[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 168 (Friday, October 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15979-S15999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The bill (S. 1357) to provide for reconciliation pursuant 
     to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 1996.
       Pending:
       Gramm amendment No. 2978, to provide States additional 
     flexibility in providing for Medicaid beneficiaries.
       Kerry/Kennedy amendment No. 2979, to express 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.
       Domenici (for Murkowski/Johnston) amendment No. 2980, of a 
     technical nature.
       Kennedy/Kassebaum amendment No. 2981, to strike the 
     provision allowing the transfer of excess pension assets.
       Wellstone amendment No. 2982, to eliminate the tax 
     deduction for oil drilling, to eliminate the corporate 
     minimum tax provisions, to eliminate the foreign earned 
     income exclusion, and to eliminate the section 936 possession 
     tax credit.
       Pryor/Cohen amendment No. 2983, to provide for the 
     continuation of requirements for nursing facilities in the 
     Medicaid Program.
       Simon amendment No. 2984, in the nature of a substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I take 3 minutes and answer the 
Senator?
  Senator Graham, I understand that the staff, Senator Dole's staff, is 
in the process of delivering the amendment to you right now.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The point I was making, if I could, Mr. President, is 
that I am going to object strenuously if the 10-minute rule is 
attempted to be applied to the Finance Committee amendment.
  We have not had an adequate opportunity to evaluate and to understand 


[[Page S 15980]]
its significance. I am alerting the manager to my intention to protect 
the rights of those who have been waiting now for almost 18 hours to 
get a copy of this amendment. We have been denied that opportunity, and 
soon we will be asked to vote upon a stealth amendment which will quite 
likely be the most significant amendment on this most significant 
legislative enactment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2978

  Mr. DOMENICI. The next amendment on our side is Senator Gramm's. He 
is not here and asked we set his amendment aside and proceed to the 
next amendment, which is the Kerry amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am interested in this amendment. Are you 
just skipping it once or what?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am asking that it be set aside for one amendment. If 
the Senator is not ready----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Reserving the right to object.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, may I interject a few 
statements?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I simply say I share the concerns expressed 
by my colleague from Florida. I think, if we will check the Record, we 
will find very clearly that the Roth amendment--that is the subject of 
concern, and I think legitimately so, of the Senator from Florida and 
others--was supposedly the first amendment we were going to take up 
when we started this process of voting yesterday. It was laid aside. We 
were advised late last evening, sometime before midnight, that the 
measure would be presented to us so we could study it overnight. I 
remind all it was a rather short night. We still have not received it. 
I have not received it. Maybe it is in the process of being delivered 
to us at this time.
  Here, it seems to me, we have to exercise some discipline. All day 
yesterday, this Senator, along with my colleague, the chairman of the 
committee, kept telling Senators you have to be here to offer your 
amendments. We cannot run the U.S. Senate for the benefit of every 
other Senator, regardless of their station in life and regardless of 
what office they are running for.
  It seems to me, if we are going to move this process along, we are 
going to have to institute a policy that, if the Senator on the list 
that has been published now for about 24 hours is not here to offer the 
amendment, then I suggest the amendment should be set aside and 
disposed of and not considered.
  We have to exercise some discipline on everyone. I simply say I hope 
I can see the Finance Committee amendment. But in the meantime, I am at 
the mercy of the majority, and I simply ask my colleague if he could 
not join with me--and I think he will--to try to exercise some 
discipline on both sides of the aisle, not only with regard to the time 
constraints that we must maintain, but, also, we cannot move ahead 
unless Senators put the priority I think is necessary and that we 
should expect for them to be here to offer their amendments in a timely 
fashion, if for no other reason than out of consideration for the other 
Members of the body.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Gramm is here. He does not 
intend to offer his amendment. He withdraws it.
  We are ready to proceed with your amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. EXON. I appreciate that very much. That is very good news.
  Mr. FORD. Should we not make a motion to withdraw the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to withdrawing?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can the manager of the bill withdraw the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to withdrawing 2978?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will not object. I will just say, there are a 
number of Senators here, including the Senator from Rhode Island and 
the Senator from West Virginia, who note this withdrawal may have been 
strategically a very good idea because it was going down to a dreadful 
defeat because it is such a dreadful amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm].
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I do not withdraw the amendment and I am 
ready to speak on behalf of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment? The Senator 
from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, what we have in this bill is an effort by 
Senators----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute equally divided on the 
amendment.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, what we have in the bill before us is a 
doublecross of the States. We reduced the rate of growth in Medicaid 
spending in agreement with the Governors by $187 billion. But the 
condition under which the Governors took the reduced rate of growth was 
that they were going to get to run the program. This is in Medicaid. 
So, in the Medicaid Program, we reduced the growth of spending in that 
program by $187 billion. The Governors agreed to it on the condition 
that they run the Medicaid Program. We now are trying to tell them how 
to run it.
  I do not doubt the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from 
Rhode Island have very good intentions. But we should not be telling 
the States how to run this program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we have 30 seconds now?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from West 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is yielded 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this is the most cruel and unusual 
amendment of this entire 24-hour fiasco. It rejects the idea of making 
sure America's poorest children, poorest elderly, pregnant women, 
disabled, SSI--it decimates people who need help. It is an evisceration 
of Medicaid. It is a cruel amendment. It ought to be rejected by both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there is a lot of talk about who is in the 
wagon these days. If we have no room in the wagon for 12-year-old poor 
children, pregnant women, the blind, and disabled, we have become an 
unworthy society.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the first vote be 15 
minutes and thereafter votes be limited to 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The first 
vote will be 15 minutes. Then further votes will be 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the Gramm amendment No. 
2978.
  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 23, nays 76, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 518 Leg.]

                                YEAS--23

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Coats
     Cochran
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Smith
     Thompson

                                NAYS--76

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle 

[[Page S 15981]]

     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So, the amendment (No. 2978) was rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2979

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, No. 2979 offered by 
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] will be considered, 1 minute 
equally divided.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold.
  Mr. EXON. Once order is restored in the Senate, I would like to yield 
30 seconds on our side to the Senator from Kansas for remarks that I 
understand she has to make on this measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. If I could have the attention of the Senator from Kansas. 
The Senator from Kansas, I yield her 30 seconds off of our time on the 
Kennedy amendment. I apologize. We are going to the Kerry amendment at 
this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kerry amendment.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to Senator Kerry.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment does not ask Senators to 
vote on any number. It simply asks Senators, as a sense of the Senate, 
to say that before the end of the session we will vote and debate on 
the minimum wage issue.
  I will just share with Senators an article in the New York Times 
today.
  It says:

       The income gap between rich and poor was wider in the 
     United States during the 1980s than in any other large 
     industrialized country, according to the most comprehensive 
     international study ever released on income distribution.

  Seventy percent of the poverty wage, $8,500, is the current income 
level.
  We simply want to vote and debate on it. And I hope colleagues will 
agree we ought to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I assume I had 30 seconds under the 
rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my 30 seconds and make a point of order 
that this violates the Budget Act. I raise a point of order under the 
provisions of the Budget Act.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of that act for the 
consideration of the pending amendment.
  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 occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to waive the Budget Act.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 519 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--48

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). On this vote, the yeas are 51; 
the nays are 48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2980

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is amendment No. 2980, offered by 
Senator Domenici.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas 
and nays be vitiated and that we have a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek 1 minute, equally 
divided?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not think we need any time.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague and yield back our 
time. I hope we can have a voice vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I object, Mr. President.
  Mr. DOLE. That is another amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I withdraw that objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Domenici 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2980) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2981

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the next pending amendment is a Kennedy 
amendment, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Kennedy-Kassebaum 
amendment No. 2981.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds of our time to the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support 
striking this provision from the bill before us, because I believe it 
is bad pension policy. We are making some assumptions here which we do 
not really know the consequences of, and I feel that it is absolutely 
essential that we not begin to make inroads into pension plans in which 
retirees have counted on without knowing the consequences. I urge all 
to support the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think the leader wants some time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment 
without a rollcall, if we want to speed up the process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing the amendment No. 
2981.
  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 94, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 520 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden 

[[Page S 15982]]

     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     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
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     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
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--5

     Brown
     Grams
     Helms
     Nickles
     Roth
  So the amendment (No. 2981) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2982

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is Wellstone 2982. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds of our time to the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is all about plugging 
tax loopholes, whether we are talking about keeping a strong 
alternative minimum tax, or getting rid of subsidies for oil companies 
or pharmaceutical companies.
  This all goes for deficit reduction--all the savings go into a 
lockbox--and the total savings is between $60 to $70 billion. I will 
tell you right now, regular people are tired of having to pay more in 
taxes because of these egregious loopholes. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``aye.''
  Mr. President, last night I talked briefly about each of the four 
amendments I was going to offer separately, that I continued in my 
omnibus amendment.
  I now ask unanimous consent that a statement elaborating on each tax 
loophole, and the reasons for its elimination, which this omnibus 
amendment proposed to do, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:


               REPEAL CORPORATE WELFARE IN THE TAX CODE:

                  ELIMINATE OIL AND GAS TAX BREAKS NOW

       Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment which I know 
     will be controversial with some Senators, but which I think 
     deserves debate and a vote. It is part of my larger effort to 
     help reduce the deficit over the next several years through 
     scaling back corporate welfare, instead of making such 
     unnecessarily large cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, student 
     loans, and other areas, many of the proceeds from which will 
     be used to finance a tax cut primarily for the wealthy.
       This Republican budget package is radical, and it fails to 
     meet a basic test of fairness that Americans expect us to 
     apply in order to get to a balanced budget. One of its major 
     failings that has not been much discussed is that it does 
     almost nothing to eliminate the fantastically expensive tax 
     loopholes that have been embedded in the code for years, and 
     that give special treatment to one industry or type of 
     investment over all others. These preferences distort 
     economic decisionmaking, and because they are so expensive 
     make regular middle-class families, who are struggling to 
     make it these days, pay much higher income taxes than they 
     otherwise would have to pay.
       Let me make a simple point here that is often overlooked. 
     We can spend money just as easily through the tax code, 
     through tax loopholes, as we can through the normal 
     appropriations process. Spending is spending, whether it 
     comes in the form of a government check or in the form of a 
     tax break for some special purpose, like a subsidy, a credit, 
     a deduction, or accelerated depreciation for this type of 
     investment or that. These tax loopholes allow some taxpayers 
     to escape paying their fair share, and thus make everyone 
     else pay at higher rates. These arcane tax breaks are simply 
     special exceptions to the normal rules, rules that oblige all 
     of us to share the burdens of citizenship by paying our 
     taxes.
       I think it is a simple question of fairness. If we are 
     really going to make the spending cuts and other policy 
     changes that we would have to make to meet the balanced 
     budget amendment targets, then we should make sure that 
     wealthy interests in our society, those who have political 
     clout, those who hire lobbyists to make their case every day 
     here in Washington, are asked to sacrifice at least as much 
     as regular middle class folks that you and I represent who 
     receive Social Security or Medicare or Veterans benefits or 
     student loans.
       That is just common sense, and I think we ought to signal 
     today that the standard of fairness we will be applying will 
     require elimination of at least some of these tax breaks. Too 
     often, in discussions about low-priority federal spending 
     which ought to be cut, one set of expenditures is notoriously 
     absent. That is tax breaks for wealthy and well-positioned 
     special interests.
       Tax subsidies are heavily skewed to corporations and the 
     relatively few people in very high-income brackets, while 
     government benefits and services go in far larger proportions 
     to the middle class and the poor. If it is harder to 
     eliminate tax breaks or other preferences than cut programs, 
     the burdens of deficit reduction are likely to be borne 
     disproportionately by those in the bottom half of the income 
     scale. The effect of this, of course, is a further transfer 
     of political power up the income scale. This imbalance means 
     the system is likely to favor the wealthy and powerful over 
     those in the bottom and middle of the income scale.
       Many of these tax breaks are industry-specific, others were 
     designed to encourage particular kinds of activities or 
     investments, or to subsidize consumers of certain products. 
     The General Accounting Office issued a report last year, in 
     which they noted that most of these tax expenditures 
     currently in the tax code are not subject to any annual 
     reauthorization or other kind of systematic periodic review. 
     They observed that many of these special tax breaks were 
     enacted in response to economic conditions that no longer 
     exist. In fact, they found that of the 124 tax expenditures 
     identified by the Committee in 1993, about half were enacted 
     before 1950. The particular oil and gas tax break that my 
     amendment focuses on was enacted in its original form in the 
     1920's. Many of these industry-specific breaks get embedded 
     in the tax code, and are not looked at again for years.
       Now some will vote against this motion reflexively, arguing 
     wrongly that this is simply an attempt to raise taxes. It is 
     not. These arcane tax breaks are simply special exceptions to 
     the normal rules, rules that oblige all of us to share the 
     burdens of citizenship by paying our taxes. They are pushed 
     by high-priced lobbyists, who have hired even more highly-
     paid tax lawyers, to make their special pleadings.
       The effect of allowing them to continue is to ensure that 
     hard-working Americans will not be provided much real tax 
     relief, since all of the revenues that might help pay for 
     such relief are being siphoned off by wealthy special 
     interests. This amendment simply calls the question on one 
     small part of the very targeted spending we do through the 
     tax code, spending that is not subject to the annual spending 
     process and is rarely debated on the floor of the Senate.
       This amendment would repeal the current special tax 
     treatment for what are called ``intangible drilling costs'' 
     in the oil and gas industry. Since around 1916, the oil and 
     gas industries have benefitted richly from this special 
     benefit. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 
     eliminating this loophole will save US taxpayers at least 
     $2.5 billion over the next five years; and billions more in 
     the years thereafter.
       This is how this longstanding special tax benefit works. 
     Companies engaged in oil and gas exploration are allowed to 
     completely deduct from their federal taxes what are termed 
     the ``Intangible Drilling Costs'', or IDC's, of conducting 
     drilling and related activities as they explore for 
     profitable wells. These include what they pay for labor, 
     fuel, repairs, hauling, supplies, site preparation--many 
     different kinds of expenses they pay when looking for new and 
     more profitable wells. By expensing rather than capitalizing 
     these costs, taxes on much of their income are effectively 
     set to zero.
       In most industries, the logic of tax policy requires that a 
     company is allowed to recover its costs of doing business, 
     either through depreciation or a special form of depletion, 
     over the valuable life of the asset. But this special benefit 
     is an exception to these general tax rules. And though 
     decades ago it was argued that these special benefits were 
     necessary to encourage oil exploration, they can no longer be 
     justified--and certainly not in the current budget crunch. 
     Even with the introduction of the alternative minimum tax in 
     the 1980's, when you consider the many other breaks these 
     industries still receive--including the very expensive 
     percentage depletion allowance--this still keeps the 
     effective marginal tax rate on gas and oil companies below 
     that for other industries. That is not fair, and it makes 
     middle income people pay higher income taxes. It should stop, 
     now.
       I know that oil and gas companies, and those who represent 
     them here in the Senate, have in the past argued that these 
     special tax breaks should be extended because of the special 
     risks involved in looking for oil and gas wells to drill. 
     While it is true that these are sometimes high-risk ventures, 
     they are also very profitable, or else companies would not be 
     pursuing them. The risks are justified by the large profits 
     to be made. I also wonder whether they are intrinsically any 
     less risky than small business start-ups in new markets, or 
     the launching of new products, or similar entrepreneurial 
     business decisions. I suspect probably not.
       Proponents will also argue that capital is hard to come by 
     in the oil and gas industry, and that small producers need to 
     be protected. Of course, everyone who enjoys these kinds of 
     tax breaks are going to try to couch 

