.4 percent during the decade of the 1980s, and 
     currently is 37.7 percent; and
       ``(4) The minimum wage earned by a full-time worker over a 
     year fails to provide sufficient income for a family of three 
     to provide that family a standard of living even reaching the 
     national poverty level, and, in fact, provides an income that 
     equals only 70 percent of the federal poverty level for a 
     family of three; and
       ``(5) There are 4.7 million Americans who usually work 
     full-time but who are, nevertheless, in poverty, and 4.2 
     million families live in poverty despite having one or more 
     members in the labor force for at least half the year: and
       ``(6) Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults, 
     and 60 percent are women; and
       ``(7) The decline in the value of the minimum wage since 
     1979 has contributed to Americans' growing income disparity 
     and to the fact that 97 percent of the growth in household 
     income has accrued to the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans 
     during this period; and
       ``(8) The effects of the minimum wage are not felt only 
     among the lowest income workers and families but also are 
     felt in many middle-income families; and
       ``(9) The preponderance of evidence from economic studies 
     of the effects of increases in federal and state minimum 
     wages (including studies of state minimum wage increases in 
     California and New Jersey) at the end of the 1980s and in the 
     early 1990s suggests that the negative employment effects of 
     such increases were slight to nonexistent; and
       ``(10) Legislation to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 an 
     hour was introduced on February 14, 1995, but has not been 
     debated by the Senate--
       ``Now, therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     Senate should debate and vote on whether to raise the minimum 
     wage before the end of the first session of the 104th 
     Congress.''

  Mr. KERRY. I yield myself 3 minutes, Mr. President. I emphasize that 
this is a sense of the Senate, No. 1; and, No. 2, it does not set a 
specific figure at this time, though many of us would like to.
  It simply says that the Senate will go on record as being prepared to 
debate and vote on the raising of the minimum wage, which was 
introduced last February, that we will vote on it before the end of 
this first session.
  Why is that important, Mr. President? Well, from 1979 until 1995, 79 
percent of the increase in household income in America has gone to the 
top 20 percent--the 20 percent wealthiest Americans. The minimum wage 
which, during the 1960's, was at about 52 percent of the nonsupervisory 
wage, and during the 1970's was at about 45 percent, and during the 
1980's was at about 40 percent, is today at 37 percent of the 
nonsupervisory wage.
  That means, Mr. President, that for those two-thirds of the people on 
the 

[[Page S15818]]

minimum wage who are adults--60 percent women--they are working at 70 
percent of poverty level in this country today--70 percent of poverty 
level. Now, the whole theory of this country for years was based on the 
notion that we would value work, and if people went to work they would 
be able to break out of poverty. During the 1960's and 1970's, we 
respected that by keeping the minimum wage commensurate with the 
poverty level.
  But ever since 1991, where we only caught up to a small percentage of 
the decrease of the prior 9 years, when there was no increase, we have 
had another 13 percent decline in the value of the purchasing power of 
the wage. So the wage, today, has a 26-percent purchasing power of what 
it had previously, and it is about to be at a 40-year low. In over 40 
years, by 1996, if we do not change the minimum wage, it will never 
have been so low.
  Mr. President, if you are going to be pro-family, if you are going to 
be pro-work, if you are going to be pro-community, you have to respect 
the notion that somebody ought to be able to take home a decent wage 
for an hour's work and for a week's work. The fact is, Mr. President, 
that under the current constraints, it is impossible for people to be 
able to do that, and we must go on record as really being pro-family, 
in an effort to try help them. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with my colleague in urging the 
Senate to accept the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Members can wonder 
why this is appropriate. Included in the legislation is the earned 
income tax credit, which is a program to try to provide some relief for 
the working poor. That program helps to provide assistance, 
particularly with heads of households who have children.
  The minimum wage is for those families that do not have many 
children. The minimum wage provides the greatest advantage for the 
single heads of household.
  This amendment is prochildren because 70 percent of those that work 
full-time have children in their families. This amendment is for women, 
working women, because 60 percent of all minimum wage earners are 
working women.
  This is for full-time workers, Mr. President. Sixty-six percent of 
all minimum wage recipients are full-time workers.
  Once again, if we care about children, if we care about working 
women, if we care about making work pay in America, we will support 
this amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 5 minutes 
remaining and the Senator from Massachusetts has \1/2\ minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my time.
  Mr. KERRY. The minimum wage worker today will earn $8,500 for full-
time work. The poverty line is $12,500. Every economist, conservatives 
and liberals alike--at Harvard, and Friedman, say you have to have a 
combination of the earned income tax credit and the minimum wage to 
truly permit people to break out of poverty.
  We can do this, as every study shows, without losing jobs--in fact, 
as New Jersey showed, creating further employment.
  I hope my colleagues will go on record as being willing simply to 
debate and vote on this issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator from New Mexico in his typical gracious 
and wonderful way be willing to give me 15 seconds?
  Mr. DOMENICI. As the evening passes, I am getting less and less 
gracious.
  I ask Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, did he mention a great 
economist from the University of Chicago in his wrap-up?
  Mr. KERRY. I did not mean to. I meant to mention the one from 
Harvard.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It was not Friedman from Chicago?
  Mr. KERRY. No.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Because he does not think this works at all. He thinks 
this makes for more people--I do not have any time left and we will get 
on with a vote.
  Mr. KERRY. There are 101 economists and 3 Nobel laureates, and 7 past 
presidents of the Economic Association who endorse this increase.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 2980

           (Purpose: To make technical amendments to title V)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President I have an amendment on behalf of the 
Energy Committee, for Senator Murkowski, the chairman, and Senator 
Johnston, the ranking member. It is a technical amendment that will 
correct the reconciliation statute that the Energy Committee passed. I 
believe it is acceptable.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. 
     Murkowski, for himself, and Mr. Johnston proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2980.

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

       (1) On page 304, line 20, delete ``follows:'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``follows (except that all amounts in excess of 
     $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 and all amounts in fiscal 
     year 2004 shall not be available for obligation until fiscal 
     year 2006):''.
       (2) On page 361, line 7, delete ``thereafter,'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``thereafter, except for fiscal years 2003 
     and 2004,''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Am I correct, I say to the whip, is this acceptable?
  Mr. FORD. I do not know. I have not seen it. Apparently, the Budget 
Committee ranking member is willing to accept it.
  Mr. EXON. We have no objection. I agree to accept the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my time.
  Mr. EXON. I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it appropriate under the unanimous consent that we 
adopt this amendment, or must we hold it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is a unanimous consent agreement to 
adopt the amendment, that may be done.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we should keep it going. It is the ninth 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will put it in the sequence in this particular 
position.
  Mr. EXON. According to my list we have Senator Kennedy next.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have one amendment remaining.
  I want to state to the distinguished ranking member, Senator Exon, 
the majority leader requests that we do some of your amendments, giving 
us additional time. They are not yet finished in terms of drafting. It 
must be one with at least 5 minutes on a side.
  Could you proceed to the Kennedy-Wellstone-Pryor and reserve our one 
remaining?
  Mr. EXON. That sounds reasonable.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If we come in perhaps after 30 minutes and are ready, 
we could intervene.
  Mr. EXON. I see nothing wrong with that. We can move on to the 
Kennedy amendment, the next amendment on my list. I yield 5 minutes to 
Senator Kennedy.


                           Amendment No. 2981

   (Purpose: To strike the provision allowing the transfer of excess 
                            pension assets)

  Mr. KENNEDY. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself and 
the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself 
     and Mrs. Kassebaum, proposes an amendment numbered 2981.
       Strike section 12807.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. President, this proposal allows corporations to remove money from 
pension plans and use it for nonretirement purposes. That particular 
proposal is included in the Republican measure that is now before the 
U.S. Senate.
  The Republican budget, therefore, hits older Americans not once but 
twice. The Medicare cuts are an outrage and so is the raid on workers' 
pensions. No one can claim they are saving 

[[Page S15819]]

the pension system. The pension system is not broken. We have no right 
to give away $20 billion of pension funds that do not belong to us and 
do not belong to the Federal Government.
  The $20 billion that the Republican budget gives away belongs to 
workers and retirees who have given up wages to have that money 
contributed to their pensions. The bill is an invitation to corporate 
raiders and greedy executives to loot the pension plans of their 
workers and retirees.
  What looks like overfunding today can be underfunding tomorrow. The 
Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, put it well several years ago 
when she said, ``If stocks and bonds drop in value, as they will at 
some point, these surpluses could evaporate like the morning mist.''
  The history of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation over the past 
20 years makes it clear that today's well-funded company can become 
tomorrow's massive pension bankruptcy.
  Congress should be worried about plan underfunding, not how to give 
away surplus assets that have been built up for retirees. The danger of 
underfunded plans is what Congress ought to be addressing.
  We passed the Pension Protection Act last year to strengthen pension 
funding. It makes no sense to turn around a year later and weaken 
pension funds in a way that puts both retirees and taxpayers at risk.
  This issue presents a stark choice about who we represent here in the 
Senate. Which side are we on? Are we on the side of the workers and 
retirees who struggle to find some economic security in their old age? 
Or on the side of the wheeler dealers, corporate raiders, and the super 
rich? I want the Senators to say no to this raid on retirees and defeat 
this unconscionable attack on the pension funds.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments this 
afternoon to discuss a provision in the reconciliation package that has 
attracted relatively little attention to this point.
  As many of my colleagues know, the House reconciliation bill includes 
a measure designed to generate approximately $10 billion in tax revenue 
by doing away with penalties Congress imposed in 1990 on pension fund 
withdrawals. The House proposal generally allows companies to take 
money from pension plans that are more than 125 percent funded and use 
those funds for any purpose, without informing their workers.
  In response to a wave of corporate takeovers and pension raids in the 
1980's, Congress in 1990 imposed an 50-percent excise tax on pension 
fund reversions, except in limited circumstances. The idea was to make 
it costly for companies to take assets from their pension plans. And, 
in fact, the raids on assets ceased almost entirely. Before this 
change, however, about $20 billion was siphoned from pension funds in 
just a few years, many pension plans were terminated, and thousands of 
workers saw their pensions replaced by risky annuities that provided 
lower benefits.
  The reconciliation package before us includes a pension reversion 
measure that is similar to the House proposal. Under the Senate bill, 
excess pension assets could be wihdrawn--with little or no penalty--to 
fund active and retiree health benefits, underfunded pension plans, 
disability benefits, child care, and educational assistance plans.
  Mr. President, this represents a significant change in pension 
policy.
  I understand that there are approximately 22,000 pension plans 
covering 11 million workers and 2 million retirees that have assets in 
excess of 125 percent of current liability, and that the Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimates that the pension reversion provisions 
contained in both the House and Senate bills could result in the 
removal of tens of billions of dollars in assets from these plans.
  Therefore, while the Senate proposal clearly is more limited than the 
House proposal, I nevertheless must oppose it. I understand there will 
be an amendment to strike this provision that will be offered by the 
ranking member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, 
Senator Kennedy. I want to make clear to my colleagues that I intend to 
support that amendment.
  The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, which I chair, 
shares jurisdiction over the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
[ERISA] with the Committee on Finance. In the past, the Labor Committee 
has taken an active role in pension security and pension reversion 
issues. In fact, the provision reported by the Finance Committee 
contains modification to title I of ERISA, which clearly fall within 
the Labor Committee's jurisdiction.
  Yet the Labor Committee did not consider the pension provisions 
contained in the legislation before us. And neither the Finance 
Committee nor the Labor Committee has held hearings to consider 
modifications of this nature in the pension reversion area.
  Mr. President, as I said, the Senate proposal clearly is more limited 
than the House proposal. I also believe that there may be valid reasons 
to revisit the pension reversion penalties that were imposed in 1990.
  However, given the actions that led to the imposition of the excise 
tax, I strongly believe that any modifications in this area should be 
given full consideration by the committees of jurisdiction and that we 
should weigh heavily the genuine possibility of adverse consequences to 
plan participants, the Federal pension insurance program, and the 
national savings rate that may result from a change in pension policy 
of this magnitude.
  Therefore, I intend to support the Kennedy amendment and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as an 
original cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. In an earlier debate I mentioned this is legislation 
filled with risk. We have now identified another one of those areas of 
risk. Have we forgotten so soon? It was just a matter of a few years 
ago when we were having pension plans across America fail because they 
were underfunded.
  In many cases, they failed because they had been used by corporate 
raiders as a means of financing mergers and acquisitions which then 
destroyed the jobs of the very people for whom the pension fund was 
intended to protect.
  I cannot believe in 1995 we are about to not only make it easier but, 
I am going to suggest, positively encourage this type of behavior. Why 
would we encourage this behavior? If a chief financial officer of a 
corporation failed to take advantage of this program, he or she ought 
to be fired for corporate malfeasance.
  Here is what we are about to do. We allow a corporation in profitable 
years to overfund their pension, to put in more than is required in 
order to meet that year's annual pension amount. Then, when the 
corporation in a business cycle has a not-so-good year, we are allowing 
them to reach in and withdraw those funds.
  What is the significance to the U.S. Treasury? They take a full 
deduction when they put the money in the pension. They pay no taxes 
when they take it out, because they had planned to take it out in a 
year in which they owe no taxes.
  This is an outrage, Mr. President. It is a disgrace that it is part 
of this legislation. It has no part in a bill which is intended to 
balance the budget, to balance the budget of the Federal Government off 
the security and hard work of working men and women who depend on these 
funds for their well-being, and to turn it over to corporate raiders.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Republicans' revenue recommendations 
contain a slew of tax breaks for businesses that do not belong in a 
deficit reduction bill. One of the most egregious of these special tax 
breaks is a provision on corporate pension transfers that would allow 
employers to take billions of dollars in excess assets from pension 
plans to the extent of their costs for other employee benefits--such as 
health care for active employees--without paying the current-law excise 
tax. The proposal opens the door for up to $47 billion to be removed 
from the pension system, thereby endangering workers' retirement 
security and increasing the risk to the Pension 

[[Page S15820]]

Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC] and U.S. taxpayers.
  The Republicans have included this provision among a small group of 
so-called corporate welfare reforms that raise revenue through 
restrictions on tax rules under which the affected companies currently 
operate. The pension transfer proposal, however, is hardly a reform; 
rather, it is a conspicuous corporate welfare program of its own. The 
proposal merely frees workers' pension funds to be used for general 
corporate purposes, such as executive bonuses or extra shareholder 
dividends.
  Earlier this year, the Finance Committee devoted several weeks to 
hearings on how to increase our Nation's savings rate. We found that 
the savings rate is terribly low, and that the high rate of consumption 
was hurting the economy. Yet, the Finance Committee has now recommended 
to the Senate a provision that both weakens the retirement security of 
employees and removes assets from a key source of savings--employees' 
pension funds.
  Despite Republican assertions to the contrary, the proposal poses a 
serious threat to the security of the affected pension plans. First, 
the pension transfer proposal generally would measure excess assets 
using a standard that is easily manipulated and thus, I believe, 
inappropriate for this purpose. Under the provision, a pension plan 
would be considered to have excess assets, eligible to be withdrawn, to 
the extent its assets exceed 125 percent of the plan's current 
liability. Under this standard, the employer is free to use a range of 
interest rate and mortality assumptions, and need not account for the 
effect of early retirement or contingent events such as plant 
shutdowns. Thus, an employer can choose favorable actuarial assumptions 
to minimize the plan's liabilities and maximize the excess assets it is 
entitled to withdraw from the retirement plan under the proposal. 
Consequently, the cushion provided by the proposal cannot ensure that 
adequate funds remain to fulfill the amount of the employees' accrued 
benefits.
  The laxity of this standard is demonstrated in PBGC's analysis of 
several large plans. PBGC's analysis of 10 large plans revealed that a 
transfer in accordance with the provision in the bill could leave those 
plans with less than 90 percent of the funds needed to pay benefits on 
termination. PBGC would be expected to pay the difference, up to the 
guaranteed level.
  Moreover, the current liability standard is highly susceptible to 
shifts in the stock or bond market. The stock market is currently at an 
all-time high; any subsequent drop in the market could have a 
significant adverse effect on a plan's asset values, thereby causing a 
plan that currently has excess assets under the proposal to become 
underfunded. Thus, a more substantial cushion is necessary than that 
provided by the proposal to protect against future market shifts.

  The Republicans note that the standard used in this proposal is the 
same standard enacted for pension transfers for retiree health benefits 
in the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act [GATT]. However, the two 
provisions are vastly different in scope. The potential transfers 
allowable under this proposal would dwarf the amount of transfers 
allowable for use in meeting retiree health costs under GATT. Care was 
also taken in GATT--unlike in the Republican proposal--to create a 
protective firewall that is, a maintenance of effort requirement. Thus, 
the proposal will increase considerably the risk of loss to the PBGC.
  Finally, by exempting employers from the current law excise tax, the 
proposal encourages employers to use pension plans as tax-sheltered 
corporate piggy banks. Under current law, if an employer terminates its 
plan and takes a reversion, an excise tax of 50 percent of the 
reversion applies. One purpose of the excise tax is to recapture the 
tax benefit the employer enjoys from earnings that have grown tax-free 
on the contributions to the pension plan. In 1990, GAO found that an 
excise tax of between 17 percent and 59 percent was necessary--
depending on the plan population and the underlying investments--for 
the Federal Government to recapture the tax benefit to employers when 
assets in a pension plan are withdrawn by the employer. In addition, 
the proposal removes the deterrent effect of the excise tax on plan 
terminations: An employer can first take the excess assets and 
subsequently terminate the plan, thus avoiding the excise tax because 
there would be no additional assets left to revert to the employer as a 
result of the termination.
  Yet, employers under the committee's proposal are exempted from the 
excise tax, and are merely required to include the amount taken into 
income. Any company with a net operating loss carryover can offset the 
income from the pension transfer with its accumulated net operating 
losses. Thus, the tax paid by employers on a reversion under this 
proposal could be zero. Moreover, under this proposal, an employer can 
easily terminate its plan after draining it of excess assets, thus 
avoiding the termination excise tax altogether.
  Senate Republicans argue that the use of the pension transfers under 
the proposal is restricted to meeting the costs of other qualified 
employee benefits--primarily health benefits for active employees. Make 
no mistake: This requirement is merely cosmetic. The proposal allows 
employees' pensions to be siphoned off for general corporate use. 
Nearly all employers who would take advantage of this proposal already 
provide health benefits to their employees. Thus, using these excess 
assets for existing health benefits merely frees up funds they would 
have spent anyway, to be used in turn for executive bonuses, extra 
shareholder dividends, or the like.
  In light of all these defects, I believe the proposal is 
fundamentally flawed as a matter of retirement and tax policy, and 
strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Massachusetts has \1/2\ minute remaining.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield our 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of 
the Finance Committee, Mr. Roth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, excess pension assets do not belong to 
employees. The reason for this is that under a defined benefit pension 
plan, the employer promises to pay an employee a fixed monthly 
retirement benefit. Under current law, after these benefits are fully 
funded the employer can take out excess assets upon plan termination.
  Excess pension asset transfers will not reduce or jeopardize workers' 
pensions. Only the most overfunded pension plans will be allowed to 
transfer excess pension assets. According to a former chief actuary of 
the PBGC, only 1 percent of plans covered by the PBGC terminate in a 
given year without sufficient assets. And after the passage of the 
stringent funding rules in last year's GATT legislation, it is 
reasonable to expect the incidence of plan failures will decrease in 
the future.
  The proposal also contained several provisions designed to guard 
against plan underfunding. First, employers are required to keep a 
substantial cushion of excess pension assets in the plan. And I point 
out this is the same measure that President Clinton proposed for 
retiree health transfers in the Retirement Protection Act of 1994.
  The other side has attacked this proposal. But is it not interesting 
that their own President proposed the same measure that is contained in 
the legislation before us tonight.
  The minimum cushion is 125 percent of plan liabilities, and in many 
cases the cushion is as high as 150 percent of plan liability. In fact, 
a national actuary firm prepared a study that concluded that more than 
70 percent of the overfunded plans will be subject to a cushion greater 
than 125 percent of plan liability. At these funding levels, the 
pension plan will always be at the full funding limit.
  In fact, plans at the full funding limit are not permitted to make 
new contributions to the pension plan. Plan trustees are required to 
use a plan asset valuation method that results in the largest asset 
cushion. And, to guard against fluctuations in interest rates and stock 
market values, the proposal requires plan trustees to use January 1, 
1995, or the most recent valuation date before the transfer, whichever 
results in the largest asset cushion.
  Employers must use the excess assets to fund ERISA-protected employee 


