[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 168 (Friday, October 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15999-S16014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just use a minute of my leader's 
time.
  I am now advised that there are at least 40 amendments on the other 
side that will be offered, after we were at least hopeful yesterday and 
we agreed to have up-and-down amendments on tier 1. We will probably 
end up with maybe 25 tier 3 amendments. We have already disposed of a 
number. So it seems we are going to exceed almost up to 50 amendments 
in that category.
  If you just took the votes themselves, you allowed 10 minutes, that 
is 400 minutes. That is 7 hours. I am not going to stick around here 
very long tonight, but I am very happy to come back early tomorrow 
morning. We will go along and see how many of these--we have 13 over 
here, so that is another couple hours. So if that is what we want to 
do, we will have plenty of time this weekend to do it. We are going to 
do it this weekend, but we are not going to stay up half the night to 
accommodate somebody who has to be somewhere tomorrow.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Senator Kennedy has an amendment that we would like to 
bring up at this time, so I yield him the 30 seconds to explain his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill raises the 
Medicare age of eligibility to 67.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator please send the amendment to 
the desk.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. KENNEDY. I raise a point of order that section 7171, raising the 
age of Medicare eligibility, violates section 313(b)(1)(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act.
  It has been submitted to the Budget Committee, so I make that point 
of order at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I could have order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate please come to order so we can 
hear the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill raises the 
Medicare age of eligibility to 67 beginning in the year 2003.
  While the reconciliation provision is described as conforming to the 
Social Security change enacted in 1983, it has significant differences. 
Individuals affected by the Social Security change had a minimum of 20 
years to adjust their retirement plans, while individuals affected by 
this change have only 7 years. Social Security change continued to 
allow individuals to receive benefits at 62.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts must send his 
amendment to the desk.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask that the Budget Committee, where I submitted it--
if I could have their attention, please.
  As I understand, the point of order was sustained, so I wonder why I 
need to send something----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a time limit of 30 seconds on 
the amendment. And if the amendment is not at the desk, the Senator 
does not have any time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I made the point of order. It was sustained.
  I ask, in place of sending the amendment, that I be entitled to the 
same amount of time to speak on the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator has prevailed.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He has prevailed.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I just say, if we are going to be taken off our feet 
when the parliamentary situation is not clear, we will be staying 
around for a long time.
  I am asking for fairness, for the 30 seconds we were entitled to, 
that I was told I am entitled to by the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
have an additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 30 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Social Security change continued to 
allow individuals to receive benefits at age 62; the age of early 
retirement, and age 65, the normal retirement age, although at reduced 
levels.
  Under this proposal, no Medicare benefits at all will be provided 
until the individual is 67. The provision breaks faith with American 
workers who paid into the Medicare system in the expectation they will 
be provided health security at the age of 65 and will leave millions of 
senior citizens without health insurance coverage.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I hope for purposes of management that Senators on our 
side would leave it up to one of us, either the leader or I, in terms 
of asking 

[[Page S 16000]]
that people be recognized or granted time. I understand the Senator, 
but I hope in the future the Senator will leave that up to us. He has 
prevailed. We had no intention of stopping him. So I think this matter 
is over. We yield back any time we might have had on the point of 
order. It has already been granted.
  The next amendment, I understand, is on our side by Senator Cochran.


                           Amendment No. 3004

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a 
special marketing order to equalize returns on all milk used to produce 
 Class IV final products, to consent to the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
  Compact, and to require the Secretary to carry out an agricultural 
                      competitiveness initiative)

  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and 
     Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 3004.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment helps farmers and markets 
adjust to the changes in Federal dairy policy in this bill. It does so 
by creating an export class for dairy products and establishing a 
farmer-financed mechanism to boost exports. It saves money and provides 
for research to make our products more competitive.
  It will also grant the consent of Congress to the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact, which is supported by all the Governors and 
legislatures in New England.
  I urge Senators to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 30 seconds has expired.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senator Cochran, 
Senator Leahy, Senator Gorton, Senator Cohen, and Senator Snowe in 
supporting the creation of an export class for dairy products, and 
granting the consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact. This amendment is vital to the future of the New England dairy 
industry and the national dairy industry as a whole.
  Mr. President, the Senate reconciliation bill cuts the cost of the 
dairy program by 49 percent over the next 7 years. This comes on top of 
a reduction of 69 percent in the last decade. While the dairy industry 
is willing to accept some cuts, and I realize the need to cut, the 
industry has already pulled its load. As it stands, this bill does not 
address the critical need to increase sales of butter and nonfat dry 
milk in the world market.
  As the support price for butter and nonfat dry milk are eliminated, 
their prices will fall and cause a glut of those products. This surplus 
will either be cleared on the world market at a very reduced price, or 
be converted into cheese. In either case, this will case a substantial 
drag on the return to dairy farmers and manufacturers of these 
products. This amendment will expand U.S. dairy markets by providing a 
way for all producers to share the cost of moving those products to the 
export market. It is GATT-legal, plus will reduce U.S. reliance on 
export subsidies.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the conversion from 
powder to cheese will increase Commodity Credit Corporation purchases 
by $230 million. This amendment will help farmers and taxpayers--by 
ensuring dairy products will be exported instead of being purchased by 
the Government.
  This amendment will also grant consent to the Northeast Interstate 
Dairy Compact, an agreement among the six New England States to create 
a commission that will have the authority to oversee the pricing for 
fluid milk produced in the New England region. The compact will not 
affect milk prices outside the compact region. In fact, it will act as 
a useful pilot project for other regions, and is strongly supported by 
many groups and individuals across the country.
  Mr. President, the New England States have joined together to do what 
many States do already on their own. If America had grown from west to 
east I would not be standing here because New England would likely be 
one large State and would not have to ask for consent of Congress.
  All six States' Governors-Republican, Democrat, and independent and 
their legislatures strongly support this amendment. On vote after vote 
this year we have acted to give more responsibility back to the States. 
Here is an opportunity for the Senate to do just that--in precisely the 
manner the Founders laid out in the Constitution.
  Mr. President, the National Milk Producers Federation strongly 
supports this amendment as well as Mid-America, AMPI, Darigold, Milk 
Marketing Inc., and many other farmer cooperatives and dairy farmers 
from throughout the country. Supporting it is an opportunity to vote 
for State's rights, and to vote for dairy farmers and to vote for our 
taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, 
Senator Cohen, Senator Snowe, and Senator Leahy, as a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, the Senate Agriculture Committee has eliminated dairy 
price support purchases for butter and nonfat dry milk, and retains 
such purchases for cheese. The dairy farmers in my State support this 
provision, but only if a farmer funded class IV export program is 
established. The Agriculture Committee failed to address export sales 
of butter and nonfat dry milk to the world market. Our amendment 
addresses this issue and according to CBO will save an additional $233 
million in the next 7 years. These savings are in addition to $1 
billion, the Government will save during the same 7 years by the 
elimination of dairy support for butter and nonfat dry milk.
  This farmer funded class IV export program has the support of many, 
including; Darigold--80 percent of all Washington State producers, 
National Milk Producers Federation, Mid-America Dairymen, Milk 
Marketing Inc., AMPI, American Farm Bureau, Kansas Dairymen 
Association, Utah Dairymen Association, NE Council of Farmer 
Cooperatives, Michigan Milk Producers Association, Florida Dairy 
Farmers Association, Dairlylee Cooperatives, United Dairymen 
Association, Western Dairymen Cooperatives, and a legion of other 
farmer cooperatives and dairy farmers across the country.
  In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont, and I rise in strong 
support of the amendment.
  Family dairy farms are facing hard times across the country, and this 
amendment is designed to assist these farmers while protecting the 
interests of the taxpayers and consumers.
  The Jeffords amendment does two things. First, it creates a class IV 
pool for nonfat dry milk and butter. This pool will help to offset the 
financial impact on farmers of the reconciliation bill's repeal of the 
price support program for these two products. The new pool would be 
GATT-legal, allowing a greater volume of U.S. butter and nonfat dry 
milk to be exported than would be the case if we do not create the new 
pool. In short, the class IV pool will help farmers maintain their 
incomes without increasing Federal expenditures.
  Mr. President, the second provision of the amendment provides the 
consent of the Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Like 
the class IV proposal, the compact is designed to help family dairy 
farmers survive in a very difficult market environment. But unlike the 
class IV proposal, the compact does not involve the Federal Government. 
It represents a regional, State-based solution to a regional problem, 
and the Federal Government need only give its assent and then step out 
of the way.
  Today, New England is practically bleeding dairy farms. In Maine, for 
instance, we have lost more than 200 farms since 1988, and this number 
would have been far higher if Maine 

[[Page S 16001]]
had not instituted a dairy vendor's fee to help stabilize farm income. 
Unfortunately, that vendor's fee has been invalidated by a Federal 
court, and farmers are exceedingly vulnerable once again.
  The decline in New England's dairy farms can be attributed to low and 
volatile dairy prices under the Federal marketing order program that do 
not reflect the costs of production in the region. Because New England 
farmers sell much of their milk in the fluid milk market, they face 
substantially higher costs to get their milk to the plant, and they do 
not have access to subsidized electricity like farmers in some other 
parts of the country. Consequently, New England's dairy farmers receive 
some of the lowest mailbox prices of any dairy farmers in the country.
  In response to this farm crisis, the six New England States 
negotiated an interstate compact in 1993 that allows them to add, if 
they choose, an additional increment to the Federal marketing order 
price in the New England region. These increments would have to be 
approved by a commission created under the compact which consists of 
representatives from each of the New England States, and which includes 
both producer and consumer interests.