[[Page S 15983]]
     their plight in terms of being the embattled little guy. But that is 
     not what this is about. This is mostly about special tax 
     benefits being showered on large and small producers alike--
     even though there are somewhat different rules for each--in a 
     single industry that has been consistently showing signs of 
     profitability in recent years. While sometimes volatile oil 
     markets make oil and gas investments risky, that doesn't 
     necessarily justify this special treatment.
       In addition to the huge costs to taxpayers that must be 
     considered when looking at this tax break, we should also be 
     aware of the environmental costs that are attached. As with 
     many other energy subsidies, this subsidy encourages drilling 
     in environmentally sensitive areas, and serves as a 
     disincentive for us to explore more environmentally 
     sustainable means of energy production.
       And these are areas which have been protected for years by 
     the ravages of thoughtless oil and gas development. For 
     example, I strongly oppose drilling in the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge. This has been an issue that I have been 
     involved in from the time I first came to the Senate. There 
     was a filibuster over ANWR that I led when I was here just a 
     short period of time and now ANWR is back again. The Energy 
     Committee has voted, over the objections of a large 
     bipartisan group of Senators, to open up ANWR for drilling 
     and to use the revenue to meet reconciliation instructions. 
     These large oil and gas company subsidies only encourage 
     those kind of developments by artificially increasing and 
     subsidizing demand for new wells.
       It also seems to me that there are compelling energy policy 
     arguments against this tax break. To the extent that these 
     subsidies stimulate drilling of domestic wells, they reduce 
     our short-run dependence on foreign oil--but force us to 
     deplete our own Nation's reserves at a faster rate. While oil 
     is flowing freely to the U.S. from the Middle East and 
     elsewhere, I see no reason to subsidize domestic drilling to 
     such an extent.
       Some will argue there are national security considerations 
     here, and that we should preserve this subsidy because it 
     helps to ensure the future of domestic producers. I think if 
     we are so concerned about the national security implications 
     of our reliance on foreign oil, then maybe we should be 
     rethinking provisions to sell off the strategic petroleum 
     reserve that were included in this bill.
       Others will claim that eliminating the expensing of IDC's 
     would hamper domestic oil exploration, and that the 
     industry's profit margins have declined steadily over the 
     last 15 years or so as the alternative minimum tax has kicked 
     in on some producers, and various lucrative other tax breaks 
     have been slightly reformed. However, it is clear that most 
     of the reason for this decline was not the increased tax 
     burden, but the worldwide decline in oil prices. Experts from 
     academia to industry analysts to CRS are agreed on that.
       Finally, oil and gas companies will also argue that 
     eliminating their expensing provisions will effectively raise 
     costs for the consumer at the gas pump. The Congressional 
     Budget Office has no formal projections of this cost 
     increase, but I suspect that if there is any increase at all, 
     it would only be a fraction of one cent per gallon at the gas 
     pump. Much of any additional costs would be absorbed by oil 
     and gas companies, as they strive to remain competitive in 
     world markets.
       Mr. President, this issue is complex, but in the end, it is 
     not even a close call. As a recent CRS study on tax 
     expenditures states, ``There is very little, if any, 
     justification for this non-neutral tax treatment of IDCs. 
     Many economists believe that expensing is a costly and 
     inefficient way to increase oil and gas output and enhance 
     energy security . . .''
       The oil and gas industry has for decades been enjoying a 
     tax benefit that has not been available to other American 
     industries, and so to eliminate it is really just to ``level 
     the playing field.'' For those who support a flat tax, or 
     even a flatter tax rate structure than we have now made 
     possible by closing special loopholes, this amendment is a 
     good place to start. I urge my colleagues to make good on 
     pledges to fairly and responsibly reduce the federal deficit 
     by voting for this amendment. I yield the floor.


               REPEAL CORPORATE WELFARE IN THE TAX CODE:

                    ELIMINATE THE PUERTO RICO CREDIT

       Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to repeal 
     outright Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code, which 
     provides certain corporate income tax credits to firms doing 
     business in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. Possessions. This 
     repeal would become effective on January 1, 1997. It speeds 
     up the repeal already provided for in the bill by, in some 
     cases, 9 years, saving over $35 billion dollars in the 
     process.
       Let me be clear: the Finance Committee, for the first time 
     in decades, has already acknowledged that this loophole 
     should go; it is simply now a question of when, and how. For 
     those who support a flat tax, or even a flatter tax rate 
     structure than we have now made possible by closing special 
     loopholes, this amendment is a good place to start.
       This amendment is part of a larger attack on corporate 
     loopholes to highlight something I have seen over and over in 
     that short time: the political gap between the promise to cut 
     spending, and actual follow-through on that promise. Between 
     the promise of spending restraint, and actual spending 
     restraint. Let me make a simple point here that is often 
     overlooked. We can spend money just as easily through the tax 
     code, through tax loopholes, as we can through the normal 
     appropriations process. Spending is spending, whether it 
     comes in the form of a government check or in the form of a 
     tax break for some special purpose, like a subsidy, a credit, 
     a deduction, or accelerated depreciation for this type of 
     investment or that.
       In the last few years, for example, many of us voted for 
     billions in actual cuts on this floor--not gimmicks, not 
     smoke and mirrors, not deficit reduction formulas that never 
     identify precise cuts, but actual reductions in federal 
     spending contained in actual amendments to appropriations 
     bills. We have also voted consistently against continued 
     wasteful and unnecessary defense spending contained in 
     appropriations bills each year. And often it was precisely 
     those who support the balanced budget amendment, and employ 
     elaborate Heritage Foundation-concocted across-the-board 
     spending cut formulas that do not contain any specific cuts, 
     who voted against actual spending cuts on the floor. This is 
     where the rubber meets the road, where the rhetoric meets 
     reality. Many balanced budget amendment proponents have 
     failed the test of political courage on this point, and I 
     think that should be made clear.
       These tax loopholes allow some taxpayers to escape paying 
     their fair share, and thus make everyone else pay at higher 
     rates. These arcane tax breaks are simply special exceptions 
     to the normal rules, rules that oblige all of us to share the 
     burdens of citizenship by paying our taxes.
       I think it is a simple question of fairness. If we are 
     really going to make the over a trillion dollars in spending 
     cuts and other policy changes that we would have to make to 
     meet the balanced budget amendment targets, then we should 
     make sure that wealthy interests in our society, those who 
     have political clout, those who hire lobbyists to make their 
     case every day here in Washington, are asked to sacrifice at 
     least as much as regular middle class folks that you and I 
     represent who receive Social Security or Medicare or Veterans 
     benefits.
       That is just common sense, and I think we ought to signal 
     today that the standard of fairness we will be applying will 
     include elimination of at least some of these tax breaks. Too 
     often, in discussions about low-priority federal spending 
     which ought to be cut, one set of expenditures is notoriously 
     absent. That is tax breaks for wealthy and well-positioned 
     special interests.
       Tax subsidies are heavily skewed to corporations and the 
     relatively few people in very high-income brackets, while 
     government benefits and services go in far larger proportions 
     to the middle class and the poor. If it is harder to 
     eliminate tax breaks or other preferences than cut programs, 
     the burdens of deficit reduction are likely to be borne 
     disproportionately by those in the bottom half of the income 
     scale. The effect of this, of course, is a further transfer 
     of political power up the income scale.
       Many of these tax breaks are industry-specific, others were 
     designed to encourage particular kinds of activities or 
     investments, or to subsidize consumers of certain products. 
     The General Accounting Office issued a report last year, in 
     which they noted that most of these tax expenditures 
     currently in the tax code are not subject to any annual 
     reauthorization or other kind of systematic periodic review. 
     They observed that many of these special tax breaks were 
     enacted in response to economic conditions that no longer 
     exist. In fact, they found that of the 124 tax expenditures 
     identified by the Committee in 1993, about half were enacted 
     before 1950. This one was enacted in its original form in the 
     1920's. Many of these industry-specific breaks get embedded 
     in the tax code, and are not looked at again for years.
       Now some will vote against this motion reflexively, arguing 
     wrongly that this is simply an attempt to raise taxes. It is 
     not. These arcane tax breaks are simply special exceptions to 
     the normal rules, rules that oblige all of us to share the 
     burdens of citizenship by paying our taxes. The effect of 
     allowing them to continue is to ensure that hard-working 
     Americans will not be provided any tax relief, since all of 
     the revenues that would pay for such relief are being soaked 
     up by wealthy special interests. This amendment simply calls 
     the question on one small part of the very targeted spending 
     we do through the tax code, spending that is not subject to 
     the annual spending process and is rarely debated on the 
     floor of the Senate.
       I suspect most Americans, if asked, would scale back the 
     Puerto Rico tax break further rather than cut spending on 
     prisons or police or environmental protections or workplace 
     safety or Medicare or Medicaid. For that matter, for the 
     amount of money generated by eliminating this tax break, we 
     could pay for Head Start, meals-on wheels for the elderly, 
     WIC, and the National Park Service for a year, and still have 
     money left over.
       This amendment eliminates outright the Puerto Rico subsidy, 
     starting next year. In 1993, as we were preparing to consider 
     the Reconciliation bill, I concluded that this tax credit 
     should be phased out over a short period, given the other 
     strains on the federal budget, and the need for further 
     deficit reduction. While I was concerned that an immediate 
     repeal might have too large and abrupt an impact on the 
     economy of Puerto Rico, which was at the time reeling under a 
     very high unemployment rate, I would have supported a prompt 
     phase-out. While the 1993 

