[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 168 (Friday, October 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16014-S16067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  Mr. DOLE. I ask that we stand in recess for 20 minutes.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 3:46 p.m., recessed until 
4:17 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by 
the Presiding Officer (Mr. Coats).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I had a discussion with the Democratic 
leader, Senator Daschle. We have had discussions here with Members on 
both sides.
  It is my understanding we can now, maybe shortly, propound a list of 
amendments and only those amendments would be in order. Hopefully, they 
will not all be offered, but that is where we are right now.
  I think, in the meantime, I am prepared to consent to the request of 
the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, who made a unanimous-
consent request that we might have a vote on a motion to instruct 
before passage rather than after passage.
  I have no objection to that request. We are trying to work out the 
motion itself.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the leader for his consideration. What, then, 
would he advise me to do? Just wait patiently, as is my temperament?
  Mr. DOLE. The Senator has always been patient. But I would ask that 
the Senator be permitted to offer it before the vote rather than after 
the vote. I make that unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. We will try to work it out so maybe it will go very 
quickly.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the leader.
  Mr. DOLE. In the meantime, I guess we can just continue back and 
forth.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think I have one here which I would like to go ahead 
and get done, which is an amendment of Senator Grassley regarding 
Indian health.
  Mr. EXON. It has been approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2955

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 2955.

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

       On page 862, line 16.
       Subsection (e) of Section 2123 is amended by adding ``, 
     other than a program operated or financed by the Indian 
     Health Service,'' after ``other federally operated or 
     financed health care program''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides. 
Senator Grassley has taken an interest in a concern of the Indian 
Health Service with reference to Medicaid and other third party 
reimbursement programs. This gives them permission to get involved in 
that program as a health delivery system.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. We agree 
with the amendment. I ask for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2955) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. 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, moving ahead in the fashion in which we have 
been plowing ahead and making some progress, the next amendment on this 
side would be by the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
  I yield our time on his amendment to him for the description and 
introduction of the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3020

  (Purpose: To support the President's promise in 1993 to not require 
 significant additional cuts in programs that affect rural America, to 
preserve the safety net for family farmers which represent the backbone 
 of American Agriculture, to maintain the competitiveness of American 
  Agriculture, and to ensure a future supply of American Agricultural 
                               products)

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


[[Page S 16015]]

       The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Heflin, and Mr. 
     Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 3020.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment appears in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and Senators Daschle, Dorgan, Wellstone, Heflin, and Bumpers.
  Basically, Mr. President, this is an agricultural substitute. It cuts 
$4.2 billion out of agriculture, not the $12.6 billion that is in the 
bill. It provides for a two-tier marketing loan system for wheat and 
feed grains. And we offset the cost of the bill by striking the 
provisions of the bill affecting the alternative minimum tax.
  So basically, if you want a fairer farm bill for our farmers and 
rural people, this is it. It only cuts $4.2 billion, not the $12.6 
billion in the bill. And we do have an offset.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a rewrite of the farm bill which 
is in this reconciliation bill. After much concern and consideration, 
the Committee on Agriculture provided a farm bill which reforms much of 
agriculture in America.
  I do not believe we ought to be undoing that here with a total 
substitute. It is not germane and is subject to a point of order under 
the Budget Act. And I raise a point of order against the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for the purpose of the consideration of the pending amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Nebraska. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 3l, nays 68, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 535 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pryor
     Robb
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--68

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 31, the nays are 
68. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  This amendment adds new subject matter and therefore is not germane. 
The point of order is sustained. The amendment fails.
  Mr. DOLE. Are there further amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments?


                           Amendment No. 2986

  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Specter has a sense of the Senate amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2986.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, is it in order to modify the amendment?