  Mr. President, this compact is a regional solution to a regional 
problem in the most literal sense. With very few exceptions, it affects 
only the consumers, farmers, and dairy processors of New England. The 
compact applies only to fluid, or class I, milk, and 97 percent of the 
fluid milk consumed in New England is processed by New England-based 
processors.
  Approximately 75 percent of the milk processed by these processors 
comes from New England farmers. The remainder comes from New York, 
whose farmers would receive the same prices for their milk under the 
compact as farmers in New England.
  Although the compact only affects the participating States, the 
cosponsors of the amendment have included explicit assurances to remove 
any doubt. These assurances further clarify that the compact only 
applies to class I fluid milk, that no new States can join the compact 
without the formal approval of both Houses of Congress, that out-of-
region farmers who sell milk in the compact region will get the same 
price as New England farmers, and that the compact commission will take 
active measures to prevent increases in production.
  Mr. President, the Jeffords amendment is profarmer, protaxpayer, and 
pro-States' rights. It will help to ensure that good farmers have a 
reasonable chance to stay in business, but at less cost to the Federal 
Government. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Senator Cochran to grant the consent of Congress 
to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and to create a class IV 
pricing system for milk used to make butter or powder.
  Both of these provisions would take dairy policy in the opposite 
direction in which congressional reformers are attempting to take all 
agricultural policy--this amendment provides more market intervention, 
more regulation, and more inequity.
  It is unfortunate that the major changes that this amendment makes 
and the enormous precedent that it sets will not be fully debated by 
this Chamber. I am certain that few Members of this Chamber will have 
an opportunity to actually learn and understand just what it is they 
are voting on. I am also certain that this amendment will be approved.
  This amendment balkanizes the U.S. dairy industry by insulating the 
Northeast dairy industry from the market conditions that all other 
farmers in this country must face.
  This amendment will provide congressional consent to an interstate 
compact, the like of which has never been approved by the Congress. It 
is, Mr. President, unprecedented.
  This compact will allow a Commission in the Northeast to set fluid 
milk prices artificially high for the six States in the compact. It 
allows dairy farmers in six States in the Northeast to enjoy higher 
prices for their milk, erects barriers to keep out lower cost milk from 
outside the compact walls, and will result in lower prices for 
producers in the rest of the United States.
  The compact would allow for an increase in the fluid milk 
differential up to $17.40 per hundred pounds of milk, or in terms of 
gallons--$1.50 per gallon. This is well over $3 greater than the price 
producers in the New England order enjoy currently for fluid milk.
  However, the compact we are being asked to approve also allows that 
price to be increased with inflation, as measured by the CPI, since 
1990. By the year 2,000 the cap could be well over to $20 if inflation 
increases by 3 percent per year.
  With those kinds of price increases, we can expect producers in 
Vermont and elsewhere to increase their milk production in response to 
those higher prices. And, Mr. President, as far too many dairy farmers 
know, production increases in one region of the country drive down milk 
prices for producers throughout the Nation.
  One might ask why producers in the Northeast should be allowed to 
have their milk prices adjusted for inflation each year, when that 
privilege is given to no other commodity in any other region. One might 
ask why we should allow one region of the country to increase consumer 
costs when virtually every other effort in this Congress has attempted 
to eliminate the burden on consumers from overly regulatory 
agricultural policies.
  We must ask, why should the Congress grant its approval to the 
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact?
  The answer is that Congress should not provide its consent for an 
interstate price fixing compact.
  The supporters of this amendment have tried to present this as a very 
simple idea--that of a simple interstate compact designed to help the 
struggling producers of that region in isolation from national markets 
and having no effects on non-compact producers.
  But, Mr. President, producers in the upper Midwest have learned 
through painful lessons that regional changes in milk prices have 
national effects and national implications.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact is not a simple proposal. It is not an 
innocuous interstate compact isolated to the participating States and 
it will have national implications.
  Mr. President, it is time to remove the artificial fluid milk price 
differentials that discriminate against certain regions to the benefit 
of others, distort markets, and cost consumers millions of dollars in 
food costs annually--It is not time to enhance them.
  I would urge my colleagues to think seriously about whether or not 
this body wishes to endorse price-fixing compacts of any nature.
  The precedent that congressional approval of the Northeast Interstate 
Dairy Compact would set is very serious indeed--we will be allowing a 
small group of States to fix prices for a product produced and marketed 
nationally.
  The second half of this amendment establishes a class IV pricing 
system which benefits a few producers on the other coast of the United 
States--the west coast powder-producing States, to the detriment of 
producers elsewhere. This class IV pricing system is not necessary for 
the U.S. dairy industry to expand exports. I have 30,000 dairy farmers 
in Wisconsin that want to expand exports and are planning to do so, but 
Wisconsin dairy producers oppose class IV pricing.
  Why? Because it forces them to pay a tax to support producers on the 
west coast. In fact, producers throughout the country will likely pay a 
minimum of 15 cents per hundredweight to help producers on the west 
coast continue to overproduce milk powder which will no longer be 
supported by the Federal Government which is no longer demanded by the 
domestic market. I would urge my colleagues to look with a skeptical 
eye on projections that this amendment will greatly enhance producer 
revenues to compensate for powder tax that all producers will pay. If 
such projections were realistic, the thousands of milk producers in the 
upper Midwest--the heart of this Nation's dairy country--would be 
embracing this proposal, not opposing it.
  Mr. President, this amendment provides help to producers in eight 
States--the six Northeastern States that will benefit from the Compact, 
and two west coast States that will benefit from the class IV system. 
All other producers in between are the big losers. 

[[Page S 16002]]

  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It creates more 
regulation, more market distortions, and discriminates against all but 
a few producers in the country. Mr. President, this is bad policy.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it is difficult for me to oppose my friends 
from the Northeast in their efforts to help the dairy farmers of that 
region. But it is on behalf of the dairy farmers of my State that I 
feel that I must. Not only because I believe his compact will have a 
negative effect on the dairy farmers of regions outside the northeast, 
but also because I believe it to be a inappropriate method of 
addressing the problems of the dairy industry, which are national in 
nature.
  This measure is a regional compact. It is an effort by six 
Northeastern States to require artificially increased milk prices for 
the farmers in those States exclusively. It is at its heart 
anticompetitive, and I believe that it is market distorting.
  The sponsors of this measure claim that the Northeast is an island 
unto itself, and that this compact will not affect any other region. I 
believe that that statement ignores the complexities of dairy markets, 
which are national in nature.
  To predict the exact effects of the compact on other regions is 
nearly impossible. But to assume that there will be none is to turn a 
blind eye to the history of agricultural policy.
  My region of the country, the upper Midwest, has learned this lesson 
all too well. We, in this region, have seen our dairy industry become 
the victim of unforeseen market distortions caused by the milk 
marketing order system. This system, which was instituted in the 1930's 
requires that higher minimum prices be paid to producers the farther 
they are from Wisconsin. Since the upper Midwest was the traditional 
hub of dairy production, the purpose of this regional discrimination 
was to help dairy industries outside the upper Midwest develop, so that 
every region could have a locally produced supply of fluid milk.
  But that goal has been largely accomplished, and the policy that was 
intended to give other regions an artificial ``leg up'' over the upper 
Midwest, is now contributing to the decline of dairy farming in the 
upper Midwest.
  But make no mistake about it. This debate is not only about the upper 
Midwest. And it is not only about dairy policy. This debate is about 
the future direction of all agricultural policies.
  I and many of my colleagues from farm States have been willing to 
promote farm programs that we believe will provide a safety net to farm 
prices, to help provide some security for the family farmers of this 
Nation.
  But the Northeast Dairy Compact goes beyond anything ever done in a 
farm bill. And it goes far beyond any other regional compact presented 
to the Congress for approval.
  It is the product of one region's frustration with national policies, 
and an effort by that region to remove themselves from that national 
system and establish a regional dairy policy.
  So why is this compact before the Senate? The answer is that the 
Northeast needs Congress' approval in order to interfere with 
interstate commerce.
  The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that 
States cannot infringe on interstate commerce. Court case after court 
case has turned down efforts be individual States to do so. Most 
recently, in the 1994 West Lynn Creamery, Inc versus Healy decision, 
the Supreme Court turned down a Massachusetts milk pricing policy that 
would have artificially increased the price of milk sold in 
Massachusetts in order to bolster the dairy farmers of that State 
alone. The Supreme Court turned down that effort as being a clear 
violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. At that time, 
even the State of Vermont argued in opposition to the Massachusetts 
effort, claiming that it was ``economic protectionism that burdens 
interstate commerce by interfering with competition.''
  But now all six Northeastern States have banded together to do 
something very similar to what Massachusetts tried to do on its own, 
and that it to artificially increase milk prices in that region for the 
benefit of the farmers in that region, and to protect their higher milk 
price by placing a protectionist tariff on all milk coming into the 
region for outside.
  Clearly this too would be considered a violation of the commerce 
clause if subject to the scrutiny of the courts.
  However understanding the threat that this constitutionality question 
poses to their efforts, the Northeast have been very cleaver in getting 
around that question by packaging the pricing scheme as a compact.
  The Constitution allows States to enter into a compact with other 
States, as long as those compacts are approved by Congress. This 
authority has been used many times, without controversy, by States that 
seek to address multistate environmental or transportation concerns. 
But it has never been used to allow States to engage in price-fixing 
activities. And it has never been used as a way to circumvent the 
commerce clause of the Constitution.
  Make no mistake about it. This compact is unprecedented in the 
history of the Nation.
  While the context of this compact may be milk pricing, its 
ramifications are far more significant. Congressional approval of this 
compact is an invitation for all sorts of economic balkanization.
  Our forefathers had the foresight to see the dangers of allowing 
States and regions to erect economic barriers against other States in 
the Union. They asked the question ``What are we, as a nation, if we do 
not have a unified economic market?''
  Last year, when the Northeast Dairy Compact was considered in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, many of my colleagues raised constitutional 
concerns with the compact.
  Senator Hatch commented on this matter. He stated:

       I am afraid that this is the kind of precedent-setting 
     compact that will lead other States to seek the same type of 
     protection, to the economic detriment of all their bordering 
     States. More importantly, I would expect that other 
     industries will line up seeking compacts as a means of 
     protecting their particular States' interests, and we just 
     can't go down that route.