[[Page S 15984]]
     Reconciliation Act did scale back somewhat the benefits provided to 
     eligible companies under this provision, it failed to phase 
     out the provision. And so now I think the time has come to 
     repeal it outright, starting in 1996. That will put a stop to 
     efforts by corporations who invest in Puerto Rico and the 
     other U.S. Possessions to shelter profits and avoid paying 
     their fair share of taxes.
       Ostensibly a tax credit to encourage economic development 
     in U.S. possessions, primarily Puerto Rico, the Section 936 
     tax credit has over the years evolved into a huge corporate 
     loophole, providing a multi-billion offshore tax shelter for 
     some of America's most profitable companies. While it has 
     been narrowed, and some of the most egregious abuses 
     addressed, it remains a fantastically expensive subsidy for a 
     few special interests. That is unfair, Mr. President, 
     especially when we consider all of the competing budget 
     claims on these scarce federal funds. It is time to bring a 
     halt to it.
       Over the past several decades, as I have mentioned, several 
     efforts were launched to try and bring the section 936 tax 
     credit under control. Rules regulating the allocation of 
     income derived from intangible assets were tightened, but to 
     little avail. Additional loopholes were created, which allow 
     companies to continue the long-established practice of 
     shifting income derived from intangible assets created on 
     shore to Puerto Rico. The 1993 OBRA bill took a step toward 
     trying to reconfigure the section 936 credit as a wage-based 
     credit by tying the amount of the credit, in many cases, to 
     actual wages paid or investments made. But it also allowed 
     corporations to receive the credit according to a generous 
     alternative formula that continues to cost taxpayers billions 
     per year. While this modest linkage between actual 
     investments made and wages paid was a step in the right 
     direction, it is still a credit that is no longer justifiable 
     in this current budget crunch.
       In 1993, Finance Committee Chairman Moynihan observed that 
     the 936 program, as it is known, dates back to the 1920's. He 
     said that the changes in the 1993 Reconciliation bill were 
     done in such a way as to ``clearly anticipate the phasing out 
     finally of this measure.'' But that hasn't happened yet, and 
     this amendment is designed to make sure that there is a 
     final, clean termination of the program as soon as possible.
       The bill before us today, while it recognizes that this 
     provision must eventually be eliminated, provides for a very 
     long phase-out, in some cases up to 10 years. I am very 
     concerned that if we do not repeal this program now, which 
     has been in the Tax Code in some form since the 1920's, it 
     will continue to cost taxpayers billions of dollars per year, 
     and that clever tax lawyers, lobbyists, and the companies for 
     whom they work might even find ways to retain it in the Tax 
     Code in the next few years.
       Section 936 presents a very complicated set of calculations 
     to derive the tax credit against taxable income, but the 
     simple effect of this provision is to reduce the cost of 
     corporate investment in territories, mainly Puerto Rico. Its 
     purpose, quite obviously, was to attract investment in the 
     struggling possessions; instead it has been used as major 
     loophole for U.S.-based corporations to shelter taxable 
     income.
       While I recognize the economic impact that repeal of this 
     provision will have on certain U.S. companies doing business 
     in Puerto Rico--some of which are in my own state, the GAO's 
     extensive 1993 report concluded that reliable estimates of 
     the changes in corporate behavior could not responsibly be 
     made, since that would require anticipating how many, if any, 
     beneficiaries of the credit would move to other regions, 
     would relocate or scale back their operations there. Of 
     course, many other factors, including labor costs, 
     productivity, transportation and infrastructure costs, and 
     other tax consequences of their decisions would be considered 
     by these firms.
       Given this uncertainty, and the fact that this is a special 
     subsidy available to firms nowhere else, I do not believe we 
     can continue to subsidize the activities of a few large 
     corporations at the expense of millions of American 
     taxpayers. Companies that invest in Minnesota directly would 
     love to benefit from a very generous tax credit like this, 
     but they do not. Nor do firms in any other states, to my 
     knowledge. It only applies to the U.S. possessions, with most 
     of the benefits going to pharmaceutical, food, chemical, and 
     instrument-manufacturing firms in Puerto Rico.
       The costs of special interest corporate tax loopholes like 
     this are often astronomical. This one is particularly 
     expensive. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 
     repealing this provision outright would save almost $20 
     billion over just 5 years. $20 billion. And about the same 
     amount in the second 5 years. That money could be used to 
     mitigate the huge cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, or in the 
     EITC, that are made in this bill. It could be used to reduce 
     the federal deficit.
       I hope my colleagues will support this effort to scale back 
     this longstanding tax break for a relatively few wealthy 
     companies, and dedicate these funds for deficit reduction. 
     How on earth can we continue to support giving a few major 
     corporations this enormous tax break at the same time that 
     cuts are being made in Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs 
     that affect the most vulnerable among us?
       Another problem with this tax credit program is that it 
     draws investment away from the U.S. While this provision has 
     over the years encouraged considerable investment in the 
     possessions, that investment often came at the expense of 
     corporations investing here. These investment effects are now 
     amplified under NAFTA and GATT; just as 936 bleeds investment 
     out of the States and into possessions where labor costs are 
     traditionally cheaper, it may now act as an incentive for 
     manufacturers to hold onto their operations in Puerto Rico, 
     rather than moving to countries like Mexico or Singapore. I 
     have heard over the years from many workers in my state who 
     are upset about the transfer impact of this provision on 
     Minnesota jobs.
       Even if this provision could once have been justified as an 
     economic development tool following the Second World War, 
     that is no longer possible. A recent report of the Senate 
     Budget Committee said ``. . . the measure's cost in terms of 
     foregone tax collections is high compared to the number of 
     jobs the provision creates in Puerto Rico.''
       My colleagues will recall, I am sure, that our 
     distinguished colleague, Senator Pryor, released a GAO study 
     done several years ago in which it was pointed out that the 
     primary beneficiaries of this provision are the large 
     pharmaceutical companies that have located in Puerto Rico. 
     Let us call this what it is: corporate welfare of the most 
     stark kind.
       The huge Section 936 credit claimed by a number of U.S. 
     pharmaceutical firms are a case in point. A GAO study 
     requested by our colleague Senator Pryor revealed a number of 
     shocking details. According to the GAO:
       Since section 936 is intended to be an employment and 
     economic development program for Puerto Rico, the GAO 
     measured the tax credit provided companies for each employee. 
     For pharmaceutical companies, the credit amounted to over 
     $70,000 per employee--267 percent of the wages actually paid 
     the average employee. One pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, 
     received a tax credit equivalent to over $150,000 per 
     employee--amounting to 636 percent of the typical wage paid 
     to its Puerto Rican workers. Now I know that these outrageous 
     disparities were mitigated somewhat by the 1993 changes in 
     the formula, but the fact remains that this is a very 
     inefficient economic development subsidy. And even the more 
     recent GAO report done in 1993 found that the ratio of a 
     firm's tax benefits per employee was still far higher than 
     the total wages paid to these employees.
       The time has come to pull the plug on this corporate 
     welfare program. At the same time that historic huge cuts in 
     Medicare and Medicaid are being made, at the same time we are 
     slashing student loans and the earned income tax credit, at 
     the same time that we are slashing economic development 
     funding in our own cities and rural areas, we somehow find 
     the funds to continue a multi-billion dollar tax credit of 
     questionable merit and effectiveness, the prime beneficiaries 
     of which are a small number of large, profitable drug 
     companies.
       Mr. President, continuing this credit for years while 
     trying to balance the budget by 2002 is bad public policy. It 
     is bad tax policy. It is bad budget policy. It cannot be 
     allowed to stand, especially in the current budget climate. I 
     urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the 
     floor.


           Eliminate the Foreign Earned Income Tax Exclusion

       Mr. President, I have already spent some time here on the 
     Senate floor in an effort to close a number of tax loopholes. 
     Underlying these efforts is a recognition that we must reduce 
     the federal budget deficit in a way that is fair, 
     responsible, and that requires shared sacrifice. Closing 
     corporate welfare loopholes will help us do that.
       At this point, I would like to address a loophole that will 
     cost $8.9 billion over the next 5 years in lost receipts, and 
     billions more thereafter. In other words, while American 
     citizens all over this Nation will have to pay taxes over the 
     next 5 years, a certain group of taxpayers will use this 
     loophole during that time to get out of paying $8.9 billion 
     in taxes. And over 10 years, that is about $18.4 billion that 
     the rest of American taxpayers will have to make up in higher 
     taxes or reduced services from their government.
       The loophole is called the Foreign-Earned Income Tax 
     Exclusion, and it allows Americans living overseas to earn 
     the first $70,000 of their income entirely free of American 
     taxes. While this Exclusion is related to the Foreign Tax 
     Credit--which allows you to reduce your U.S. taxes by the 
     amount you paid in taxes to a foreign government--the two 
     should not be confused. The Foreign Tax Credit simply 
     protects, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, against paying tax 
     twice on the same income: once to the U.S. and once to a 
     foreign government. The Exclusion entirely ignores the 
     existence of $70,000 of the income you earned abroad, 
     regardless of how much tax you paid on it. In short, it is an 
     overly broad way to protect against double taxation, and it 
     is unnecessary because of the existence of the Credit.
       Some will charge that by closing this tax loophole, by 
     restricting this special interest tax break we are somehow 
     proposing to raise taxes. They are wrong. What they fail to 
     understand is that even with the reforms of the mid-1980's, 
     which closed many of the most egregious tax loopholes, the 
     presence of tax breaks in the current tax system forces 
     middle class and working people to pay far more in taxes than 
     they otherwise would have to pay. While some are paying less 
     than their fair share in taxes because of this special tax 
     subsidy for people working abroad, those 

[[Page S 15985]]
     who work in the U.S. are being forced to pay more in taxes to make up 
     the difference. Closing this tax loophole is not raising 
     taxes.
       When taxpayers in my State of Minnesota file their returns 
     every year, they are not allowed to disregard $70,000 of 
     their income. So why do we let Americans living abroad to 
     take advantage of this loophole?
       When it first came on the books in 1926, the Exclusion was 
     said to help support U.S. trade because it was a tax break 
     for U.S. citizens living abroad that were promoting trade 
     between the U.S. and foreign countries. However, since then 
     there has been a constant tension between those fighting for 
     tax equity (who want to close the loophole) and those who 
     believe that the loophole actually benefits U.S. trade abroad 
     (who have actually tried, at times, to expand the loophole, 
     i,e, raise the Exclusion above the current $70,000).
       Clearly, in deciding whether or not to eliminate a special 
     tax break, we need to balance the good effects against the 
     bad. In this age of telecommunications and global markets we 
     no longer need to give a special tax break in order to 
     promote foreign trade, nor is it clear that this particular 
     tax break does promote foreign trade. To quote from a Senate 
     Budget Committee print:
       ``The impact of the provision is uncertain. If employment 
     of U.S. labor abroad is a complement to investment by U.S. 
     firms abroad--for example, if U.S. multinationals depend on 
     expertise that can only be provided by U.S. managers and 
     technicians--then it is possible that the exclusion has the 
     indirect effect of increasing flows of U.S. capital abroad.'' 
     [Tax Expenditures: Compendium of Background Material on 
     Individual Provisions, Senate Budget Committee Print 103-101, 
     December 1994, p. 22].
       Three times between 1962 and 1978, Congress passed laws to 
     limit and finally eliminate the Exclusion. But in 1981, the 
     give-away returned, bigger than ever and with a built-in 
     yearly increase. The enormous cost of the loophole led 
     Congress to enact a 4-year freeze in its size in 1984 at 
     $80,000, with $5,000 annual increases to resume in 1988. That 
     ultimately proved too rich for Congress, and the 1986 Tax 
     Reform Act brought us to where we are today: a hefty $70,000 
     Exclusion that will cost the Treasury about $1.6 billion 
     before this calendar year is out.
       A 1994 Senate Budget Committee print describes one negative 
     effect of the provision:
       ``The exclusion's impact depends partly on whether foreign 
     taxes paid are higher or lower than U.S. taxes. If an 
     expatriate pays high foreign taxes, the exclusion has little 
     importance; the U.S. person can use foreign tax credits to 
     offset any U.S. taxes in any case. For expatriates who pay 
     little or no foreign taxes, however, the exclusion reduces or 
     eliminates U.S. taxes. Available data suggest that U.S. 
     citizens who work abroad have higher real incomes, on 
     average, than persons working in the United States. Thus, 
     where it does reduce taxes the exclusion reduces tax 
     progressivity.'' [Tax Expenditures: Compendium of Background 
     Material on Individual Provisions, Senate Budget Committee 
     Print 103-101, December 1994, p. 20]
       In other words, if a foreign country has taxes as high or 
     higher than the U.S., the foreign tax credit may help to 
     achieve the goal of preventing double taxation. But where 
     taxes are lower, the Exclusion provides a windfall for people 
     who make more than the average person who stays in the U.S. 
     make a living.
       When you see a long-lived whopper of a loophole like this, 
     you have to wonder who is fighting to save it. Some light is 
     shed on this question by the IRS's Statistics of Income 
     Bulletin from Fall 1994. It tells us that while only two-
     tenths of one percent of people filing individual tax returns 
     in 1991 claimed the Exclusion, 45 percent of those claiming 
     the Exclusion ultimately ended up with no income tax 
     liability. In plain English, that means that almost half of 
     the people who got to use the loophole in 1991 didn't have to 
     pay U.S. income taxes.
       Now that we see the substantial benefits this Exclusion can 
     bestow upon a foreign-resident American who takes advantage 
     of it, let us see who those people tend to be. Well, it might 
     interest my colleagues to know that the total foreign-earned 
     salaries and wages in 1991 for Americans living in Saudi 
     Arabia were the third-highest in the world, right behind the 
     United Kingdom and Hong Kong. I am all for Americans making a 
     good living, but there is something particularly interesting 
     about those living in Saudi Arabia: that country charges no 
     income tax on those earnings. Thus we have the exact 
     situation the Budget Committee print warns against: where the 
     foreign taxes are lower than U.S. taxes, the Exclusion 
     reduces U.S. taxes paid; and where higher-than-average 
     earners receive reduced taxes, our income tax system becomes 
     less progressive.
       But do not stop there. A smattering of unorganized 
     Americans living in Saudi Arabia is not likely to pack enough 
     political clout to be able to protect a taxpayer give-away 
     like this one. There must be some other force here, somebody 
     with money and political punch. That's where the major 
     multinationals like the oil companies come in. Through 
     private agreements with their employees, these corporations 
     arrange to pocket the windfall that comes to employees when 
     they are detailed to Saudi Arabia and other low-tax countries 
     and become eligible for the Exclusion. These agreements 
     provide that when an employee goes to work overseas, the 
     employee's standard of living will not be changed. While that 
     could mean a generous protection for employees in high-tax 
     countries, in low-tax countries it is the employer who is 
     receiving the benefit, this time at the expense of the 
     American taxpayer.
       Now it all makes sense. We have this unjustifiable loophole 
     in our tax system so that huge oil companies and other 
     multinationals can pocket yet another subsidy. Of course, 
     this subsidy is hidden in the tax code because it would be 
     hard (or at least embarrassing) for Congress, in the full 
     light of day, to directly subsidize the oil industry--
     especially under current budget constraints. By eliminating 
     this tax break, we could make the tax system fairer, flatter 
     and simpler--goals which all of us share.
       I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I yield 
     the floor.