                    Amendment No. 2986, As Modified

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning a flat tax and 
                    reform of the current Tax Code)

  Mr. SPECTER. I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes 
     amendment numbered 2986, as modified.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section: Sec.   . Sense of the Senate.--
       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) The current Internal Revenue Code, with its myriad 
     deductions, credits and schedules, and over 12,000 pages of 
     rules and regulations, is long overdue for complete overhaul;
       (2) It is an unacceptable waste of our nation's precious 
     resources when Americans spend an estimated 5.4 billion hours 
     every year compiling information and filing out Internal 
     Revenue Code tax forms, and in addition, spend hundreds of 
     billions of dollars every year in tax code compliance. 
     America's resources could be dedicated to far more productive 
     pursuits;
       (3) The primary goal of any tax reform must be to unleash 
     growth and remove the inefficiencies of the current tax code, 
     with a flat tax that will expand the economy by an estimated 
     $2 trillion over seven years;
       (4) Another important goal of tax reform is to achieve 
     fairness, with a single low flat tax rate for all individuals 
     and businesses and an increase in personal and dependent 
     exemptions, is preferable to the current tax code;
       (5) Simplicity is another critically important goal of tax 
     reform, and it is in the public interest to have a ten-lined 
     tax form that fits on a postcard and takes 10 minutes to fill 
     out;
       (6) The home mortgage interest deduction is an important 
     element in the financial planning of millions of American 
     families and must be retained in a limited form; and
       (7) Charitable organizations play a vital role in our 
     nation's social fabric and any tax reform package must 
     include a limited deduction for charitable contributions.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress should proceed expeditiously to adopt flat tax 
     legislation which would replace the current tax code with a 
     fairer, simpler, pro-growth and deficit neutral flat tax with 
     a low, single rate.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President--within 30 seconds--this amendment 
expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should proceed to adopt 
a flat tax. It does not specify the precise type of a flat tax. There 
has been a lot of expression in favor of a flat tax as being progrowth, 
not regressive with a substantial exemption for individuals.
  And I ask my colleagues to support this concept in general terms with 
this sense of the Senate resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment has no effect on reducing the 
deficit, which is what this bill is all about. It is a good political 
statement for people who are involved in politics at this particular 
time in the year. I think we do not have the time to look at this. I 
may be for a flat tax at some time in the future, but this is not the 
place or the time to put the Senate on record.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending 
amendment is extraneous and violates the Byrd Rule, section 
313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to waive that section.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is made to waive.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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 waive the 
Budget Act.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 17, nays 82.
  
[[Page S 16016]]


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 536 Leg.]

                                YEAS--17

     Baucus
     Breaux
     Brown
     Campbell
     Craig
     Dole
     Grams
     Grassley
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Specter

                                NAYS--82

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 17, the nays are 
82. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania presents nonbinding 
sense-of-the-Senate language and has no budgetary effect. Therefore, it 
is out of order under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 534, I voted ``yea.'' 
It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing talley has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the next amendment will be offered by 
Senator Wellstone, the Senator from Minnesota. I yield him 30 seconds 
for that purpose at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 
30 seconds.


                           Amendment No. 3021

 (Purpose: To target commodity-program benefits to small and moderate-
    sized farm operations, and to ensure that large farm operations 
contribute to deficit reduction, by requiring that agricultural payment 
limitations be directly attributed to individuals and set at a maximum 
 of $40,000 per person for payments, with resulting savings applied to 
   the purpose of reducing the number of unpaid flex acres for farm-
 program participants within the payment limitations, and for reducing 
 the size of the budget reduction in the Conservation Reserve Program)

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 3021.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. 1. PAYMENT LIMITATION

       Strike section 1110 and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 1110. EXTENSION OF RELATED PRICE SUPPORT PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Limitation.--
       ``(A) Payments.--Subject to sections 1001A through 1001C, 
     for each of the 1996 and subsequent crops, the total amount 
     of deficiency payments and land diversion payments and 
     payments specified in clauses (iii), (iv), and (v) of 
     paragraph (2)(B) that a person shall be entitled to receive 
     under 1 or more of the annual programs established under the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) for wheat, 
     feed grains, upland cotton, extra long staple cotton, rice 
     and oilseeds (as defined in section 205(a) of the Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1446t) may not exceed $40,000.
       ``(B) Direct attribution.--The Secretary shall attribute 
     payments specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) and paragraph 
     (2) to persons who receive the payments directly and 
     attribute the payments received by entities to individuals 
     who own the entities in proportion to their ownership 
     interest in the entity.
       ``(b) Conforming Amendment.--
       ``(1) Section 1001(2)(A) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1308(2)(A)) 
     is amended by striking `1991 through 1997' and inserting 
     `1996 and subsequent'.
       ``(2) Section 1001(2)(B)(iv) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1308(2)(B)(iv)) is amended by striking `107B(a)(3) or 
     105B(a)(3)' and insert `304(a)(3) or 305(a)(3)'.
       ``(3) Section 1001(2)(B)(v) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1308(2)(B)(v)) is amended by striking `107B(b), 105B(b), 
     103B(b), 101B(b), 101B(b),' and insert `302, 303, 304, 305,'.
       ``(4) Section 1001C(a) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1308-3(a)) is 
     amended by striking `1991 through 1997' each place it appears 
     and inserting `1996 and subsequent'.''