  On the same matter, Senator Thurmond stated:

       I believe that Congressional approval of this compact would 
     set a bad precedent. Approval would encourage other regions 
     of our country to form compacts to assist regional producers 
     in a variety of industries at the expense of those outside 
     the region. A breakdown of our nation into regional cartels 
     and economic infighting would be very harmful and should be 
     opposed.

  At that same mark up in the Judiciary Committee last year, Senator 
Grassley stated:

       Historically, these compacts have dealt with border issues, 
     environmental cooperation, and other subjects limited to the 
     member States not having an impact on the rest of the 
     country. . . . Without Congressional approval, I believe that 
     the compact would be unconstitutional. Clearly, if one of the 
     States in the compact enacted State legislation along these 
     lines, the Commerce Clause would be violated. Protection of 
     in-state industry against out-of-State industry is 
     prohibited. I think that we should be very hesitant to allow 
     a group of States to do what a single State could not do 
     under our Constitution.

  And lastly, my good friend from Illinois, Senator Simon added:

       I tend to agree with Senator Grassley that this [Compact] 
     is probably constitutional. . . . But what it constitutional 
     is not necessarily wise.

   Mr. President, the Senate Agriculture Committee has already started 
the debate on the reauthorization of national farm programs through the 
1995 farm bill. It is my sincere hope that as we begin that debate, we 
can craft dairy policy changes that are beneficial to all the dairy 
farmers of this country, not just those of one region.
  I too want to help the farmers of this Nation. But I firmly believe 
that the Northeast Dairy Compact is the wrong approach.
  Another provision of this amendment authorizes a class IV price for 
milk. The rationale for this provision is that since the Senate 
Agriculture Committee eliminated the price support for milk powder and 
butter, the prices for those products will fall to world prices. 
However, the problem is that the class IV price would merely create a 
tax on all dairy farmers nationwide, to be transferred to the farmers 
in those few States that have excess milk production, and put that 
excess milk into butter and powder. In short, this imposes a butter/
powder tax on the dairy farmers of all States, to be transferred to the 
dairy farmers of those States producing those products. 

[[Page S 16003]]

  I urge my colleagues to join me in strong opposition to this compact 
and the class IV pricing provisions.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I raise a point of order against the amendment offered by 
the Senator as not being germane.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator use his microphone. We cannot hear him.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the Senator on the basis it is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to waive the Budget Act 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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 65, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 528 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--34

     Abraham
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Brown
     Coats
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Thompson
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 65, the nays are 
34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3004) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, it is our turn to offer an amendment. I 
yield to the Senator from New Jersey 30 seconds for the purpose of 
explaining and introducing his motion.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] moves 
     to commit S. 1357 to the Committee on Finance with 
     instructions to report the bill back to the Senate within 
     3 days and insert provisions to limit any individual 
     income tax break provided in the bill to those with 
     incomes under $1 million, and to apply any resulting 
     savings to reduce proposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a fairly simple motion. It is 
to recommit, to cut the tax breaks for those who make over a million 
dollars a year, and to have the savings that occur apply to reduce the 
cuts that are contemplated in Medicare and Medicaid. I hope that we can 
finally reach a point at which we say across the board here that at 
some point we are not going to give tax breaks to those with the 
enormous incomes. We are talking about a million dollars a year on 
this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.


         Amendment No. 3005 to the Lautenberg Motion to Commit

 (Purpose: To provide a $5,000 tax credit for the adoption of a child)

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

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3005 to the Lautenberg motion to commit.

  Mr. CRAIG. 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:

       In lieu of the instructions offered by Mr. Lautenberg, 
     insert the following with instructions to report the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following title:

                TITLE XIII--CREDIT FOR ADOPTION EXPENSES

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits), as 
     amended by section 12001, is amended by inserting after 
     section 23 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 24. ADOPTION EXPENSES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this subtitle for the taxable year the amount of the 
     qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer 
     during such taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate amount of qualified 
     adoption expenses which may be taken into account under 
     subsection (a) with respect to the adoption of a child shall 
     not exceed $5,000.
       ``(2) Income limitation.--The amount allowable as a credit 
     under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall be reduced 
     (but not below zero) by an amount which bears the same ratio 
     to the amount so allowable (determined without regard to this 
     paragraph but with regard to paragraph (1)) as)--
       ``(d) Qualified Adoption Expenses.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `qualified adoption expenses' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 24(d).''
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by section 12001, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 23 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 24. Adoption expenses.''

       (2) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 
     137 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 137. Adoption assistance programs.
``Sec. 138. Cross reference to other Acts.''

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendment shall be effective after 
     January 2, 1995.


                Amendment No. 3006 to Amendment No. 3005

 (Purpose: To provide a $5,000 tax credit for the adoption of a child)

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3006 to amendment No. 3005.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this is a very important, yet 
understandable amendment. It changes the adoption tax credit of $5,000, 
and we are offering this in this reconciliation package to an effective 
date of January, and I believe the second-degree moves it to February 
1995.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry; could we have a reading of the 
second-degree amendment? Was it waived?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement we have 30 
seconds to respond to this amendment. For that purpose----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue to read the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following title:

                TITLE XIII: CREDIT FOR ADOPTION EXPENSES

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits), as 
     amended by 

[[Page S 16004]]
     section 12001, is amended by inserting after section 23 the following 
     new section.

     ``SEC. 24. ADOPTION EXPENSES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this subtitle for the taxable year the amount of the 
     qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer 
     during such taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate amount of qualified 
     adoption expenses which may be taken into account under 
     subsection (a) with respect to the adoption of a child shall 
     not exceed $5,000.
       ``(2) Income limitation.--The amount allowable as a credit 
     under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall be reduced 
     (but not below zero) by an amount which bears the same ratio 
     to the amount so allowable (determined without regard to this 
     paragraph but with regard to paragraph (1)) as--
       ``(d) Qualified Adoption Expenses.--For purposes of this 
     section,the term `qualified adoption expenses' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 24(d).''
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by section 12001, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 23 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 24. Adoption expenses.''

       (2) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 
     137 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 137. Adoption assistance programs.
``Sec. 138. Cross reference to other Acts.''

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendment shall be effective after 
     February 1, 1995.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President I yield the 30 seconds of our time to the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is happening here is quite clear: 
Instead of just letting us vote on whether or not the other side is 
willing to accept some level at which we are saying we will not give 
tax breaks to those individuals, instead we are going to try to keep 
the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid from being as high as they are.
  Why, I do not understand, why can we not simply have a vote on it? I 
think by not permitting a vote they are absolutely voting on the 
Republican side. They are saying that we are not even going to cut off 
our friends who make $1 million a year or more.
  I hope we can get to a vote on my amendment, Mr. President.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the fact is that the tax bill before the 
U.S. Senate, 90 percent of the tax cut goes to Americans earning 
$100,000 or less. That is the fact.
  This is a political amendment. We have a right to offer second degree 
and when we find amendments like this we will do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired on the second-degree 
amendment.


                Amendment No. 3007 to Amendment No. 3005

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3007 to amendment No. 3005.
       Strike all after instructions and insert the following: 
     ``to report the bill back to the Senate within 3 days and 
     insert provisions to limit any individual income tax break 
     provided in the bill to those with incomes under $1 million, 
     and to apply any resulting savings to reduce proposed cuts in 
     Medicare and Medicaid.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have not seen the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the manager would permit me, it is 
exactly the same as the amendment that I sent up originally, and I am 
asking for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Can we substitute 
for this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No further amendments are in order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  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 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 529 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     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
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     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
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3007) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 3005.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Could you get a 
little order?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can we have order in the Senate please, Mr. 
President?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, is it appropriate to withdraw the amendment 
at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. Members cannot 
hear.
  Mr. DOLE. We withdraw the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3005) was withdrawn.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am trying to find out what they desire 
to do at this point.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I am given the floor for a moment--
--
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield part of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
motion to commit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion is withdrawn.
  The motion was withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think Senator Nickles is ready for an amendment on 
our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 3008

(Purpose: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the 
       concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996)

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

       The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), for himself, Mr. 
     Dole, Mr. Roth, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Chafee, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3008.

  Mr. NICKLES. 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 1332, beginning with line 5, strike all through 
     page 1336, line 17.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this amendment I send to the desk on 
behalf of myself, Senator Dole, Senator Roth, Senator Snowe, and 
Senator Chafee is an amendment that would eliminate section 7573, which 
would require States to collect an annual amount equal to a $25 
application fee and 6.6 percent of collections for non-AFDC families, 
if they use child support enforcement services.
  I think this provision should not have been in the bill. I mentioned 
that 

[[Page S 16005]]
during the Finance Committee hearings. I have worked with the majority 
leader, and, also, Senator Roth says this section should be stricken. 
That is what this amendment would do.
  The Governors strongly support this amendment. They do not think that 
they should be mandated to have the child support enforcement check 
fees in this bill. I agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, here we are. I am fearful. I am making 
inquiry. Are we violating the agreement that we should have a copy of 
this amendment? I thought we had agreed earlier they had been filed.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the question was asked, Is this a 10-
percent tax? My colleague from New Jersey raised this as well. 
Originally, this was a 10-percent tax. I think the committee made 
adjustments and made it 6.6 percent. I happen to agree with him that 
even at 6.6 percent, the tax is too high.
  Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Chafee be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. We are eliminating the 6.6-percent tax.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We do not need a vote.
  Mr. EXON. It would appear to me, with the 30 seconds that I have on 
this side of the aisle, that as of now this Senator has not been 
advised that there is any opposition to this matter on this side.
  Evidently, we have found this was given to us in a different order.
  Does anyone wish to oppose?
  Mr. BRADLEY. As I understand it, the amendment offered by Senator 
Nickles is the exact content of the amendment that I was going to 
offer. So I have no opposition.
  Mr. EXON. Hearing no objection on this side, I yield back the 
remainder of my time and suggest possibly this could be voice voted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The amendment (No. 3008) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the next amendment that we have agreed to 
consider would be by the Senator from New York. I yield the required 
time allotted to us to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Might we have order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Chair asks 
that conversations be taken off the floor.
  Does the Senator from New York have an amendment at the desk?