   ELIMINATE CORPORATE WELFARE BY STRIKING RELAXATION OF ALTERNATIVE 
                              MINIMUM TAX

       Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to strike from 
     the reconciliation bill the provision to eliminate the 
     Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), and to use the billions in 
     savings generated from this amendment to reduce the federal 
     deficit.
       The AMT was put into the law as part of the 1986 Tax Reform 
     Act. As many of my colleagues will recall, the effort during 
     1986 tax reform was to simplify the tax code as well as 
     infuse some elements of fairness into the tax code. In 1984, 
     two years before tax reform became law, the non-partisan 
     research group Citizens for Tax Justice did a report that 
     found 130 of 250 of the major American corporations had paid 
     nothing in federal taxes during at least one of the five 
     years from 1981 to 1985. Among the companies were Champion 
     International, Dow Chemical, Phillips Petroleum, Texaco, 
     Shell, and Mobil. We must not return to that scandalous 
     record of tax avoidance by relaxing, and for some firms even 
     repealing, the alternative minimum tax. But that's the way 
     this bill would take us. The Treasury Department estimates 
     that if the AMT is repealed, by the year 2005 we could have 
     more than 76,000 corporations not paying taxes.
       Because the other thing that we should remember about 1986 
     Tax Reform is that together with getting rid of many tax 
     breaks for corporation and wealthy individuals, we lowered 
     tax rates for everyone--it was a trade off.
       The Alternative Minimum Tax became law in response to the 
     egregious level of tax avoidance by many large and profitable 
     corporations. Indeed the official summary of the Tax Reform 
     Act of 1986 states: ``Congress concluded that the minimum tax 
     should serve one overriding objective: to ensure that no 
     taxpayer with substantial economic income can avoid 
     significant tax liability by using exclusions, deductions, 
     and credits. . . . It is inherently unfair for high-income 
     taxpayers to pay little or no tax due to their ability to 
     utilize tax preferences.'' The same holds true now. The AMT 
     is still necessary to prevent abuses, it has worked, and we 
     should not be effectively repealing it.
       The AMT ensures that corporations and individuals that 
     receive large tax savings by making use of tax deductions and 
     exemptions pay at least a minimum amount of income tax. In 
     very simple terms this is how it works. If corporations and 
     individuals calculate their tax and find that they owe 
     nothing, the AMT kicks in with a set of rules so these 
     companies and individuals pay at least something. Under the 
     AMT certain items are designated as so-called ``preference'' 
     and those items are taxed at the regular rate. If the AMT is 
     higher than the regular tax, the higher alternative tax is 
     the tax that is owed.
       The AMT imposes a lower tax rate rather than the regular 
     tax rate. However, the AMT tax applies to a broader range of 
     items in the tax base. It negates the benefit of many of the 
     preference and exclusions that a company or individual might 
     benefit from under the regular income tax system.
       The Finance Committee provisions of reconciliation make 
     changes to the AMT that in some cases would effectively 
     eliminate it. According to the Joint Tax Committee these 
     provisions could cost an estimated $9.2 billion in corporate 
     tax breaks over then next five years. The House-passed 
     version of this provision will costs taxpayers about $25 
     billion, so we know that it's only likely to get worse if we 
     don't knock out this provision here.
       Beginning next year the AMT would be reduced for both 
     corporations and individuals. It would allow taxpayers to 
     take most of the tax writeoffs which are not currently 
     allowed under the AMT, such as accelerated depreciation and 
     intangible drilling costs, for purposes of the AMT and thus 
     reduce the portion of income that would be taxed under the 
     AMT. This would effectively eliminate the core of the AMT 
     because the tax would be the same under the AMT and the 
     regular tax system.
       The bill would allow corporations to apply past payments of 
     the AMT toward the payment of future years tax by up to 50%, 
     as long as a corporation's tax liability was not below the 
     newly-reduced AMT. Under current law, corporations are 
     allowed to use prior tax payments of the AMT to reduce their 
     current regular tax liability, but only down to the amount of 
     AMT tax. In other words, Mr. President, this proposal would 
     eliminate the floor that the AMT was supposed to provide.
       Mr. President, I believe reconciliation should be for 
     reducing the deficit, not for giving more aid to dependent 
     corporations in 

[[Page S 15986]]
     the form of new tax breaks for wealthy individuals and big business. 
     Corporations and wealthy individuals should not escape their 
     fair share of the tax burden through tax shelters. In this 
     day of severe budget cuts, when we are all asked to tighten 
     our belts, we should not excuse the most wealthy of our 
     country from that obligation.
       To add insult to injury, this legislation would 
     substantially increases the tax burden on working families 
     and the poor by restricting eligibility for the Earned Income 
     Tax Credit while scaling back the AMT on corporations and 
     wealthy individuals. This is the quintessential shift of tax 
     burden from the very wealthy to low and moderate income 
     working families. How can we in good conscience increase 
     taxes on 17 million low-income working families while at the 
     same time decrease taxes on the wealthiest people in this 
     country, those making hundreds of thousand of dollars 
     annually?
       During the debate on the balanced budget amendment, 
     Republicans repeated over and over again that we need to 
     balance the budget to provide for a better future for our 
     children and grandchildren. But now that we have before us 
     the actual plan for balancing the budget (which actually will 
     do no such thing) we can see what they're offering everyone: 
     a tax cut for the well off, and a higher bill for the middle 
     class.
       This kind of a tax break benefits the very high-income 
     people with wealth and power and clout, and corporations with 
     high-powered lobbyists. They're the big political campaign 
     contributors, the people who spend $50,000 per person to 
     attend small, intimate dinners to support the pet political 
     causes of certain politicians; they're the wealthy corporate 
     interests who are well-represented in Washington, while 
     average Americans are left out in the cold.
       Repealing the AMT would undoubtedly take us back to the 
     days when corporate America was making billions in profits 
     and paying little or no tax. That is not the direction we 
     should be going. It is not good for the economy and it is not 
     good for the citizens of this country.
       Some would argue that the AMT has been burdensome on 
     business, especially small business. Some claim that it 
     increases taxes and thus reduces return on capital and makes 
     continued investment difficult. They are wrong. If we are all 
     supposed to be tightening our belts to reduce the budget 
     deficit and ultimately reach a balanced budget, asking 
     profitable firms to pay at least some income tax, as everyone 
     else is required to do, is simple fairness and common sense.
       Indeed, our tax code is already filled with too many tax 
     breaks for special classes or categories of taxpayers. We 
     should be repealing those tax breaks instead of considering a 
     bill that adds more giveaways to the rich while increasing 
     the burden on the working families. I think it's a simple 
     question of fairness. If we are really going to cut billions 
     of dollars in government spending and other policy changes to 
     achieve a balanced budget, then we should make sure that 
     wealthy interests in our country, those who have political 
     clout, those who hire lobbyists to make their case every day 
     here in Washington, are asked to sacrifice at least as much 
     as regular middle class folks that you and I represent who 
     receive Social Security or Medicare or Veterans benefits.
       I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I yield 
     the floor.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are 51-percent dependent upon 
imported oil. If you want to become 100-percent dependent, just adopt 
this amendment.
  This amendment violates the Budget Act, is not germane, and I make a 
point of order under the Budget Act.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable section of that act 
pursuant to the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on 
the motion to waive the act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. 
Feinstein] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 25, nays 73, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 521 Leg.]

                                YEAS--25

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Conrad
     Exon
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--73

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Feinstein
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 25, and the nays 
are 73. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Exon and I want about 3 minutes 
each to address the Senate with reference to the process for the 
remainder of the time on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time left on the bill. It will 
take a unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I and Senator Exon be 
permitted to speak for 3 minutes each to explain to Senators where we 
are and what we expect of them in the next couple of hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me explain to the Senators where we 
are, and I will then yield obviously to Senator Exon.
  We are next going to vote on the substitute budget resolution by 
Senators Simon and Conrad. And then we have only one amendment left in 
the so-called second tier, the tier about which we have agreed to have 
5 minutes on each side of debate. That is the Roth Finance Committee 
amendment. Excuse me, Senator Pryor on nursing homes is next, and 
Simon-Conrad on the substitute follows that, and the Roth Finance 
Committee amendment. They are circulating parts of it to the various 
staff. And I talked to Senator Graham of Florida. We are trying to get 
the staff involved very soon. But those are the three that are left on 
that part.
  Then we come to that ominous group, that nebulous group that is 
called third tier. We have invented that term. But that means all the 
other amendments that anybody would like to offer.
  I might mention that we have been waiting for a list, and we do not 
have a list. But the minority leader is working to try to get that 
list.
  The minority leader and the majority leader suggest the following: If 
you have amendments that you intend to call up in that period of time 
when there is little or no time to discuss them, we would ask Senators 
to submit their amendments to the desk so that they will be with the 
clerk, and then submit them to Senator Exon and Senator Domenici at our 
desks so that we will have some idea by the time we finish tier 2 of 
what amendments we have to consider.
  It is very important for everyone, to all Senators--not we as 
managers--that we establish some order for that series of amendments. 
So I urge that all Senators who have amendments to get them to the 
desk, not have them circulating around here, and get them to the 
manager and the ranking member's desk here in the Senate.
  I yield now to Senator Exon.
  Mr. EXON. I agree completely with what the chairman has said. I 
simply remind all that if you file your amendments now in a timely 
fashion, as we have indicated, giving a copy to each of us, when we get 
into the voting procedures on these amendments we will try and give 
priority consideration as nearly as possible with regard to how they 
were filed to give some incentive for people to file the amendments.
  We are trying to get together, as the chairman has said, the 
definitive list on this side. We do not have a list of all 

[[Page S 15987]]
of the amendments that are proposed on the other side. This is a way to 
get that worked out. Numerous Senators have come to me and have said, 
``What plan should I make with regard to leaving Washington, DC, this 
weekend?'' I said that is very, very much up in the air.
  I would simply say that my best guess at the present time is that we 
have, as of now, a minimum--I emphasize the word ``minimum''--on both 
sides of the aisle of somewhere around 50 individual separate 
amendments to be considered. Multiply that out. Even at a limited 10-
minute timeframe, you can see we are talking about a minimum of 8 hours 
of steady voting, which should give everyone pause for consideration if 
they have any visions of leaving sometime this evening for obligations 
that they have elsewhere.
  Therefore, I hope we can continue to whittle down the amendments. We 
have been tremendously successful thus far on this side. We started out 
with about 120. Right now I think we are down to somewhere between 41 
and 45. That is still an awful lot. But we have come a long, long way, 
and we intend to go further. Suffice it to say that if we are going to 
have the cooperation that is necessary while allowing each Senator 
rights as guaranteed to offer the amendments, then we are going to have 
to have some restrictions in the better understanding than we have 
right now on both sides with regard to limiting the amendments.
  So I hope that all will agree with the suggestion made by the 
chairman, which I agree with completely. We have checked this, as I 
understand it, with both the minority leader and the majority leader. 
At least that is the best chance we have of moving forward in as 
expeditious a fashion as possible. I use that word advisedly.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to confirm what the ranking member 
and the chairman have indicated. The majority leader and I have talked 
about how we are going to proceed now with the third tier. I urge 
Senators to accommodate our two ranking members. They have been working 
with us very carefully and closely.
  I think the only way we can accommodate the schedule for the balance 
of the day is to do what the chairman has suggested. We have talked to 
all of our colleagues on this side of the aisle. We know approximately 
what the list is. We do not have the text of any of the amendments. 
They need to be filed within the next hour. And then the list needs to 
be provided to the ranking member so we can begin to put the list in 
order.
  So I urge everyone's cooperation to allow us to get through this list 
as expeditiously as we can but also as knowledgeably as we can. No one 
on the Republican side has seen the text of any of our amendments. We 
have not seen the text of their amendments. The only opportunity for us 
to look at the text is while we are voting on additional amendments.
  So it is important that everyone come forth and bring their 
amendments to the desk, and allow us to list them officially. Then we 
will begin considering them.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Nebraska has 
expired. There are 40 seconds left to the other side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would Senator Graham like to ask me a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. If the Senator will yield for a question, does he have 
any idea when we will have an opportunity to get to review the Finance 
Committee amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Fellow Senators, let me just add to what we said 
heretofore. I have been asked by Senators what time we can get out of 
here. So my comments are attempting to accommodate you. I think 
sometime within the next couple of hours we will have made all the 
major votes, taken all the major votes, and will have decided all the 
major issues. So I do not think we should stay around here until 12 
o'clock tonight. We are going to do our best to expedite things.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The question is, When will we have an opportunity to 
review the Finance Committee amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just spoke to Senator Roth. He said that his staff is 
going to exchange views with your staff and other staff. They are 
already going to give you parts of the amendment, which are ready. They 
are going to do that right now. And we will just go from one step to 
another. But you will have part of it quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the first amendment has been handed to both 
sides by Senator Simon, an important step in the right direction. We 
hope all will follow.
  Second, I would suggest that if possible--we cannot insist on this--I 
would suggest that Senator Simon and all that will follow with this 
process to try to add a one- or two-sentence explanation of what their 
measure is intended to do. That will help expedite things on all sides.


                           Amendment No. 2983

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next vote occurs on the amendment of the 
Senator from Arkansas. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  There are 30 seconds to each side.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us listen to the Senator from Arkansas for 
30 seconds. Senators clear the well, please.
  The Chair cannot hear the Senator from Arkansas.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this amendment is offered by myself and Senator Cohen 
and several of our colleagues. This amendment very simply reinstates 
the nursing home standards that we adopted in 1987 with a bipartisan 
effort. These standards have worked. They have worked well. They have 
saved money. The nursing home industry is not trying to repeal these 
standards. And we are going to hear that another proposal from the 
other side of the aisle is going to fix this issue. But I will say, Mr. 
President, we have not seen all of the ramifications. We know that 
there is a gaping hole----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. PRYOR. In the waiver process and that there are no standards 
going to be submitted on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Cohen's proposal with reference 
to this issue is going to be incorporated in the Republican, in Senator 
Roth's, proposal. I urge that Republican Senators vote against this 
amendment because it is going to be taken care of and in some respects 
even be better than this amendment. It will be part of the package, and 
we are sorry we cannot give it to you yet. But it is Senator Cohen's 
proposal that is incorporated in the Republican package.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield for 
a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Arkansas be given an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PRYOR. I just want to ask a question, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to additional time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will not object this time, but I really do not think 
we can do it every time.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I can ask my friend from New Mexico, is 
the so-called nursing home regulation or standard fix, is this a part 
of the larger omnibus Finance Committee package that none of us have 
seen?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. That is right.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senators will see it shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  All time is yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the Pryor 
amendment No. 2983. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 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? 