     SEC. 2. COMMODITY PROGRAMS

       (a) Strike section 1103(4)(c)(ii)(I) and insert the 
     following:
       ``(I) by striking `85 percent' and inserting `72.5 
     percent';
       (b) Strike section 1104(4)(C)(ii)(I) and insert the 
     following:
       ``(I) by striking `85 percent' and inserting `72.5 
     percent';
       (c) Strike section 1105(4)(c)(ii)(I) and insert the 
     following:
       ``(I) by striking `85 percent' and inserting `72.5 
     percent'; and
       (d) Strike section 1106(4)(C)(ii)(I) and insert the 
     following:
       ``(I) by striking `85 percent' and inserting `72.5 
     percent'.''

     SEC. 3. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM

       Amend section 1201(a) by striking ``(1) $1,787,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996'' and all that follows through 
     ``$974,000,000 for fiscal year 2002'' and insert the 
     following--
       ``(1) $1,802,000,000 for the fiscal year 1996;
       ``(2) $1,811,000,000 for the fiscal year 1997;
       ``(3) $1,476,000,000 for the fiscal year 1998;
       ``(4) $1,277,000,000 for the fiscal year 1999;
       ``(5) $1,131,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000;
       ``(6) $1,029,000,000 for the fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(7) $1,004,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may I have order in the Chamber first, 
please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please be in order. Senators 
please take their conversations elsewhere.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this would limit the farm payments to 
$40,000 a year. Over the last 10 years, only 2 percent of the 
recipients have received more than that.
  It saves $1.6 billion over 7 years. It assures that the larger 
farmers are a part of deficit reduction and from these savings, this 
goes back to help some of the mid-sized farmers and also the 
Conservation Reserve Program.
  I send this amendment to the desk with Senator Lieberman as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is another attempt, in a slightly 
different way, to restructure the agricultural reform provisions in 
this bill, worked on at length by our committee.
  I do not believe it violates the Budget Act, so I move to table and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 3021. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 537 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato 

[[Page S 16017]]

     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--35

     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3021) was agreed 
to.


                           Amendment No. 3022

      (Purpose: To make the ``manager's'' amendments to the bill)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Brown and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Brown, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3022.

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

       On page 13, strike lines 6 through 12 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 121. LEASE-PURCHASE OF OVERSEAS PROPERTY.

       (a) Authority for Lease-Purchase.--Subject to subsections 
     (b) and (c), the Secretary is authorized to acquire by lease-
     purchase such properties as are described in subsection (b), 
     if--
       (1) the Secretary of State, and
       (2) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

     certify and notify the appropriate committees of Congress 
     that the lease-purchase arrangement will result in a net cost 
     savings to the Federal government when compared to a lease, a 
     direct purchase, or direct construction of comparable 
     property.
       (b) Locations and Limitations.--The authority granted in 
     subsection (a) may be exercised only--
       (1) to acquire appropriate housing for Department of State 
     personnel stationed abroad and for the acquisition of other 
     facilities, in locations in which the United States has a 
     diplomatic mission: and
       (2) during fiscal years 1996 through 1999.
       (c) Authorization of Funding.--Funds for lease-purchase 
     arrangements made pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     available from amounts appropriated under the authority of 
     section 111(a)(3) (relating to the Acquisition and 
     Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' account).