                           Amendment No. 3009

    (Purpose: To strike the reduction of indirect medical education 
                    payments to teaching hospitals)

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

       The Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3009.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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 541, strike line 10, and all that follows through 
     page 542, line 8.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike the 40-
percent reduction in indirect medical education payments in the 
reconciliation bill and restore $9.9 billion to teaching hospitals in 
the years 1996 to 2002. This reconciliation bill seriously threatens 
the future of medical research, physician training and care for the 
indigent. Teaching hospitals are a national treasure. To abandon them 
now would be a tragedy.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment adds $9.9 billion to the 
deficit. In the Finance Committee bill, $1.7 billion is added back to 
this. I think we ought to table this amendment and move on to the next 
one.
  Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Mexico to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from New York. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and 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. 530 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     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
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3009) was 
agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 3010 through 3014, En Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to send to the desk, with the 
full concurrence of the ranking member and no objection that I am aware 
of, six amendments en bloc. Let me just list them: a Dole-Kohl-Grassley 
amendment with reference to truckers that has been agreed to on both 
sides; the Hutchison amendment that we had a little while ago that was 
withdrawn--it has been cleared on both sides--a Senator D'Amato sense 
of the Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. That amendment has not been cleared on both sides. I have 
just been talking with Mrs. Hutchison.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We withdraw it. I say to Senator Hutchison, that has 
not been cleared on their side.
  Senator D'Amato has an amendment cleared on both sides, a sense of 
the Senate; Senator Grassley has one with reference to an advisory task 
force; Senator Boxer has one on no pay--what do you call it, I say to 
the Senator?
  Mrs. BOXER. No pay. We already passed it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We already passed it. Senator Graham, an amendment to 
ensure Medicare beneficiaries have urgent Medicare treatment. We have 
no objection to it.
  I send all five to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask they be reported en bloc and accepted en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S 16006]]

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes 
     amendments numbered 3010 through 3014, en bloc.

  The amendments, en bloc, are as follows:

                           amendment no. 3010

 (Purpose: To increase the deductibility of business meal expenses for 
 individuals subject to Federal limitations on hours of service and to 
                      provide offsetting revenues)

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

     SEC.  . INCREASED DEDUCTIBILITY OF BUSINESS MEAL EXPENSES FOR 
                   INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LIMITATIONS ON 
                   HOURS OF SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Section 274(n) (relating to only 50 
     percent of meal and entertainment expenses allowed as 
     deduction) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule for individuals subject to federal 
     limitations on hours of service.--In the case of any expenses 
     for food or beverages consumed by an individual during, or 
     incident to, any period of duty which is subject to the hours 
     of service limitations of the Department of Transportation, 
     paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `80 percent' 
     for `50 percent'.''
       (b) Repeal of Special Transition Rule to Financial 
     Institution Exception to Interest Allocation Rules.--
     Paragraph (5) of section 1215(c) of the Tax Reform Act of 
     1986 (Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2548) is hereby repealed.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering with 
Senator Dole will restore the business meal deduction to 80 percent for 
truckers, long-haul bus drivers, and others subject to Department of 
Transportation hours of service regulations. My amendment would cost 
$673 million over 7 years and would be offset by repealing the special 
transition rule to financial institution exception to interest 
allocation rules.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I understand Senator Kohl is expected to 
offer an amendment that would restore the business meals deduction from 
50 to 80 percent for workers using Department of Transportation [DOT] 
hours-of-service regulations. The amendment specifically targets only 
the segment of middle-income Americans who, due to the nature of their 
employment, must eat away from home. Such individuals include truckers, 
busdrivers, and some railworkers. The deduction for business meals and 
entertainment expenses was reduced from 80 to 50 percent under the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and went into effect on 
January 1, 1994.
  I support Senator Kohl's efforts to restore the business meals 
deduction to 80 percent for workers on DOT service hours. However, I 
strongly believe that the amendment should go further than the 
transportation segment of the population. I, along with Senator Hatch 
and others, have introduced S. 216, which would restore the business 
meals deduction to 80 percent of all industries.
  The restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of 
the food service, travel and tourism, and entertainment industries 
throughout the United States. These industries are being economically 
harmed as a result of this reduction. All are major industries 
employing millions of people, many of whom are already feeling the 
effects of the reduction.
  Contrary to what many might believe, most individuals who purchase 
business means are small business persons: 70 percent have incomes 
below $50,000, 39 percent have incomes below $35,000, and 25 percent 
are self-employed. Moreover, 78 percent of business lunches and 50 
percent of business dinners are purchased in low to moderately priced 
restaurants. The average amount spent on a business meal, per person, 
is about $9.39 for lunch and $19.58 for dinner. The business meal 
deduction is hardly the exclusive realm of the fat cats.
  Again, I commend Senator Kohl for his efforts to restore the business 
meals deduction to 80 percent for workers on DOT service hours. I urge 
my colleagues to also support my bill, S. 216, which would restore the 
business meals deduction to 80 percent for all industries.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3011

    (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the tax 
     treatment of conversions of thrift charters to bank charters)

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

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX TREATMENT OF 
                   CONVERSIONS OF THRIFT CHARTERS TO BANK 
                   CHARTERS.

       In order to facilitate sound national banking policy and 
     assist in the conversion of thrift charters to bank charters, 
     it is the sense of the Senate that section 593 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to reserves for 
     losses on loans) should be repealed and appropriate relief 
     should be granted for the pre-1988 portion of any bad debt 
     reserves of a thrift charter.

  Mr. D'AMATO. MR. President, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution would 
express the will of the Senate that Congress should eliminate a 
significant disincentive in the current law which prevents thrift 
institutions from changing their charters. It also prevents thrifts 
from diversifying into other lending opportunities. Given developments 
in financial institutions and the debate in Congress over the future of 
the thrift industry, it is desirable for Congress to seriously examine 
this aspect of the tax law that applies only to thrifts.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3012

       On pages 764 and 765, section 2106. Medicaid Task Force, 
     under subsection (c) ``Advisory Group for the Task Force'' 
     and new number (14) to read:
       ``(14) American osteopathic association.
       Redesignate old (14) to be (15); redesignate old (15) to be 
     (16); redesignate old (16) to be (17); redesignate old (17) 
     to be (18).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3013

 (Purpose: To provide that Members of Congress and the President shall 
            not be paid during Federal Government shutdowns

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT DURING 
                   GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS.

       (a) In General.--Members of Congress and the President 
     shall not receive basic pay for any period in which--
       (1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations 
     for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure 
     to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing 
     resolution; or
       (2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or 
     meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 
     3101 of title 31, United States Code has been reached.
       (b) Retroactive Pay Prohibited.--No pay forfeited in 
     accordance with subsection (a) may be paid retroactively.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to one offered 
to the D.C. appropriations bill that passed the Senate unanimously and 
was cosponsored by both the majority and minority leaders, among 
others.
  Because this issue is so important and because the D.C. bill appears 
to have stalled in the House, I believe it is important for the Senate 
to revisit this proposal.
  Under my amendment, if there is a lapse in appropriations for any 
Federal department or agency or if the Government is unable to operate 
because of a default caused by a failure to raise the Federal debt 
ceiling, the pay for Members of Congress and the President will be 
docked.
  I believe this legislation is important for two key reasons:
  First, it will help avert the predicted Government shutdown by 
helping Members of Congress understand the fear and uncertainty now 
being felt by the millions of Americans who rely on Government 
services.
  Second, it codifies a principle that all other workers in America 
live by: If you do not do your job, you should not get paid. One of 
Congress' most important functions is to pass the Nation's budget. If 
we fail in that critically important task, it simply makes sense that 
our pay should be docked.
  Mr. President, this amendment makes common sense, and I thank the 
managers for accepting it.