[[Page S 15988]]

  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 522 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     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
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--48

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the amendment (No. 2983) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2984

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Simon amendment No. 
2984 with 30 seconds for each side.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute for an 
exchange of views between the managers----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. There is a 
request for additional time. The Senator from Nebraska wants 1 minute; 
is that the request?
  Mr. EXON. After consultation with the two leaders, and the managers 
of the bill, it is our feeling----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the Senator's 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator's request is 
granted.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. After consultation with the two leaders, Senator Domenici 
and myself, and others, we would simply say that we have two amendments 
left on what we have referred to as tier two. That is the Simon-Conrad 
deficit-reduction amendment, and then the final one, the Roth Finance 
Committee amendment.
  We are now on Simon-Conrad. We will move ahead in the usual fashion. 
It is our suggestion then that there be an agreement that the Roth 
amendment will be put indefinitely aside for later consideration to 
give all a chance to look at some of the details of that, and allow us 
to move then to the so-called tier three category, and begin votes, and 
bring up the Roth Finance Committee amendment at the call of the 
chairman.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Nebraska has 
expired.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Was that in the form of a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. EXON. No. That is simply to state what we hope we could do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no further time for debate unless you 
ask for it. The Senator from New Mexico is entitled to 30 seconds at 
this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I compliment the sponsors of this 
amendment and make just two observations. We have heard a lot of debate 
on the floor of the Senate that all we needed to do to save Medicare 
was $89 billion. Actually, it is interesting to note that this 
Democratic proposal requires $168 billion in savings for Medicare. It 
is all too interesting to note that much has been said about us doing 
too much on the programs of senior citizens.
  I just say that this amendment has $268 billion in program reductions 
that affect senior citizens. That brings it to at least the same level 
as the Republican package, if not more. We are not going to vote for it 
on this side. But we commend the Senators for their realism in 
acknowledging that these kinds of things have to be done.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I had hoped that I would hear from the 
chairman on the suggestion that I made. I have heard nothing from him 
on that. He went into the debate. I have not yielded the 30 seconds yet 
that I have, which I will do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The two leaders on the floor cannot hear one 
another. The Senator from New Mexico does not realize, in the Chair's 
opinion, that he had 30 seconds to respond to the Senator from 
Nebraska. Does the Senator wish 30 seconds to respond?
  Mr. DOMENICI. To respond to his request about setting aside this 
amendment or this bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska asked for 1 minute, 
equally divided, to discuss the question that he asked the Senator from 
New Mexico. Does the Senator wish to respond?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with reference to the Roth amendment, we 
will acknowledge that the other side deserves ample time to review it. 
We do not intend to call it up next. We intend to set it aside and 
provide ample time for its review. It will be taken up in due course, 
but not next under this list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired except for 30 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to Senator Simon.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 2984

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk, and I 
ask unanimous consent that I may modify my amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 18 of the amendment delete subtitle B.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators 
Conrad, Robb, and Kerrey. It eliminates the tax cut, reduces the CPI 
0.5 percent, which is less than the experts have recommended. That 
means, for the median person on Social Security, $3.85 a month. For 
that, you get more than $100 billion in Medicare, more than $100 
billion in Medicaid, $36 billion in welfare, and you eliminate the cuts 
in education. It has bipartisan support in the House, and I hope it can 
have that here in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2984, as modified.
  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 19, nays 80, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 523 Leg.]

                                YEAS--19

     Akaka
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moynihan
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Simon

                                NAYS--80

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 2984) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

[[Page S 15989]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             CHANGE OF VOTE

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 518, I voted ``no.'' My 
intention was to vote ``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote, which in no way would change the outcome 
of the vote.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. If I could inform my colleagues where we are and where we 
are headed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator using leader's time?
  Mr. DOLE. I will use my leader's time.
  We are now ready to proceed to the third tier. So we have some order 
and know what we are voting on, I will request that the two managers 
each have 30 seconds to explain their amendment, or maybe they do not 
need explanation. The votes on the pending amendments will be 7\1/2\ 
minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the last 
item on tier 2, what is going to be its disposition?
  Mr. DOLE. The last item?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Florida 
there is no amendment before the desk.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I was asking a question. We have been proceeding under a 
unanimous-consent request, taking up amendments under tier 2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time for debate.
  Mr. DOLE. Under my leader's time, we will postpone action on that, 
and we have talked to the Democratic leader and the manager of the 
bill, and that gives everybody a chance to look at it, study it, and 
bring it up sometime later.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Does the majority leader have an indication of when we 
can see the legislative language?
  Mr. DOLE. Probably the time we get to see the list of tier 3 
amendments on that side.
  Mr. GRAHAM. So we have no indication of when?
  Mr. DOLE. As quickly as we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Is there any objection to the request of the Senator?
  Mr. BRADLEY. Would the Chair restate the Senator's request?
  Mr. DOLE. That the two managers have 30 seconds to explain the 
amendments and then have 7\1/2\-minute votes.
  Mr. SIMON. Reserving the right to object, why not go to 5 minutes?
  Mr. DOLE. It is not possible for the clerk to do it any more quickly 
than 7\1/2\, plus there is always one or two that never get the message 
and are rolling around out here somewhere.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, did the 1 minute apply 
to the Roth?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, using my leader time----
  Mr. DOLE. All we have is 7\1/2\ minutes, so I am asking we have 30 
seconds, for the managers to have 30 seconds. I do not include the 7\1/
2\.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, using my leader time, let me emphasize we 
have asked all Senators to turn their lists in, their amendment in--we 
hope it is not a list, but an amendment--by noon. The amendment ought 
to be filed by noon, and it ought to be turned in to the managers by 
noon.
  That is the only way I am going to put it on a list. If I do not have 
that amendment by noon, it is not on the Democratic list. So it is very 
important everybody cooperate to the extent that we have 40 minutes, 
now, to file the list and compare our lists so we can get on with our 
work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request for 30 seconds on each side before each amendment?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, there is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. There is no further time 
for debate.
  Mr. DOLE. No debate, no explanation of amendments. Let us vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an amendment to present?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 2985

   (Purpose: To restore funding for Medicare disproportionate share 
                           hospital payments)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President I call up amendment No. 2985. I ask 
unanimous consent there be 1 minute equally divided to comment on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania asks unanimous 
consent for 1 minute on a side to explain his amendment. Is there 
objection?
  Mr. DOLE. Wait a minute. There has already been an objection. I want 
to be sure the Senator from Florida has a right to object to this 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania for 1 minute on each side, to explain his 
amendment and to answer that explanation?
  Mr. EXON. I reserve the right to object. Is the Senator suggesting a 
different proposal than what the majority leader did?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the amendment he submitted to the desk, he 
asks for 1 minute on a side on his amendment.
  Mr. EXON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2985.
       On page 539, line 16, strike all that follows through page 
     541, line 9.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds to 
explain this amendment.
  Mr. EXON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds for the managers on 
each side to discuss the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the amendment. All in favor say aye?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me restate my request in a little 
different way, which has been cleared by the Democratic leader and the 
two managers: That there be 30 seconds by each manager to explain the 
amendment, unless they designate the sponsor of the amendment to make 
that 30-second explanation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Chair is in doubt. That applies to all further amendments on this 
bill, is that correct? Does that apply to all further amendments on 
this bill?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE. Yes, except the Roth amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Except the Roth amendment. With the exception 
of the Roth amendment, that is the order for the balance of this bill. 
All amendments, 30 seconds to each side. The managers to have the right 
to designate the sponsor or principal objector?
  Mr. DOLE. Right. We would hope they would cooperate with the managers 
and let the managers give a very short explanation. I think the 
managers are prepared to do that. We are just trying to move the bill 
along. This will accommodate those who feel strongly about their 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not 
object. The 

[[Page S 15990]]
point is that, if an objection is made, there will be no time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. If there is an objection, 
there will be no time.
  Is there an objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time. The manager has to 
designate the sponsor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 30 seconds to Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this bill cuts out--if there may be 
order, Mr. President--this bill cuts out $14.5 billion from 
disproportionate share payments, and indirect medical education which 
cripples the major hospitals and the major teaching institutions. And 
this amendment reinstates $4.5 billion.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am speaking in favor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. There is no time for that.
  Mr. EXON. Is there anyone who seeks to speak in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not the agreement. The Senator from 
Nebraska has the time to designate the spokesman in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this would just throw out all of the effort 
we spent--weeks and weeks trying to deal with this issue. It would put 
$4.5 billion back into the pot. We have had all this redistribution. We 
have worked on it very hard in a bipartisan way.
  I hope this amendment will be soundly defeated. I regret that it is 
not subject to a point of order. But it is a motion to strike.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Is there a request for the yeas and nays?
  Mr. SPECTER. I request the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  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 Pennsylvania. 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 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 524 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So, the amendment (No. 2985) was rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has been requested to ask Senators 
to stay out of the well during debate.
  Is there an amendment?
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 2992

  (Purpose: To amend title 4 of the United States Code to limit State 
                  taxation of certain pension income)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the following has been cleared by the 
majority manager.
  Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, I 
send an amendment to the desk on source taxation and ask unanimous 
consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with; that 
the amendment be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2992) was agreed to, as follows:
       At the end of subchapter E of chapter 1 of subtitle J of 
     title XII, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . LIMITATION ON STATE INCOME TAXATION OF CERTAIN 
                   PENSION INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ''Sec. 114. Limitation on State income taxation of certain 
       pension income

       ``(a) No State may impose an income tax on any retirement 
     income of an individual who is not a resident or domiciliary 
     of such State (as determined under the laws of such State).
       ``(b) For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) The term `retirement income' means any income from--
       ``(A) a qualified trust under section 401(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt under section 
     501(a) from taxation;
       ``(B) a simplified employee pension as defined in section 
     408(k) of such Code;
       ``(C) an annuity plan described in section 403(a) of such 
     Code;
       ``(D) an annuity contract described in section 403(b) of 
     such Code;
       ``(E) an individual retirement plan described in section 
     7701(a)(37) of such Code;
       ``(F) an eligible deferred compensation plan (as defined in 
     section 457 of such Code);
       ``(G) a governmental plan (as defined in section 414(d) of 
     such Code);
       ``(H) a trust described in section 501(c)(18) of such Code; 
     or
       ``(I) any plan, program, or arrangement described in 
     section 3121(v)(2)(C) of such Code, if such income is part of 
     a series of substantial equal periodic payments (not less 
     frequently than annually) made for--
       ``(i) the life or life expectancy of the recipient (or the 
     joint lives or joint life expectancies of the receipient and 
     the designated beneficiary of the recipient), or
       ``(ii) a period of not less than 10 years.

     Such term includes any retired or retainer pay of a member or 
     former member of a uniform service computed under chapter 71 
     of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(2) The term `income tax' has the meaning given such term 
     by section 110(c).
       ``(3) The term `State' includes any political subdivision 
     of a State, the District of Columbia, and the possessions of 
     the United States.
       ``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as having 
     any effect on the application of section 514 of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``114. Limitation on State income taxation of certain pension income''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts received after December 31, 1994.


                           Amendment No. 2993

(Purpose: To provide for additional technical and conforming amendments 
   related to the merger of the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings 
          Association Insurance Fund, and for other purposes)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to amendment.
  Is there an amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a technical amendment to the desk 
on behalf of the Banking Committee and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     D'Amato, proposes an amendment numbered 2993.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with. 

[[Page S 15991]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is agreed to on both sides. I ask 
that the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2993) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2994

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an amendment for Senators 
Hutchison, McCain, Lieberman, and others. It has been cleared on both 
sides, as I understand it. I send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mrs. 
     Hutchison, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. 
     Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 2994.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I send that amendment to the desk and ask unanimous 
consent that further reading be dispensed with, the amendment be agreed 
to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the right to object.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Will the Senator state what the amendment is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senate will be in order, the Senator 
did state that he had an agreement from both sides.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Will the Senator state what the amendment is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator from New Mexico hear the 
Senator's request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. He wants to know what is in the amendment.
  This is a sense of the Senate with reference to Yugoslavia that has 
been cleared on all sides.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, unless we have an understanding of what this 
amendment is, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Sense of the Senate on continued human rights violations in 
     the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senate will be in 
order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, can we withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will take unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right, let us proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Stop the reading.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that we be permitted to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is withdrawn.
  So the amendment (No. 2994) was withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not do that because I oppose the substance. I 
just do not want to set a pattern that we are going to waste a lot of 
time on amendments so that is why I withdraw it.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 2988

 (Purpose: To strike the provision authorizing oil and gas development 
  in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge while preserving a balanced 
                            budget by 2002)

  Mr. EXON. Pursuant to the previous agreement, the Senator from 
Montana has submitted an amendment to the desk. I would hope that it 
would be the time when we could let him offer that amendment, and I 
yield 30 seconds for that purpose to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, do we have that amendment?
  I do not believe we can proceed in this manner. I could not possibly 
take 30 seconds in opposition because I do not have the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is at the desk.
  Is the Senator from Montana calling up his amendment?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Which number does the Senator call up?
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is the ANWR amendment, Mr. President.
  Mr. DOMENICI. OK, let us proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr. 
     Roth, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Biden, and Mr. 
     Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 2988.

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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 272, strike line 21 and all that follows through 
     page 293, line 22.
       On page 161, strike line 3 and all that follows through 
     page 178, line 7.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds on each side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment strikes the provision 
opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. To 
offset the loss of revenue from ANWR drilling and to keep the budget 
balanced in 2002, the amendment also strikes the sale of the naval 
petroleum reserves.
  Opening Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling will seriously disrupt 
precious natural resources, will do nothing to enhance our energy 
independence, and it will not generate the amount of revenue that the 
proponents claim.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this would increase the deficit by 
nearly $3 billion over the next 7 years. I think everybody knows the 
issue with reference to ANWR.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. DOLE. I move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, we yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. DOLE. Move to table.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 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. 525 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Wellstone
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2988) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  
[[Page S 15992]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to Senators who contemplate 
offering amendments that unless we have seen a copy of the amendment 
before you offer it, we are going to offer a second-degree amendment, 
because there is no way to state the case if we have never seen it. We 
have three now that we have seen that are the next three. I am dealt 
this process; I did not invent it, but we are stuck with it. We are 
going to make it as orderly as we can. I do not like the disorder that 
exists in the Senate, but I cannot do anything about it. I am not going 
to vote on an amendment that I have not seen. There will be a second-
degree offered and we will vote on that.
  So get the amendments in. It is only in fairness to all of us. I 
yield back any time I have.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators will clear the well.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds for an inquiry to the 
chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, so that we can proceed in an orderly manner, 
there is a second Baucus amendment regarding Medicare that I understand 
has been delivered to that side, is that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, it has.
  Mr. EXON. Would it be in order to bring that up then?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2991

   (Purpose: To make various modifications to the tax provisions and 
      transfer the resulting revenues to the Medicare trust fund)

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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 Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2991.