[[Page S15821]]

benefit plans that cover a broad group of employees. That is a most 
important point that must and should be understood. Employers can only 
take out the excess assets to fund other ERISA-protected employee 
benefits that cover a broad group of employees. That is just common 
sense. And the plans that can be funded with excess assets are limited 
to--and let me spell them out--other retirement plans of the employer, 
including underfunded retirement plans; active and retiree health 
plans; child care; disability; and educational assistance.
  This is a good plan, and, for that reason, I must oppose amendment of 
Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the final 30 seconds to the Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Jeffords, 
Moynihan, Bingaman, Exon, Wellstone, Simon, and Graham be added as 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in vigorous support of removing 
these provisions in this bill because we are dealing here with a very 
serious problem of pension plans. This will result in tens of billions 
of dollars being withdrawn from employee pension plans at a time when 
we are in absolute need of improving our pension capacity. It is done 
without any hearings. It is a matter that is within the jurisdiction of 
our committee. We would want desperately to make sure that what things 
are done are done correctly and appropriately.
  I vigorously oppose the provisions that are in the bill and support 
the strike amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the next Senator on the list is the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone. I yield him 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2982

     (Purpose: To scale back corporate welfare in the tax code by 
eliminating the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs 
   for oil, gas, and geo-thermal wells, by eliminating the corporate 
   minimum tax provisions, by eliminating the foreign earned income 
 exclusion, and by eliminating the section 936 possession tax credit, 
               and use the savings for deficit reduction)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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 Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2982.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of chapter 1 of subtitle I of title XII, insert:

     SEC.   . REPEAL OF EXPENSING OF INTANGIBLE DRILLING COSTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) this legislation, as reported by the Senate Committee 
     on the Budget on October 23, 1995, significantly reduces 
     funding for medicare and medicaid, student loans, food 
     stamps, and other federal efforts critical to working 
     families across the country, in order to pay for tax breaks 
     to benefit primarily wealthy corporations and others;
       (2) this legislation will significantly increase the tax 
     burden on an estimated 17 million working families, by 
     modifying the earned income tax credit, which has enjoyed 
     longstanding bipartisan support;
       (3) the Congressional Joint Tax Committee has estimated 
     that tax expenditures cost the United States Treasury over 
     $420 billion annually, and they estimate that amount will 
     grow by $60 billion to over $480 billion annually by 1999;
       (4) Congress should reduce the federal budget deficit in a 
     way that is responsible, and that requires shared sacrifice 
     by eliminating many of the special interest tax breaks and 
     loopholes that have been embedded in the tax code for 
     decades, making the tax system fairer, flatter and simpler;
       (5) eliminating special interest tax breaks would enable 
     Congress to do real tax reform, making the system fairer and 
     more simple by flattening the current tax rate structure and 
     eventually providing real tax relief for working families;
       (6) the savings generated by eliminating these special tax 
     breaks immediately can be used to reduce the deficit.
       (b) Elimination of Deduction for Certain Intangible 
     Drilling and Development Costs.--Section 263 (relating to 
     capital expenditures) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following 
     new sentence: ``This subsection shall not apply to costs paid 
     or incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.'', and
       (2) by striking subsection (i).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to costs paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 1995.
       (d) Revenue Lock Box.--
       (1) Amount of deficit reduction.--Effective in 1996 and not 
     later than November 15 of each year, the Director of OMB 
     shall estimate the amount of revenues resulting from the 
     enactment of this section in the fiscal year beginning in the 
     year of the estimate and notify the President and Congress of 
     the amount.
       (2) Reduction of deficit.--On November 20 of each year, the 
     President shall direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay 
     an amount equal to the amount determined pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) to retire debt obligations of the United 
     States.
       On page 1550, beginning with line 13, strike chapter 3 of 
     subtitle B of title XII, and insert:

     SEC. 12161. REVENUE LOCK BOX.

       (1) Amount of deficit reduction.--Effective in 1996 and not 
     later than November 15 of each year, the Director of OMB 
     shall estimate the amount of revenues resulting from striking 
     section 12161 and section 12162 as contained in the Balanced 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 as reported by the Senate 
     Committee on the Budget on October 23, 1995, in the fiscal 
     year beginning in the year of the estimate and notify the 
     President and Congress of the amount.
       (2) Reduction of deficit.--On November 20 of each year, the 
     President shall direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay 
     an amount equal to the amount determined pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) to retire debt obligations of the United 
     States.
       At the end of chapter 8 of subtitle I of title XII, insert 
     the following:

     SEC.   . ELIMINATION OF EXCLUSION FOR FOREIGN EARNED INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 911 (relating to 
     citizens or residents of the United States living abroad) is 
     amended by striking ``subtitle,'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``subtitle--
       ``(1) for any taxable year beginning before January 1, 
     1996, the foreign earned income of such individual, and
       ``(2) for any taxable year, the housing cost amount of such 
     individual.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1996.
       (c) Revenue Lock Box.--
       (1) Amount of deficit reduction.--Effective in 1997 and not 
     later than November 15 of each year, the Director of OMB 
     shall estimate the amount of revenues resulting from the 
     enactment of this section in the fiscal year beginning in the 
     year of the estimate and notify the President and Congress of 
     the amount.
       (2) Reduction of deficit.--On November 20 of each year, the 
     President shall direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay 
     an amount equal to the amount determined pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) to retire debt obligations of the United 
     States.
       Strike section 12805 and insert:

     SEC. 12805. TERMINATION OF PUERTO RICO AND POSSESSION TAX 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 936 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any 
     taxable year beginning after December 31, 1995.''
       (c) Revenue Lock Box.--
       (1) Amount of deficit reduction.--Effective in 1996 and not 
     later than November 15 of each year, the Director of OMB 
     shall estimate the amount of revenues resulting from the 
     enactment of this section in the fiscal year beginning in the 
     year of the estimate and notify the President and Congress of 
     the amount.
       (2) Reduction of deficit.--On November 20 of each year, the 
     President shall direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay 
     an amount equal to the amount determined pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) to retire debt obligations of the United 
     States.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment scales back corporate 
welfare in the Tax Code by eliminating several loopholes, including the 
deduction for intangible drilling and development costs for oil, gas, 
and geothermal wells, the corporate minimum tax provisions, the foreign 
earned income exclusion, and section 936, the possession tax credit. It 
locks all of the savings away to be used for deficit reduction--and 
only for this purpose.
  The savings from these amendments, all to go for deficit reduction, 
range between $60 and $70 billion, depending on 

[[Page S15822]]

whose estimates you use. I do not have time to go through each of these 
corporate welfare provisions, but let me simply say that over and over 
and over again this week we have been talking about basic fairness, and 
that closing these loopholes is an attempt to make the Tax Code fairer.
  I will tell you right now, as people in the country look at this 
deficit reduction bill, they know that it is based upon the path of 
least political resistance. They know that it is disproportionately 
working families and middle-income people and low- and moderate-income 
people who have been targeted.
  Mr. President, I do not know one citizen in Minnesota, or in any of 
our States, if the truth be told, who would not agree with the 
proposition that we ought to close some of these loopholes. And by 
closing some of these loopholes, with these benefits going primarily to 
large companies that do not need the benefits, that have not been asked 
to tighten their belts, instead of allowing these to continue we would 
have more money to slash the deficit further, to invest in law 
enforcement, in education, in children, in health care, in 
transportation, in child care, in child nutrition programs.
  It is a matter of priorities. Donald Barlett and James Steele won a 
Pulitzer for their book here, ``America: What Went Wrong?'' They are 
two really fine investigative reporters for the Philadelphia Inquirer. 
And in the section of the book ``America: Who really Pays the Taxes?'' 
they have an interesting paragraph:

       For over 30 years, Members of Congress and Presidents, 
     Democrats and Republicans alike, have enacted one tax after 
     another to create two separate and distinct systems, one for 
     the rich and powerful called the privileged person's tax law, 
     and another for everyone else called the common person's tax 
     law.

  Mr. President, this amendment will move us back toward a Tax Code 
that treats people fairly. It is time for some basic fairness, and that 
is the meaning of this amendment.
  I reserve the rest of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it sounds good to talk about getting rid 
of depreciation and intangible drilling costs for the oil and gas 
industry in the United States until you understand that most of these 
go to independent producers, those who really find the diminishing 
supply of both oil and gas in America. These are not exceptional 
depreciation allowances. They are not some gift. They are absolutely 
necessary unless we want to make a decision that America's own oil and 
gas production should disappear and we should not have any.
  We are importing oil now, about half of our needs, and that is 
growing. And speak of losing jobs and losing growth. This industry that 
we would now try to take away the last, the last thing they have that 
might give them a chance to survive, succeed, employ people and produce 
oil, has already lost 250,000 jobs since the oil slump began.
  We fought Desert Storm, and make no bones about it, because oil is 
precious to the United States, because it is a commodity without which 
our American economy for now and the foreseeable future cannot work.
  Now, why would we come to the floor in a balanced budget activity and 
decide that we are going to take away what will keep the little 
industry we have left for producing oil and gas and the men and women 
who work in it, produce it and make a living? To me, it seems 
absolutely absurd. It seems kind of like backward economics to go out 
there and pluck this industry, perhaps because there is none in some 
States, or perhaps people think when oil and gas is mentioned it is 
Exxon or that it is Mobil--nothing wrong with them, but obviously in 
the United States, the principal people working and producing oil and 
gas are independent producers. They are finding most of the new oil. 
They are operating most of the rigs out there now. And I might just 
say, at this particular time we have the lowest rig count since we 
started keeping records. That means that even with these allowances we 
are hardly keeping pace with producing any new oil in America's oil 
patch.
  Now, Mr. President, Senator Nickles wants to speak about a minute or 
so on this, and if the Senator would permit me, I will reserve the 
remainder of my time and let the Senator complete his with the hope 
that Senator Nickles will arrive.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will just take a minute and then wait 
to respond later, if I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, Mr. President, we have on the part of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle a proposal for exporting more 
oil now from the North Alaska slopes, at the very time we are saying we 
are worried about our own supply. That is already contained in this 
bill.
  Second, this is typical of what happens when we try to scale back 
corporate welfare and close tax loopholes. Every time you take on a 
powerful interest like this as opposed to regular people, opponents 
claim that the sky is going to fall in. It is not true that this change 
would spell the demise of the oil and gas industry. Just like other 
industries and other businesses, they should be made to capitalize 
their costs, to write off their costs over a longer period of time--the 
life of the asset. This is a special exemption, just for one industry. 
That is what is going on here. And this is why people do not trust this 
process. Every time it is a powerful interest whose benefits are under 
fire, we hear all sorts of reasons why they cannot be asked to tighten 
their belts. But, boy, when it comes to Medicare, when it comes to 
education, when it comes to children, belt-tightening is all the rage. 
This amendment basically says, let us have a standard when it comes to 
some deficit reduction. Let us have standard of fairness.
  I will reserve the rest of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I regret to tell my friend, Senator Wellstone, that 
average people use oil. Without oil for America, average people suffer. 
Medicare suffers. Hospitals close.
  Does anyone recall when we were in the small embargo situation with 
Iran and the cars were piled up at our gasoline stations? They were 
even shooting each other in the excitement of trying to get up there 
and see if they could get some gasoline in their cars.
  All the gasoline comes from oil. Why should we stop producing oil in 
the United States, take away the tax deductions that are legitimate 
that they have? They are just as legitimate as everybody else's 
deduction. They are not a gratuity or a gift. So it might be nice to 
say, let us take out after this industry, but it is amazing when this 
industry does not produce the very people who Senator Wellstone is so 
worried about are the ones who suffer because everybody suffers. Our 
standard of living suffers. Inflation goes rampant. And I do not want 
to take that chance.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). The Senator has 1 minute, 40 
seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take 30 seconds on this.
  I remind my colleague that altogether this particular exemption is 
only about $2.5 billion over the next 5 years. This is a whole package, 
worth tens of billions, that says, let us close these tax loopholes. 
People in the country want us to.
  Second, Mr. President, in all due respect to my good friend from New 
Mexico, this is exactly the line we so often hear: the sky is falling 
in. No one is talking about eliminating the oil industry. Nobody is 
talking about not having oil business. We are just saying, how about 
closing these tax loopholes so that when companies do not pay and----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 30 seconds have expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thought the Chair said I had 1 minute, 45 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sorry. The Chair thought the Senator 
meant to notify him when 30 seconds expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry. Let me finish very briefly and reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  Other people pay more.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page S15823]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time is on the other side, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute to Senator Nickles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Nickles has 1 minute and 5 seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. I just heard about it. I understand he says, well, we want 
to take away this advantage, IDC. Really, what my colleague is saying 
is, you should not be able to deduct ordinary out-of-pocket, 
nonrecoverable business expenses. That is ludicrous. It should not 
happen. He happens to be wrong on that issue.
  I think I heard my colleague say that he wanted to eliminate the 936 
benefit that goes towards Puerto Rico. We do that in this bill. We do 
it in the bill over 7 years and over 6 years. There are two different 
ways you count that benefit. We phase it out over 6 or 7 years. I think 
it is a responsible provision. I guess he wants to do it immediately, 
but you have a lot of firms that have made investments. I think that 
would be very inappropriate.
  My colleague may call it corporate welfare, but again I think this 
committee has taken some very responsible action in allowing people to 
deduct their out-of-pocket, nonrecoverable business expenses as should 
be allowed and phasing out the tax benefit that was directed towards 
Puerto Rico.
  So I would urge the Senate to oppose my colleague's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, facts are stubborn things. It is a fact 
that IDC's are a special exemption. With my amendment, you could still 
in this industry capitalize your costs, depreciate them over a longer 
period of time, just like with most other industries.
  This is just a special exemption that most other businesses do not 
get. We have been talking about the tax rate in Puerto Rico. In 1993, I 
wanted to phase it out, even though I was sympathetic to concerns that 
doing so suddenly would be unfair. That didn't happen. And now, we have 
7 to 10 more years provided for in this bill. My amendment says that by 
1997 we have to eliminate it.
  My amendment says, colleagues, that we have to make tough choices. 
Barlett and Steele have it right. What do you have? One person's tax 
code is called the ``privileged person's tax law,'' and for everyone 
else, call it the ``common person's tax law.'' It is time we 
understand: regular people pay more because these loopholes allow often 
very profitable companies--some of the largest and most powerful 
companies in the country--are paying less.
  This is revenue that the Government does not collect. We ought to 
have deficit reduction here. This is between $60 billion to $70 billion 
of deficit reduction based on a standard of fairness. We would have 
more for education, more for children, more for health care, more for 
law enforcement.
  This is a perfect example of whether or not we will be willing to 
vote for people we represent or whether or not we are too beholden to 
powerful special interests. That is what this amendment speaks to.
  I ask unanimous consent that copies of my prepared statements on each 
of the four loopholes, elaborating on my policy rationale for closing 
them, be included in the Record before the vote.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, is all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the good news is that according to my 
record--and I believe my colleague will agree--we have three amendments 
left in this tier 2 category: Pryor, Conrad and Roth, in that order.
  Is that the Senator's understanding?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Finance Committee--Roth. We have been calling it 
``Finance Committee.'' Yes.
  Mr. EXON. Pryor, Conrad, Roth--Finance Committee.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Would the Senator from Nebraska yield for a moment, a 
split second?
  Mr. EXON. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be 
included as an original cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. I now recognize Senator Pryor from Arkansas for his 
amendment and yield him the 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I yield myself 5 minutes and have an exchange 
with the Senator, a conversation that our leader asked me to have, if 
the Senator would?
  Mr. EXON. Certainly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have 17 amendments that are completed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has no time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am informed the Senator from New Mexico has 
no time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Where is the time, all on the Democrat side?
  Could the Senator yield me 4 minutes to engage in this conversation?
  Mr. EXON. I will.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, Senator Dole has suggested, since 
we have 17 amendments to vote on now, we would like to vote on them 
tonight--that will put us well beyond 12 o'clock, and we will vote on 
them all--that we put over two amendments until morning, and that be 
the Pryor amendment and what the Senator has heretofore called the Roth 
amendment. And we would not change anything about those amendments in 
terms of votes--5 minutes of debate, and everything else--but they 
would be two that we would not lay down tonight.
  We would go ahead and put Conrad's in, if you would like, and that 
would leave two amendments for tomorrow. And then we could use this 
evening to see what the remaining lists of amendments are. We have 2 
hours or 3 hours that we are going to be down here. The Senator's side 
and ours could put together the list which would follow after the end 
of our second tier, which is the goal. The Roth----
  Mr. EXON. I would have to check on it. Could we put in a brief quorum 
call and see if--this surprises me. I do not know whether there is 
objection to it or not.
  I know Senator Pryor is ready to go. Could we put in a quorum call 
for a few minutes?
  Mr. FORD. Would the Senator yield for one moment? We have another 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. FORD. You talked about the Pryor amendment. We have the Simon-
Conrad amendment that is also mentioned. The Senator says take that one 
tonight and have Pryor tomorrow?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I called it Conrad. I am sorry.
  Mr. FORD. I do not believe Senator Pryor is going to be willing to 
move his away from tonight.
  Mr. EXON. Wait a minute. How many amendments? We have Pryor, Conrad, 
Roth. Is it Conrad-Simon? All right. We have three amendments; right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We call it Conrad; he calls it Simon.
  Mr. EXON. All right.
  Mr. NICKLES. One wears a bow tie.
  Mr. EXON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand they have two amendments on 
their side. We will hold our Roth amendment until morning. So we will 
proceed with theirs at this point.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee.
  I now recognize Senator Pryor, as I did previously, and have awarded 
him the 5 minutes on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Chair for 
recognizing me.


                           Amendment No. 2983

 (Purpose: To provide for the continuation of requirements for nursing 
                  facilities in the Medicaid Program)

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, in this 2,000-page piece of legislation, 
the 

[[Page S15824]]

budget reconciliation bill of 1995, we would think that just about 
everything under the sun would have been thought of and included in 
this to consume some 2,000 pages.
  But what we did not include in this reconciliation bill is something 
very, very vital, Mr. President, because those are the nursing home 
standards that we have had enacted since 1987, and if we fail to 
reenact those same nursing home standards on the Federal level, we will 
be failing to protect a very, very fragile and vulnerable asset, which 
is the elderly population of this country, some 2 million now residing 
in these American nursing homes.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk. I send it to the 
desk on behalf of myself and Senator Cohen of Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. PRYOR. I have several cosponsors. I will not read all of those at 
this time. It will consume too much time.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], for himself, Mr. 
     Cohen, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Simon, Mr. 
     Wellstone, and Mr. Kohl proposes an amendment numbered 2983.

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

       Beginning on page 889, line 21, strike all through page 
     897, line 19, and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 2137. QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS FOR NURSING 
                   FACILITIES.