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President I think this has been cleared on both 
sides. This has to do with lease-purchase agreements and authority to 
do that interagency, between agencies, of the Government.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. We 
approve of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3022) 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. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment that we have 
would be by the Senator from New Jersey.
  I yield 30 seconds for the purpose of an explanation of the amendment 
to the Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 3023

(Purpose: To strike sections 5400 and 5401 of the reconciliation bill, 
 sections which provide for the discounted prepayment of construction 
     costs currently owed by farmers to the Federal government for 
   irrigation water provided under the Reclamation program, thereby 
  relieving them of the 960 acre limitation on delivery of federally 
   subsidized water contained in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982)

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3023.
       Strike sections 5400 and 5401.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I move to strike sections 5400 and 5401 
of the reconciliation bill. These provisions represent corporate 
welfare at its worst. They direct costly Federal irrigation subsidies--
originally intended to support small family farmers--to the largest 
farm operations in the West. They will benefit only a handful of 
wealthy individuals. I oppose granting additional subsidies to those 
least in need of Federal handouts, and ask my colleagues to do the 
same.
  When the Reclamation Program began in 1902, Congress provided low 
cost irrigation water to small, 160 acres or less, family farms. The 
policy was intended to help small farmers; large farms were explicitly 
excluded from the subsidies.
  In 1982, Congress recognized that the average family farm had grown, 
and increased the acreage limitations from 160 acres to the present 960 
acres. Holders larger than 960 acres were required to pay full cost for 
irrigating their excess holdings.
  The reconciliation bill creates a loophole permitting the wealthiest 
farmers to avoid paying full cost instead of the subsidized price. It 
allows farmers with excess holdings to prepay for their water--nothing 
wrong with that--but at the subsidized rates intended for small family 
farms. For these large farm operations, the cost of prepaying could be 
less than the cost of 1 year's irrigation water. These individuals 
would then be exempt forever from acreage limitations and full-cost 
pricing, even if the Federal Government makes new investments that 
would enhance their water projects. The net present value of the 
benefits to these individuals--and loss to the U.S. Treasury--could 
exceed $1,000 an acre. How can we justify such welfare for the 
wealthiest?
  As a result of this provision, the very family farmers for whom the 
Reclamation Program was designed will face ever-larger competitors who 
obtain even greater subsidies than the small farmer. This change in 
policy would be accomplished without hearings and without any 
meaningful analysis of impacts, taxpayer costs, winners or losers. It 
also is not fair to the many farmers throughout the West who have 
complied with the letter and intent of reclamation law, and did not 
seek additional discounts or waivers of key provisions of Federal law. 
I believe that allowing people to buy their way out of Federal 
regulations is fundamentally unfair; to offer them a discount just 
compounds the inequity.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the motion 
by the Senator from New Jersey to strike the provisions in the title of 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that would repeal the 
prohibition on prepayment of construction charges.
  I read with some interest the ``Dear Colleague'' sent around by the 
Senator from New Jersey. It presents a curious and inaccurate history 
of reclamation provisions. Its description of the committee provision 
is also flawed. The letter uses the rhetoric of ``corporate welfare'' 
and ``costly * * * subsidies'' as if they were some magic incantation 
that would transform the true intent of the motion. The committee 
language does not create a loophole; it terminates a foolish 
restriction inserted in the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act to prevent 
irrigation districts and individuals who hold repayment or water 
service contracts from prepaying their debt. Prior to 1982, that 
limitation did not exist.
  The letter is not correct about the history of reclamation law that 
led to the 1982 act. The letter states that when the reclamation 
program began in 1902, Congress provided low cost irrigation water to 
small--160 acres or less--family farms. That sounds nice, but it simply 
is not true. First of all, Congress decided that unlike other public 
works projects that had been fully funded by the Congress, in the case 
of reclamation projects, the beneficiaries would have to repay the 
Federal Government for their allocable costs. The irrigation component 
would be without interest, but it would have to repaid. Contrast that 
with the complete subsidy given to farmers who benefit from Corps 
projects in New Jersey 