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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 1469, strike lines 8 through 11, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year 
     an amount equal to the applicable amount multiplied by the 
     number of qualifying children of the taxpayer.
       ``(2) Applicable amount.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the applicable amount shall be determined in the following 
     table:

                                                             Applicable
``Taxable year:                                                 Amount:
    1996...........................................................$400
    1997............................................................450
    1998 and thereafter..........................................500.''

       On page 1470, line 7, strike ``$110,000'' and insert 
     ``$90,000''.
       On page 1470, line 9, strike ``$75,000'' and insert 
     ``$55,000''.
       On page 1470, line 11, strike ``$55,000'' and insert 
     ``$45,000''.
       On page 1472, strike the table between lines 10 and 11, and 
     insert the following:

``For taxable years beginning in calenThe applicable dollar amount is--
    1996........................................................$6,700 
    1997.........................................................7,050 
    1998.........................................................7,400 
    1999.........................................................7,850 
    2000.........................................................8,100 
    2001.........................................................8,500 
    2002.........................................................9,000 
    2003.........................................................9,400 
    2004.........................................................9,850 
    2005 and thereafter.......................................10,800.''

       On page 1530, strike lines 2 through 5, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) General Rule. If for any taxable year a taxpayer 
     other than a corporation has a net capital gain, 50 percent 
     of the first $100,000 of such gain shall be a deduction from 
     gross income.
       On page 1547, beginning on line 20, strike all through page 
     1550, line 12.
       On page 1551, beginning on line 4, strike all through page 
     1553, line 10.
       On page 1867, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 12879. DEPOSIT ADDITIONAL REVENUES IN MEDICARE TRUST 
                   FUNDS.

       There is hereby authorized to be appropriated and is 
     appropriated for each fiscal year an amount equal to the 
     increase in revenues for such year as estimated by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury resulting from the amendments made 
     by amendment no. ________, offered on October ________, 1995, 
     with respect to the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1995 to be deposited in the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust 
     Fund in amounts which bear the same ratio as the balances in 
     each Trust Fund.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment strikes the provision of 
the reconciliation bill that would open the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge up for oil drilling. As an offset, it strikes the provision of 
the bill that authorizes the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve. So it 
preserves the balanced budget in 2002.
  Let me explain why Members should support the amendment.
  We've heard a lot of talk, during the budget debate, about the 
future. About how we should sacrifice today so that our children and 
grandchildren can benefit tomorrow.
  That's well and good. But opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
to oil drilling goes in exactly the opposite direction. It puts profits 
ahead of prudence. As a result, it risks causing serious harm to one of 
our national treasures, squandering the natural resources that we leave 
to future generations.
  And there's another thing. Opening the refuge to oil drilling is yet 
another example of public lands policies that favor special interests 
over the interests of ordinary American families. It opens the Refuge 
up to drilling. At whose expense? The people who want to hunt, fish, 
and otherwise enjoy the natural beauty there.
  Proponents of oil drilling argue that it will enhance our energy 
security.
  They argue that it will reduce the Nation's budget deficit. And they 
argue that it won't really pose significant risks to the refuge or its 
wildlife resources.
  I disagree. Let me take the arguments in turn.
  First, energy security. According to a 1995 assessment by the U.S. 
Geological Survey, oil and gas reserves under the refuge may be only 
about half as large as previously thought. Furthermore, economic 
analyses show that a lot of the oil won't even be used here in the 
United States. Instead, if the bills lifting the ban on oil exports 
passed by the House and Senate are enacted into law, the oil will be 
shipped overseas. As a result, oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge has little, if anything, to do with energy security.
  Second, the budget deficit. The Office of Management and Budget has 
concluded that oil and gas development in the refuge would produce 
significantly less revenue than predicted by CBO. OMB looked at updated 
estimates of the amount of recoverable oil reserves. It looked at 
projected oil prices. And OMB concluded that drilling likely would 
generate only $850 million, 35 percent less revenue than predicted by 
CBO.

  And that assumes that taxpayers get the revenue. But if the State of 
Alaska successfully asserts a claim that it is entitled to 90 percent 
of all revenues, Federal revenues will decline to about $170 million.
  Third, the environmental impact. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
is unique. It's been referred to, for good reason, as ``America's 
Serengeti.'' More than 150,000 caribou migrate through the refuge, 
bearing their young on the coastal plain. The caribou are an important 
source of food for the native people who live near the refuge and 
depend on the land to sustain their way of life. In addition, the 
refuge supports a spectacular array of other wildlife, including polar 
bears, grizzly bears, wolves, and snow geese.
  OMB has stated that ``exploration and development activities would 
bring physical disturbances to the area, unacceptable risks of oil 
spills and pollution, and long-term effects that would harm wildlife 
for decades.''
  Recent opinion polls demonstrate that the American people--by a 
margin of more than 2 to 1--oppose opening up the refuge to oil and gas 
development. I urge members to vote for prudence and for open access to 
public lands. I urge them to vote for this amendment.

[[Page S 15993]]

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
reconciliation provision to open a small part of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge to competitive leasing for oil and gas exploration and 
development. Like many of the other issues we have addressed on this 
floor in the past ferw weeks, this issue has generated a lot of 
emotion. We hear about destroying the pristinity of the refuge, the 
threat to the wildlife of the area, the irreversible changes that such 
development will cause, the mortal wounding of a national treasure. 
This is one of the most controversial provisions of the reconciliation 
package, and the President has threatened a veto over it. The irony is 
that there is no reason for this. In the final measure, all of the 
arguments and objections that have been raised over the leasing in ANWR 
come to nothing. These objections just don't hold water, and I'll tell 
you why.
  The environmental concerns have been raised before, and found 
wanting. All of the research done on oil development on the North Slope 
proves that such development can occur without having an adverse effect 
on wildlife. As a matter of fact, the caribou herds have not only 
survived during the nearly 30 years of oil development in the Prudhoe 
Bay area, they have shown strong grown. Some people predicted that the 
caribou would be disturbed by the development, particularly the 
pipeline. They argued that the caribou would not cross it and therefore 
the range of the herd would be cut in half, they would not be able to 
get to their calving areas and the herd would suffer. Because of the 
concern over this possibility, the oil companies buried portions of the 
pipeline at great expense and effort. This has proven to have been a 
waste of time and money. The caribou were not scared by the pipeline, 
they did not even ignore it. The fact it they use it. Biologists have 
found that caribou enjoy the heat that the pipeline provides during the 
cold winter months, and they can even be found taking advantage of the 
shade that it provides during the summer on this treeless plain. Some 
predicted that caribou would be trapped by the pipeline, and that 
predators would change their behavior to take advantage of the 
pipeline. But this has not happened either. There has been very little 
effect on the wolves or bears in the area. Some said that waterfowl and 
other birds such as hawks and falcons would avoid the area because of 
the development. Again, this has not happened. Each year thousands of 
waterfowl and other birds nest in the Prudhoe area. In fact, there has 
never been a incident of what could even approach being called serious 
environmental damage in the North Slope oil fields.

  This environmental record has been established using old 
technologies. The methods for oil development on the North Slope have 
improved to the point that the direct impact area, or footprint of 
development, will only be a small part of what it has been at Prudhoe 
Bay. New slant drilling techniques allow wells to reach farther than 
they could before. Drilling methods now allow 12 wells to be drilled 
where only one could be drilled before. And the size of the drill pads 
have been reduced to one eighth of what was needed at Prudhoe. Not only 
are the drill pads smaller, but there will be fewer of them and they 
will be spaced farther apart than at Prudhoe. The actual footprint at 
ANWR will only be about 3,000 acres. That is not much land to commit 
for all of the benefits that development will provide. We have learned 
how to improve other aspects of oil development technology through our 
experiences at Prudhoe and other Arctic oil fields as well. And this 
technology is getting better every day. The result is that there is 
even less potential of environmental damage at ANWR than there was at 
Prudhoe. And there has not been any environmental damage at Prudhoe.
  Objections have been raised because of the presumed effect on the 
native peoples of the region. But the truth is that there is no 
conflict with the subsistence lifestyle of native Americans. The North 
Slope residents have grown up with oil development, and they have not 
suffered a reduction on their reliance on the caribou herds. The people 
of Barrow have stated in hearings before the Senate that development 
has improved their lives. It has provided them with the capability of 
developing community services that other Americans take for granted. 
North Slope residents will be the most directly affected by oil 
development, and they support development of ANWR. And this is not 
because they have been bought off, bullied or coerced by the oil 
moguls. They are not ignorant on this issue. The fact is that they have 
seen what oil development will do to their land. They have watched it 
for almost three decades. And they know what it will not do. It will 
not destroy the land that they love, like some people keep who have 
never even seen the area keep trying to tell them. They know that.
  The alternative energy argument is bogus as well. Sure, we need to 
develop alternative sources of energy. Sure, we need to continue to 
progress and improve our use of resources. Sure, we want to become more 
energy efficient. But there are no magic solutions. We are not going to 
replace oil products in our economy overnight. Petroleum will continue 
to be a primary source of energy and other products for us in the 
foreseeable future. Millions of people are dependent on petroleum 
products, and anyone who thinks that this is going to change soon is 
badly deceiving themselves. To supply this demand we are now importing 
more oil than we are producing. Production of our older fields like 
Prudhoe Bay is declining. Without bringing new domestic supplies on 
line, this will only get worse. Petroleum is crucial to our way of 
life, and we are becoming more dependent on the production of foreign 
nations, some much less stable than ours. If you want to know what this 
means to us, just think about what happened back in the seventies with 
the oil cartel, or what might have happened if we had not stopped 
Saddam Hussein.

  This raises the issue of the effect of development of ANWR on the 
economy. Under our present situation with the trade and budget deficits 
the economic argument is obvious. We need to open ANWR. There is no 
other conclusion. Leasing ANWR will benefit the economy in almost every 
aspect. It will reduce the budget deficit by bringing over $1 billion 
to the Treasury over the next 5 years. It will reduce the trade deficit 
by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That money will remain at 
home to strengthen our own economy and provide good jobs to our own 
citizens, jobs that are now going overseas. These are jobs that we 
need. It will create over 75,000 directly related, high paying jobs in 
the oil industry. It will create as many as three quarters of a million 
new jobs, directly and indirectly, throughout the Nation. As a result 
of all of this, opening ANWR will stimulate other sectors of the 
economy as well. Without opening ANWR all of this will be lost. And our 
trade deficit will just get worse. We will be less able to pay our 
debts.
  The arguments of the outspoken interest groups on this issue anger 
me, not just because, like with Prudhoe Bay, they are untrue, and these 
groups know it. What really angers me is the hypocracy of their 
arguments. These people rely on oil products, just like everyone else. 
They heat their homes and drive cars just like the rest of us. They use 
plastic products just like you and me. They take vacations and recreate 
using planes and trains and boats just like everyone else. And yet they 
somehow feel justified, in fact sanctimonious, about opposing our 
development of oil resources. This in spite of the fact that we have 
the most environmentally sensitive laws in the world. We have the best 
record of being able to produce oil with the least environmental risk. 
The reality is that we will continue to use oil products. Keeping ANWR 
is not going to reduce the demand for oil in this country, we will just 
import what we need from other countries. For some irrational reason 
opponents would rather see us do that, would rather see the 
environmental degradation that happens in other countries, than see us 
develop our own resources under our tight environmental controls. They 
would rather see the benefits of development go to other countries, 
than allow those benefits to remain here at home. That is the hypocracy 
that I find so distasteful. It has damaged us. It has damaged the 
citizens of my State of Montana. And I look forward to this Congress 
doing something about it, doing the right thing for the country, and 
opening ANWR to leasing.