       ``The provisions of section 1919, as in effect on the day 
     before the date of the enactment of this title, shall apply 
     to nursing facilities which furnish services under the State 
     plan.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, since we enacted OBRA 1987, we have seen a 
dramatic change in the care of the nursing home patients in our 
country. For example, we have seen a 38 percent decline in the number 
of physical restraints. Since the enactment of the OBRA 1987 nursing 
home regulations, which was, I might say, a bipartisan effort--the late 
John Heinz, former Senator Durenberger, former Senator George Mitchell, 
former Senator Jack Danforth from Missouri--we have seen a dramatic 
advance in all of the things that make the quality of care in nursing 
homes better; for example, in resident outcomes, a 50 percent increase 
in the number of dehydration cases that we have solved, and no longer 
do we find many of these patients dehydrated.
  We see also just a characteristic of the nursing home population, Mr. 
President. And how are we going to afford to look them in the eye and 
say that we failed to adopt any Federal standards in the budget 
reconciliation bill and we are going to say to the 77 percent of those 
who need help dressing, to the 63 percent who need help in toileting, 
the 91 percent who need help bathing, ``We are sorry, you can just make 
it on your own. We are doing away with all Federal standards. We are 
going to leave it to the States''?
  But, Mr. President, the reason we have Federal standards today as a 
result of OBRA 87 is because the States were not meeting their 
obligation and their challenge.
  Mr. President, I know that there are two or three of my colleagues 
who want to speak. I know that Senator Rockefeller wants 30 seconds. I 
yield 30 seconds to Senator Rockefeller.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer and the Senator from 
Arkansas. If there was a sense upon my colleagues of nervousness just 
before Senator Pryor offered his amendment--there was a lot of 
huddling--in the sense of what was going to happen, my colleagues 
noticed correctly. I think that there was an effort to try and not have 
a vote on this tonight, because this is one of the most important 
amendments that we will vote on in this entire, somewhat bizarre 
process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. PRYOR. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as an 
original cosponsor of the amendment. I point out that the arguments 
against this amendment are going to be that we ought to let the States 
have unbridled responsibility, discretion as to how to set these 
standards.
  I should point out that in the year 2002 in my State, which has the 
highest percentage of persons over 80 in the country, that we are going 
to have 35 percent less funds than is currently projected to meet the 
needs of our elderly, our frail elderly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If there is any prescription for abuse, it is a 35-
percent cut in funds and no Federal standards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Without 
objection, the Senator's request is granted.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I yield 20 seconds to the Senator from 
Maryland, Senator Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my father was in a nursing home for 3 
years. He had Alzheimer's. We could go and visit him and make sure he 
was OK. But one of the things we need to know is when people are in a 
nursing home, they are often too sick to care for themselves or they 
are too sick to say how they are being cared for. If we do not have 
Federal standards around safety and staffing to be sure that our--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am looking for Senator Cohen, our 
cosponsor on the other side. I do not see him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mr. PRYOR. If Senator Mikulski needs an additional 20 seconds, I will 
be glad to yield to her.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the idea of safety is absolutely 
crucial, that we need adequate staff, but we need to have those 
standards so that if anyone is too sick to say how they are being cared 
for, we know that we are preventing their abuse, we know that they are 
receiving the right medication, we know that they are being adequately 
cared for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
has 10 seconds left.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to conclude by thanking the 
distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen, for not only being a 
cosponsor, but also having labored for many years in this particular 
field. He supports strongly this amendment. I also would like--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I also would like to acknowledge Senator 
Boxer of California who has truly spoken on many occasions and feels 
compassionate about this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Chafee is going to explain where 
we are. Let me just suggest, at Senator Cohen's suggestion, Senator 
Chafee, and others, the so-called Finance Committee amendment, which 
you are going to have an evening to look at, will have everything in it 
Senator Cohen wants and even further improvements than the one before 
us. So I do not want anyone to think we have done that after we defeat 
your amendment tonight, because it is in there and you all will see it 
when we get it circulated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arkansas for 
his efforts in connection with the nursing home standards and, indeed, 
he and I have worked together in the Finance Committee. I voted with 
him in connection with his amendment, which was defeated 10 to 10.
  Since then, in conjunction with Senator Cohen and others on this 
side, we have prevailed upon what you might call the managers of the 
bill to put in a very good Federal nursing home standard provision. As 
regards nursing homes, there are two provisions in here that I think 
are superior to the provision that Senator Pryor has, although I am not 
intimately familiar with everything that he has.
  One, in the provision that we have, we remove the costly and 
duplicative requirement that standards perform so-called preadmission 
screening and annual resident review, which is known by the acronym of 
PASARR, and that 

[[Page S15825]]

would not be included and it is my understanding that this is a rather 
good provision.
  Second, we have a proposal that if the States have tighter inspection 
requirements than the Federal, then the States can apply to the 
Secretary of HHS for a waiver and have those tighter provisions 
included as the inspection requirements or the standard requirements 
for the nursing homes within that State.
  You might say, ``Well, how do they go about enforcing it?'' We have a 
provision that it can be enforced by HCFA. So we think that this has a 
lot of provisions in it that have merit.
  I urge those on the other side to take a look at this provision that 
is in the so-called managers amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is still not quiet in the Chamber. The 
Senator is entitled to be heard.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Quickly, because it is on my time.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I agree with what you just said. I would like to be able 
to compare the specifics of what is going to be offered with what 
Senator Pryor and others have offered. When will we have that 
opportunity?
  Mr. DOLE. I can respond. I think that language is ready now. I think 
we are working on some other language, but that language is ready. That 
is why we wanted to wait until the morning so we can compare that.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The difficulty is we are going to get this sometime in 
the morning and then be expected to vote on it. We are going to vote on 
this amendment tonight; correct?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I think the suggestion was to put the vote off until the 
morning and to give you a chance to look at this particular provision.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The vote on Senator Pryor's amendment off until tomorrow?
  Mr. DOLE. Both.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Both; we ask for both.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises Senators to please go 
through the Chair so we keep some control.
  Who seeks time? There is 1 minute 28 seconds left.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that we have addressed this 
concern, and I think as Senator Chafee pointed out, if we really want 
to find the best provision, we ought to compare the two. We may not 
vote on the Pryor amendment tonight. I will decide how many amendments 
we vote on this evening. So we will have an opportunity to look at the 
language in both.
  If you are looking for a political vote, we can have the political 
vote, but if you are looking for the best provision--it was worked out 
with Senator Cohen, Senator Snowe, Senator Chafee, and others on this 
side of the aisle. We think it is a pretty good provision. So I hope if 
we are interested in getting the best provision in the bill, we will do 
as Senator Domenici suggested: Wait until morning, have a vote, find 
out which is the superior provision, and then vote accordingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair apologizes. The Chair did not ask 
the Senator from Rhode Island if he would yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Do I still have control of the time?
  I would have been delighted to have yielded that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I again apologize and give back 20 seconds.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Was there another question, or does that satisfy 
everyone?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 18 seconds left to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask Senator Cohen if he wants to say 
anything?
  Mr. COHEN. I believe I will get 2 minutes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time left on the Democratic side.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes off the bill to the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, let me specifically address the issue 
whether or not this is a political effort on the part of my colleague 
and friend from Arkansas, Senator Pryor.
  We had a hearing this morning dealing with nursing home standards. I 
want to say, for the benefit of all who are here, I have been working 
with Senator Dole, Senator Chafee, Senator Snowe, and others, to try to 
make sure that the standards that were set in place by OBRA 1987 go 
back into place, that we have Federal standards and Federal enforcement 
of the nursing home rights, as such. Senator Dole has been most 
amenable to that.

  I think Senator Chafee is correct that we have actually made some 
improvements in cutting back on some of the things that do not need to 
be there, that are costing money and are duplicative. One issue 
remaining in my mind is, in fact, the extension of the waiver, so-
called, to the States that have higher standards than required by 
Federal law. The concern I have is that if such standards are so high 
that they therefore would apply for a waiver, what in fact would be the 
role of the Federal Government as far as oversight and enforcement? If 
there will be strict oversight and enforcement, I would recommend we 
support the bill that we offered as part of the managers' bill. If, 
however, that is a major loophole that would be seen as such by those 
in the business itself--the nursing home industry, providers and 
consumers--I would have problems supporting the substitute contained in 
the managers' bill. I have not seen the language.
  I think Senator Dole is correct. We ought to put this off until 
tomorrow so we can compare the language. If we are satisfied there will 
be adequate oversight and enforcement authority retained by the Federal 
Government, I would recommend to my colleague from Arkansas that we 
accept the managers' bill.
  Mr. PRYOR. If my friend from Maine will yield, Mr. President, let me 
remind my colleagues that in the managers' amendment to be offered by 
Senator Roth tomorrow, the nursing home provision is only a very, very 
small part of it. There is going to be, as I understand it, a change in 
the Medicaid formula, also encompassed in the managers' amendment. This 
is only a small section of it.
  I think we should go ahead according to schedule. We have all been 
here all day, playing by the rules. Let us vote for the Pryor amendment 
and the Pryor-Cohen amendment tonight, and if we need to change it 
tomorrow, we can, and we can look at it tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. All time 
on the amendment has expired.
  Mr. PRYOR. 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. EXON. Mr. President, we are down to the final amendment, as I 
understand it, we will be debating tonight. Therefore, I yield the 5 
minutes on our side to Senator Simon for his distribution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2984

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. SIMON. 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 Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself and Mr. 
     Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 2984.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is the amendment you have read about 
in the Washington Post when it says a ``Good Budget Compromise.'' This 
is the amendment the New York Times has editorialized about. This says 
balance the budget, number one. And we have a comprehensive program to 
do that. Number two, we eliminate the tax cut. 

[[Page S15826]]

Senator Specter said, ``If you would have a secret vote, 20 Republican 
Senators would not vote for the tax cut.''
  To say we are going to balance the budget, and then start with a tax 
cut, is like having a New Year's resolution to diet and start with a 
great big dessert.
  Third, we take the CPI and reduce it by one-half of 1 percent. At the 
Finance Committee meeting, Senator Dole said, in talking about looking 
at the CPI, ``This is something we should have addressed years ago.'' 
This is still below what the special economist said should be a drop of 
between 0.7 to 2 points.
  Third, we help the less fortunate in our society. Instead of a 
savings of $270 billion in Medicare, it is $168 billion. Instead of 
$187 billion in Medicaid, it is $83 billion. Welfare reform--there is 
$36 billion more for poor people. Discretionary spending, $79 billion 
more. Veterans programs are assisted. Agriculture programs are 
assisted. Student loan programs are helped.
  This is a balanced program that makes sense and it balances the 
budget in a prudent way. I hope we can move in this direction.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Illinois. This is an amendment 
for those who disagree with cutting taxes by $245 billion at the very 
time we are adding $1.8 trillion to the national debt. This is the 
amendment for those who are concerned that the Medicare and Medicaid 
cuts are too severe. This is the amendment for those who oppose cuts in 
education. This is the amendment for those who want welfare to be work-
oriented but protect the children. This is the amendment for those who 
are concerned about the raid on rural America contained in the 
underlying bill. This is the amendment for those who recognize that CPI 
overstates the cost of living. The advisory commission to the Finance 
Committee said it is overstated by .7 to 2.0. That means adding $600 
billion to the national debt over the next 7 years.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment to 
fairly balance the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have on the amendment, and how much 
time do they have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 5 minutes; the 
minority has 1 minute 50 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me remind Senators of a couple of 
things. First of all, the Consumer Price Index provides $115 billion of 
the money needed to balance their budget. In addition, Medicare is 
getting cut, or hit, or reformed $168 billion. So we are doing both 
Medicare and CPI. And then, third, and equally as important, the fiscal 
dividend that is not supposed to be there until you are in balance--
that is how we thought it worked, that you get to balance and you get a 
fiscal dividend--they take the $170 billion fiscal dividend, before in 
balance, and put it in their balanced budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair cannot hear the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased that the Chair is concerned, and I thank 
him. I want to close by saying that I really do not believe this is the 
kind of budget we want to adopt here tonight. I think if anybody had a 
real chance to look through it and go into detail, they would agree 
with the Senator from New Mexico.
  I want to go through the three. You get $115 billion by changing the 
CPI by .5. I was wondering a little while ago--my friends on the 
Democrat side were concerned because we had not given them our 
amendments. Most are one page. We just got this one now, in case 
anybody wonders, which is all right. I am not complaining. It is just 
that we do not know very much about it. These few little facts are 
about the best I can do.
  Mr. FORD. Now you know how we feel when we have 2,000 pages.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think you got those pursuant to the rules. They were 
before you all. This was presented right here, tonight, to us. I do not 
want to take any more time. I will yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield 50 seconds to my colleague from 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from 
Illinois. I will not make a full statement at this time. I will put one 
in the Record. Suffice it to say--I say this to my good friends on the 
other side of the aisle--this is where we ought to be going. This is a 
tough, fair, principled budget that reflects the kind of distribution 
that we ought to be looking toward if we are going to come up with a 
reasonable solution to the fiscal challenges that are facing the 
country today, and it does it without a $245 billion tax cut that we 
simply cannot afford and should not be giving under the circumstances.
  I am pleased to join my fiscally responsible colleagues in offering 
an alternative that I think meets the test that this country is looking 
for us to meet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SIMON. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  In terms of the fiscal dividends that Senator Domenici is talking 
about, we balance the budget also, so we have the same savings on 
interest.
  In terms of the size of this--and I recognize this is not going to 
pass tonight--but I think this may be the basis for a compromise that 
we may move toward. I think there is a lot of common sense in this.
  In terms of the CPI, it is less than was recommended to the Finance 
Committee by the economic experts, and what it means for a person who 
is in the median on Social Security getting $770, it would be a 
reduction of $3.85 for which that person gets more help on Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  I think seniors would welcome this proposal.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yielded back my time, but I ask unanimous consent to 
retrieve 1 minute of it to yield to Senator Nickles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico. I 
join him in opposition to this amendment.
  Although I compliment the sponsors of the amendment for saying we 
should use an accurate CPI, they do not go as far as that that was 
proposed by a group of economists that said we should use from 0.7 
percent even and maybe above 1 percent. Whatever the percent is, it 
should be accurate, and most estimates are that 0.5 percent, which 
would save something like $115 billion, is on the low side. So I 
compliment them for doing that.
  I rise in opposition to their proposal because they want to spend 
$245 billion more so we do not tax more. I would like to give taxpayers 
a break for $245 billion and reduce spending to pay for it. That is the 
difference between the two.
  I compliment them for a very significant element of this package and 
hope that ultimately we will use accurate CPI reflection in all of our 
cost-of-living adjustments.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand, all the amendments have 
been offered that will be offered this evening in tier 2. The committee 
amendment will be offered tomorrow morning.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the votes scheduled to begin now be 
limited to 8 minutes after the first rollcall vote, with 1 minute for 
explanation between each vote to be equally divided in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me persuade my colleagues we will have about 18 votes 
here. If we all stay in the Chamber we will probably save 20 or 30 
minutes. There are not many places to go at 9:30 at night around here. 
They can watch the ball game right off the floor. Hopefully, we will 
accommodate one another by being here.
  The first vote will be the normal 15 minutes plus 5 to give people 
time to come back from wherever they want to come back from.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the request include 1 minute before the 
first vote?
  Mr. DOLE. One minute before each vote equally divided in the usual 
form.
  We will start tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, and we hope to have 7\1/
2\-minute votes after the first vote, so we ask all Senators to remain 
in the Chamber--not overnight but be back here.

[[Page S15827]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Exon would join in 
requesting from his side what I request for our side.
  We still have a third tier, which are all the amendments that will 
not get debated. We would like to use the evening now while we are here 
voting to have you get as many together so we know, maybe tonight or 
early morning, how many you have. And we have some. Perhaps we can give 
the Senators an idea, then, by midmorning on how many there are.
  Mr. EXON. I advise my colleague we have been working on that. We were 
talking about it a few minutes ago in the Cloakroom. We do not have a 
definitive number. We have made major reductions generally in the area 
that we have been indicating to you in our series of negotiations about 
where we think we will end up. I do not know that I can give a specific 
number tonight. I will explore that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first amendment is numbered 2964 by 
Senator McCain and others; 1 minute, equally divided. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOLE. I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back on this amendment? 
Does the Senator from Nebraska yield back the 30 seconds?
  Mr. EXON. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Did we order the yeas and nays on all the amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection for all the yeas and 
nays to be ordered at one time?
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered on all amendments that have been 
debated so far.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2964

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll on amendment No. 
2964.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The result was 
announced-- yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 507 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  The amendment (No. 2964) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2965

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ladies and gentlemen, the next amendment is 
amendment 2965 by Mr. Helms, 1 minute equally divided.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 1 minute equally divided on this 
amendment prior to the vote.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from North Carolina.
  This is going to be a long night unless we can get quiet after these 
votes.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I think this is one of few times when both 
sides are in favor of an amendment. It is to protect the right of 
senior citizens to choose their own doctors if they wish.
  I think the distinguished manager of the bill, Mr. Domenici, has a 
clarification.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to say for the Republicans, there is a 
technical error on the explanation. This amendment has been modified so 
that the language in our Whip Notice--it says, ``if you don't comply, 
they are not eligible for Medicare reimbursement''--is out of this. It 
is not in this amendment. I think the amendment deserves to be adopted.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this amendment pretends that the 
Republican budget's destructive plan for Medicare will preserve the 
senior citizen's ability to get their care through fee for service and 
continue to see his or her own doctor.
  Now, it is fine to pretend, so vote for the amendment. It is all 
right. It is not going to do any harm. Make no mistake. There is no 
guarantee of anything in the Helms amendment for seniors and their 
future ability to see their own doctor.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on every 
amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this will be an 8-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is an 8-minute vote.
  Mr. DOLE. This is the test. If we all stay here, we may finish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
   The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 508 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--20

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Coats
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Gorton
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Reid
     Simpson
     Thomas
     Thompson
  So the amendment (No. 2965) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2969

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 2969 offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown]. The yeas and 
nays are ordered.
  There will be 1 minute equally divided on the question.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DOLE. The time is running.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is running. Who wants to claim the 30 
seconds on each side?
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] is 
recognized for 26 seconds.
  Mr. BROWN. The measure that is before the Senate takes a 1993 
limitation on business' ability to deduct salaries in excess of $1 
million and applies it, not to just publicly traded corporations to 
which it applies to now, it applies it to nonpublicly traded 
organizations and other business. It is a fairness question. It is 
grandfathered for any existing contracts, but I might say the money 
that is raised goes to reduce the Social Security earnings penalty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. I yield back our 30 seconds.

[[Page S15828]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2969.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 509 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So, the amendment (No. 2969) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me observe that, out of the three votes, 
we have had two unanimous votes. Maybe some could be done by voice 
vote. It would save some time. Otherwise, we are going to stay on the 
eight-minute schedule, and I urge my colleagues to stay on the 
premises.


                           Amendment No. 2970

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 2970.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is the fraud, waste, and 
abuse amendment. It saves $600 million, by CBO's estimate, more than 
the underlying amendment. This is a culmination of 5 years of hearings.
  All of the things in this amendment were recommended by the Inspector 
General's office and by GAO. It saves more than $600 million. In sum, 
all I can tell you is what this does. It says that when the Veterans 
Administration pays 4 cents for a bandage and Medicare pays 86 cents, 
something is wrong. Let us pay the same thing as the Veterans 
Administration. That is what this amendment does.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Cohen.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the anti-fraud provision in the Finance 
Committee measure has been the product of over 3 years of effort on my 
part. I have had to work with Justice, FBI, the White House, providers, 
consumers, and they support the provision as written.
  In addition to that, there is a deletion under my bill which would 
allow the criminal fines imposed under the violation to go back into 
the Medicare trust fund. That is deleted under the Senator's amendment.
  I urge that we reject this amendment for a variety of reasons but, 
most of all, because it would make a last-minute change over something 
that is accepted by virtually everybody.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane to 
the provisions of the reconciliation bill pursuant to section 
305(b)(2). I raise a point of order against the pending amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 510 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the ayes are 43, the nays are 56. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is rejected. The 
point of order is well taken and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 2971

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is amendment No. 2971. 
There are 30 seconds on each side for debate.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment removes about $60 billion 
worth of corporate pork over a period of 7 years. It has bipartisan 
support.
  For the information of my colleagues, it does not include the auction 
of public safety spectrum. Obviously, that would be exempt from the 
auction of spectrum.
  Mr. President, I understand the point of order may be lodged against 
this amendment. It makes no sense to lodge a point of order against an 
amendment that would reduce spending, which is what this legislation is 
supposed to be all about.
  Mr. EXON. The pending amendment would add two new matters to the bill 
and violate the prohibition of nongermane amendments. I raise a point 
of order that the pending amendment is therefore not germane and thus 
violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  I yield back the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to waive the point of order and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on the motion to waive the Budget Act.
  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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 25, nays 74, as 
follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 511 Leg.]