                           amendment no. 3014

  (Purpose: to ensure medicare beneficiaries have emergency or urgent 
 care provided and paid for by medicare choice plans by establishing a 
  definition of an emergency medical condition that is based upon the 
                      prudent layperson standard)

       Beginning on page 476, strike line 20 and all that follows 
     through page 477, line 3 and insert the following: such 
     individuals have contracted for) available and accessible to 
     each such individual, within the medicare service area of the 
     plan, with reasonable promptness, and in a manner which 
     assures continuity,
       On page 481, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       ``(h) Timely Authorization for Promptly Needed Care 
     Identified as a Result of Required Screening Evaluation.--

[[Page S 16007]]

       ``(1) Access to process.--A medicare choice plan sponsor 
     shall provide access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to such 
     persons as may be authorized to make any prior authorizations 
     required by the plan sponsor for coverage of items and 
     services (other than emergency services) that a treating 
     physician or other emergency department personnel identify, 
     pursuant to a screening evaluation required under section 
     1867(a), as being needed promptly by an individual enrolled 
     with the organization under this part.
       ``(2) Deemed approval.--A medicare choice plan sponsor is 
     deemed to have approved a request for such promptly needed 
     items and services if the physician or other emergency 
     department personnel involved--
       ``(A) has made a reasonable effort to contact such a person 
     for authorization to provide an appropriate referral for such 
     items and services or to provide the items and services to 
     the individual and access to the person has not been provided 
     (as required in paragraph (1)), or
       ``(B) has requested such authorization for the person and 
     the person has not denied the authorization within 30 minutes 
     after the time the request is made.
       ``(3) Effect of approval.--Approval of a request for a 
     prior authorization determination (including a deemed 
     approval under paragraph (2)) shall be treated as approval of 
     a request for any items and services that are required to 
     treat the medical condition identified pursuant to the 
     required screening evaluation.
       ``(4) Definition of emergency services.--In this 
     subsection, the term `emergency services' means--
       ``(A) health care items and services furnished in the 
     emergency department of a hospital (including a trauma 
     center), and
       ``(B) ancillary services routinely available to such 
     department,

     to the extent they are required to evaluate and treat an 
     emergency medical condition (as defined in paragraph (5)) 
     until the condition is stabilized.
       ``(5) Emergency medical condition.--In paragraph (4), the 
     term `emergency medical condition' means a medical condition, 
     the onset of which is sudden, that manifests itself by 
     symptoms of sufficient severity, including severe pain, that 
     a prudent layperson, who possesses an average knowledge of 
     health and medicine, could reasonably expect the absence of 
     immediate medical attention to result in--
       ``(A) placing the person's health in serious jeopardy,
       ``(B) serious impairment to bodily functions, or
       ``(C) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield back all time assigned to us.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
numbered 3010 through 3014, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3010 through 3014, en bloc) were 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. Mr. President, could I yield myself 1 minute for a 
discussion with the Senators?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we sort of set a pattern here. 
If the Senators could look at the remaining amendments--I say this to 
both sides; we will do it on ours--if the Senators could look at 
theirs, maybe they could package them with reference to subject matter. 
If the Senators package them with reference to subject matter, then we 
might get five amendments all of which deal with the subject. We think 
we know how they are going to turn out, but that is not terribly 
relevant. We could offer them en bloc.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope that we will be careful that we do 
not try to streamline this silly process further. Now we are really 
flying deaf, dumb, and blind. So I hope we will look at these so-called 
packages with four or five amendments. I want to see them.
  I am not going to set myself up as a traffic cop, but this process is 
just entirely out of control. We do not know what we are voting on now. 
Now we are just voting on amendments. They do not know what is in this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Byrd for his 
concern. We discussed this concern on the whole process, and, 
hopefully, this is the last time we will have it under this process. We 
should change it. But I have to get a bill through under this process. 
We will be as careful as we can. If we need to, we will certainly 
consult with a broad array of Senators before we proceed.
  Is another amendment ready?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, whose turn is it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I recognize the Senator from Connecticut for 
the purpose of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Nebraska.


                       Lieberman Motion To Commit

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk which I 
offer on behalf of myself, and Senators Daschle, Harkin, Graham, 
Rockefeller, Breaux, and Kennedy, who are members of a Medicare working 
group.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], moves to 
     commit the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions 
     to report the bill back to the Senate within 3 days, not to 
     include any day the Senate is not in session, with the 
     following amendment, and to make sufficient reductions in the 
     tax cuts to maintain deficit neutrality.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to restore the 
solvency of the Medicare part A trust fund for the next 10 years and 
then to go on, beyond dealing with that immediate, obvious deficit 
looming, to reform the Medicare Program and provide real choices to 
Medicare beneficiaries by increasing the range of health plan options 
available, providing better information so that beneficiaries can act 
as informed consumers, and to require planning and action for the 
changes that will come with the retirement, later in the first decade 
of the next century, of the baby-boom generation.
  This is a constructive Medicare alternative.
  Mr. President, what we have here is a missed opportunity. Democrats 
and Republicans agree generally that there are some problems with the 
Medicare Program that we must address:
  Problem No. 1. Our Republican colleagues argue that the Medicare 
Program must be saved from impending bankruptcy in the part A trust 
fund. Democrats agree that we must act to restore the solvency of the 
part A trust fund. The Health Care Financing Administration's Actuary 
tells us that it will take $89 billion in spending reductions to assure 
solvency through the next 10 years--through 2006. Democrats have put 
forward a strong proposal that would do this in a fair manner. It has 
been scored by CBO and achieves solvency for at least the next 10 
years.
  Problem No. 2. The rate of increase in the cost of the Medicare 
Program is unsustainable at 10 percent each and every year. We all 
agree that this problem must be dealt with. Democrats and Republicans 
have both put forward proposals that begin to bring competitive market 
forces into the Medicare Program. I would argue that the Democratic 
proposal is much stronger in this regard. We would strongly move the 
Medicare Program toward competitive bidding among the private health 
plans participating in Medicare. We would also tie rates of increase in 
payments to private health plans to the private sector market place, 
rather than to arbitrary budget targets. Ultimately, I am convinced 
that competition among an expanded range of private health plans 
serving Medicare patients will be the key to reducing long term rates 
of growth in the Medicare Program.
  We recognize that the Medicare Program is 30 years old and is showing 
signs of its age. We have proposed changes that would bring the program 
into the rapidly changing health care system of the 1990's and the next 
century.
  Problem No. 3. The most difficult problem looming on the horizon, Mr. 
President, is the coming retirement of the baby boom generation--a 
relatively huge number of Americans will begin to turn 65 starting 
around the year 2010. There are 76 million individuals in the baby boom 
generation. They outnumber by 50 percent the generation that preceded 
them into retirement. Over the next 5 years, only about 10 percent of 
Medicare cost increases will be attributable to more beneficiaries. 
Once the baby boomers retire, however, 

[[Page S 16008]]
the combination of, one, a declining base of workers and, two, longer 
lifespans will double the combined costs of Medicare and Medicaid even 
if medical inflation, above CPI is eliminated altogether.
  If Medicare is not prepared for the implications of this demographic 
shift, it may not be able to weather the storm. Democrats and 
Republicans have both put forward Medicare reform plans that would set 
up a high level, bipartisan commission to make the tough 
recommendations that are needed to prepare for this historical shift.
  The differences between the parties, nevertheless, remain stark. The 
bill that is on the Senate floor today would cut $280 billion out of 
the Medicare Program over the next 7 years. The problem, Mr. President, 
is that this figure is based solely on a series of budget targets that 
lead to a balanced budget and reductions in taxes of $254 billion over 
the next 7 years.
  The reconciliation bill before us is too long on squeezing 
beneficiaries and too short on genuine reform. It treats Medicare as a 
cash cow to be milked to keep promises of deficit and tax reduction 
made in the campaigns of 1994.
  The figure of $280 billion in Medicare cuts is not good for the 
Medicare Program and the population it serves--those who depend on it 
today and those who will depend on it in future generations.
  In the end, Mr. President, I am convinced that we can find a solution 
to all of these problems. What we have on the Senate floor today, 
however, is not the solution. It maintains all of the problems of the 
existing Medicare Program and underfunds them. It is a package of cuts, 
not reforms.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a Democratic Medicare 
plan printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

            A Democratic Medicare Plan for the 21st Century

       Since Democrats created Medicare thirty years ago over GOP 
     opposition, protecting this program has been a top Democratic 
     priority. Today, as Republicans propose the largest cuts in 
     Medicare's history--cuts made in the name of ``saving'' 
     Medicare--Democrats once again are coming to Medicare's 
     defense.
       Our proposal: To ensure that Medicare remains solvent and 
     strong by implementing reforms that strengthen and improve 
     the program.
       Our position: That the GOP Medicare plan cuts Medicare 
     three times more than is necessary to restore Trust Fund 
     solvency--and raids Medicare to pay for their scheme of tax 
     breaks for the wealthiest.
       Rejecting the Republican plan is not enough. Democrats will 
     offer a proposal which:
       Preserves seniors' right to keep their own doctor while 
     giving them more choices of private health plans that provide 
     high-quality and comprehensive benefits;
       Improves Medicare's traditional fee-for-service program by 
     making it more efficient and responsive to beneficiary needs, 
     without imposing unnecessary and unfair increases in out-of-
     pocket Medicare expenses;
       Tackles Medicare waste, fraud and abuse through programs 
     applauded by law enforcement officials; and
       Guarantees solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund through the 
     year 2006 and prepares for the long-run challenge of the baby 
     boom generation that will begin to retire in 2010.
       The GOP claims we must cut $270 billion in order to save 
     Medicare. That's just not true. According to the Health Care 
     Financing Administration's Chief Actuary--who produced the 
     estimates relied upon by the Medicare trustees--only $89 
     billion in cost reductions are needed to extend the life of 
     the trust fund through the fourth quarter of the calendar 
     year 2006.
       In this proposal, we show that we can preserve and protect 
     Medicare without slashing needed services for the elderly or 
     increasing their out-of-pocket costs. Our plan places no new 
     burdens on seniors--and our hospital cuts are half the 
     Republicans'.


           summary of democratic proposal to ensure solvency

                       I. Providing real choices

       Medicare beneficiaries currently may choose from only two 
     options--the traditional fee-for-service program and health 
     maintenance organizations. Since 19 states have no Medicare 
     HMOs, seniors in many states have no choice at all. This plan 
     would ensure beneficiaries have access to a wide variety of 
     health plans. Specific reforms include the following:
       Expand private health plan choices: Medicare's current 
     options would be expanded to allow the participation of 
     preferred provider organizations, point-of-service plans, and 
     provider sponsored networks. Plans would offer a basic 
     benefit package equal to the fee-for-service plan with 
     additional preventive services and lower cost-sharing.
       Preserve a vital and affordable fee-for-service option: The 
     GOP's $270 billion in cuts will spell disaster for hospitals 
     and other health care providers all across the country, 
     particularly in rural and underserved areas. The Democratic 
     plan protects and improves fee-for-service Medicare--so 
     seniors will continue to have a real choice. It keeps 
     premiums affordable, saving seniors hundreds of dollars a 
     year.
       Reform payments to private health plans: Medicare would pay 
     HMOs and other health plans a rate which would increase at 
     the cost of other private health plans, unlike the GOP plan 
     which arbitrarily caps payments at 4.3% and the current 
     outmoded system which ties payments to fee-for-service costs. 
     The Democratic plan would also require Medicare to test and 
     recommend options to Congress on ways to pay private health 
     plans through a market-based competitive bidding process.
       Provide information on health plan options: Medicare would 
     provide to all beneficiaries information comparing plans 
     available in their region. The comparative plan information 
     would be in a standardized format, in language that is easily 
     understood. Such information would be provided to 
     beneficiaries before they become eligible for Medicare and 
     yearly after that during an open enrollment period.
       Strengthen Consumer Quality Protections: Medicare would 
     enhance health plan quality standards to prevent improper 
     marketing and inappropriate incentives for utilization 
     reviewers and to ensure access to the full range of Medicare 
     covered services, including emergency and urgent care.