[[Page S 15994]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, America knows that drilling the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge to balance the budget is wrong. Common sense 
and a basic concern for the environment is all you need to come to this 
conclusion. Now all we have to do is convince the Senate of the right 
thing to do. I am disappointed at the difficulty of what should be a 
simple task.
  The refuge is one of a kind--in fact, it is the last of its kind. The 
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is the only place we have left that 
resembles the kind of land that gave birth to our Nation centuries ago.
  I wonder how many people realize that outside this chamber, 500 years 
ago, the first Americans could hunt bison and elk in the open forests 
on the banks of the Potomac. I wonder how many people remember that 
outside this building passenger pigeons used to roost in American 
chestnut trees, sometimes in flocks of thousands.
  Today the bison and elk are gone, the passenger pigeon is extinct, 
and the American chestnut has been wiped out in this region by an 
exotic disease. The first Americans would not recognize this place.
  Now we turn to a remote corner of our country, the last expanse of 
true wildness left, and Congress is saying ``we need that too--to 
balance the budget.''
  To me it takes only a simple sense of decency, respect and history to 
know that drilling ANWR is the wrong thing to do, but there are many 
other reasons that support the American public's opposition to this 
provision.
  First of all, drilling for oil in Alaska is just a tiny drop in the 
deficit bucket. The leasing revenues will contribute only one-fifth of 
1 percent of the budget gap, provided the residents of Alaska do not 
sue for a 90 percent share of the royalties. Even the $1.3 billion 
revenue estimate is flawed because it assumes we will make about $30 a 
barrel when the rest of the world is actually paying only $20 a barrel. 
Add to that the fact that the production estimates are outdated, and it 
is clear that we are selling the orchard for an apple.
  Second, we should ask ourselves why the residents of the other 49 
States should chip in to support Alaska's welfare state. Alaska is a 
State that collects no income tax, collects no sales tax, pays each 
man, woman and child almost $1,000 a year just for being there, has $18 
billion in the bank, and enjoys the highest Federal spending per 
capita. And now the State has come to Congress to ask the American 
people to dedicate another $1.3 billion to support their welfare state.
  Third, we have to look at the huge environmental cost of lacing the 
arctic plain with truck roads, gravel drill pads, and pipelines. Some 
argue that Prudhoe Bay proves that drilling can be done in an 
environmentally sound way. But what is so environmentally benign about 
500 oil spills a year, air pollution that exceeds the total emissions 
of six States, pushing millions of gallons through a rapidly 
deteriorating pipeline, and littering 9,402 acres of arctic tundra with 
oil rigs and roads? Prudhoe Bay does not have a track record to 
emulate.
  The Senate should also consider the impact of oil wells on wildlife 
and people that use the refuge. The coastal plain is the cradle of life 
for birds that migrate from four different continents, 160,000 caribou 
that migrate between nations, polar bears, musk ox, grizzly bears, and 
the Gwich'in Indians. The global significance of the resource is 
recognized in international agreements including the 1987 Canada-United 
States Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd and 
the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. The Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge is, after all, supposed to be refuge for wildlife, not 
a refuge for desperate Senators looking to fund a tax cut.
  Fifth, we should recognize the parody of drilling for 90 days worth 
of oil to reduce our dependence on oil. It is like curing an alcoholic 
by serving him vodka instead of his usual whiskey. National security is 
not served by simply defering our dependence on foreign oil for a mere 
90 days. If this same Congress had funded the President's budget for 
energy conservation and efficiency and refused to gut efficiency 
standards with environmental riders we would have saved more oil than 
could be drilled in ANWR. Energy conservation is not a quick fix, it 
sticks with us for good.
  Sixth, I object to the backdoor process to that is being used to pass 
a law that could not survive the light of day. Drilling for oil in the 
Alaska Wildlife Refuge has been a controversial issue for almost 10 
years. This is not a reason to sneak it into the budget resolution 
through a legislative trick.
  Finally, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is an American treasure 
that does not belong to us. It is the heritage of our country. Just as 
Vermonters recognize a responsibility to pass on a clean Lake 
Champlain, our best trout streams, and the Green Mountain National 
Forest to future generations, Vermonters recognize a responsibility to 
pass on North America's Arctic plain to future generations.
  Despite overwhelming public oppostion, this bill trades an American 
treasure for $1.3 billion, a mere trinket in a trillion dollar package. 
We can not let this Congress drill ANWR to balance the budget. I urge 
bi-partisan support of this amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Baucus 
amendment to strike the provision in the Energy Committee's 
reconciliation instructions which opens the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge to oil drilling activity.
  The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is one of this Nation's last great 
wilderness areas. I have often said that we must forge an environmental 
ethic in our society--that we must preserve America's natural treasures 
for generations to come. We are the stewards of this land. We are the 
ones responsible for ensuring that some part of our planet remains for 
our children.
  Protecting our wilderness yields benefits in ways that we do not 
always see. Scientists will tell you that a vast amount of the 
medicines that we take for granted today were first discovered in 
nature. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is unique among America's 
diverse climate. The secrets this unspoiled land holds may well provide 
us with benefits beyond what any of us can imagine now.
  Some would have us believe that this is just an economic issue. I 
would disagree based on the hundreds of letters and phone calls I have 
received from Marylanders who are concerned about opening this land to 
drilling. I have heard from the native people, both in the United 
States and Canada, whose culture and livelihoods depend on the caribou 
that breed within the confines of the refuge. Opening this precious 
land to oil drilling will wipe these timeless cultures out.
   Mr. President, I, for one, am not willing to do that. I am not 
willing to destroy the lives of thousands of native villagers just so 
that the oil industry can turn a larger profit next year than it did 
this year.
  I urge my colleagues to support removing this dangerous provision 
from this bill and vote for the Baucus amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, a financial debt is not the only threat that 
hangs over the heads of future generations. There is a threat to their 
environment, as well. A threat we must address. We have a moral duty to 
give them a world that has clean water and clean air, and open vistas 
where wildlife can thrive. One of the opportunities of every American 
citizen is to enjoy the wealth of beautiful public lands.
  It is my desire that as we work through this budget reconciliation we 
take great care not to jeopardize one of the most spectacular places in 
America: the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
There is a provision in the budget that provides for oil and gas lease 
sales in this sanctuary. Located in the northeastern corner of Alaska, 
this unique piece of our natural heritage is bordered on the north by 
the Arctic Ocean and Beaufort Sea, and on the south by the snow-capped 
Brooks Range.
  As a lead sponsor of S. 428, the bill that designates the coastal 
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness area, I am 
concerned by a provision in this budget reconciliation bill that uses 
revenues taken from sales of leases to drill the coastal plain.
  My concern arises on two levels: first, that the budget is assuming 
revenue from a pristine wilderness area; and second, that the revenue 
raised from drilling in this wilderness area 

[[Page S 15995]]
will not amount to be such a significant amount of money that it could 
easily be found elsewhere.
   Mr. President, as I have said before, the best thing we have learned 
from nearly 500 years of contact with the American wilderness is 
restraint, the need to stay our hand and preserve our precious 
environment and future resources rather than destroy them for momentary 
gain.
  For this reason, I have been active in the effort to designate the 
refuge coastal plain of Alaska as a wilderness area. And I am not 
alone. Only 4 years ago, Congress rejected the idea of sacrificing a 
prime part of our national heritage, the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, for what most likely will be a minimal supply of oil. The 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an invaluable region with wildlife 
diversity that has been compared to Africa's Serengeti.
  As I have said in earlier statements, the Alaskan wilderness area is 
not only a critical part of our earth's ecosystem--the last remaining 
region where the complete spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems 
comes together--but it is a vital part of our national consciousness. 
It is a place we can cherish and visit for our soul's good. It offers 
us a sense of well-being and promises that not all dreams have been 
dreamt.
  The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, 
wilderness, and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, 
dramatic peaks and glaciers, gentle foothills and undulating tundra. It 
is untamed--rich with Caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, 
Dall sheep, moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, 
tundra sands, black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the 
coastal plain. It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give 
birth, nurse and feed their young, and set about the critical business 
of fueling up for winters of unspeakable severity.
  Addressing my second concern--that the revenue raised from drilling 
in this wilderness area will not result in such a significant amount of 
money that it could not be found elsewhere--let me say that the 
estimated revenue is only two tenths of 1 percent of the total savings.
  And that is why I am here today, to support the Baucus amendment that 
will prohibit the leasing of the coastal plain of ANWR to pay for 
deficit reduction.
  This amendment is consistent with the current law--with the dictates 
of Congress--law that prohibits oil and gas drilling in the coastal 
plain of ANWR. It is also consistent with agreements that we have made 
with Canada to preserve and protect this wilderness area, especially 
the habitat and culture of the native people who live in the area.
  This amendment prevents oil and gas leasing in the coastal plain of 
ANWR without hearings in Congress. It does not preclude future 
development of this area, but only prevents Congress from using these 
savings from oil and gas leasing in the current budget process.
  The coastal plain--where the oil and gas leasing would occur--is the 
biological heart and the center of wildlife activity in the refuge. It 
is a critical part of our Nation's preeminent wilderness and would be 
destroyed by oil development.
  There are those who may think the northern coast of Alaska is too 
remote for use to worry about. I urge them to read the Congressional 
Records from the 1870's. The men who initially urged the Congress to 
protect a place called Yellowstone were subject to ridicule. Why, 
critics asked, should we forgo the opportunity to dig up minerals from 
the area? It is a remote place, and few Americans will ever venture 
there.
  Today, as we wrestle with America's future, let us be as far-sighted 
as that Congress eventually proved to be. Let us not cash in a unique 
piece of America for a brief, hoped for a rush of oil. Let us protect 
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Forever.
  Mr. President, I believe that we should not allow revenues to be used 
in this budget that are supposed to come from doing something that 
Congress has not allowed.
  This is how is should be done. The Baucus amendment accomplishes this 
purpose. And I encourage my colleagues to support this important 
effort.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for this 
amendment, which will help ensure continued protection for the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  The issue of whether or not to allow oil drilling along the Arctic 
coastal plain has been lobbied heavily for years. I have listened 
carefully to the various arguments made by my colleagues, by 
representatives of the oil industry, by a delegation of Gwich'in people 
who inhabit the area in question, by members of the Arctic Slope 
Regional Corporation who are veterans of North Slope oil production, by 
environmentalists, and by the public at large. I appreciate the strong 
feelings this debate evokes.
  The fate of ANWR is far reaching. It involves national and State 
economics, environmental and social values, and the relationship 
between the Federal and State government.
  Anyone who has visited Alaska knows that the stakes for Alaskans are 
high. The State and its people depend heavily on oil revenues, and its 
leaders are sensitive to, and have experience with, the potential 
environmental tradeoffs of oil development.
  This issue has come before Congress in the past. I have consistently 
opposed opening ANWR during those debates. I remain strongly opposed to 
disrupting this unique and fragile habitat for the purposes of oil 
drilling today.
  Most opponents of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge cite 
the potential environmental tradeoffs of drilling in this fragile 
ecosystem. I appreciate and share that concern.
  As I have said in the past, I take seriously the national obligation 
embodied in the Alaska lands bill to ensure that these remote 19 
million acres continue to achieve their purpose of providing a refuge 
for wildlife. There is no other place in America or in the world where 
caribou, polar bears, and wild geese flourish as they do in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. And, as we know from both history and recent 
scientific study, once one component of an ecosystem is adversely 
affected, then the entire system can become effected by a chain 
reaction.
  Declining populations of polar bears, birds, and caribou, and the 
animals and Native American communities that depend on them, is a valid 
fear. A recent article in the Anchorage Daily News reports that the 
Central Arctic caribou herd that inhabits Prudhoe Bay has suffered a 23 
percent reduction from 23,400 to 18,000 animals in just the last 3 
years. Although it is difficult to determine the exact reason for this 
marked decline, the part of the herd that ranges near the oil drilling 
activity has experienced almost all of the losses.
  Nonetheless, the debate over the future of ANWR should not be framed 
as it all too often is as a face off between elitist environmentalists 
and rapacious developers. It is also a debate about national energy 
policy and national values.
  It is particularly hard to justify opening the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, with all the industrial activity and 
associated disruption that would involve, when the probability of 
finding oil is so low. Moreover, even if oil were to be found, the 
potential oil reserve in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would at 
most sustain our country's basic petroleum needs for a mere 6 months. 
Clearly, then, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not the answer to 
achieving independence from foreign oil supplies.
  Meanwhile, this perpetuation of our national love affair with 
hydrocarbon fuel has other downsides. Our profligate energy consumption 
cripples our international competitiveness, pollutes our air and 
beaches, and increases the trade deficit. We must take serious steps to 
make ourselves more energy-efficient and to conserve energy whenever 
and wherever possible. And we should better develop our domestic 
renewable energy supplies like ethanol and renewable methanol.
  Mr. President, last week, representatives of the petroleum, natural 
gas, automotive, ethanol, and engineering industries met in Washington 
at the World Conference on Transportation Fuel Quality to review the 
progress made in just the past few years with reformulating gasoline as 
required in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Today, approximately 
one-third of all the gasoline sold in the United States 

[[Page S 15996]]
contains noncrude oil-derived additives called oxygenates, primarily 
ethers and ethanol from grain. EPA has called the reformulated gasoline 
program the most significant automobile pollution reduction advance 
since the removal of lead. The pollution reductions achieved this year 
amount to the equivalent of taking 8 million cars off the road.
  What is little recognized, however, is that the reformulated gasoline 
program is also the most significant crude oil reduction program ever 
instituted. The Congressional Research Service has concluded that it 
could reduce U.S. oil requirements by 500,000 barrels or more per day, 
and that it represents the most significant means of reducing oil 
imports in the near to mid-term of any other approach.
  Even more exciting is the fact that if the proposal to have a ``49 
State Fuel''--in other words, a nationwide RFG standard--is adopted, 
U.S. oil requirements could be reduced by over 1.5 million barrels per 
day, or more than 20 percent of our daily gasoline demand. At an 
average $20 per barrel, this would mean that nearly $11 billion 
annually would remain in the United States rather than be exported to 
foreign oil producers.
  This alternative far overshadows the benefits to the Nation of 
opening ANWR. It also carries with it the additional advantage of more 
diversified job creation, and the ongoing benefits of stimulating 
renewable fuel technologies that cannot be depleted as is the case with 
finite oil fields.
  I believe the case for continuing to protect the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling is strong. Drilling would risk the 
ecological health of the coastal plain for a relatively small and 
speculative supply. And, from a national energy policy standpoint, it 
makes more sense to look to energy conservation and the development of 
renewable fuels than to seek new reserves of fossil fuels in the Arctic 
coastal plain.
  For most Americans, opposition to oil drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge is more profound than the mere sum of these concrete 
arguments might suggest. Our country has a revered tradition of 
protecting its natural heritage. Through our system of State parks, 
national parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges, Americans have 
been in the forefront of conservation, articulating and enforcing a 
land ethic that embodies the best impulses of our Nation. We have 
always had a clear sense in this country of the natural heritage that 
makes our lives so special and worthwhile, and we have been willing to 
take tangible steps to protect that heritage.
  Robert Kennedy, in a speech delivered only 3 months before his death, 
spoke at the University of Kansas on the measure of America's worth. He 
noted that too often we pay attention only to the bottom line and judge 
policies only on their contribution to the gross national product, and 
that in using that simple measure, we fail to account for that which 
makes life in America so special. He stated that--and I quote:

       [The] GNP counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, 
     and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts 
     special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break 
     them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss 
     of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. . . . It measures 
     neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our 
     learning; neither our compassion, nor our devotion to 
     country; it measures everything, in short, except that which 
     makes life worthwhile.