                                YEAS--25

     Abraham
     Biden
     Bradley
     Brown
     Coats
     Cohen
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Robb
     Roth
     Thompson

                                NAYS--74

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye

[[Page S15829]]

     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 25, the nays are 
74. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is well taken and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 2972

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment 2972, offered 
by the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 30 seconds.
  The Senate will please come to order.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment restores $712 million rescinded 
by the bill in 48 States in highway funds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. Senators will please 
come to order.
  Mr. BYRD. Senators will find on their desks a detailed table which 
shows the reductions that were made in each of the 48 States.
  I restore this money by closing a corporate loophole. The corporate 
loophole is closed by the House by a phaseout in 4 years; closed by the 
bill by a phaseout in 5 years. I say, let us go with the House, phase 
out the loophole in 4 years and restore $712 million in highway funds 
to the 48 States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for those who thought the highway 
demonstration programs were good programs and all the projects were 
good projects, obviously you ought to vote for this.
  They were never spread equally across the land. They had very 
significant preferential treatment, depending upon a lot of things. So 
I think the committee that decided to do this acted appropriately, 
especially since they applied the savings to a very good cause.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 512 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--53

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So, the amendment (No. 2972) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2973

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2973 
offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined in this 
amendment by Senators Conrad and Frist. The reconciliation bill says 
States must cover the disabled but does not define who is disabled. 
This amendment adopts the same definition of ``disabled'' as we used in 
the welfare bill which we passed----
  Mr. HARKIN. Point of order. The Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senate will please come to order. Those Senators in front of the 
Chair, please take your conversations to the cloakroom.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Do I start my 30 seconds over?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 16 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Well, I will start. This amendment adopts the same 
definition of ``disabled'' as we used in the welfare bill which we 
passed 87-12. It does not include substance abuses. That is a mistake 
in the little chit that was circulated here. These individuals are at 
75 percent of the poverty level or less. They cannot get health 
insurance. This safety net is essential to them if they are going to 
stay in the community.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, two excellent Senators are offering 
this amendment and trying to protect the basic Medicaid coverage for 
the very poorest, very oldest and disabled Americans.
  I hope everybody will vote for it. But, again, you cannot turn a frog 
into a prince. The underlying bill would require 200 such amendments to 
make it agreeable. I hope people will support this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do we not get to speak against it, since both sides 
were for it? There was no opposition.
  Mr. DOLE. I would ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. This is another infringement on the Governors. We are going 
to turn over these programs, make them entitlements, and give them 
block grants, and make it impossible for Democrats or Republicans to 
administer the program.
  We had this argument. We discussed it long and hard with the Senator 
from Rhode Island. I hope we would defeat this amendment. If you do not 
have any faith in your Governor, then vote the other way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2973.
  The yeas and nays are ordered. 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 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 513 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--39

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl

[[Page S15830]]

     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So, the amendment (No. 2973) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2963

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on amendment No. 2963 
offered by the Senator from Louisiana.
  A motion to table is pending on which the yeas and nays have been 
ordered. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 
30 seconds.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I urge my 
Republican colleagues to vote for this tonight, because Newt Gingrich 
is going to do it in conference. You all are going to be on record of 
voting against it. They are going to fix it in conference.
  I suggest to vote against tabling, because you can add 44 percent 
more children who would benefit from the child tax credit. Without this 
amendment, you are cutting off 31 million youngsters who will not 
benefit from the tax credit. It is that simple. Guess what? They are 
going to do it in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield my time to Senator Nickles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment. This amendment would build another entitlement program, 
another brandnew entitlement program into the Tax Code. According to 
the Joint Tax Committee, the Breaux amendment would increase outlays by 
$37 billion over 7 years. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Breaux amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative 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 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 514 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     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
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2963) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2975, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 2975 
offered by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond].
  The Senator from Missouri has 30 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement 
when I offered the amendment, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2975), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 1620 after line 1 insert:

   Subchapter A--Health Insurance Costs of Self-Employed Individuals

     SEC. 12201. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS 
                   OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Increase in Deduction.--Section 162(1) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``30 percent'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``55 percent''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, when I raised the question of deductibility 
of health insurance, I said we were looking for another offset. I have 
been able to work with the managers and the majority leader. They have 
enabled us to eliminate the offsets which would have taken out the 
long-term care insurance, and we are able to raise the deductibility 
for self-employed individuals and small business people from 30 to 55 
percent. I believe that this is something we can work with in 
conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have already been ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am the cosponsor on this side of the Bond 
amendment. I strongly support this amendment. We hoped, originally, 
that we would be able to permit the self-employed to deduct 100 percent 
of their insurance premiums, and this looks like they are going to take 
about 55 percent. This is the best we could do, but it is better than 
in the past.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I ask what the offset is?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the time has expired.
  Mr. DOLE. We did not need an offset. We found another area where they 
overestimated or underestimated, or whatever it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder, will the Senator withdraw the 
yeas and nays?
  Mr. BOND. We would like the yeas and nays since everybody is here.
  Mr. DOMENICI. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  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 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 515 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 2975), as modified, was agreed to.


                         Biden Motion to Commit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
commit with instructions offered by the Senator from Delaware.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one thing all Americans say they care about 
is to get a college education for their children.

[[Page S15831]]

  This amendment will allow--it costs $35 billion, roughly $5 billion a 
year, and it would allow a $10,000 per year deduction--maximum 
deduction--for the cost of college tuition for couples making up to 
$120,000, or individuals up to $90,000.
  This is a genuine benefit for the middle class, and we do exactly 
what the Republican bill does. The way in which we get the money is 
restrict the growth of tax expenditures.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, has there been a motion to table?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time I have. I move to table the Biden 
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Yeas and nays they were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 516 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So, the motion to lay on the table the motion to commit was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2976

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2976 
offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, on which the yeas and 
nays have been ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair.
  First of all, I would like to say that this amendment is cosponsored 
by Senators D'Amato, Shelby, Biden, Mack, Murkowski, Hutchison, Gramm, 
Cohen, and Jeffords.
  This amendment is a sense of the Senate that would provide coverage 
under Medicare for breast and prostate cancer.
  When changes were made in Medicare back in 1993, there was an 
inadvertent omission whereby oral drug treatment was not covered under 
Medicare for breast and prostate cancer. It is a cost-saving measure.
  Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and 
nays and ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I yield my time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2976) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2977

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2977 
offered by the Senator from North Dakota.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 30 seconds.
  The Senator will suspend. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is an extraordinarily simple amendment. 
We have in the Tax Code of the United States an incentive, a tax break, 
a tax deduction for somebody who closes their plant in this country and 
moves the jobs overseas to a tax haven, produces the same product with 
foreign workers, then ships the product back to the United States.
  This simply gets rid of the tax break for companies that move the 
jobs overseas. If we cannot close this tax loophole, we cannot close 
any tax loophole. I would hope we will have an affirmative vote on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
  This amendment contains extraneous material and is not germane and 
therefore subject to a point of order under the Budget Act.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for the consideration of the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays 
on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. This will be the last vote this evening, and we will start 
voting tomorrow morning at 9:15. The first vote will be on the 
amendment by----
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. The 
Senate will please come to order.
  This is the last vote. Senators will please listen.
  Mr. DOLE. Senator Gramm of Texas. The first vote will come on his 
amendment, and the first vote will be 20 minutes in length. Then we 
will go back to our 8 minutes after the first vote. We have had 20 
votes today. I wish to thank my colleagues.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Are we going 
tomorrow by the schedule of amendments offered, and then we go down 
that line and then we are on, will be on the last ones?
  Mr. DOLE. Right. We are going to go down--that is right, yes.
  Mr. FORD. We go as introduced.
  Mr. DOLE. Then we go to tier three.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOLE. Then tier four and tier five.
  Mr. FORD. Ten.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the budget act. The yeas and nays are ordered. 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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 517 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby

[[Page S15832]]

     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The amendment falls.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was rejected.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               list of extraneous matter (the Byrd Rule)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313(c) of the Budget 
Act, I submit a list of material considered to be extraneous under 
subsections 313 (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) on behalf of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Section 313(c) of the Budget Act states:

       The inclusion or the exclusion of a provision shall not 
     constitute a determination of extraneousness by the Presiding 
     Officer of the Senate.

  In addition, this list does not represent the Budget Committee's 
position on the program or policies represented in these provisions or 
a waiver of a point of order against these provisions. The Budget Act 
requires the committee to simply identify potential violations under 
three components of the Byrd rule and the committee has complied with 
the law.
  That a provision appears on this list does not mean it will 
automatically be deleted from the bill. A Senator must raise a point of 
order against the provision and the Presiding Officer must sustain the 
point of order. The Byrd rule may be waived in the Senate by an 
affirmative vote of 60 Senators.
  This list is a compilation of items identified by both the majority 
and minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee. The staffs did not 
agree on every item, but the differences were small when one considers 
the controversial and comprehensive nature of this bill. I want to 
thank the staff. The Byrd rule has evolved over the past 10 years and 
identifying those provisions that violate the rule is a very difficult 
exercise.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

    Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995--Possible Extraneous 
                        Provisions; Senate Bill

(Prepared by the Republican Staff of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, 
                             October 1995)

                                       EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS--SENATE BILL                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Provision                                            Comments/Violation                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY                                      
                                                                                                                
Sec. 1113(a)(4), 1113(c), and (e) (2)..................  Clarification on peanut pool and sale, lease, or       
                                                          transfer of farm poundage quota for 1991 through 2000 
                                                          crops of peanuts and allows non-quota peanuts to      
                                                          become available if market price exceeds 120 percent  
                                                          of loan rate; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change 
                                                          in outlays or revenues.                               
Sec. 1115..............................................  Savings adjustment; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no   
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 1116..............................................  Sense of the Senate regarding tax provisions relating  
                                                          to ethanol; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
                                                                                                                
                                                  ARMED SERVICES                                                
                                                                                                                
                                                         Naval Petroleum Reserve Sale (Elk Hills)               
Sec. 2; Sec. 7421a(f)..................................  Requirements on Elk Hills production until sale is     
                                                          completed; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in 
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 2; Sec. 7421a(j)..................................  Requirement that a sale cannot take place unless DOE   
                                                          provides a notice to Congress; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):   
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 2; Sec. 7421a(k)..................................  Expedited procedures for Congressional consideration of
                                                          a resolution of approval of the sale; Byrd rule       
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 2; Sec. 7421a(l)..................................  Notice to Congress of noncompliance with deadlines;    
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 2; Sec. 7421a(m)..................................  Requirement that GAO monitor DOE sale and report to    
                                                          Congress; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in  
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
                                                                                                                
                                                           Naval Oil Shale Reserve Sale                         
                                                                                                                
Sec. 2; Sec. 7421b(b)..................................  Application of Sec. 7421(h), (j), (k), (l), & (m) to   
                                                          the Oil Shale Reserve sale; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):      
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 2; Sec. 7421b(b)(C)...............................  Expedited procedures for consideration of joint        
                                                          resolution of approval of the sale; Byrd rule         
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 3002..............................................   Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues. This section would require the Secretary of 
                                                          Treasury to report to the Congress on the feasibility 
                                                          of a private deposit insurance system.                
Sec. 3001(d)...........................................   Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues. This subsection outlines a merger of the two
                                                          deposit insurance funds for banks (BIF) and thrifts   
                                                          (SAIF), but item (4) of this subsection makes         
                                                          implementation of all of subsection (d) contingent on 
                                                          a future act of Congress (which will be necessary to  
                                                          eliminate all thrift charters). Therefore, the entire 
                                                          subsection 3001(d) will have no effect when           
                                                          reconciliation is enacted.                            
                                                                                                                
                                      COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION                                      
                                                                                                                
Sec. 4001(a)(C), beginning on p. 207, line 1 with         Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
 ``unless'' through ``1998'' on line 23.                  revenues. Section 4001 directs the FCC to allocate    
                                                          spectrum to applicants by auction spectrum, but       
                                                          exempts certain parts of the spectrum from being sold 
                                                          at auction. Section 4001(a)(C) lists as one of the    
                                                          exemptions the spectrum to be used for advanced/      
                                                          digital television, with a qualification. That is, the
                                                          FCC can't auction spectrum for digital TV ``unless''  
                                                          the FCC submits within six months a new proposal for  
                                                          allocating this spectrum by auction and the Congress  
                                                          ``takes action to approve the plan'' (i.e. enacts a   
                                                          later law with the President's signature). Because the
                                                          prohibition on auctioning spectrum for digital TV     
                                                          stands on its own and is unaffected by the possibility
                                                          that Congress could always come back later and change 
                                                          the law, the language telling the FCC to do a new plan
                                                          that would have to be approved by Congress has no     
                                                          impact on the receipts yielded by the auctions that   
                                                          are authorized in this bill, and therefore that       
                                                          language is extraneous.                               
Sec. 4002..............................................   Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues. This section would amend a schedule of      
                                                          regulatory fees charged by the FCC to broadcasters.   
                                                          These fees were established by OBRA '93 as permanent  
                                                          offsetting collections to be ``credited to the account
                                                          providing appropriations'' to the FCC. Two months     
                                                          later, the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill 
                                                          for 1994 amended OBRA '93 by saying that these fees   
                                                          ``shall be collected only if, and only in the total   
                                                          amounts, required in Appropriations Acts.'' Therefore,
                                                          if there is no appropriations action, then these fees 
                                                          cannot be collected. Since future collection of the   
                                                          fees is contingent on future action by the Congress,  
                                                          changing the schedule of fees in this reconciliation  
                                                          bill has no budgetary effect, so the provision is     
                                                          extraneous.                                           
Sec. 4021..............................................   Byrd rule (b)(1)(E): A provision which would, on net, 
                                                          increase outlays or decrease revenues in a fiscal year
                                                          after the period covered by the reconciliation bill.  
                                                          Section limits the fee the Coast Guard can charge for 
                                                          inspection of small vessels. Provision does not sunset
                                                          and causes outlays beyond the years in which savings  
                                                          are achieved through spectrum auctions.               
Sec. 4022(a) Use of Interest for Oil Spill Recovery       Byrd rule (b)(1)(E): A provision which would, on net, 
 Institute.                                               increase outlays or decrease revenues in a fiscal year
                                                          after the period covered by the reconciliation bill.  
                                                          Section provides for new direct spending by allowing  
                                                          interest in Oil Spill Liability trust fund attributed 
                                                          to the Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) be used by 
                                                          the Institute. Provision may or may not sunset, due to
                                                          interaction with next provision, dealing with Section 
                                                          1012 in Alaska. Provision will cause outlays beyond   
                                                          the years in which savings are achieved through       
                                                          spectrum auctions.                                    
Sec. 4022(a) Use of Section 1012 in Alaska.............   Byrd rule (b)(1)(E): A provision which would, on net, 
                                                          increase outlays or decrease revenues in a fiscal year
                                                          after the period covered by the reconciliation bill.  
                                                          Section provides for new direct spending beginning    
                                                          eleven years after enactment of the 1995 Coast Guard  
                                                          authorization bill by mandating principal attributed  
                                                          to the Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) in the Oil 
                                                          Spill Liability trust fund be used for oil spill      
                                                          liability and compensation activities in Alaska.      
Sec. 4033..............................................   Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues. Section provides change in current law to   
                                                          the Local Rail Freight Assistance program allowing for
                                                          disaster assistance for railroads.                    
Sec. 4034..............................................   Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues. Section provides for additional eligible    
                                                          state activities under the Local Rail Freight         
                                                          Assistance program.                                   
                                                                                                                
                                           ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES                                         
                                                                                                                
                                                           Subtitle A--United States Enrichment Corporation     
Sec. 5002..............................................  Enrichment Corporation statement of purpose; Byrd rule 
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 5004(d)(2) & (3)..................................  Enrichment Corporation amendments dealing with the     
                                                          scoring of the proceeds from the sale of the          
                                                          corporation; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change  
                                                          in outlays or revenues.                               
Sec. 5013(a)(1)(B).....................................  Requirement that DOE accept low level nuclear waste    
                                                          from any operator of an enrichment facility; Byrd rule
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 5013(c)...........................................  Waiver of liability for State or Interstate Compact's  
                                                          requirement to accept low level nuclear wate from any 
                                                          enrichment facility; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no 
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
                                                           Subtitle C--Arctic Coastal Plain Leasing and Revenue 
                                                            Act                                                 
Sec. 5202..............................................  Purpose and policy; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no   
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 5207(d) second sentence...........................  Special Areas reporting requirement to Congress; Byrd  
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
Portion of Sec. 5215(b)................................  Reporting requirements (beginning with line 12 on page 
                                                          48 through line 2 on page 49); Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):   
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
                                                           Subtitle D--Park Entrance Fees                       
Sec. 5300(a)(3)........................................  Authorization of appropriations; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):  
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 5300(a)(10).......................................  Report to Congress on fee collections; Byrd rule       
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 5301..............................................  Authorizes Secretary to enter into challenge cost-share
                                                          agreements; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 5302..............................................  Cost recovery for damage to National Park resources;   
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 5305(b)(2) second sentence........................  Reporting requirement to Congress; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
                                                           Subtitle E--Water Projects                           
Sec. 5410 second sentence of subsection (2)............  Hetch Hetchy dam authorizations for Yosemite           
                                                          operations; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
                                                           Subtitle F--Oil and Gas Royalties                    
5509...................................................  Royalty in Kind; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no      
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
5510...................................................  Royalty Simplification Audit and Reporting             
                                                          Requirements; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change 
                                                          in outlays or revenues.                               
5512...................................................  Delegation to States; Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no 
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
                                                           Subtitle H--Mining                                   
5709...................................................  Uses and Objectives of Mine Reclamation Fund; Byrd rule
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
                                                           Subtitle K--Radio and Television Communication Site  
                                                            Fees                                                
Sec. 5920..............................................  CBO scores no impact from communicatoin fees; Byrd rule
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 


                                                                                                                

[[Page S15833]]
                                  EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS--SENATE BILL--Continued                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Provision                                            Comments/Violation                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS                                          
                                                                                                                
Sec. 6003(a)...........................................  Findings section regarding highway minimum allocation  
                                                          program. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in   
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
                                                                                                                
                                                FINANCE--MEDICARE                                               
                                                                                                                
                                                         Draft from October 23, 1995 Committee has not met its 1
                                                          or 5 year instruction.                                
                                                           Medicare Choice                                      
Sec. 1895A (c) (2) (B).................................  ``the Secretary shall submit to the Congress           
                                                          recommendations on expanding the definition of        
                                                          `medicare choice eligible individual''' Byrd rule     
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 1895A (b) (1) (B) (iii)...........................  MSAs--costs $$ relative to the savings of Medicare     
                                                          Choice. Separable. Probably a violation. Byrd rule    
                                                          (b)(1)(B): Increases the deficit and committee fails  
                                                          to meet its reconciliation instructions.              
Sec. 1895M (d) (3).....................................  ``The Secretary shall conduct an analysis of the       
                                                          measurable input cost differences across payment      
                                                          areas''and ``The Secretary shall also determine the   
                                                          degree to which medicare beneficiaries have           
                                                          access''and ``the Secretary shall submit a report''   
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 1895M (f).........................................  Demonstration project on market-based reimbursement and
                                                          competitive pricing. Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases   
                                                          the deficit and committee fails to meet its           
                                                          reconciliation instructions.                          
Sec. 1895R (c).........................................  Report on the temporary certification of coordinated   
                                                          care plans. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 1895R (f).........................................  Partial capitation demonstration Byrd rule (b)(1)(B):  
                                                          Increases the deficit and committee fails to meet its 
                                                          reconciliation instructions.                          
                                                           Part A provisions                                    
Sec. 7012 (c)..........................................  Development [of] National Prospective Payment Rates for
                                                          Current Non-PPS Hospitals Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):        
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 7032..............................................  Incentive payments to SNFs. Byrd rule (b)(1)(B):       
                                                          Increases the deficit and committee fails to meet its 
                                                          reconciliation instructions.                          
Sec. 7037..............................................  Report by Prospective Payment Assessment Commission.   
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues.                                             
                                                           Part B provisions                                    
Sec. 7043 (c)..........................................  Study & report of physician fee schedule. Byrd rule    
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7044 (c)..........................................  Upgraded Durable Medical Equipment. Byrd rule          
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7050..............................................  Physician Supervision of Nurse Anesthetists. Byrd rule 
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
                                                           Part A & B provisions                                
Sec. 7056..............................................  Treatment of assisted suicide. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):    
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 7057 (a)..........................................  Nothing in this Act shall be construed to change the   
                                                          status under title XVIII of ... (Indian Health        
                                                          Centers). Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in  
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 7057 (b)..........................................  Conforming amendment to change the name/organization   
                                                          for Christian Scientists. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):        
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 7061 (a)..........................................  (C) Share of Savings--Bonus payments to home health    
                                                          agencies. Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the deficit  
                                                          and committee fails to meet its reconciliation        
                                                          instructions.                                         
Sec. 7061 (a)..........................................  (f) Report by Prospective Payment Assessment           
                                                          Commission. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
                                                           Rural Areas                                          
Sec. 7071..............................................  Medicare-dependent small rural hospitals: increases OL 
                                                          by $0.2B over 7 years Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases  
                                                          the deficit and committee fails to meet its           
                                                          reconciliation instructions.                          
Sec. 7072..............................................  Medicare rural hospital flexibility: increases OL by   
                                                          $0.2B over 7 years Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the 
                                                          deficit and committee fails to meet its reconciliation
                                                          instructions.                                         
Sec. 7073..............................................  Rural emergency access care hospitals: increases OL by 
                                                          $0.2B over 7 years Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the 
                                                          deficit and committee fails to meet its reconciliation
                                                          instructions.                                         
Sec. 7074..............................................  Payments to physicians in shortage areas: increases OL 
                                                          by $0.4B over 7 years Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases  
                                                          the deficit and committee fails to meet its           
                                                          reconciliation instructions.                          
Sec. 7075..............................................  Direct fee schedule payments to physician assistants   
                                                          and nurse practitioners: increases OL by $0.3B over 7 
                                                          years Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the deficit and  
                                                          committee fails to meet its reconciliation            
                                                          instructions.                                         
Sec. 7076..............................................  Demonstration projects to promote telemedicine. Byrd   
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 7077..............................................  Prospective Payment Assessment Commission report on    
                                                          updates for urban Medicare-dependent hospitals. Byrd  
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
                                                           Health Care Fraud & Abuse                            
Sec. 7103..............................................  Health Care Fraud and Abuse Guidelines. Byrd rule      
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7112..............................................  Minimum exclusion period for individuals. Byrd rule    
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7116..............................................  Clarification of and additions to exceptions to anti-  
                                                          kickback penalties. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no  
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 7121..............................................  Establishment of the health care fraud and abuse data  
                                                          collection program. Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the
                                                          deficit and committee fails to meet its reconciliation
                                                          instructions.                                         
Sec. 7143..............................................  Injunctive relief relating to federal health care      
                                                          offenses. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in  
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 7144..............................................  Grand jury disclosure. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 7148..............................................  Laundering of monetary instruments. Byrd rule          
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7149..............................................  Authorized investigative demand procedures. Is this a  
                                                          necessary term or condition? Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):     
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
                                                           Other provisions for trust fund solvency             
Sec. 7173..............................................  Transfers of certain part B savings to HI trust fund.  
                                                          (i.e., medicare lockbox) Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces
                                                          no change in outlays or revenues.                     
                                                                                                                