        II. Strengthening traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare

       Currently, 90% of Medicare beneficiaries are in Medicare's 
     traditional fee-for-service program. The vast majority of 
     seniors are likely to continue to enroll in this part of the 
     program, even with the new options available to them. Given 
     these trends, it makes sense to strengthen and improve 
     Medicare's fee for service sector.
       Under this proposal, a series of reforms would transform 
     the fee-for-service program from a bill-paying insurance 
     program into a responsive health plan that uses a variety of 
     techniques to improve quality and service, restrain costs, 
     and hold providers accountable for improving the health of 
     their patients. To achieve this goal, Congress would provide 
     authority to Medicare to adopt the same types of successful 
     purchasing and quality techniques pioneered by private sector 
     payers. Specific reforms include the following:
       Establish quality performance standards: Require Medicare 
     to establish explicit performance standards to allow 
     enrollees to assess the program's performance on the basis of 
     cost, quality, outcomes, and service. ``Report cards'' 
     disseminated to beneficiaries would allow patients to compare 
     providers against professional benchmarks.
       Streamline rule-making process for purchasing: Develop 
     options for simplifying the rule-making process and 
     increasing Medicare's flexibility in negotiating contracts 
     for specific services and categories of services.
       Allow selective contracting with specialized programs: 
     Allow Medicare to contract with specialized programs that 
     manage chronic diseases like diabetes and congestive heart 
     failure, complex acute care needs and the needs of disabled 
     beneficiaries. Such specialized programs may include the use 
     of alternatives to inpatient or institutional care or the use 
     of specialized networks of caregivers. Private sector efforts 
     along these lines have resulted in higher quality care, 
     reductions in the need for institutional care and lower 
     costs.
       Provide authority to designate and contract with centers of 
     excellence: Allow Medicare to use centers of excellence for 
     additional complex and expensive services like surgery and 
     cancer care. Medicare currently contracts with such centers 
     for heart and liver transplant operations.

                 III. Attacking waste, fraud, and abuse

       The General Accounting Office and others have estimated 
     that up to 10 percent of health care expenditures and 
     billions of dollars in Medicare payments are lost every year 
     to fraud, waste, and abuse. These losses must be the first 
     target of any responsible plan to reduce Medicare 
     expenditures. This plan would take the most aggressive and 
     comprehensive steps ever proposed to stamp out Medicare 
     waste, fraud and abuse.
       Specific measures include the following:
       Expand abuse-fighting activities: Much abuse goes 
     undetected and unpunished because there are not enough 
     inspectors, auditors and prosecutors to do the job. Estimates 
     indicate that every dollar invested in anti-fraud activities 
     by the HHS Inspector General and Medicare contractors results 
     in up to ten dollars in savings to Medicare. The Democratic 
     Medicare plan more than doubles the current investment in 
     fighting fraud and abuse. The plan also requires greater 
     coordination of Federal, State and local law enforcement 
     efforts to combat health care fraud.
       Strengthen penalties for committing fraud: The Democratic 
     plan would impose stiff penalties on those convicted of 
     health care fraud, illegally distributing controlled 
     substances, providing kickbacks, charging Medicare excessive 
     fees, submitting false claims, or engaging in other abusive 
     activities. This plan also strengthens available criminal 
     remedies.
       End wasteful Medicare spending for certain items and 
     services: For example, Medicare 

[[Page S 16009]]
     pays $2.32 for gauze pads that the Veterans Administration purchases 
     for four cents. The Democratic Medicare plan would make 
     Medicare a more prudent buyer of certain types of durable 
     medical equipment, medical supplies, and other services while 
     assuring continued access to these important services.
       Improve collection of inappropriate Medicare payments: The 
     Democratic Medicare plan would strengthen the Medicare 
     Secondary Payor Program, requiring Medicare to more 
     aggressively to collect payments due from private insurers. 
     It would also extend Medicare secondary payor provisions for 
     ESRD beneficiaries.
       Employ more sophisticated, private sector computer 
     technology: Require Medicare contractors to employ code 
     manipulation detection software such as that widely used in 
     the private sector.
       Increase incentives to expose Medicare fraud and abuse: 
     Establish rewards for reports by consumers that lead to 
     criminal convictions for health care fraud and encourage the 
     voluntary disclosure of fraud and abuse by health care 
     providers.
       Simplify administration and reduce paperwork: Require a 
     uniform application process for health care providers seeking 
     to participate in Medicare.

                    IV. Ensuring Medicare's solvency

       Only $89 billion in savings--not the $270 billion proposed 
     by the GOP--are needed to keep the Medicare Trust Fund 
     solvent through at least the next decade. The Chief Actuary 
     of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), whose 
     estimates form the basis of the Medicare Trustees' 
     recommendations, has certified that an $89 billion reduction 
     in the rate of growth of Part A expenditures over the period 
     1996-2002 would extend the life of the Medicare Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund through at least the fourth quarter of 
     calendar year 2006.
       This proposal would call for a series of measures to reduce 
     Medicare spending by $89 billion over the next seven years. 
     Savings would be achieved through the above-mentioned reforms 
     to Medicare's fee-for-service program and Medicare's private 
     health plan options, while slowing the rate of growth of 
     payments to providers. Special provisions are included to 
     assist rural hospitals. No new costs would be imposed on 
     beneficiaries.
       This plan provides more reasonable reductions in all 
     categories:

                          SENATE MEDICARE PLANS                         
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Democrats      Republicans 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seniors and the disabled................              0              68 
Hospitals...............................             42              86 
Skilled nursing facilities..............              6              10 
Home health.............................              9              18 
Physicians..............................             11              23 
HMO's...................................             23              50 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       While preserving Medicare's solvency until 2006, the plan 
     would help Medicare prepare for the challenges it will face 
     when the baby boom generation begins to retire in 2010. A 
     commission would be created, charged with conducting 
     strategic planning for the Medicare program to ensure that 
     recipients in the 21st century have available to them the 
     high quality and secure coverage that current beneficiaries 
     enjoy.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is the amendment. It is very 
difficult to understand what is in it. But let me make a point. This 
pending amendment is not germane to the Budget Reconciliation Act. I 
raise a point of order against the pending amendment.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, subject to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the section for the purpose of 
considering this 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 is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act for the purpose of considering the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that [Mr. Lautenberg] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 531 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
52. 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 sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate we are 6 minutes over on that vote. We 
could almost have had a second vote. I think there is a feeling we 
ought to try and finish this as quickly as we can. We are going to try 
to stick to the 7\1/2\ minutes. I want everybody to have a fair 
warning. We will try to do that.
  Obviously, there is always some flexibility, but we would appreciate 
everyone's cooperation.


                           Amendment No. 3015

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand now that if I send the 
Hutchison amendment to the desk, which had previously been withdrawn--
Senator Byrd objected, and he now has no objection. I send it to the 
desk for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mrs. 
     Hutchison, for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Stevens, Mr. Levin, Mr. Coverdell, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
     Thurmond, and Mr. Thomas, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3015.

  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:

       (a) The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Human rights violations and atrocities continue 
     unabated in the former Yugoslavia.
       (2) The Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights 
     recently reported that starting in mid-September and 
     intensifying between October 6 and October 12, 1995 many 
     thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Croats in Northwest Bosnia 
     were systematically forced from their homes by paramilitary 
     units, local police and in some instances, Bosnian Serb Army 
     officials and soldiers.
       (3) Despite the October 12, 1995 cease-fire which went into 
     effect by agreement of the warring parties in the former 
     Yugoslavia, Bosnian Serbs continue to conduct a brutal 
     campaign to expel non-Serb civilians who remain in Northwest 
     Bosnia, and are subjecting non-Serbs to untold horror--
     murder, rape, robbery and other violence.
       (4) Horrible examples of ``ethnic cleansing'' persist in 
     Northwest Bosnia. Some six thousand refugees recently reached 
     Zenica and reported that nearly two thousand family members 
     from this group are still unaccounted for.
       (5) The U.N. spokesman in Zagreb reported that many 
     refugees have been given only a few minutes to leave their 
     homes and that ``girls as young as 17 are reported to have 
     been taken into wooded areas and raped.'' Elderly, sick and 
     very young refugees have been driven to remote areas and 
     forced to walk long distances on unsafe roads and cross 
     rivers without bridges.
       (6) The War Crime Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has 
     collected volumes of evidence of atrocities, including the 
     establishment of death camps, mass executions and systematic 
     campaigns of rape and terror. This War Crimes Tribunal has 
     already issued 43 indictments on the basis of this evidence.
       (7) The Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights has 
     described the eye witness accounts as ``prima facia evidence 
     of war crimes which, if confirmed, could very well lead to 
     further indictments by the War Crimes Tribunal.''
       (8) The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 
     more than 22,000 Muslims and Croats have been forced from 
     their homes since mid-September in Bosnian Serb controlled 
     areas.
       (9) In opening the Dodd Center Symposium on the topic of 
     ``50 Years After Nuremburg'' on October 16, 1995, President 
     Clinton cited the ``excellent progress'' of the War Crimes 
     Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and said, ``Those accused 
     of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide must be 
     brought to justice. They must be tried and, if 