  For most Americans, who will never have a chance to see the Arctic 
coastal plain and witness the thundering herds of caribou in their 
annual migration, or watch a wolf run down a ptarmigan, the simple 
knowledge that this special and unique place will remain unspoiled by 
the heavy footprint of industry will make life richer and more 
worthwhile. It will also encourage us to invest in domestic 
alternatives, such as more efficient end-use technologies and new 
strategies for energy conservation--alternatives that have positive 
environmental effects and which make us more economically competitive 
in the international marketplace. The route toward energy independence 
lies down the road of energy conservation and efficiency, and I 
believe, greater use of domestic renewable fuels. It does not lie down 
the road of more consumption of fossil fuels.
  This vote is as much a test of our common sense as it is of our 
common character. We are setting national priorities in this budget, 
priorities that should reflect our deepest and most closely held 
values. If we allow this wild and unspoiled refuge to become yet 
another monument to avarice and addiction to fossil fuels, then we will 
have lost more than a single wildlife refuge in a remote land; we will 
have sacrificed part of our character, that intangible part of each of 
us that values the gentle and respectful treatment of our natural 
heritage and from which we derive a profound sense of national worth.
  If we set this precedent, if we vote to open this remote refuge to 
oil drilling, then we will have defeated the better part of ourselves. 
Collectively, we will have failed this important test of national 
character.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote to protect 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, since I first came to the Senate I have 
been active in the fight to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
from oil and gas drilling. I intend to continue the fight to save the 
Arctic Refuge as we debate the reconciliation bill in the Senate.
  The Senate reconciliation bill contains a number of provisions that 
are poor policy, that are unfair to those least able to defend 
themselves, and that consider only short-term gain and not long-term 
loss; the proposed plan to open the Arctic Refuge to gas and oil 
drilling is one such provision. Since I have been in the Senate I have 
spoken time and time again about the fact that this is poor energy 
policy, poor environmental policy, and cynical politicking.
  The Arctic Refuge is one of the last pristine wilderness areas left 
in America, it contains the Nation's most significant polar bear 
denning hibitat on land, supports 300,000 snow geese, migratory birds 
from six continents--some of those birds even make it to my State of 
Minnesota, and a concentrated porcupine caribou calving ground.
  While proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge will tell you that 
the caribou are not harmed by drilling, an October 21, 1995 article in 
the Anchorage Daily News reports that new information shows a sharp 
decline in the Central Arctic caribou herd. While nobody knows exactly 
what caused the decline, most of it has occurred in the part of the 
herd that lives near the oil field. Despite our uncertainty about the 
effects oil drilling would have on the animals, there are those who 
continue to push for oil drilling without an update environmental 
impact statement [EIS] as required by current law. An EIS has not been 
done in the area since 1987. We just do not know what drilling would do 
to the Arctic Refuge, and barreling ahead with drilling is just poor 
environmental policy.
  The Gwich'in people have relied on those porcupine caribou for 
thousands of years to provide their food and meet their spiritual 
needs. I have heard them speak very eloquently and directly about what 
oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge would do to their way of life. People 
like the Gwich'in want to save the environment. But they are not the 
big oil companies. They do not have the money. They do not have the 
lobbyists, and they do not have the lawyers here every day. In today's 
Washington environment, that seems to mean that their concerns are less 
important than the concerns of big industry.
  Even if whatever amount of revenue gained were somehow worth 
destroying this unique land and the lives of the Gwich'in, there are a 
number of questions regarding whether the Arctic Refuge has oil, how 
much it has and what the cost would be to retrieve it. Estimates are 
broad and disagreements are rampant. Even I, a nonscientist, know one 
thing for certain: There is no way to tell how much revenue can be 
gained from drilling in the Arctic Refuge. New information, however, 
suggests previous figures overestimated possible revenue.
  Alice Rivlin, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, stated 
in an October 25 letter that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would 
produce ``significantly less revenue than has been scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office.'' New studies suggest there is less oil 
than previously thought, the price of oil as projected by the 
Department 

[[Page S 15997]]
of Energy has dropped and serious concerns remain about whether Alaska 
will stage a court battle to change their share of the revenue from 50 
percent to 90 percent as the State claims its statehood act allows. 
Regardless of who is right, barreling ahead with incomplete information 
and short-term thinking is just plain poor energy policy.
  The administration has indicated that if the bill includes drilling 
in the Arctic Refuge, the President will veto it. I would 
wholeheartedly support him if he did.
  Throughout the course of my years of work to save the Arctic Refuge, 
I have heard from many Minnesotans, including many children, about 
their desire to preserve it. Our natural resources are among the most 
important things we can leave to these future generations. Our children 
and our grandchildren deserve more than what this bad energy policy, 
bad environmental policy, and shortsighted politicking would leave 
them. I will continue to speak for all Minnesotans, for their sense of 
fairness and equity and for their love and concern for the environment. 
I will continue to fight to save the Arctic Refuge from gas and oil 
drilling. I urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment to protect our children's heritage. I rise because this 
budget reconciliation debate should be about revenues. It should be 
about how much we have and how much we spend. The Arctic Refuge coastal 
plain is not about money; it is about values. It is a question of 
whether we are willing to trade off wilderness and wildlife that are 
our national heritage and legacy for our children, in order to make a 
short-term payment on bills we have accumulated.
  Future generations will look back on what we might do today with 
sadness. They will not see this as a matter of shared sacrifice, but as 
a mark of the selfishness of a generation which, to pay off a minuscule 
fraction of its debts, sacrificed the inheritance of future 
generations. Let me explain the several other reasons why I support 
this amendment.
  First, leasing the Refuge does not result in a significant return of 
money to the Federal Treasury. If the dubious assumptions of the Budget 
Committee prove correct, the leasing revenues would be a mere two-
tenths of 1 percent of our budget gap. If we lease this unique Arctic 
wilderness that has been called America's Serengeti, it would be 
permanently destroyed. For most Americans, trading our natural wealth 
in the Arctic Refuge wilderness for the possibility of oil is not worth 
it.
  Even worse, there is little assurance that the leasing revenues would 
be at the level assumed by the Budget Committee. Other highly 
prospective leases nearby in Alaska have been made at considerably less 
per acre. Lease sales in the Beaufort Sea, immediately offshore the 
Arctic Refuge, received only $33 to $153 per acre; the most recent 
onshore State lease sale, located west of the refuge, brought in just 
$48.41 per acre. This budget provision assumes an astounding $1,733 per 
acre if the entire coastal plain is leased.
  Furthermore, the State of Alaska, not the Federal Government, is 
likely to reap a significant amount of the financial benefit of the 
leases. The Budget Committee assumes that only 50 percent of the 
leasing proceeds will go to the State of Alaska. However, Alaska 
currently receives 90 percent of the leasing revenues from Federal 
lands. It is unlikely that the citizens of Alaska--who receive annual 
dividend checks of nearly $1,000--would willingly forfeit proceeds they 
believe they are due; a lawsuit to recover the difference would be much 
more likely.
  Second, the public could lose access to this remarkable area. A 
handful of major oil companies stand not only to make enormous profits, 
but to have the right to exclude the rest of us from their leased 
refuge lands. Today, public access in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields is 
strictly prohibited without an oil company escort. So hikers, rafters, 
fishers, hunters, and solitude seekers will likely be excluded from 
their Arctic Refuge. One more wild place will be closed.
  Third, the Budget Committee suggests that the square acreage impacted 
by oil and gas leasing would be relatively small. However, this area is 
the biological heart of the refuge. It is the most coveted by oil 
companies and the most critical for wildlife. The coastal plain is an 
integral part of the only conservation area in North America that 
protects a full spectrum of Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems. While 
only 13,000 acres would be affected, the wilderness in the entire 
coastal plain would be impacted by oil development. The massive 
industrial complex would not be in a compact area, but would sprawl 
over hundreds of square miles in a network of roads, pipelines, 
airports, and processing plants.
  Fourth, budget reconciliation is the wrong place to decide such an 
important issue. We should have a full and fair airing of all views 
about the leasing of our Arctic Refuge. Money is not the only value we 
should consider. Before we drill holes and pave portions of the refuge, 
we should consider all of its value, not just its infinitesimal 
contribution to the budget deficit. I believe its sponsors know that 
they could not win in the light of full debate. A massive spending bill 
provides them the cover of darkness that they know they must have to 
win.
  In closing, I quote the great writer and naturalist Margaret Murie, 
``Wilderness itself is the basis of all of our civilization. I wonder 
if we have enough reverence for life to concede to wilderness the right 
to live on?''
  I will cast my vote to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--
for wilderness and for my children.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, my amendment would reallocate the tax 
credits in the reconciliation bill toward the middle-income taxpayers 
and apply the savings to reduce the Medicare spending cuts. It 
specifically strikes capital gains for corporations and gives some 
relief for individuals who make capital gains over $100,000 a year. It 
is geared more toward the million-dollar income taxpayers.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment adds new language. It is 
not germane and is subject to a point of order.
  I make a point of order that this amendment 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 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. 526 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pell
     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 is rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. 

[[Page S 15998]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 2995

  (Purpose: To provide that the repeal of the exclusion for punitive 
damages shall not apply to punitive damages in a wrongful death action 
 in a State where on September 13, 1995, only punitive damages may be 
                       awarded in such an action)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Heflin, 
     for himself and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2995.

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

       On page 1773, strike line 24, and insert the following:
       (c) Special Rule for States in Which Only Punitive Damages 
     May Be Awarded in Wrongful Death Actions.--Section 104 is 
     amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and 
     by inserting after the subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Restriction on Punitive Damages Not to Apply in 
     Certain Cases.--The restriction on the application of 
     subsection (a)(2) to punitive damages shall not apply to 
     punitive damages awarded in a civil action--
       ``(1) which is a wrongful death action, and
       ``(2) with respect to which applicable State law (as in 
     effect on September 13, 1995 and without regard to any 
     modification after such date) provides, or has been construed 
     to provide by a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to a 
     decision issued on or before September 13, 1995, that only 
     punitive damages may be awarded in such an action.

     This subsection shall cease to apply to any civil action 
     filed on or after the first date on which the applicable 
     State law ceases to provide (or is no longer construed to 
     provide) the treatment described in paragraph (2).''
       (d) Effective Date.--

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, in my State of Alabama, the courts have 
consistently held that the damages recoverable under the wrongful death 
statute are punitive as distinguished from actual or compensatory 
damages. For the past 140 years, the Alabama Supreme Court has 
interpreted this statute as imposing punitive damages for any conduct 
which causes death, regardless of the degree of negligence or 
capability. The premise for this interpretation is the belief that all 
people are worth the same, and this interpretation stimulates diligence 
in protection of natural right to live, without respect to personal 
condition or disability of the person so protected. Breed v. Atlanta, B 
& CRR, 241 Ala. 640, 4 So.2d 315 (1941). Therefore, the entire focus of 
a wrongful death civil action in Alabama is on the cause of the death.
  The amendment I am offering provides that punitive damage awards made 
in wrongful death cases should not be included in gross income Alabama 
where only punitive damages can be recovered for a wrongful death. 
Taking into account the revenue aspects of the Finance Committee 
provision, I have narrowly drafted this amendment.
  This amendment would only effect my State of Alabama. Of all the 50 
States, Alabama has a different and unique recovery in the event a 
decision is made by a court or jury in regard to the death of an 
individual, whether it be brought by negligence or any form of action. 
A person cannot prove, in a wrongful death case in Alabama, 
compensatory damages. An Alabama plaintiff cannot show his wages, his 
doctor bills, or anything similar of an economic or noneconomic nature. 
Therefore the award granted in such a case would be fully taxable by 
the Internal Revenue Service. For this reason I see the tax effect of 
the current provision as unfair to those Alabama victims and their 
families and the amendment as an equitable solution.
  I strongly support this amendment. I think it is the correct language 
to narrowly address what would be an intolerable tax burden on the 
grieving families of Alabama victims who are killed by negligence or by 
gross negligence or recklessness or wantonness or any type of proof 
that is necessary to prove a cause of action. I think the Senate ought 
to adopt this fair and equitable amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will take the 30 seconds allowed to explain this 
amendment.
  This is agreed to on both sides. It is for the two Senators from 
Alabama and it relates only to an 1852 statute with reference to 
damages for wrongful deaths--civil damages for wrongful death. It will 
correct a very old law.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have checked. We have found no objections 
on our side. If there are any, I would like to hear them at this time.
  Hearing none, I yield back the balance of our time. We support the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2995) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, do you have an amendment on your side?
  Mr. EXON. I yield to Senator Kennedy for an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 30 seconds.


                           Amendment No. 2996

  (Purpose: To prohibit balance billing by providers participating in 
                         Medicare choice plans)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment will maintain provisions 
of current law that protect Medicare beneficiaries who join a Medicare 
HMO or other private insurance plans under the new Medicare choice 
program from excess charges by physicians or other providers. All we 
are saying is what is the current law today will be the current law 
tomorrow in terms of the HMO's or other health delivery systems. That 
protection is not included in the legislation that is before us. This 
will provide that kind of protection for the seniors of this country. 
It is absolutely necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Massachusetts or the 
Senator from Nebraska send that amendment to the desk?
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2996.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the dispensing of the 
reading of the amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 469, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       ``(g) Prohibition of Balance Billing.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, an individual who is enrolled in a 
     medicare choice plan under this part shall not be liable for 
     a provider's charges for items or services furnished under 
     the plan if such charges are in excess of the copayments, 
     coinsurance, and deductibles required by such plan in 
     accordance with subsection (c).

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I gather Senator Kennedy has spoken to 
the amendment. We are not going to give him double time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the amendment before us 
does nothing to change the prohibition on balance billing in the 
traditional Medicare Program. It does not extend price controls to the 
private Medicare choice plans. In short, the Finance Committee thinks 
they did a good job on this and there is no need for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been consumed. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, at the suggestion of the majority 
leader, I ask that after this vote we have a quorum call to last until 
1 o'clock, and that be for purposes of Senators getting some 

[[Page S 15999]]
relief from the floor and perhaps getting more of the amendments 
prepared so we can know what we are doing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be the order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, 
amendment No. 2996.
  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 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 527 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     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
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     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
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2996) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________