                                                FINANCE--MEDICAID                                               
                                                                                                                
                                                         Draft from October 23, 1995 Committee has not met its 1
                                                          or 5 year instruction.                                
                                                         The provisions listed here as Sec. 2102 through Sec.   
                                                          2137 are new sections added by Sec. 7191(a) of the    
                                                          reconciliation bill.                                  
Sec. 2102 (b)(7).......................................  Plan must include ``a description of the average amount
                                                          paid per discharge'' Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no 
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 2105 (b)..........................................  Each State with a medicaid plan shall establish and    
                                                          maintain an advisory committee (which shall aid in)   
                                                          the development, revision, and monitoring the         
                                                          performance of the medicaid plan'' Byrd rule          
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 2106..............................................  Secretary shall create a Medicaid Task Force. Byrd rule
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 2111 (c)..........................................  ``The medicaid plan shall provide medical assistance   
                                                          for immunizations.'' Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no 
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 2111 (d)..........................................  ``The medicaid plan shall provide prepregnancy planning
                                                          services and supplies'' Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces 
                                                          no change in outlays or revenues.                     
Sec. 2111 (e)..........................................  ``A medicaid plan may not deny or exclude coverage on  
                                                          the basis of a pre-existing condition'' Byrd rule     
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 2111 (f)..........................................  ``A medicaid plan shall not impose treatment limits on 
                                                          mental illness services'' Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):        
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 2116..............................................  Causes of action Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no      
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 2117..............................................  Spousal impoverishment mandate. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):   
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 2122 (g)..........................................  Super-block grant. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no    
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 2123 (g), (h).....................................  Limitations on use of funds. ``No payment shall be made
                                                          to a State under this part for expenditures for       
                                                          items''(g) abortions; (h) assisted suicide. Byrd rule 
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 2137..............................................  Nursing home standards. ``Each medicaid plan shall     
                                                          provide for the establishment and maintenance of      
                                                          procedures for nursing facilities which furnish       
                                                          services under the plan.''--mandate Byrd rule         
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7192 (a) (1)......................................  ``No payment shall be made to a State under this part  
                                                          for medical assistance for medical assistance for     
                                                          covered outpatient drugs unless the manufacturer of   
                                                          the drug'' ``No payment shall be made under this part 
                                                          to a State that requires manufacturer rebates'' Byrd  
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 7192 (a) (2)......................................  ``in order for payment to be made to a State under part
                                                          C for medical assistance for covered outpatient drugs 
                                                          of a manufacturer, the manufacturer must'' Byrd rule  
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7194..............................................  Authorizes new demonstration project. No appropriation.
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 7195..............................................  CBO Report requiring analysis of effect of block grant 
                                                          on health insurance status. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):      
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
                                                                                                                
                                               FINANCE--NON-HEALTH                                              
                                                                                                                
Sec 7201: 401..........................................  Purpose of Block Grant--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces  
                                                          no change in outlays or revenues.                     
403(a)(2)(C)...........................................  3 month notification to State with Indian tribes       
                                                          exercising funding option--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):       
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
403(a)(2)(D) (i) and (ii)..............................  Additional payments for EA where State plan is modified
                                                          in 1994. Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the deficit   
                                                          and committee fails to meet its reconciliation        
                                                          instructions.                                         
403(a)(2)(D) (iii).....................................  Directed Scoring Post 2000--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):       
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
403(a)(3), (4)(B)......................................  Supplemental Grant Fund--Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases
                                                          the deficit and committee fails to meet its           
                                                          reconciliation instructions.                          
403(b)(1)..............................................  Limitation on admin expenditures--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): 
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
403(b)(2)..............................................  Authority to treat interstate immigrants under rules of
                                                          former states --Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no      
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
403(b)(4)..............................................  Authority to operate employment placement program with 
                                                          grant--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in     
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
403(b)(5)..............................................  Authority to 30% transfer grant to Child Care Block    
                                                          Grant--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in     
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
403(f).................................................  Job Placement Performance Set Aside--Byrd rule         
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
403(h).................................................  Contingency Grant Fund--Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases 
                                                          the deficit and committee fails to meet its           
                                                          reconciliation instructions.                          
404(d).................................................  Required Penalties against Individuals--Byrd rule      
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
404(e).................................................  Non Displacement in Work Activities--Byrd rule         
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
404(f).................................................  Sense of Congress on use of Job training fund--Byrd    
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
404(g).................................................  Encouragement to Deliver Child Care--Byrd rule         
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
405....................................................  Limitations and Requirements--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):     
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
406(a).................................................  Congressional Findings--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces  
                                                          no change in outlays or revenues.                     
406(b).................................................  State option to deny assistance to out of wedlock      
                                                          births to minor children: Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):        
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
406(c).................................................  State option to deny assistance for additional births: 
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues.                                             
406(d)(1) and (2)......................................  Requirement that teenage parents live at home or in    
                                                          supervised arrangements: Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces
                                                          no change in outlays or revenues.                     
406(d)(3)..............................................  Grants to States to provide supervised living--Byrd    
                                                          rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the deficit and committee   
                                                          fails to meet its reconciliation instructions.        
406(e).................................................  Requirement that teenage parents attend high school--  
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues.                                             
406(f).................................................  Grant to States that reduce out-of-wedlock birthrate-- 
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the deficit and        
                                                          committee fails to meet its reconciliation            
                                                          instructions.                                         
406(g).................................................  Denial of assistance by the State not limited to these 
                                                          requirements--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change 
                                                          in outlays or revenues.                               
409(i).................................................  Report to Congress on Automation--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): 
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
409(j).................................................  Report to Congress on participation rates compliance-- 
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues.                                             
410....................................................  Research, Evaluations, State Rankings--Byrd rule       
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
410(h).................................................  Direct Spending for additional evaluations--Byrd rule  
                                                          (b)(1)(B): Increases the deficit and committee fails  
                                                          to meet its reconciliation instructions.              
411....................................................  Census Bureau Study--Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the
                                                          deficit and committee fails to meet its reconciliation
                                                          instructions.                                         
412(b).................................................  Hold harmless for cost neutrality from waiver          
                                                          conditions--Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the deficit
                                                          and committee fails to meet its reconciliation        
                                                          instructions.                                         
413....................................................  State and County Run Demonstrations--Byrd rule         
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
414(a).................................................  Purpose of provision--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no 
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
415....................................................  Assistant Secretary for Family Support--Byrd rule      
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
418....................................................  High Performance Bonus Funds--Byrd rule (b)(1)(B):     
                                                          Increases the deficit and committee fails to meet its 
                                                          reconciliation instructions.                          



                                                                                                                

[[Page S15834]]
                                  EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS--SENATE BILL--Continued                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Provision                                            Comments/Violation                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
419(b).................................................  Additional Child Care Funds--Byrd rule (b)(1)(B):      
                                                          Increases the deficit and committee fails to meet its 
                                                          reconciliation instructions.                          
420....................................................  Single state agency in charge of child care--Byrd rule 
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
421....................................................  Tax Refund offset to states for overpayments--Byrd rule
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7202..............................................  Services Provided by Charitable/Religious, or Private  
                                                          Organizations Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change 
                                                          in outlays or revenues.                               
Sec. 7203..............................................  No funds provided to institutions may be used for      
                                                          sectarian worship--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no   
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 7204..............................................  Census data on grandparents as primary caregiver--Byrd 
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 7205..............................................  Study of Effect of Welfare Reform on Grandparents as   
                                                          Caregivers--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 7206..............................................  Development of new Social Security Card Authorization--
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 7207..............................................  Funds used by organizations can not support or oppose  
                                                          publicly without disclosure of receipt of funds. Byrd 
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 7208..............................................  Modification of JOLI program--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):     
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 7209..............................................  Demo project for School Utilization--Byrd rule         
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7211..............................................  Parental Responsibility Contracts--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 7212..............................................  Federal funds must be spent in accordance with laws and
                                                          procedures applicable to state revenues--Byrd rule    
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7216..............................................  Secretary of HHS must submit list of technical         
                                                          amendments--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 7251(e)...........................................  Supplemental Funding for Substance Abuse--Byrd rule    
                                                          (b)(1)(B): Increases the deficit and committee fails  
                                                          to meet its reconciliation instructions.              
Sec. 7263..............................................  Additional requirements for representative payees--Byrd
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 7271..............................................  Annual Report to Congress on SSI--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): 
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 7272..............................................  Improvements to Disability Evaluation--Byrd rule       
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7273..............................................  Study of the Disability Determination Process--Byrd    
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 7274..............................................  Study by GAO on impact of Amendments--Byrd rule        
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7281 to 7287......................................  National Commission on Future of Disability--Byrd rule 
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7291..............................................  Repeal of Maintenance of Effort for State SSI          
                                                          Supplement--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 7302..............................................  Distribute child support collections to families off   
                                                          welfare first--Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the     
                                                          deficit and committee fails to meet its reconciliation
                                                          instructions.                                         
Sec. 7303..............................................  Rights to notifications and hearings for those applying
                                                          for services or a party to these actions--Byrd rule   
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7344(b)...........................................  Extension of enhanced match and new funds matching     
                                                          funds for ADP development--Byrd rule (b)(1)(B):       
                                                          Increases the deficit and committee fails to meet its 
                                                          reconciliation instructions.                          
Sec. 7345..............................................  Training and technical assistance, child support       
                                                          demonstrations--Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the    
                                                          deficit and committee fails to meet its reconciliation
                                                          instructions.                                         
Sec. 7346..............................................  Changes in the annual report to Congress--Byrd rule    
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7351..............................................  National Child Support Guidelines Commission--Byrd rule
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7354..............................................  Non-liability for depository institutions providing    
                                                          financial records to child support agencies--Byrd rule
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7375(a): 454(C)(b) and (c)........................  Permissive fees and excess costs of enforcement. Byrd  
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 7375(b)...........................................  Sense of Senate on how to collect fees--Byrd rule      
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7377..............................................  Sense of Senate on inability of non-custodial parents  
                                                          to pay child support--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 7381..............................................  Grants to State for Access and Visitation Programs--   
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(B): Increases the deficit and        
                                                          committee fails to meet its reconciliation            
                                                          instructions.                                         
Sec. 7406..............................................  Information Reporting, requiring states to provide     
                                                          names to INS--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change 
                                                          in outlays or revenues.                               
Sec. 7411..............................................  Reductions in Federal Government Positions--Byrd rule  
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7412..............................................  75% reduction in Federal positions dealing with AFDC-- 
                                                          Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 7413..............................................  Sense of Senate that reductions should come from       
                                                          Washington DC office--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 7422..............................................  Establish National Goals for teenage pregnancy         
                                                          prevention--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 7442..............................................  Sense of Senate on legislative accountability for      
                                                          unfunded mandates--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no   
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec. 7443..............................................  Sense of Senate Regarding Enforcement of Statutory     
                                                          Rape--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in      
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 7444..............................................  No prohibition on sanctioning an individual when       
                                                          testing positive for controlled substances--Byrd rule 
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 7445..............................................  Abstinence Education set aside--Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):   
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 7481..............................................  Sense of Senate on Cost of Living Adjustments--Byrd    
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
                                                                                                                
                                                FINANCE--REVENUES                                               
                                                                                                                
Sec. 12401(f)..........................................  Requires the Secretary of Labor to implement a         
                                                          ``Business Awareness Program'' to educate and         
                                                          encourage business to benefit from the Work           
                                                          Opportunity Tax Credit. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces 
                                                          no change in outlays or revenues.                     
Sec. 6039F(d)..........................................  Beginning with the phrase, ``notwithstanding any other 
                                                          provision of law...'' requires the Secretary of       
                                                          Treasury to publish in the Federal Register the names 
                                                          of expatriates. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no      
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec.12874(c)...........................................  Requires the trustees of the Combined Fund (coal       
                                                          industry retirees) to provide documents to            
                                                          contributors if requested. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):       
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 12705.............................................  Requires notices to charitable beneficiaries of        
                                                          charitable remainder trusts that a remainder has been 
                                                          created. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in   
                                                          outlays or revenues.                                  
Sec. 12705.............................................  Provides exceptions to the notification requirements   
                                                          (to charitable beneficiaries of the creation of or    
                                                          continuation of charitable remainders) if the         
                                                          Secretary determines it is not necessary for efficient
                                                          administration of tax law. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):       
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 12878.............................................  Section 2878(e) authorizes the Secretary of the        
                                                          Treasury to prescribe regulations regarding Modified  
                                                          guaranteed contracts. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no
                                                          change in outlays or revenues.                        
Sec.12904(a) (12)(D)Requiring written notice to each                                                            
 employee eligible to participate in certain qualified                                                          
 cash or deferred arrangements and matching                                                                     
 contributions. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change                                                         
 in outlays or revenues..                                                                                       
                                                                                                                
                                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS                                              
                                                                                                                
                                                         There are no extraneous provisions in this title.      
                                                                                                                
                                                    JUDICIARY                                                   
                                                                                                                
                                                         There are no extraneous provisions in this title.      
                                                                                                                
                                            LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES                                           
                                                                                                                
Sec. 10002(c)(2)(C)....................................  Indirect costs for direct loans may not exceed 50% of  
                                                          the section 458 funds and they may not be used for    
                                                          promotion the direct loan program. Byrd rule          
                                                          (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or revenues. 
Sec. 10002(g) p. 1422 lines 5-8........................  Sense of the Senate statement that the .85 fee to      
                                                          institutions should not be passed on to students. Byrd
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 10003(d) & (e)....................................  Permits the development, and distribution an use of an 
                                                          electronic version of the free federal common         
                                                          application for by guaranty agencies and lenders. Byrd
                                                          rule (b)(1)(A): Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                          revenues.                                             
Sec. 10005 (g).........................................  Permits guarantors to use the funds from the federal   
                                                          payment of the Administrative Cost Allowance to pay   
                                                          for any means of monitoring the enrollment and        
                                                          repayment status of borrowers. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):   
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 10005 (h).........................................  Guaranty agencies are prohibited from using federal    
                                                          reserves for marketing, advertising, or promotion of  
                                                          the guaranteed loan program. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):     
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
Sec. 10007(a)(4)(A)(ii)................................  Provision regarding Sallie Mae and full faith and      
                                                          credit of the United States. Byrd rule (b)(1)(A):     
                                                          Produces no change in outlays or revenues.            
                                                                                                                
                                                VETERANS' AFFAIRS                                               
                                                                                                                
                                                         Veterans' Affairs Committee reconciliation language    
                                                          contains no Byrd Rule Violation                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Prepared by SBC majority staff, October 25, 1995 (12:55 pm) and by the Staff of the Committee on the      
  Budget, pursuant to Section 313(c) requiring a list of items considered to be extraneous under subsections    
  (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E). The inclusion or exclusion of a provision shall not constitute a         
  determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.                                       


  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee was 
kind enough to discuss with me in advance the list that he just 
submitted for the Record. I, in turn, have shared with him my view of 
which items in the bill violate the Byrd rule against extraneous matter 
in reconciliation.
  There is a great deal of agreement on these two lists, but some 
differences persist. To make the Record more complete, I submit my list 
of extraneous provisions and ask unanimous consent that it be printed 
in the Record.
  At the close of debate on the bill, after Senators and the 
Parliamentarian have had a full, fair chance to review these lists, I 
intend to raise an omnibus point of order under the Byrd rule against a 
large number of provisions that we have determined to be extraneous. I 
ask unanimous consent that my list be printed in the Record to give 
Senators the maximum amount of notice as to which provisions are under 
review for that purpose.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

List of Byrd Rule Violations to the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act 
                                of 1995

   (Prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Senate Budget Committee, 
                           October 25, 1995)

                                                                                                                

[[Page S15835]]
                              EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS, RECONCILIATION 1995--Continued                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtitle and Section                   Subject             Budget Act Violation         Explanation     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Title I                                                    
                                                                                                                
                                             COMMITTEE: AGRICULTURE                                             
                                                                                                                
                                            Compliance: 1,5 yes; 7 no                                           
                                                                                                                
1113(b)(3)(B)......................  Creates a temporary quota    313(b)(1)(A)..........  No budgetary impact.  
                                      for seed peanuts.                                                         
1111(b)............................  Terminates Tree Assistance   313(b)(1)(A)..........  No budgetary impact.  
                                      program.                                                                  
1113(c)............................  Provides for Sale, Lease or  313(b)(1)(d)..........  Savings are           
                                      Transfer of Peanut quotas.                           incidental.          
1113(e)(2).........................  Makes available additional   313(b)(1)(A)..........  No budgetary impact.  
                                      peanuts if market price                                                   
                                      exceeds 120% loan rate.                                                   
1115...............................  Savings adjustment to        313(b)(1)(A)..........  No budgetary impact.  
                                      prorate payments to                                                       
                                      farmers if deficit targets                                                
                                      aren't met.                                                               
1116...............................  Sense of the Senate          313(b)(1)(A)..........  No budgetary impact.  
                                      regarding Ethanol.                                                        
1201...............................  Establishes Environmental    ......................  Ag title out of       
                                      Incentives Program.                                  compliance--spends   
                                                                                           money.               