[[Page S 16010]]
     found guilty, they must be held accountable.''
       (10) President Clinton also observed on October 16, 1995, 
     ``Some people are concerned that pursuing peace in Bosnia and 
     prosecuting war criminals are incompatible goals. But I 
     believe they are wrong. There must be peace for justice to 
     prevail, but there must be justice when peace prevails.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Senate condemns the systematic human rights abuses 
     against the people of Bosnia and Herzegovena.
       (2) with peace talks scheduled to begin in the United 
     States on October 11, 1995, these new reports of Serbian 
     atrocities are of grave concern to all Americans.
       (3) the Bosnian Serb leadership should immediately halt 
     these atrocities, fully account for the missing, and allow 
     those who have been separated to return to their families.
       (4) the International Red Cross, United Nations agencies 
     and human rights organizations should be granted full and 
     complete access to all locations throughout Bosnia and 
     Herzegovenia.
       (5) the Bosnian Serb leadership should fully cooperate to 
     facilitate the complete investigation of the above 
     allegations so that those responsible may be held accountable 
     under international treaties, conventions, obligations and 
     law.
       (6) the United States should continue to support the work 
     of the War Crime Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
       (8) ethnic cleansing by any faction, group, leader, or 
     government is unjustified, immoral and illegal and all 
     perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide 
     and other human rights violations in former Yugoslavia must 
     be held accountable.

  Mr. EXON. I yield back our time and support the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We yield back our time
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3015) 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.


                           Amendment No. 3016

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow qualified 
retiring farmers to rollover the gain from the sale of farm assets into 
 an individual retirement account, provide an offset by improving the 
  application of the capital gains tax to sales of stock in domestic 
    corporations by 10 percent foreign shareholders, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in agreement with the other side, I am 
sending an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Kohl on farmer 
IRA's. It has been approved by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Kohl 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3016.

  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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. We yield back any time.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Kohl, who has worked on 
this for a long, long time. It is a very good amendment. He has worked 
with the majority leader on this. We are enthusiastic about this on our 
side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Byrd would like to have the amendment 
explained.
  Mr. KOHL. This amendment will allow family farmers--not farmers who 
are not farming the land, family farmers--who farm the land for 
generations, when they sell their farm to roll over up to $500,000 of 
the proceeds into an IRA account. It only applies to hard-working 
family farmers.
  We offset it by requiring those individuals from foreign lands or 
corporations, foreign lands who own U.S. stocks who are not now subject 
to tax, when they sell that stock, they will in the future be required 
to pay a U.S. tax on the sale of that U.S. corporation stock that they 
own.
  I think the offset is an outstanding offset and I think the purpose 
of the IRA is to reward hard-working family farmers. I think it is a 
really good amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3016) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3017

(Purpose: To require the President to include a generational acounting 
                       in the President's budget)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a Simpson amendment to the desk 
in his behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Simpson 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3017.

  Mr. SIMPSON. 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:

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following:

     SEC.   . GENERATIONAL ACCOUNTING IN PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.

       Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(32) an analysis of the generational accounting 
     consequences of the budget including the projected Federal 
     deficit, at current spending levels, in the fiscal year that 
     is 20 years after the fiscal year for which the budget is 
     submitted and the revenue levels (including the increase 
     required in current levels) required to eliminate the 
     projected Federal deficit.''.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
all Senators should be able to agree on. It would require that the 
President's annual budget continue to include a chapter on generational 
accounting.
  ``Generational accounting'' is a way to consider the fiscal treatment 
of different generations. Specifically, it indicates what the members 
of each generation can expect to pay on average, now and in the future, 
in taxes, as a result of current budget expenditures and revenues.
  President Bush included a chapter on generational accounting in his 
1993 fiscal year budget and President Clinton included a chapter on 
generational accounting in his 1995 fiscal year budget--but he failed 
to include any mention of generational accounting in this year's 
budget.
  Thirty of the 32 of us on the bipartisan commission on entitlements 
and tax reform concluded that if we do nothing about the impending 
entitlements crisis, by 2012 every penny of our Federal revenues will 
be necessary to pay for entitlements and interest on our national debt. 
In 2040, our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay 40 
percent of the national payroll tax base in taxes.
  It is crucial that we begin to take a longer term view of the future 
and consider how the impact of our decisions today will affect our 
children and grandchildren. If you truly are concerned about the burden 
of taxes on those we love, then you will support this amendment.
  For 2 days now, I have listened to my colleagues wail about the poor, 
the young, the disenfranchised while they ignore the biggest crisis--
the impending bankruptcy of the Social Security Program. It is like 
crying about slipping on a banana peel on the deck of the Titanic.
  Our temporary fix for the Medicare Program is nothing more than 
delaying the inevitable. My colleagues are cheering that Medicare will 
not go broke in 2002, but rather in 2008. Now that is something to be 
proud of. Yet, we only have ourselves to blame.
  In the past, the Social Security Advisory Council provided guidance 
on Social Security and Medicare issues. However, we got rid of the 
Advisory Council and instead created an Advisory Board--except that 
they no longer provide guidance on Medicare issues. How ironic. The 
program that is going to the dogs first, is the program we decided we 
do not want any guidance on.
  So we have done it to ourselves. But we can stop this game-playing if 
we are forced to consider what we are doing to future generations--and 
this is why generational accounting is so important.
  Mr. President, this amendment would simply require the annual budget 
of the President include a chapter on generational accounting. 

[[Page S 16011]]

  The President of the United States, President Clinton, did a nice job 
on that in the first budget message. It was left completely out of the 
second one.
  I think it is vitally important we tell the American people 20 and 30 
years down the line who is paying the bills. I hope we can get back 
what President Clinton put in his first budget. This requires that so 
that we know what is out there 20 or 30 years from now--generational 
accounting, who is paying the bills, who really cares about the 
children of the country and also deals with that issue in an upfront 
way.
  Mr. EXON. We yield back our time and accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3017) 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.


                           Amendment No. 3018

(Purpose: To provide States with the flexibility to continue to provide 
   medical assistance under the Medicaid program to certain disabled 
         individuals with incomes over 250 percent of poverty)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have agreed on an amendment that has been 
worked on for a long time by Senator Wellstone.
  I yield 30 seconds to him for the purpose of introducing the 
amendment which both sides have agreed to accept.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a Wellstone-Chafee amendment. I 
send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mr. Chafee proposes an amendment numbered 3018.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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:

       At the end of section 2171(b) of the Social Security Act, 
     as added by section 7191(a), insert:
       ``The Secretary may waive this section at the request of 
     the State for any category of individuals who, as of the date 
     of enactment of this title, would have qualified for coverage 
     under section 1915(c) and 1902(e)(3).''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment that I send to the desk 
with Senator Chafee would just provide States with the flexibility to 
continue to provide medical assistance under the Medicaid Program to 
disabled individuals, especially children that are staying home, in 
order to make sure that they can continue to stay at home.
  It is very important in the disability communities, and I am very 
pleased to have the support from both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we ought to accept this 
amendment. This says States have the right to continue the same kind of 
service they are giving now for disabled people.
  It eliminates any concern that they might now have and mandates 
nothing. I think we should accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3018) 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. EXON. I advise the Senate and the chairman of the committee that 
the next four amendments all have to do with medical matters. We think 
we have those bundled into one amendment that can be offered.
  If required, though, I would like unanimous consent that we have 
tentatively agreed to; roughly, that if we have situations like this--
in this case there are four introducers--if the introducers would like 
30 seconds each, we would grant them that to encourage further melding 
of these amendments that are similar into one amendment and therefore 
expedite the process.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the minority leader agree with that? I had talked 
to him. It sounded a little different when he was proposing it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no objection to that approach. I 
think all Senators need to have the opportunity to express themselves, 
whether it is a block of time or one person does it or individual 
blocks of time.
  I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is very concerned 
that everybody have a complete appreciation of what it is that these 
amendments include. In this case, all of the amendments deal with 
Medicaid. They are interrelated and in some cases the original 
amendments were overlapping. So it is our view it expedites not only 
the process but the issue, in order to allow us to bring them up 
together.
  So I think all concerns are served in this particular amendment. I 
hope we can support it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just address this for a moment. Senator Byrd, as 
I understand it, if they would have sent their amendments up singly, 
they would have had 30 seconds. That is the agreement. They are going 
to send up four together--three--and they will have 30 seconds on each 
of those and we will have 30 seconds to respond on each of those, which 
I think does nothing more than save us the time of three votes. The 
rest of the rights are all intact, as we have agreed to them here in 
the Senate.
  Mr. EXON. I was explaining that rather than four, we set aside the 
Dodd matter, which will be considered separately. The Feingold, 
Moseley-Braun, and Rockefeller amendments are embodied under the 
agreement that we have worked out.
  Pending final working out of some details, I suggest, since Senator 
Dodd, whom I earlier thought was included in this, is not and since he 
is next on my list, at this time I yield 30 seconds to Senator Dodd for 
an explanation and the introduction of his motion that both sides have 
received some time ago.


                         Dodd Motion to Commit

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes a motion 
     to commit.