                                                        BYRD RULE VIOLATIONS, RECONCILIATION 1996                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtitle and Section                    Subject                    Budget Act Violation                            Explanation                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        TITLE: II                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                COMMITTEE: ARMED SERVICES                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                   Compliance 1st Year: No; 5-Years: Yes; 7-Years: Yes                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
7421a.(a)..........................  Sale Required. The sale of     313(b)(1)(E)......................  There is a loss of offsetting receipts in the   
                                      the Elk Hills, CA site in                                          outyears that is not offset with the title.    
                                      the NPR.                                                           Specifically, CBO estimates that selling the   
                                                                                                         NPR will result in a loss of offsetting        
                                                                                                         receipts in years 2003-05 of $1.02 billion.    
                                                                                                         Thus, the provision produces revenue losses in 
                                                                                                         years not covered by the budget resolution.    
7421a.(e)..........................  Treatment of State of          313(b)(1)(A)......................  This provision amounts to California's price for
                                      California. Reservation of 7                                       waiving its claim to the land within the NPR.  
                                      percent of the sale of the                                         This 7 percent set-aside does not score because
                                      Elk Hills site in the NPR to                                       the spending is subject to appropriations      
                                      settle claims with the State                                       action.                                        
                                      of California.                                                                                                    
7421.a.(f).........................  Maintaining Elk Hlls Unit      313(b)(1)(A)......................  This provision provides no change in revenue or 
                                      Production. Sets                                                   outlays and is thus extraneous.                
                                      requirements for Elk Hills                                                                                        
                                      to maintain production till                                                                                       
                                      sale is complete.                                                                                                 
7421a.(j)(3).......................  Notice to Congress.            313(b)(1)(A)......................  As a sense of the Senate, this provision        
                                      Establishes a sense of the                                         produces no changes in revenue or outlays and  
                                      Congress regarding the                                             is thus extraneous.                            
                                      Secretary of the Energy's                                                                                         
                                      approval of the Elk Hills                                                                                         
                                      site in the NPR.                                                                                                  
7421a.(k)..........................  Joint Resolution of Approval.  313(b)(1)(A)......................  This provision does not produce any change in   
                                      Provides fast track                                                revenue or outlays and is thus extraneous.     
                                      authority for congressional                                                                                       
                                      approval of the sale of the                                                                                       
                                      Elk Hills site in the NPR.                                                                                        
7421.a(1)..........................  Noncompliance with Deadlines.  313(b)(1)(A)......................  This provision produces no change in revenue or 
                                      Requires the Secretary of                                          outlays and is thus extraneous.                
                                      Energy to notify Congress if                                                                                      
                                      the sale is delayed.                                                                                              
7421.a(m)..........................  Oversight. Requires the        313(b)(1)(A)......................  This provision produces no change in revenue or 
                                      Comptroller General to                                             outlays and is thus extraneous.                
                                      monitor the sale.                                                                                                 
7421.b.(a).........................  Sale Required. The sale of     313(b)(1)(E)......................  There is a loss of offsetting receipts in the   
                                      reserves in the NPR other                                          outyears beyond 2002 that is not offset within 
                                      than that at Elk Hills, CA.                                        the title. Thus, the provision produces revenue
                                                                                                         losses in years beyond the years covered in the
                                                                                                         budget resolution.                             
7421.b.(b).........................  Administration of Sale.        313(b)(1)(A)......................  This provision produces no change in revenue or 
                                      Applies subsections c, d, h,                                       outlays and is thus extraneous.                
                                      i, j, k, l, m, and n or                                                                                           
                                      section 7421.a. of this                                                                                           
                                      title to the sale of sites                                                                                        
                                      other than Elk Hills.                                                                                             
7421.b.(b)(C)......................  Joint Resolution of Approval.  313(b)(1)(A)......................  This provision produces no change in revenue or 
                                      Provides fast track                                                outlays and is thus extraneous.                
                                      authority for congressional                                                                                       
                                      consideration of the sale.                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                       EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS, RECONCILIATION 1995                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtitle and Section                    Subject                    Budget Act Violation                            Explanation                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        TITLE III                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                     COMMITTEE: BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                     Compliance: Yes                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
3002...............................  Deposit Insurance Study,       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Instituting a study does not have an impact on  
                                      Requires Secretary of the                                          the deficit. (Not in cost estimate)            
                                      Treasury to conduct a study                                                                                       
                                      on converting the FDIC into                                                                                       
                                      a self-funded deposit                                                                                             
                                      insurance system.                                                                                                 
3001(d)............................  Merger of BIF and SAIF.......  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Has no impact on the deficit.                   
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                        TITLE IV                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                    COMMITTEE: COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                     Compliance: Yes                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
4002...............................  Annual Regulatory Fees.......  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Authorizing regulatory fees has no impact on the
                                                                                                         deficit until after appropriations. (not in    
                                                                                                         cost estimate)                                 
4001(a)(C)(i)(ii)..................  Spectrum language p. 207,      313(b)(1)(A)......................  This language has no impact on spending.        
                                      lines 2-23.                                                                                                       
4021...............................  Limits on Coast Guard User     313(b)(1)(E)......................  Provision does not sunset and causes outlays    
                                      Fees.                                                              beyond years covered by Reconciliation bill.   
4022(a)............................  Oil Spill Recovery Institute.  313(b)(1)(E)......................  Provision does not sunset and causes outlays    
                                                                                                         beyond years covered by Reconciliation bill.   
4022(A)............................  Use of Section 1012 in Alaska  313(b)(1)(E)......................  Provision does not sunset and causes outlays    
                                                                                                         beyond years covered by Reconciliation bill.   
4033...............................  Disaster Funding for           313(b)(1)(A)......................  This section clarifies procedures that allow the
                                      Railroads.                                                         Secretary of Transportation to use LRFA for    
                                                                                                         railroad disaster assistance. The section has  
                                                                                                         no impact on the deficit. (not in cost         
                                                                                                         estimate)                                      
4034...............................  Grade-crossing eligibility...  313(b)(1)(A)......................  This section expands the list of activities     
                                                                                                         eligible for LRFA and has no impact on the     
                                                                                                         deficit. (not in cost estimate)                
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                         TITLE V                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                         COMMITTEE: ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                Compliance in 1, 5 and 7                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
Subtitle A, Uranium Enrichment                                                                                                                          
 Corporation:                                                                                                                                           
  5002.............................  Statement of Purpose.........  (b)(1)(A).........................  Non-budgetary.                                  
  5004(d)(2) & (3).................  Proceeds.....................  (b)(1)(A).........................  Non-budgetary.                                  
  5013(a)(1)(B)....................  Low-Level Waste..............  (b)(1)(A).........................  Non-budgetary, requirement that DOE accept low- 
                                                                                                         level waste from any operator of an enrichment 
                                                                                                         facility.                                      
  5013(c)..........................  Low-Level Waste..............  (b)(1)(A).........................  Non-budgetary, waiver of liability for State or 
                                                                                                         Interstate Compact's requirement to accept low 
                                                                                                         level nuclear waste from any enrichment        
                                                                                                         facility.                                      
Subtitle B, DOI:                                                                                                                                        
  5100.............................  California Land Directed Sale  Byrd 313(b)(1)(D).................  Savings are merely incidental to the transfer of
                                                                                                         Federal land (Ward Valley) to the State of     
                                                                                                         California for the purpose of creating a low-  
                                                                                                         level radioactive waste site.                  
Subtitle C, ANWR:                                                                                                                                       
  5202.............................  Purpose and Policy...........  313(b)(1)(D)......................  Non-budgetary.                                  
  5206.............................  Adequacy of 1987 EIS.........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Overrides the  
                                                                                                         impact assessment requirements of the National 
                                                                                                         Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by declaring   
                                                                                                         that the 1987 environmental impact statement   
                                                                                                         satisfies the requirements of NEPA.            
  5702(d), second sentence.........  Special Areas................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Non-budgetary, reporting requirements to        
                                                                                                         Congress.                                      
  5212.............................  Expedited Judicial Review....  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budgetary impact. Limits         
                                                                                                         complaints seeking judicial review to 90 days  
                                                                                                         after date of any regulation.                  
  5213.............................  Rights of way Requirements...  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budgetary impact. Overrides      
                                                                                                         existing law (ANILCA's title XI) which         
                                                                                                         delineates procedures for transportation rights
                                                                                                         of way within the Alaska refuges, including the
                                                                                                         ANWR.                                          
  5215(b)..........................  New Revenues.................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Non-budgetary, reporting requirements.          
Subtitle D, Park Entrance Fees:                                                                                                                         
  5300(a)(3).......................  Fees.........................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Non-budgetary, authorization of appropriations. 
  5300(a)(10)......................  Fees.........................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Non-budgetary, report to Congress on fee        
                                                                                                         collections.                                   
  5301.............................  Challenge Cost-Share           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Non-budgetary, authorizes Secretary to enter    
                                      Agreements.                                                        into challenge cost-share agreements.          
  5302.............................  Cost Recovery................  313(B)(1)(A)......................  Non-budgetary, cost recovery for damage to      
                                                                                                         National Parks resources.                      
  5305(b)(2).......................  Allocation and Use of Fees...  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Non-Budgetary, reporting requirements to        
                                                                                                         Congress. (second sentence)                    


                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page S15836]]
                                                  EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS, RECONCILIATION 1995--Continued                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtitle and Section                    Subject                    Budget Act Violation                            Explanation                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle E, Water Projects:                                                                                                                             
  5510(2)..........................  Hetch Hetchy Dam.............  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budget impact. Sets up fund      
                                                                                                         subject to appropriations.                     
Subtitle F, Federal Oil and Gas                                                                                                                         
 Royalties:                                                                                                                                             
  5509.............................  Royalty In Kind..............  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budgetary impact. Clarifies the  
                                                                                                         Secretary's option to take royalty of oil and  
                                                                                                         gas in kind.                                   
  5510.............................  Royalty Simplification.......  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budgetary impact. Requires       
                                                                                                         Secretary to streamline royalty management     
                                                                                                         requirements, and submit a report to Congress. 
  5512.............................  Delegation to States.........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budgetary impact. Delegates      
                                                                                                         certain auditing responsibilities to states.   
  5513.............................  Performance Standard.........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budgetary impact. Changes the    
                                                                                                         standards for assessing civil penalties.       
Subtite H, Mining:                                                                                                                                      
  5709.............................  Use and Objectives of State    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budgetary impact. Stipulates how 
                                      Funds.                                                             monies to states can be spent.                 
Part K: 5920.......................  Radio and TV Site              313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budgetary impact. Enactment of   
                                      Communications Fees.                                               this section would have no impact on receipts  
                                                                                                         because the baseline already assumes that the  
                                                                                                         BLM and the Forest Service would raise fees by 
                                                                                                         this level beginning in 1996.                  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                        TITLE VI                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                          COMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                             Compliance in 5 and 7, not in 1                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Section 6002(c)....................  Rescission of appropriated     313(b)(1)(C)......................  These demonstration projects are not within     
                                      demonstration projects.                                            EPW's jurisdiction.                            
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                   TITLE VII--SPENDING                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                   COMMITTEE: FINANCE                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                          Compliance: No in 1996 and 1996-2000                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
Chap. 1                                  Medicare Choice Plans                                                                                          
  1895A(b)(1)(B)...................  Medical savings accounts.....  313(b)(1)(B)......................  Creates Medical Savings Accounts. Increases the 
                                                                                                         deficit by $3.5 billion over 7 years.          
  1895A(c)(2)(B)...................  Special rule for end-stage     313(b)(1)(A)......................  Produces no change in outlays or revenues.      
                                      renal disease.                                                                                                    
  1895M(d)(3)......................  Report to the Congress on      313(b)(1)(A)......................  Produces no change in outlays or revenues.      
                                      Medicare Choice.                                                                                                  
  1895M(f).........................  Demonstration project on       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Produces no change in outlays or revenues.      
                                      market-based reimbursement                                                                                        
                                      and competitive pricing.                                                                                          
  1895R(c).........................  Report on the temporary        313(b)(1)(A)......................  Produces no change in outlays or revenues.      
                                      certification of coordinated                                                                                      
                                      care plans.                                                                                                       
  1895R(f).........................  Partial capitation             313(b)(1)(A)......................  Produces no change in outlays or revenues.      
                                      demonstration.                                                                                                    
Chap. 2:                             General provisions related to                                                                                      
                                                 Part A                                                                                                 
  7012(c)..........................  Development National           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Requires Secretary of HHS to develop a proposal 
                                      Prospective Payment Rates                                          and recommendations. Produces no change in     
                                      for Current Non-PPS                                                outlays or revenues.                           
                                      Hospitals.                                                                                                        
  7013(c)..........................  Hospital-specific adjustment   313(b)(1)(D)......................  Redistributes payments among hospitals. Merely  
                                      for capital-related costs.                                         incidental to deficit reduction.               
  7013(d)..........................  Revisions of exceptions        313(b)(1)(D)......................  Changes exceptions process. Merely incidental to
                                      process under PPS.                                                 deficit reduction.                             
  7036.............................  Medical review process.......  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Requires HHS to establish a medical review      
                                                                                                         process to examine effects of provisions on    
                                                                                                         extended care services. According to CBO,      
                                                                                                         produces no change in outlays or revenues.     
  7037.............................  Report by Prospective Payment  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Requires ProPAC to submit a report on SNF       
                                      Commission.                                                        services. Produces no change in outlays or     
                                                                                                         revenues.                                      
Chap. 3:                             Provisions Relating to Part B                                                                                      
  7043(c)..........................  Payments for clinical lab      313(b)(1)(A)......................  Requires HHS to prepare study of fee schedule   
                                      diagnosis services study and                                       for clinical labs. Produces no change in       
                                      report.                                                            outlays or revenues.                           
  7044(c)..........................  Upgraded Durable Medical       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Produces no change in outlays or revenues.      
                                      Equipment.                                                                                                        
  7050.............................  Physician supervision of       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Requires HHS to revise regulations on anesthesia
                                      nurse anesthetists.                                                services. Produces no change in outlays or     
                                                                                                         revenues.                                      
Chap. 4:                              Provisions Relating to A and                                                                                      
                                                    B                                                                                                   
  7056.............................  Treatment of Assisted Suicide  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Prohibits payments for treatment of assisted    
                                                                                                         suicide. Produces no change in outlays or      
                                                                                                         revenues.                                      
  7057.............................  Administrative provisions....  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Codifies current status of Indian health        
                                                                                                         facilities and Christian Science Providers as  
                                                                                                         Federally qualified health centers. Produces no
                                                                                                         change in outlays or revenues.                 
  7061(a)..........................  Report to ProPAC.............  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Requires PROPAC to submit an annual report to   
                                                                                                         Congress on Home Health payment methodology.   
                                                                                                         Produces no change in outlays or revenues.     
Chap. 5:                                      Rural Areas                                                                                               
  7071.............................  Medicare-dependent, small,     313(b)(1)(B)......................  Re-institutes Medicare Dependent Hospital       
                                      rural hospital payment                                             program. Costs $0.4 billion over 7-years.      
                                      extensions.                                                                                                       
  7072.............................  Medicare rural hospital        313(b)(1)(B)......................  Designates critical access hospitals in rural   
                                      flexibility program.                                               areas. Costs $0.2 billion over 7-years.        
  7073.............................  Rural Emergency Access Care    313(b)(1)(B)......................  Establishes new program for REACH. Costs $0.2   
                                      hospitals.                                                         billion over 7-years.                          
  7074.............................  Additional payments for        313(b)(1)(B)......................  Increases payments to rural, primary care       
                                      physicians Services                                                physicians. Costs $0.4 billion over 7-years.   
                                      furnished in shortage areas.                                                                                      
  7075.............................  Payments to physician          313(b)(1)(B)......................  Pays physician assistants and nurse             
                                      assistants and nurse                                               practitioners 85% for outpatient settings.     
                                      practitioners.                                                     Costs $0.3 billion over 7.                     
  7076.............................  Demonstration projects for     313(b)(1)(A)......................  Authorization for demonstration project grants  
                                      telemedicine.                                                      for Telemedicine. Produces no change in outlays
                                                                                                         or revenues.                                   
  7077.............................  ProPAC recommendations on      313(b)(1)(A)......................  Directs ProPAC to make recommendations on       
                                      urban Medicare dependent                                           hospitals that have a high number of Medicare  
                                      hospitals.                                                         patients and patient days. Produces no change  
                                                                                                         in outlays or revenues.                        
Chap. 6:                              Health Care Fraud and Abuse                                                                                       
                                               Prevention                                                                                               
  7112.............................  Establishment of minimum       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Codifies current practice. Produces no change in
                                      period of exclusion for                                            outlays or revenues.                           
                                      certain individuals.                                                                                              
  7116.............................  Anti-kickback penalties......  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Directs Secretary to study benefits of volume   
                                                                                                         and combination benefits under Medicare        
                                                                                                         Produces no change in outlays or revenues.     
  7121.............................  Data Collection Program......  313(b)(1)(B)......................  Requires HHS to establish a national fraud and  
                                                                                                         abuse data collection program. Provision       
                                                                                                         increases the deficit.                         
Chap. 7:                               Other Provisions for Trust                                                                                       
                                              Fund Solvency                                                                                             
  7171.............................  Eligibility Age for Medicare.  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Raises eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to   
                                                                                                         67. Produces no change in outlays or revenues  
                                                                                                         during 7- year period.                         
  7173.............................  Transfers of B to Part A.....  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Transfers premium and deductible savings to Part-
                                                                                                         A trust fund. Produces no change in outlays or 
                                                                                                         revenues.                                      
  7175.............................  Budget Expenditure Limitation  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Produces no change in outlays or revenues.      
                                      Tool (BELT).                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                        TITLE VI                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                              COMMITTEE: FINANCE--MEDICAID                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                   Compliance: Not in 1, not in 5, in compliance in 7                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
Subtitle B, 7191:                                                                                                                                       
  2100(a)..........................  Purpose......................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Statement of   
                                                                                                         purpose.                                       
  2101.............................  Discription of Strategic       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budgetary impact. Lays out       
                                      Objectives and Performance                                         requirements for state plans including: (1)    
                                      Goals.                                                             general description; (2) objectives and        
                                                                                                         performance goals relating to childhood        
                                                                                                         immunizations, infant mortality and standards  
                                                                                                         of care; (3) factors states might consider in  
                                                                                                         specifying objectives and goals; (4)           
                                                                                                         performance measures.                          
  2102(a)..........................  Annual reports...............  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous, no budgetary impact. States are     
                                                                                                         required to submit reports which include       
                                                                                                         summaries of: expenditures and beneficiaries;  
                                                                                                         utilizations; achievement of performance goals;
                                                                                                         program evaluations, fraud and abuse and       
                                                                                                         quality control activities; administrative     
                                                                                                         roles, and responsibilities, including         
                                                                                                         organizational charts, costs, interstate       
                                                                                                         compacts, and citations to state statutes; and 
                                                                                                         inpatient hospital payments.                   
  2102(a)..........................  Special Rules................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Defines general
                                                                                                         categories of beneficiaries for use in State   
                                                                                                         plans and reports.                             
  2103.............................  Periodic, Independent          313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Requires states
                                      Evaluations.                                                       to have an independent entity evaluate its     
                                                                                                         Medicaid plan every three years.               
  2104.............................  Description of Process for     313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Requires state 
                                      Medicaid Plan Development.                                         plans to include a description of the process  
                                                                                                         under which the plan is to be developed and    
                                                                                                         implemented.                                   
  2105(a)..........................  Consultation in Medicaid Plan  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Requires states
                                      Development.                                                       to give public notice of, allow public         
                                                                                                         inspection of, and consider public comments on 
                                                                                                         state plans before submission. Does not apply  
                                                                                                         to revisions. Specifies what is to be included 
                                                                                                         in the notice, how the amendments may be       
                                                                                                         described, where the notice may be published.  
  2105(b)..........................  Advisory Committee...........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Requires states
                                                                                                         to establish and maintain at least 1 advisory  
                                                                                                         committee. Specifies issues on which states    
                                                                                                         must consult with the advisory committee, and  
                                                                                                         the geographic diversity of the advisory       
                                                                                                         committee.                                     
  2106.............................  Medicaid Task Force..........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. THe Secretary  
                                                                                                         is to establish and provide administrative     
                                                                                                         support for a Medicaid Task Force; membership  
                                                                                                         is specified. An advisory group is to be       
                                                                                                         established for the Task Force; the membership 
                                                                                                         of the advisory group is specified.            
  2111(a)..........................  Eligibility and Benefits.....  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. State plans    
                                                                                                         must serve all political subdivisions, provide 
                                                                                                         for making medical assistance available to any 
                                                                                                         pregnant woman or child under the age of 12    
                                                                                                         whose family income does not exceed 100 percent
                                                                                                         of poverty and to any individual with a        
                                                                                                         disability.                                    



                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page S15837]]
                                                  EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS, RECONCILIATION 1995--Continued                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtitle and Section                    Subject                    Budget Act Violation                            Explanation                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2111(b)(1).......................  Elements Relating to           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Plans are      
                                      Eligibility.                                                       required to describe: limitations on           
                                                                                                         eligibility; eligibility standards; methods of 
                                                                                                         establishing and continuing eligibility and    
                                                                                                         enrollment; the eligibility standards that     
                                                                                                         protect the income and resources of a married  
                                                                                                         individual who is living in the community and  
                                                                                                         whose spouse is residing in an institution in  
                                                                                                         order to prevent the impoverishment of a       
                                                                                                         community spouse.                              
  2111(b)(2-6).....................  Description of General         313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Plans are      
                                      Elements.                                                          required to describe: the amount, duration and 
                                                                                                         scope of health care services and items covered
                                                                                                         including differences among population groups; 
                                                                                                         delivery method; under what circumstance fee-  
                                                                                                         for-service benefits are furnished; cost-      
                                                                                                         sharing if any; and utilization incentives.    
  2111(b)(7).......................  Support for Certain Hospitals  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Sets forth     
                                                                                                         criteria for hospitals that are to be eligible 
                                                                                                         for disproportionate share hospital (DSH)      
                                                                                                         payments.                                      
  2111(c)..........................  Immunizations for Children...  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Requires plans 
                                                                                                         to provide medical assistance for immunizations
                                                                                                         for children eligible for medical assistance in
                                                                                                         accordance with a schedule for immunizations   
                                                                                                         established by the Health Department of the    
                                                                                                         State.                                         
  2111(d)..........................  Family Planning Services.....  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States shall   
                                                                                                         provide prepregnancy planning services and     
                                                                                                         supplies as specified by State.                
  2111(e)..........................  Preexisting Condition          313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Prohibits      
                                      Exclusions.                                                        States from denying coverage to eligible       
                                                                                                         individuals on the basis of a preexisting      
                                                                                                         condition. If a State allows a contractor to   
                                                                                                         exclude coverage on the basis of a preexisting 
                                                                                                         condition, the State must provide for such     
                                                                                                         coverage through its Medicaid plan.            
  2111(f)..........................  Mental Health Services.......  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. A Medicaid plan
                                                                                                         shall not impose treatment limits or financial 
                                                                                                         requirements on mental illness services which  
                                                                                                         are not imposed on services for other illnesses
                                                                                                         or diseases. The plan may require pre-admission
                                                                                                         screening, prior authorization of services, or 
                                                                                                         other mechanisms limiting coverage of mental   
                                                                                                         illness services to services that are medically
                                                                                                         necessary.                                     
  2112.............................  Set-asides For Population      313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. State plans are
                                      Groups.                                                            required to provide 85 percent of amount spent 
                                                                                                         in FY 1995 on low-income families; low-income  
                                                                                                         elderly; and low-income disabled people.       
                                                                                                         Excludes assistance provided to certain aliens.
                                                                                                         Includes DSH.                                  
  2112(d)..........................  Use of Residual Funds........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Any funds not  
                                                                                                         required to be expended under the set-asides   
                                                                                                         may only be expended for: medical assistance   
                                                                                                         for eligible low-income individuals, medically-
                                                                                                         related services, and administration.          
  2113.............................  Premiums and Cost-sharing....  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States may not 
                                                                                                         impose cost-sharing on pregnant women and      
                                                                                                         children under 100 percent of poverty for      
                                                                                                         primary or preventive care under the Medicaid  
                                                                                                         plan, unless the charge is nominal. States may 
                                                                                                         impose cost-sharing to discourage the          
                                                                                                         inappropriate use of emergency medical         
                                                                                                         services. State may impose premiums and cost-  
                                                                                                         sharing differentially.                        
  2114.............................  Description of Process for     313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. If a state     
                                      Developing Capitation                                              plans to contract with a capitated health care 
                                      Payment Rates.                                                     organization, the plan must contain            
                                                                                                         descriptions of the actuarial science that will
                                                                                                         be used to analyze health care expenditures and
                                                                                                         other data, the general qualifications required
                                                                                                         by the state, how data will be disseminated to 
                                                                                                         contractors, and how enrollees will be         
                                                                                                         identified. States must provide public notice  
                                                                                                         about capitation rates unless the information  
                                                                                                         is designated as proprietary and seek public   
                                                                                                         comment. This section contains definitions.    
  2115.............................  Construction.................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Outlines state 
                                                                                                         flexibility in benefits, provider payments,    
                                                                                                         geographical coverage and selection of         
                                                                                                         providers. Says that states do not have any    
                                                                                                         specific responsibility to beneficiaries or    
                                                                                                         providers for particular services or payments  
                                                                                                         or for consistent benefits and payments        
                                                                                                         throughout a state. Provides flexibility for   
                                                                                                         contracting with managed care providers or case
                                                                                                         management services.                           
  2116.............................  Causes of Action.............  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States that no 
                                                                                                         applicants, beneficiaries, providers or health 
                                                                                                         care plans has a right to sue if a State fails 
                                                                                                         to comply with this law or with the provisions 
                                                                                                         of a Medicaid plan. Provides that no person    
                                                                                                         shall be excluded from participation in any    
                                                                                                         program funded under this title on the ground  
                                                                                                         of sex or religion. Outlines procedures when   
                                                                                                         State is found to discriminate. States that    
                                                                                                         nothing in this subsection may be construed as 
                                                                                                         affecting any actions brought under State law. 
  2117.............................  Treatment of Income and        313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Spousal        
                                      Resources.                                                         impoverishment. Includes definitions.          
  2121.............................  Allotment of Funds Among       313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. This section contains the    
                                      States.                                                            pool of available funds. The section outlines  
                                                                                                         procedures for determining a state's allotment.
                                                                                                         It provides for allowing states to draw down   
                                                                                                         future allotments or carry over 1996 funds. It 
                                                                                                         sets out procedures for notifying state of     
                                                                                                         their allotments and calls for a GAO review of 
                                                                                                         the allotments. This section also contains     
                                                                                                         definitions.                                   
  2122.............................  Payments to States...........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Sets forth payments to States for medical       
                                                                                                         assistance, medically related services, and    
                                                                                                         administrative expenses, in relation to the    
                                                                                                         state's Federal medical assistance percentage  
                                                                                                         (FMAP), which are defined. Makes provisions for
                                                                                                         overpayments. Contains restraints on provider- 
                                                                                                         related donations and health care-related      
                                                                                                         taxes; includes a waiver for broad-based health
                                                                                                         care taxes not related to payments. Contains   
                                                                                                         definitions. Includes treatment of the         
                                                                                                         Territories and Indian Health programs.        
  2122(g)..........................  Authority to Use Portion of    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Superwaiver.   
                                      Payment for Other Purposes.                                        Allows state to use up to 30 percent of the    
                                                                                                         grant during a fiscal year to carry out a State
                                                                                                         program pursuant to a waiver granted under     
                                                                                                         Section 1115 involving the new Temp. Assistance
                                                                                                         block grant, MCH block grants, SSI, Medicare,  
                                                                                                         Title XX (SSBG) and the Food Stamp program.    
                                                                                                         States required to approve or disapprove waiver
                                                                                                         within 90 days and State are to encourage      
                                                                                                         waivers.                                       
  2123.............................  Limitation on Use of Funds;    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. No payments are
                                      Disallowance.                                                      to be used for providers excluded from         
                                                                                                         participation under other programs including   
                                                                                                         MCH block grant, Medicare and Title XX. Defines
                                                                                                         treatment of third party liability. Medicaid is
                                                                                                         the secondary payer to any other Federal       
                                                                                                         operated or financed health care program. No   
                                                                                                         payments shall be made to a state for medical  
                                                                                                         assistance furnished to an alien who is not    
                                                                                                         lawfully admitted for permanent residence,     
                                                                                                         except for emergency services, if the alien    
                                                                                                         otherwise meets the eligibility requirements   
                                                                                                         for Medicaid and are not related to organ      
                                                                                                         transplants.                                   
  2123(g)..........................  Limitation on Payment for      313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. No funds are to
                                      Abortions.                                                         be made to a State for any amount expended to  
                                                                                                         pay for any abortion or to assist in the       
                                                                                                         purchase in whole or in part of health benefit 
                                                                                                         coverage that includes coverage or abortion.   
                                                                                                         Does not apply in the case of rape or incest or
                                                                                                         if the woman's life is in danger.              
  2123(h)..........................  Treatment of Assisted Suicide  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. No payments    
                                                                                                         made to pay for or assist in the purchase in   
                                                                                                         whole or in part of health benefit coverage    
                                                                                                         that includes payment for any drug, biological 
                                                                                                         product or service which was furnished for the 
                                                                                                         purpose of causing, or assisting in causing,   
                                                                                                         the death, suicide, euthanasia, or mercy       
                                                                                                         killing of a person.                           
  2123(i)..........................  Unauthorized Use of Funds....  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. No payments    
                                                                                                         shall be used to purchase or improve land or   
                                                                                                         construct or remodel buildings, to pay room and
                                                                                                         board except when provided as part of a        
                                                                                                         temporary, respite care, to provide educational
                                                                                                         services without regard to income, or to       
                                                                                                         provide vocational rehabilitation or other     
                                                                                                         employment and training services available     
                                                                                                         through other programs.                        
  2124.............................  Grant Program for Community    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. The Secretary  
                                      Health Centers and Rural                                           is to set aside 1 percent of the pool amount to
                                      Health Clinics.                                                    be used for grants for primary and preventive  
                                                                                                         health care services at rural health clinics   
                                                                                                         and Federal qualified health centers.          
  2131.............................  Use of Audits to Achieve       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Requires annual
                                      Fiscal Integrity.                                                  audits of State expenditures. Requires states  
                                                                                                         to adopt and maintain fiscal controls,         
                                                                                                         accounting procedures, and data processing     
                                                                                                         safeguards which are consistent with generally 
                                                                                                         accepted accounting principles.                
  2132.............................  Fraud Prevention Program.....  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States are     
                                                                                                         required to have programs to detect and prevent
                                                                                                         fraud and abuse. Includes program requirements.
                                                                                                         Requires States to report information about    
                                                                                                         providers excluded from program to the         
                                                                                                         Secretary and State medical licensing board.   
  2133.............................  Information Concerning         313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States are     
                                      Sanctions Taken by State                                           required to have reporting systems about       
                                      Licensing Authorities                                              proceedings against providers.                 
                                      against Health Care                                                                                               
                                      Practitioners and Providers.                                                                                      
  2134.............................  Medicaid Fraud Control Units.  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States are     
                                                                                                         required to have Medicaid fraud units.         
                                                                                                         Organization of unit is specified. It is to    
                                                                                                         provide for collection of overpayments.        
  2135.............................  Recoveries from Third Parties  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Each State plan
                                      and Providers.                                                     shall take reasonable steps to ascertain the   
                                                                                                         legal liability of third parties to pay for    
                                                                                                         care and services under the plan. Provides     
                                                                                                         protections to beneficiaries. Provides         
                                                                                                         penalties in the form of reductions of payments
                                                                                                         to a person who violates this section.         
  2135(f)..........................  Required Laws Relating to      313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States are     
                                      Medical Child Support.                                             required to have laws that prohibit insurers   
                                                                                                         from denying enrollment of a child under the   
                                                                                                         health coverage of a parent on the ground that 
                                                                                                         the child was born out-of-wedlock, is not      
                                                                                                         claimed on the parent's income tax return, or  
                                                                                                         does not reside with the parent or in the      
                                                                                                         insurer's service area. Contains further       
                                                                                                         provisions to assure access to health insurance
                                                                                                         for kids with divorced parents.                
  2135(g)..........................  Estate Recoveries and Liens    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States may take
                                      permitted.                                                         appropriate action to recover from an          
                                                                                                         individual or estate any amounts paid as       
                                                                                                         medical assistance to or on behalf of the      
                                                                                                         individual under the plan including through the
                                                                                                         imposition of liens against property or the    
                                                                                                         estate. A state may not impost a lien on the   
                                                                                                         principal residence of moderate value or the   
                                                                                                         family farm owned by the individual as a       
                                                                                                         condition of the spouse of that individual     
                                                                                                         receiving long term                            
                                                                                                         care.4,L1(4,4,0),i1,xs80,r100,xs80,r200        

[[Page S15838]]
                                                                                                                                                        
  2136.............................  Assignments of Rights of       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States may     
                                      Payment.                                                           require as a condition of eligibility that     
                                                                                                         individuals: assign to the State any rights to 
                                                                                                         payment for medical care from any third party; 
                                                                                                         cooperate in establishing paternity if the     
                                                                                                         person is a child born out of wedlock and in   
                                                                                                         obtaining support payments for himself and such
                                                                                                         a child unless the individual is a pregnant    
                                                                                                         woman or is found to have good cause for       
                                                                                                         refusing.                                      
  2137.............................  Quality Assurance Standards    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States are     
                                      for Nursing Facilities.                                            required to establish nursing home standards.  
                                                                                                         Provides procedures for when a State determines
                                                                                                         that a nursing home previously certified for   
                                                                                                         participation no longer meets the requirements.
  2138.............................  Other Provisions Promoting     313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States are     
                                      Prgm Integrity.                                                    required to make public findings of any survey 
                                                                                                         of any health care facility or organization.   
                                                                                                         Record keeping of services provided to         
                                                                                                         individuals required.                          
  2151.............................  Submittal and Approval of      313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States are     
                                      Medicaid Plans.                                                    required to submit plans that meet the         
                                                                                                         requirements of this title as a condition of   
                                                                                                         receiving funding.                             
  2152.............................  Submittal and Approval of      313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. States may     
                                      Plan Amendments.                                                   amend their plan at any time. States must      
                                                                                                         provide public notice of any amendments that   
                                                                                                         eliminate or restrict eligibility or benefits. 
  2153.............................  Sanctions for Substantial      313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Secretary is   
                                      Noncompliance.                                                     required to review plans and amendments        
                                                                                                         promptly. The Secretary must notify a State    
                                                                                                         within 30 days if its plan substantially       
                                                                                                         violates a requirement of this title and will  
                                                                                                         issue an order that the plan is not to become  
                                                                                                         effective. If upon finding the administration  
                                                                                                         of the plan to be in violation, after notice   
                                                                                                         and opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary   
                                                                                                         shall order remedy. Provides for State         
                                                                                                         response, corrective action, review, failure to
                                                                                                         respond, judicial hearing.                     
  2154.............................  Secretarial Authority........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. The Secretary  
                                                                                                         and the State can negotiate a satisfactory     
                                                                                                         resolution to any dispute concerning the       
                                                                                                         approval of a Medicaid plan.                   
  2171.............................  Definitions..................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact.                
  2172.............................  Treatment of Territories.....  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. The Secretary  
                                                                                                         may waive certain requirements for the         
                                                                                                         Territories.                                   
  2173.............................  Descriptions of Treatment of   313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. State plans    
                                      Indian Health Programs.                                            must include provisions made for any Indian    
                                                                                                         health programs operated under the plan.       
  7192.............................  Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. No payment     
                                                                                                         shall be made to a state for covered outpatient
                                                                                                         drugs unless the manufacturer has entered into 
                                                                                                         a Medicaid rebate agreement with the Secretary.
                                                                                                         States are not required to participate in the  
                                                                                                         Medicaid rebate agreement.                     
  7193.............................  Waivers......................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Allows States  
                                                                                                         with Section 1115 waivers to opt to continue to
                                                                                                         operate such a waiver, and to continue to      
                                                                                                         receive funding under the waiver, as long as it
                                                                                                         does not exceed funding granted under this     
                                                                                                         Title. If states opt to terminate a waiver,    
                                                                                                         they are held harmless for accrued cost        
                                                                                                         neutrality liabilities.                        
  7194.............................  Children with Special Health   313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Authorization  
                                      Care Needs.                                                        of appropriations. The Secretary is required to
                                                                                                         develop a national classification system to    
                                                                                                         identify children with special health care     
                                                                                                         needs. The Secretary is allowed to make grants 
                                                                                                         to not more than 5 States to conduct 5-year    
                                                                                                         demonstration projects to test the reliability 
                                                                                                         of the classification system, develop methods  
                                                                                                         of assuring quality care for children with     
                                                                                                         special needs, provide for methods to identify 
                                                                                                         these children. These projects will develop    
                                                                                                         adequate capitation rates for these children.  
  7195.............................  CBO Reports..................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. CBO is to      
                                                                                                         prepare an annual analysis of the effects of   
                                                                                                         these amendments on the health insurance status
                                                                                                         of children, retirees, and the disabled and to 
                                                                                                         report by May 15.                              
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                        Title VII                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                          COMMITTEE FINANCE--WELFARE AND OTHER                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                   Compliance: Not in 1, not in 5, in compliance in 7                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                Block Grants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families                                                
Subtitle C, Under 7201:                                                                                                                                 
  401..............................  Purpose......................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact.                
  402..............................  Eligible States; State Plan..  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Requires States
                                                                                                         to have a written plan and to make the plan    
                                                                                                         available to the pacific.                      
  403..............................  Payments to States and Indian  313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. This section establishes the 
                                      Tribes.                                                            block grant.                                   
  403(a)(2)(C).....................  Notification.................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Requires       
                                                                                                         Secretary to notify the State 3 months in      
                                                                                                         advance about the amount a State's grant will  
                                                                                                         be reduced to pay for the program for Indians  
                                                                                                         in that State.                                 
  403(a)(3)........................  Supplemental Grant for         313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Provides additional grants to
                                      Population Increases in                                            States with higher population growth and       
                                      Certain States.                                                    average spending less than the national        
                                                                                                         average.                                       
  403(b)(2)........................  Treat Interstate Immigrants    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. A State may    
                                      Under Rules of Former State.                                       apply to a family some or all of the rules,    
                                                                                                         including benefit amounts, or the program      
                                                                                                         operated by the family's former state if the   
                                                                                                         family has resided in the current state less   
                                                                                                         than 12 months.                                
  403(b)(3)........................  Authority to Reserve Certain   313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Allows States  
                                      Amounts for Assistance.                                            to reserve for assistance or child care.       
  403(b)(4)........................  Authority to Operate           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Allows States  
                                      Employment Placement Program.                                      to make payments or provide vouchers to State- 
                                                                                                         approved public and private job placement      
                                                                                                         agencies that provide employment placement     
                                                                                                         services to people who receive assistance.     
  403(c)...........................  Timing of Payments...........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Allows for     
                                                                                                         quarterly installments.                        
  403(d)...........................  Federal Loan Fund for State    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; CBO states in a footnote that under 
                                      Welfare Programs.                                                  the rules of credit reform this does not score.
                                                                                                         Establishes a $1.7 billion ``rainy day''       
                                                                                                         revolving fund. States must pay back loans with
                                                                                                         interest.                                      
  403(e)...........................  Indian Tribes that Receive     313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Grant for Indian tribes to   
                                      JOBS Funds.                                                        maker work activities available.               
  403(f)...........................  Job Placement Performance      313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; cost. Establishes a bonus fund to   
                                      Bonus.                                                             reward States for high job placement rates.    
                                                                                                         Paid for out of totals.                        
  403(h)...........................  Contingency Fund.............  313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Provides $1 billion for      
                                                                                                         matching grants to States with high            
                                                                                                         unemployment. Requires 100 percent maintenance 
                                                                                                         of effort.                                     
  404(c)(3)(F) Provision in parens   Vocational Educational         313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. Limits States from  
   lines 8-10.                        Training.                                                          counting more than 1 year of vocational        
                                                                                                         education as a work activity.                  
  404(c)(4)........................  Limitation on Vocational       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Not more than 25 percent of adults engaged in   
                                      Education.                                                         work are allowed to meet the work requirement  
                                                                                                         through vocational educational training.       
  404(d)...........................  Penalties Against Individuals  313(b)(1)(A)......................  States are required to reduce the amount of     
                                                                                                         assistance payable to a family if an adult     
                                                                                                         refuses to engage in work activities.          
  404(f)...........................  Sense of the Congress........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. States are          
                                                                                                         encouraged to assign priority to requiring     
                                                                                                         adults in 2-parent families and adults in      
                                                                                                         single parent families that include older      
                                                                                                         preschool or school-age children to be engaged 
                                                                                                         in work activities.                            
  404(g)...........................  Encouragement to Provide       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. States may treat    
                                      Child Care Services.                                               individuals providing day care to other        
                                                                                                         participating individuals as meeting the work  
                                                                                                         requirements.                                  
  405..............................  Requirements and Limitations.  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. Requires States to  
                                                                                                         enter into personal responsibility contract    
                                                                                                         with families receiving assistance.            
  405(b)(1)........................  No Assistance for More Than    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. States may not      
                                      Five Years.                                                        provide assistance for more than 5 years on a  
                                                                                                         cumulative basis; can opt to provide it for    
                                                                                                         less than 5 years.                             
  405(d)...........................  Denial of Assistance for       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. Fugitive felons,    
                                      Fugitive Felons and                                                those on probation and in violation of parole  
                                      Probation and Parole                                               are not eligible for assistance. Allows for    
                                      Violators.                                                         exchange of information with law enforcement   
                                                                                                         officials for purposes of enforcing this       
                                                                                                         section.                                       
  405(e)...........................  State Option to Require        313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. States may require  
                                      Assignment of Support.                                             that individuals assign to the State any rights
                                                                                                         to support from any other person.              
  405(f)...........................  Denial of Assistance.........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. States may not      
                                                                                                         provide assistance to a family with respect to 
                                                                                                         any minor who is absent for 45 days, or, at    
                                                                                                         State option, not less than 30 and not more    
                                                                                                         than 90 consecutive days. Allows for good cause
                                                                                                         exceptions.                                    
  406(a)...........................  Promoting Responsible          313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. Series of findings. 
                                      Parenting.                                                                                                        
  406(b)...........................  State Option to Deny           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. States may deny     
                                      Assistance for Out-of-                                             assistance for a child born out-of-wedlock to  
                                      Wedlock Births to Minors.                                          an individual who has not attained 18 years of 
                                                                                                         age, or for the individual.                    
  406(c)...........................  State Option to Deny           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. States may deny     
                                      Assistance For Children Born                                       assistance for a minor child who is born to a  
                                      to Families Receiving                                              recipient of assistance.                       
                                      Assistance.                                                                                                       
  406(d)(1)........................  Requirement That Teenage       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. If a State provides 
                                      Parents Live in Adult-                                             assistance to an unmarried teenage mother, that
                                      Supervised Settings.                                               individual must reside with a parent, guardian,
                                                                                                         or other adult relative.                       
  406(d)(2)........................  Exception....................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. Exception is        
                                                                                                         provided if the individual lives in an adult-  
                                                                                                         supervised living arrangement (such as a second
                                                                                                         chance home.) States can help locate such an   
                                                                                                         arrangement.                                   
  406(d)(3)........................  Assistance to States in        313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Provides $25 million in      
                                      Providing or Locating Adult-                                       grants to States for supportive living         
                                      Supervised Supportive Living                                       arrangements such as second chance homes.      
                                      Arrangement for.                                                                                                  
  406(e)...........................  Requirement that Teenage       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; does not score. State shall not     
                                      Parents Attend High School                                         provide assistance or, at State option, shall  
                                      or Equivalent Training                                             reduce assistance for someone who has not      
                                      Program.                                                           completed high school and is not in school or  
                                                                                                         an approved alternative educational or training
                                                                                                         program.                                       