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

       Mr. President, I move to commit the bill S. 1357 to the 
     Committee on Finance with instructions to report the bill 
     back to the Senate within 3 days (not to include any day the 
     Senate is not in session) making changes in legislation 
     within that Committee's jurisdiction to reduce revenue 
     reductions for upper income taxpayers by $51,000,000,000 in 
     order to--
       (1) restore current law Medicaid eligibility for children 
     and pregnant women;
       (2) include coverage of prenatal care and delivery services 
     for pregnant women and Early and Periodic Screening, 
     Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) for children;
       (3) strike the 20 percent cut from title XX of the Social 
     Security Act;
       (4) strike the cap on foster care administrative expenses;

  Mr. DODD. This does three things. It restores Medicaid coverage for 
pregnant women and children, both eligibility and benefits; it restores 
the cut in title 20, which States are widely using for child care 
assistance; and, third, it restores the cut in foster care funds that 
States use to investigate reports of child abuse and to recruit foster 
parents. Again, these are three issues I think most people here believe 
are critically important. This would restore those parts of the bill.


                      children: caring has a cost

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to speak today about the children 
of this Nation, about my hope they will not give up hope, and my wish 
they will look forward to a brighter future. I want to tell the 
children of this country and of my state--despite what is going on in 
this current budget fight--there are adults who care about them.
  I do not want to say the adults in the majority party don't care 
about our children. This budget plan does make me wonder, however, 
whether some Members of this austere body remember what it is like to 
raise children:
  It makes me wonder whether some Members have ever really had to deal 
with the modest problems and costs every working family has to deal 
with: the costs of child care, the costs of medical care, the costs of 
school lunch. 

[[Page S 16012]]
I would simply remind those Members: caring does have a cost, and the 
cost is in no way reflected in this budget.
  Children in this country feel like they have less to look forward to 
than ever before. Many adults on this floor have decried the state of 
our children's present and future, and many of us have felt the eyes of 
these kids upon us as we have cast a vote or made a speech.
  So, here is what the majority will do for our kids in this budget: 
they will take away the health care coverage that allows kids to be 
healthy and ready to learn and grow. They will take away the child care 
that allows kids' parents to work. And, they will take away the foster 
care that helps kids in serious need.
  Well, we have an amendment to this budget reconciliation bill to 
repair the damage: it will restore current Medicaid coverage for 
pregnant women and their kids, restore child care, and restore foster 
care funding.
  On Medicaid, we need to preserve a basic safety net for children born 
into families of modest means. Medicaid is not free tummy-tucks for 
folks who don't need it.
  Medicaid provides preventive and emergency care for needy kids, and 
long-term care for disabled children--who could be the children of any 
American family. We are restoring Medicaid coverage for these children, 
on a per-capita basis, instead of a block-grant that would cause them 
to compete against the elderly or other groups.
  On child care, we cannot say to working mothers, struggling to stay 
off public assistance, ``Oh, by the way, we are cutting money that 
allows you to work for a living.'' The Republicans have cut $3.3 
billion in title XX child care grants to States at the same time they 
are promising $3 billion under welfare reform. Do not try and trick 
anyone. They are cutting child care--our amendment restores the cut.
  On foster care, the majority is now going after children who do not 
even have birth-parents to rely upon. This cut is a classic: it tells a 
child, ``we're really sorry that it's not working out with your folks, 
and that this is the toughest time in your life, but we cannot afford 
to pay for your foster care.'' Meanwhile, of course, the Republicans 
want to give tax breaks to people who can already afford to leave their 
children in the care of a high paid nanny every day.
  Mr. President, our children are more important to us than a number on 
a balance sheet. I understand and agree we must balance the budget. We 
must preserve a future for our children, by not handing down our debts. 
But let us keep families alive, and able to work to support and raise 
their kids. Otherwise, we will shackle future generations with a much 
worse kind of debt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Dodd motion.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table the 
Dodd motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 532 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone
  So, the motion to lay on the table the Dodd motion to commit was 
agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, earlier we had suggested that three Medicare 
amendments by Senator Feingold, Senator Moseley-Braun, and Senator 
Rockefeller be combined into one. We agreed that each Senator would 
have 30 seconds to explain their joint amendment.
  At this time, I ask the Chair to recognize Senator Feingold, then 
Senator Moseley-Braun, and then Senator Rockefeller.
  I congratulate them for expediting the process.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not believe consent has been given to 
package amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, may we have order in the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The senior Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if this were the only time we would have a 
request for three amendments in one package, it might be all right. My 
problem with this is two or threefold. One, if we start down this road 
of packaging three amendments, the next time it will be four, and the 
next time five. Suppose someone objects, and would like to vote against 
one of the amendments in the package? He has to vote against the whole 
package. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, if permission is given for this request, then I would assume 
our friends on the other side of the aisle will think they are entitled 
to package three or four amendments, but there may then be some 
objections over here.
  So it seems to me to at least prevent ill will, hard feelings, and 
streamlining the process further--we do not know what we are voting on 
now. It is an absolute absurdity what is going on here.
  I am not going to object in this one instance. But who is going to be 
the next to make such a request?
  I do not object in this one instance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3019

    (Purpose: To retain 1-year Medicaid coverage for recipients of 
 assistance under State plans funded under part A of title IV who lose 
 medicaid eligibility because of income when the recipient enters the 
                              work force)

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

       The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), for 
     himself, Mr. Feingold, and Ms. Moseley-Braun proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3019.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment appears in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to offer this amendment 
with Senator Moseley-Braun and also Senator Feingold. It basically does 
three things, and we combine them for the sake of efficiency.
  We propose several improvements to the Medicaid Program. One is to 
help low-income families get health care when they move from welfare to 
work. Second is to help seniors get long-term care. And third is to 
make it much better for pregnant women and children----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from West Virginia has 
expired.

[[Page S 16013]]

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Twelve years and under to have standards for their 
health benefit packages.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment provides for flexible 
community and home-based, long-term care programs for individuals with 
disabilities of any age that have been Medicaid funded by striking 
provisions in the bill providing new tax expenditures for long-term 
care insurance and expanded IRA's.
  The amendment would save $2.3 billion over 7 years. It is based on a 
very successful program in Wisconsin that has saved us hundreds of 
millions of dollars by keeping people in the community rather than in 
nursing homes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 20 
seconds.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, the other part of the amendment has 
to do with people who are transitioning from welfare to work so we can 
provide that they will not lose health coverage, and particularly that 
the children will not be put in jeopardy of losing their health care 
when their parents go into the work force. Over a million children will 
be involved with this, Mr. President, and I encourage support for 
providing a minimal safety net for them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I appreciate your graciousness. 
Senator Feinstein had an amendment like this and would like to be a 
cosponsor, and I ask unanimous consent she be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Moseley-Braun's amendment 
creates new entitlements, not germane, mandates on the States that are 
not found in the bill. Senator Feingold's long-term care amendment 
which has been added here--is that correct? Whose long-term care 
amendment is here?
  Mr. EXON. Senator Feingold.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Feingold, excuse me. He would destroy the badly 
needed relief proposals and spend the money on Medicaid. The amendments 
are filled with these kinds of things, but overall they violate the 
Budget Act for germaneness, and I make a point of order.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act, I move to waive the sections of that act for the purpose of 
considering the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act for the consideration of the amendment. The yeas 
and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 533 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 45, the nays are 54. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is Senator Pressler here? We are next on this side and 
want to do his wheat amendment.
  Has the Senator an amendment ready on his side?
  Mr. EXON. Yes. I am ready.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I might announce on our side, if Senator Pressler would 
come to the floor. If he cannot make it for some reason, let us take 
Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley will be next after the Democrat 
amendment. All right.
  Does the Senator have an amendment ready?
  Mr. EXON. We do have the Mikulski amendment.
  I recognize Senator Mikulski from Maryland for the purpose of--before 
I recognize her, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order that the 
Senator from Maryland be permitted to offer a motion to instruct 
conferees on the clinical lab standards at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Was that a consent request?
  Mr. EXON. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have to object while I speak for a minute on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
  You have something else?
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thought it--recognizing the Senator's 
right, certainly, to object--I thought it had been cleared that I could 
offer my amendment and that it had been cleared with the Republican 
leadership. So I am happy to wait and let another amendment go by. I 
think we need to clarify this situation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Why does the Senator need consent to proceed with an 
amendment? Why? Does the Senator need unanimous consent?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. No.
  I thought it was agreed that no one would object to this coming up, I 
say to the Senator. I am surprised the Senator objected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we are going to be able to agree 
with the Senator shortly. Can the Senator wait a little bit?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I will be happy to wait.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, since the Mikulski matter has been set aside 
temporarily, the next amendment is an amendment regarding dairy, 
offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. I yield 30 
seconds on our side to him for that stated purpose.


                           Amendment No. 2999

 (Purpose: To strike the provision relating to the milk manufacturing 
  marketing adjustment which provides special treatment to California 
           cheese processors at a budget cost of $20 million)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Pressler, Senator Grams, Senator McCain, and Senator 
Kohl, which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr. 
     Pressler, Mr. Grams, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Kohl, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2999.

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

       On page 33, strike lines 21 through 24.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the 1990 farm bill contains a provision 
designed to prevent California cheese 

[[Page S 16014]]
processors from receiving artificial milk manufacturing incentives 
which are significantly higher than those allowed in the rest of the 
country under the Federal milk product support program.
  The reconciliation bill repeals this provision resulting in a $20 
million cost to the Federal taxpayer by the purchase of additional 
cheese surpluses from California. This amendment strikes that provision 
and leaves current law intact and saves $20 million.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 2999.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is the amendment that was just described?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do I not have 30 seconds to respond?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Agriculture Committee bill would 
repeal section 102 of the 1990 farm bill. Section 102 was put in that 
bill to override State operating orders. It has been in existence for 5 
years and has never been used.
  It seems to me we ought to remain consistent and we ought to defeat 
the amendment.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 2999. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 534 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Smith
     Stevens
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2999) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am not quite certain where we are in the 
process. Some have suggested that we take a couple hours recess here to 
try to get the amendments into a little group. I do not know how many 
are left. We do not have any idea how much longer it is going to take.
  We are trying to decide whether to leave here at six and come back at 
nine in the morning, or whether to take an hour break and see if we 
cannot further winnow down the number of amendments. We would like to 
finish it sometime tomorrow.

                          ____________________