                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page S15839]]
                                                  EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS, RECONCILIATION 1995--Continued                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtitle and Section                    Subject                    Budget Act Violation                            Explanation                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  406(f)...........................  Grant Increased to Reward      313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Provides additional funds to 
                                      States That Reduce Out-of-                                         States that reduce out-of-wedlock births by at 
                                      Wedlock Births.                                                    least 1 percent below 1995 levels, and whose   
                                                                                                         rates of abortion do not increase. Secretary   
                                                                                                         can deny the funds if the State changes methods
                                                                                                         of reporting data.                             
  406(g)...........................  State Option to Deny           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Nothing should be   
                                      Assistance in Certain                                              construed to restrict the authority of a State 
                                      Situations.                                                        to limit assistance if the limitation is not   
                                                                                                         inconsistent with the provisions of this part. 
  408..............................  Audits.......................  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Requires annual     
                                                                                                         audits by an approved entity which must be     
                                                                                                         submitted to the Secretaries of Treasury and   
                                                                                                         HHS.                                           
  409..............................  Data Collection and Reporting  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Secretary is        
                                                                                                         required to develop a quality assurance system 
                                                                                                         of data collection and reporting. Data         
                                                                                                         described.                                     
  410..............................  Research, Evaluations, and     313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; overall costs. Requires research on 
                                      National Studies.                                                  benefits, effects and costs of operating       
                                                                                                         different State programs, including time       
                                                                                                         limits. Secretary may assist States in         
                                                                                                         developing and evaluating innovative           
                                                                                                         approaches.                                    
  410(d)...........................  Annual Ranking of States and   313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Requires Secretary  
                                      Review of Most and Least                                           to rank states in order of their success in    
                                      Successful Work programs.                                          placing recipients into long-term private      
                                                                                                         sector jobs, reducing welfare caseload, and    
                                                                                                         diverting individuals from formally applying.  
  410(e)...........................  Annual Ranking of States and   313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Requires Secretary  
                                      Review of Issues Relating to.                                      to rank states on the basis of out-of-wedlock  
                                                                                                         rates relative to live births and changes in   
                                                                                                         the out-of-wedlock ratio.                      
  411..............................  Study by the Census Bureau...  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous. Requires Census to expand the Survey
                                                                                                         of Income and Program Participation to allow   
                                                                                                         evaluation on a random national sample of      
                                                                                                         recipients. ``Secretary shall appropriate from 
                                                                                                         funds not otherwise appropriated.''            
  412..............................  Waivers......................  313(b)(1)(B)......................  The section as a whole scores because of        
                                                                                                         412(b)(3), but as a cost. Allows States to     
                                                                                                         continue to operate under current waivers.     
  412(b)(3)........................  Hold Harmless................  313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. States who request to        
                                                                                                         terminate a waiver will be held harmless for   
                                                                                                         accrued cost neutrality liabilities.           
  413..............................  State and County               313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Allows for demonstrations of 
                                      Demonstration.                                                     innovative and effective program designs.      
  414..............................  Direct Funding and             313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Provides funding to Indian   
                                      Administration by Indian                                           tribes for administration of grants. Requires  
                                      Tribes.                                                            tribes to submit plans with minimum work       
                                                                                                         requirements. Provides for emergency           
                                                                                                         assistance, accountability, penalties, and data
                                                                                                         collection.                                    
  415..............................  Assistant Secretary for        313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Program is to be    
                                      Family Support.                                                    administered by such a Secretary.              
  416..............................  Limitation on Federal          313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. HHS and Treasury may
                                      Authority.                                                         not regulate the conduct of the States except  
                                                                                                         to the extent expressly provided in this part. 
  417..............................  Appeal of Adverse Decision...  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Lays out procedures 
                                                                                                         for appealing an adverse decision of the       
                                                                                                         Secretary.                                     
  418..............................  Performance Bonus and High     313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. 5 States with highest        
                                      Performance Bonus.                                                 percentage performance improvement receive a   
                                                                                                         bonus. Note: this is paid for with previous    
                                                                                                         year's penalties so some might claim it is     
                                                                                                         deficit neutral. However, it is a separate and 
                                                                                                         discrete section.                              
  419..............................  Amounts for Child Care.......  313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Provides current funding plus
                                                                                                         $3 billion over 5 years for grants to states   
                                                                                                         for child care. Provides for distribution of   
                                                                                                         funds and administration of programs.          
  420..............................  Eligibility for Child Care     313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Allows states to    
                                      Assistance.                                                        determine who is eligible for child care       
                                                                                                         assistance.                                    
  7202.............................  Services Provided by           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Allows states to    
                                      Charitable.                                                        provide services through contracts with        
                                                                                                         charitable, religious, or private              
                                                                                                         organizations.                                 
  7206.............................  Development of Prototype of    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Authorization of    
                                      Counterfeit-resistant Soc.                                         appropriations.                                
                                      Sec. Card.                                                                                                        
  7207.............................  Disclosure of Receipt of Fed   313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact.                     
                                      Funds.                                                                                                            
  7208.............................  Modifications to the Job       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Authorization of    
                                      Opportunities for Certain                                          Appropriations.                                
                                      Low-Income Individuals                                                                                            
                                      program.                                                                                                          
  7209.............................  Demonstration Projects for     313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Authorization of    
                                      School Utilization.                                                Appropriations.                                
  7211.............................  Parental Responsibility        313(b)(1)(A)......................  ................................................
                                      Contracts.                                                                                                        
  7212.............................  Expenditure of Fed Funds in    313(b)(1)(A)......................  ................................................
                                      Accordance with Laws and                                                                                          
                                      Procedures Applicable to                                                                                          
                                      Expenditure of State Funds.                                                                                       
Subtitle D, SSI:                                                                                                                                        
  7251(e)..........................  Supplemental Funding for       313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. $100 million for treatment.  
                                      Alcohol and Substance Abuse                                                                                       
                                      Treatment Programs.                                                                                               
  7271.............................  Annual Report on SSI.........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Requires Secretary  
                                                                                                         to prepare an annual report describing the     
                                                                                                         program, providing historical data, and making 
                                                                                                         projections for the future.                    
  7273.............................  Study of Disability            313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact.                     
                                      Determination.                                                                                                    
Chapter 4, 7282-7..................  Nat'l Commission on Future of  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact.                     
                                      Disability.                                                                                                       
Chapter 5..........................  State Supplementation          313(b)(1)(D)......................  Extraneous; merely incidental. Repeals          
                                      Programs.                                                          Maintenance of Effort requirements applicable  
                                                                                                         to Optional State programs for supplementation 
                                                                                                         of SSI. CBO is unable to estimate savings, but 
                                                                                                         says they will be small. Most savings will     
                                                                                                         accrue to the states.                          
Chapter 6, 7295....................  Eligibility for SSI Benefits   313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact within the 7-year    
                                      Based on Soc. Sec.                                                 budget window.                                 
                                      Retirement Age.                                                                                                   
Subtitle E, Child Support:                                                                                                                              
  Sec. 7301........................  State Obligation to Provide    313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs.                              
                                      Child Support Enforcement                                                                                         
                                      Services.                                                                                                         
  Sec. 7302........................  Distribution of Child Support  313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs.                              
                                      Collections.                                                                                                      
  Sec. 7303........................  Rights to Notification/        313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Establishes         
                                      Hearings.                                                          procedures to assure parties receive           
                                                                                                         notifications and have access to hearings.     
  Sec. 7304........................  Privacy Safeguards...........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Establishes a State 
                                                                                                         plan requirement to protect against            
                                                                                                         unauthorized use of information.               
  7341(a)(2)(b)....................  Performance-Based Incentives   313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Orders the     
                                      and penalties.                                                     Secretary to develop a formula for the         
                                                                                                         distribution of incentive payments.            
  7344.............................  Automated Data Processing      313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Requires States to have a    
                                      Requirements (O&M).                                                single system in accordance with this section's
                                                                                                         provisions.                                    
  7344.............................  Automated Data Processing      313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Creates a federal matching   
                                      Development.                                                       rate for development costs of automated        
                                                                                                         systems.                                       
  7345(a)(j).......................  Technical Assistance. For      313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. This section appropriates 1% 
                                      training federal and state                                         of the amount paid to the U.S. in the previous 
                                      staff, R&D programs, and                                           fiscal year pursuant to 475(a).                
                                      special projects.                                                                                                 
  7351.............................  National Child Support         313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. This section   
                                      Guidelines Commission.                                             creates a Commission to establish guidelines   
                                                                                                         for a national child support policy.           
  7352.............................  Simplified Process for Review  313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. This section lists procedures
                                      of Child Support Orders.                                           the State may employ to review and adjust each 
                                                                                                         support order.                                 
Ch. 7. Sec. 7369...................  State Law Authorizing          313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact.                
                                      Suspension Licenses.                                                                                              
Ch. 7. Sec.........................  Denial of Passports for        313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact.                
                                      Nonpayment of Child Support.                                                                                      
Ch. 7. Sec. 7371...................  International Child Support    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact. Gives Secretary
                                      Enforcement.                                                       of State authority to negotiate agreements in  
                                                                                                         foreign nations to enforce child support laws. 
Ch. 7. Sec. 7375(b)................  Sense of the Senate.           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact.                
                                      Regarding how states can                                                                                          
                                      collect enforcement costs.                                                                                        
Ch. 7. Sec. 7377...................  Sense of the Senate.           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no budgetary impact.                
                                      Regarding noncustodial                                                                                            
                                      parent's inability to pay                                                                                         
                                      child support.                                                                                                    
Ch. 8. Sec. 7379...................  Enforcement of Orders for      313(b)(1)(B)......................  Costs. This provision obligates states to       
                                      Health Care Coverage.                                              provide services.                              
Ch. 9. Sec. 7381...................  Grants to States for           313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. This provision requires the  
                                      Visitation.                                                        Administration for Children and Families to    
                                                                                                         make grants to States so that parents can visit
                                                                                                         their children.                                
Subtitle F, Noncitizens: 7406......  Information Reporting........  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Requires states to  
                                                                                                         make quarterly reports with the names and      
                                                                                                         addresses of individuals known to be unlawfully
                                                                                                         in the US.                                     
Subtitle G, Add'l Provisions                                                                                                                            
 Relating to Welfare                                                                                                                                    
Chapter 1--Reductions in Federal                                                                                                                        
 Positions:                                                                                                                                             
  7411-3...........................  Reductions in Federal          313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no direct spending impact. Reduction
                                      Bureaucracy.                                                       is on the discretionary side of the budget.    
  7422.............................  Establishing Nat'l Goals to    313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no spending impact. Requires the    
                                      Prevent Teenage Pregnancies.                                       Secretary to establish and implement a strategy
                                                                                                         for preventing out-of-wedlock teenage          
                                                                                                         pregnancies. Requires a report to Congress.    
Chapter 4:                                                                                                                                              
  7441.............................  Exemption of Battered          313(b)(1)(B)......................  Extraneous; costs. Exempts from the provisions  
                                      Individuals from Certain                                           of this Subtitles D-F any individual who has   
                                      Requirements.                                                      been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty, 
                                                                                                         if the application of the provision would      
                                                                                                         endanger the individual.                       
  7442.............................  Sense of the Senate on         313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Sense of the Senate 
                                      Legislative Accountability                                         that prior to acting on the conference report  
                                      for unfunded Mandates.                                             on welfare, CBO shall prepare an analysis to   
                                                                                                         include estimates of costs to States of meeting
                                                                                                         the work requirements, the resources available 
                                                                                                         to the States to meet the requirements, and the
                                                                                                         amount of additional revenues needed to meet   
                                                                                                         the work requirements.                         
  7443.............................  Sense of the Senate Regarding  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. SoS that State and  
                                      Enforcement of Statutory                                           local jurisdictions should aggressively enforce
                                      Rape Laws.                                                         statutory rape laws.                           
  7444.............................  Sanctioning for Testing        313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no cost impact. Allows states to    
                                      Positive for Controlled                                            sanction people who test positive for illegal  
                                      Substances.                                                        substances.                                    



                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page S15840]]
                                                  EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS, RECONCILIATION 1995--Continued                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtitle and Section                    Subject                    Budget Act Violation                            Explanation                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  7445.............................  Abstinence Education in        313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no direct spending impact.          
                                      Welfare Reform Legislation.                                        Authorization of appropriations.               
Subtitle J, COLAs: 7481............  SoS Regarding Corrections of   313(b)(1)(A)......................  Extraneous; no direct spending impact. Finds    
                                      Cost of Living Adjustments.                                        that the CPI overstates the cost of living in  
                                                                                                         the US, and that the overstatement undermines  
                                                                                                         the equitable administration of Federal        
                                                                                                         benefits. Expresses the Sense of the Senate    
                                                                                                         that Federal law should be corrected to        
                                                                                                         accurately reflect future changes in the cost  
                                                                                                         of living.                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                         TITLE X                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                          COMMITTEE: LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                     Compliance: Yes                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
Sec. 10002(c)(1) ``(a)(2)(C)''.....  Participation of Institutions  313(b)(1)(A)......................  Total administrative funds are fixed in         
                                      and Administration of Loan                                         1002(c)(1) ``(a)(1)(A)'', therefore the        
                                      Programs, Limitation on                                            limitation on indirect expenses and the use of 
                                      Certain [administrative]                                           funds for promotion does not score.            
                                      Expenses.                                                                                                         
Sec. 10002(g) p. 15, lines 14-16...  Participation of Institutions  313(b)(1)(A)......................  A Sense of the Senate statement, that a fee     
                                      and Administration of Loan                                         shall not be charged to students in the form of
                                      Programs, School Origination                                       increase tuition, can not be considered a term 
                                      Payment, ``Sense of Senate''                                       or condition.                                  
                                      provision.                                                                                                        
Sec. 10003(d)......................  Loan Terms & Conditions, Use   313(b)(1)(A)......................  Permitting development of forms does not score. 
                                      of Electronic Forms.                                               [Not in cost estimate.]                        
Sec. 10003(e)......................  Loan Terms & Conditions,       313(b)(1)(A)......................  Clarifying use of electronic forms does not     
                                      Application for Part B Loans                                       score. [Not in cost estimate.]                 
                                      Using Free Federal                                                                                                
                                      Application.                                                                                                      
Sec. 10005(a)......................  Amendments Affecting           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Only recovery of reserves scores. [Not in cost  
                                      Guarantee Agencies, Use of                                         estimate.] Not term or condition of Sec.       
                                      Reserve Funds to Purchase                                          10005(b), (c), (d), or (f).                    
                                      Defaulted Loans.                                                                                                  
Sec. 10005(e)......................  Amendments Affecting           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Only recovery of reserves scores. [Not in cost  
                                      Guarantee Agencies, Reserve                                        estimate.] Not term or condition of Sec.       
                                      Fund Reforms.                                                      10005(b), (c), (d), or (f).                    
Sec. 10005(g)......................  Amendments Affecting           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Permitting authority to use clearinghouse is not
                                      Guarantee Agencies, National                                       a term and condition. [Not in cost estimate.]  
                                      Student Loan Clearinghouse.                                                                                       
Sec. 10005(h)......................  Amendments Affecting           313(b)(1)(A)......................  Only recovery of reserves scores. [Not in cost  
                                      Guarantee Agencies,                                                estimate.] Not term or condition of Sec.       
                                      Prohibition Regarding                                              10005(b), (c), (d), or (f).                    
                                      Marketing, Advertising, and                                                                                       
                                      Promotion.                                                                                                        
Title XI...........................  Veterans' Affairs............  310(c)............................  Out of compliance in 1st year (1996).           
12104..............................  Distribution to collectibles.  313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact.                            
12114..............................  Changes to Merchant Marine     313(b)(1)(C)......................  Jurisdiction.                                   
                                      Act.                                                                                                              
12213..............................  Allows states to establish     313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact.                            
                                      standards for long term care                                                                                      
                                      policies.                                                                                                         
12401..............................  Requires Secretary of Labor    313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact.                            
                                      to implement a program to                                                                                         
                                      encourage small businesses                                                                                        
                                      to find qualified employees.                                                                                      
12421..............................  Extends expedited refund of    313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      excise tax paid regarding                                          as ``negligible.''                             
                                      ethanol.                                                                                                          
12431..............................  Exempts Alaska from diesel     313(b)(1)(D)......................  Merely incidental budgetary impact. Joint Tax   
                                      dyeing requirements.                                               Committee scores as a $1 million loss over     
                                                                                                         seven years.                                   
12501 to 12510.....................  Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2....  313(b0(1)(D)......................  Merely incidental budgetary impact. Joint Tax   
                                                                                                         Committee scores as losing $20 million over    
                                                                                                         seven years.                                   
12702..............................  Allows tax exempt              313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      organizations to accept                                            as ``negligible.''                             
                                      ``qualified sponsorship                                                                                           
                                      payments'' without being                                                                                          
                                      subject to the unrelated                                                                                          
                                      business income tax.                                                                                              
12703..............................  Exempts agriculture and        313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      horticulture organizations                                         as ``negligible.''                             
                                      from unrelated business                                                                                           
                                      income tax on associate dues                                                                                      
                                      of less than $100.                                                                                                
12705..............................  Provides exceptions to the     313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      notification 313(b)(1)(A)                                          as ``negligible.''                             
                                      requirements to                                                                                                   
                                      beneficiaries of charitable                                                                                       
                                      remainder trusts.                                                                                                 
12706..............................  Allows football coaches        313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      retirement plan to be                                              as ``negligible.''                             
                                      considered a multi-employer                                                                                       
                                      plan under ERISA.                                                                                                 
12822..............................  Provides that the rollover of  313(b)(1)(D)......................  Merely incidental budgetary impact. Join Tax    
                                      gain on the sale of a home                                         Committee scores as losing less than $500,000  
                                      cannot be elected by a                                             over seven years.                              
                                      nonresident alien.                                                                                                
12874..............................  Requires the trustees of the   313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact.                            
                                      Combined Fund to provide                                                                                          
                                      documents to contributors.                                                                                        
12875..............................  Clarifies that newspaper       313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      carriers are independent                                           as ``negligible.''                             
                                      contractors.                                                                                                      
12876..............................  Allows bank common trust       313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact.                            
                                      funds to transfer assets to                                                                                       
                                      regulated investment trusts.                                                                                      
12901..............................  Repeal of family aggregation   313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      rules for qualified pension                                        as being ``considered in other provisions.''   
                                      plans.                                                                                                            
12903..............................  Changes the minimum            313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      participation rules for                                            as ``negligible.''                             
                                      qualified pension plans.                                                                                          
12931..............................  Clarifies when individuals     313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      are ``leased'' employees.''                                        as ``negligible.''                             
12932..............................  Eliminates special             313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      aggregation rules for                                              as ``negligible.''                             
                                      pension plans maintained by                                                                                       
                                      unincorporated employers.                                                                                         
12935..............................  Allows government pensions to  313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      pay higher benefits.                                               as ``negligible.''                             
12937..............................  Creates a special rule for     313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      contributions on behalf of                                         as ``negligible.''                             
                                      disabled employees.                                                                                               
12938..............................  Allows rural cooperative       313(b)(1)(b)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      plans to make distributions                                        as ``negligible.''                             
                                      to participants after the                                                                                         
                                      attainment of age 59\1/2\.                                                                                        
12940..............................  Provides that for purposes of  313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      the general                                                        as being ``considered in other provisions.''   
                                      nondiscrimination rules that                                                                                      
                                      the Social Security                                                                                               
                                      retirement age is a uniform                                                                                       
                                      retirement age.                                                                                                   
12941..............................  Clarifies that 403b plans for  313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      tribal governments are not                                         as ``negligible.''                             
                                      disqualified because the                                                                                          
                                      contract was purchased on                                                                                         
                                      behalf of employees who are                                                                                       
                                      not employees of educational                                                                                      
                                      organizations.                                                                                                    
12951 to 12968.....................  Creates special rules for      313(b)(1)(A)......................  No budgetary impact. Joint Tax Committee scores 
                                      church retirement plans.                                           as ``negligible.''                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                         

                          ____________________