[[Page S 16018]]
and elsewhere who repay nothing because their benefits are called flood 
control.
  The statement is also inaccurate in suggesting that Congress provided 
the water, since in many of the early projects, such as the Newlands 
Project, the water users held, and still hold, the water rights. What 
the Federal Government did was provide the financing for the storage 
and conveyance systems. Even where the Federal Government obtained the 
water rights for a project, the Reclamation Act specifically required 
the rights to be obtained in full compliance with State law, and the 
Supreme Court made it clear that the Federal Government held those 
rights as a trustee for the water users. Congress did not provide 
water. In addition, the suggestion that Congress was providing low-cost 
water would come as a surprise to the water users who were required to 
reimburse the Federal Government annually for all operation and 
maintenance costs as well as a portion of the capital construction 
costs. Granted the Federal Government was not seeking to make a profit, 
but repayment was a new concept imposed on the reclamation program.
  The statement also says that the program was limited to ``small (160 
acres or less) family farms''. In fact, the reclamation program spoke 
of individual ownership limitations. Each person could own 160 acres. 
So could that person's spouse and so could each of that person's 
children. A family with four children could own 960 acres. In addition, 
there were no limitations on how much additional land could be leased. 
That family could lease an additional thousand acres in addition to the 
960 acres it owned. One major problem that the 1982 reclamation reform 
sought to resolve was whether those acreage provisions applied only on 
a district by district basis or Westwide. When the letter speaks of the 
1982 act easing ``the acreage limitations, raising them from 160 acres 
to the present 960 acres'', it is not being completely honest. In the 
1982 act, we set the acreage limit at 960 acres for an entire family 
including both owned and leased lands and then applied the limit 
Westwide. That was reform; it was not necessarily good news for large 
families.
  The letter describes the provision in the committee reconciliation 
bill--Part I of Subtitle E--as creating a loophole for large farmers. 
In fact, the provision simply repeals a foolish limitation on 
prepayment that was inserted in the Reclamation Reform Act in 1982. 
That limitation excluded any contract that already contained a 
prepayment provision, so it was discriminatory on its face.
  The letter suggests that enactment is bad for family farmers who will 
face ever-large competitors who obtain even greater subsidies. That 
statement is simply disingenuous. The reason for opposition to the 
committee provision has nothing whatsoever to do with concern for 
family farmers--or farmers in general. Prepayment eliminates the 
construction debt and the false accusation that the repayment is a 
subsidy. What the proponents of this motion fear is the loss of their 
rhetoric. Upon payment of the construction debt, the operation of the 
project is turned over to the water users. Section 6 of the 1902 
Reclamation Act provides in relevant part that ``when the payments 
required by this act are made for the major portion of the lands 
irrigated from the waters of any of the works herein provided for, then 
the management and operation of such irrigation works shall pass to the 
owners of the lands irrigated thereby, to be maintained at their 
expense.'' That is what really bothers the authors of this motion. They 
fear the loss of control and their ability to load totally unnecessary 
costs onto the farmers in the Western States under the guise of 
operations.

  Operation and maintenance will pass to the project beneficiaries as 
soon as repayment is complete, and the acreage limitations will no 
longer apply. It is not a concern for the family farmer that lies 
behind this motion, but rather a desire to keep Federal control over 
family farmers for as long as possible. No one should misunderstand the 
true motives of those who support this motion. All you have to do is 
look at the proposed regulations issued by Secretary Babbitt to see 
what the objective is. The regulations, which depend solely on 
continuing the construction debt, are part of the savage and 
unrelenting attack on water users in the West by this administration 
and its allies in the Congress.
  The letter states that this is a change in policy that would be 
accomplished without hearings and without any meaningful analysis. In 
fact, the limitation on prepayment was specifically raised during our 
hearings on S. 602 earlier this year when witnesses noted the 
prohibition on prepayment as an obstacle to transfer of certain project 
features. It was implicit in our field hearings on the Department's 
proposed regulations that were conducted in Twin Falls, ID and in 
Riverton, WY. I hope my colleagues who truly care about the farmers in 
this Nation pay close attention to what this administration has 
proposed in these regulations. Under the guise of defining what 
constitutes a lease, Secretary Babbitt is seeking to impose a new and 
onerous intrusion into individual farm operations.
  Reclamation law speaks to ownership, land owned or leased, and 
Congress explicitly adopted an economic benefits test to distinguish a 
lease from a management agreement. Secretary Babbitt ignored the 
legislation and its history to conduct his campaign of aggression on 
Western farmers, and it is that campaign the authors of this motion 
seek to perpetuate. We have gone down that road several times. We have 
faced efforts in the Energy Committee to use the mere sharing and 
equipment by farmers as an indicia of a lease, so we know what the real 
intent is.
  Despite Congress's explicit adoption of the economic benefit test, on 
April 3, 1995, Secretary Babbitt proposed new regulations that would 
adopt a far broader and more intrusive standard.
  According to the proposed regulations:

       Lease means any agreement between a landholder (the lessor) 
     and another party (the lessee) under which possession of the 
     lessor's land is partially or wholly transferred to the 
     lessee. Possession means the authority to make, or prevent 
     the lessor from making decisions concerning the farming 
     enterprise on the land; or the assumption of economic risk 
     with respect to the farming enterprise on the land. In 
     situations where possession has been partially transferred 
     from a landholder to another party, a lease will be 
     considered to exist if the majority of possession is not held 
     by the potential lessor. In situations where possession has 
     been transferred from a landholder to more than one other 
     party, a lease will be considered to exist between the lessor 
     and the party holding the greatest degree of possession.

  In its analysis of the proposed rules (60 Fed. Reg. 16924) Interior 
explains the lease definition change as follows:

       Lease would be substantially modified. Under the existing 
     regulation, one of the key elements in the definition of 
     lease is the assumption of economic risk by the reputed 
     lessee. This definition permits the development of 
     arrangements under which an individual or legal entity is 
     paid a fixed fee for operating a farming enterprise. Since 
     the operator under these arrangements assumes no economic 
     risk, Reclamation currently does not deem the operator to be 
     in a lease relationship. Therefore, under the existing rules, 
     operators are not subject to full cost irrigation water 
     rates.
       The new definition would make possession the singular 
     element indicating the existence of a lease. The definition 
     would eliminate economic interest as an essential element of 
     a lease (although economic risk would remain a factor 
     indicating the existence of a lease). Thus, under the 
     proposed regulation, whenever someone other than the 
     landowner has possession of non-exempt land, a lease would 
     exist. Reclamation would consider fixed-fee operations leases 
     and would subject the parties to full cost pricing if 
     possession of the land has been transferred, and if non-full 
     cost entitlement are exceeded.
       The second and third sentences of the definition would 
     address the situation where more than one party has some 
     degree of possession; for example, a landowner may contract 
     with a farm manager but may retain some decisionmaking 
     authority.
       Reclamation intends the proposed definition of the term 
     lease to exclude arrangements between landowners and custom 
     operators, employees, lenders, and other landholders with 
     whom farm equipment is shared.

  Interior's examples show that even if a landowner ``retains all 
economic risk associated with'' farming his land, if he does not ``make 
all major decisions concerning the farming operation,'' a lease will 
exist, and full cost will be charged. (60 Fed. Reg. 16929).
  During our field hearings in Twin Falls, ID this August, Senator 
McClure, the chairman of the Energy 

[[Page S 16019]]
Committee when the Reclamation Reform Act was adopted, made a very 
eloquent statement on the effect and propriety of the proposed 
regulations. He stated:

       Under the proposed regulations, if a farmer were to fall 
     ill and his children or neighbors were to take over the 
     management of the farm until he recovered, they would get a 
     bill for full cost from Secretary Babbitt.
       If a farmer were to die and his children took over the 
     management of the farm so that their mother would not have to 
     sell off the homestead, Secretary Babbitt would send a bill 
     for full cost even if the children were not even reimbursed 
     for their costs.
       If a farmer were called to military service and his father 
     took over the farm while he served his country, the President 
     would present him a medal and Secretary Babbitt would send 
     him a bill for full cost.
       At the rate EPA is trying to regulate every aspect of our 
     lives, I guess we could send the bill for full cost to Carol 
     Browner.
       The point I want to make is Congress settled this issue. 
     The test is beneficial interest measured solely by economic 
     benefit. That is the law and Secretary Babbitt lost.
       Mr. Chairman, you have other witnesses who can testify to 
     equivalency, trusts, involuntary acquisitions, and other 
     provisions of these new rules. I will not go into them at 
     this time. What I want to emphasize is that these rules have 
     no foundation in law or legislative history. They are 
     symptoms of a larger struggle of federalism in which this 
     Administration seeks to abuse its authority and impose its 
     social agenda on the West. While there is an underlying 
     preoccupation with certain farm arrangements in California, 
     there is also a philosophy that Secretary Babbitt represents 
     that believes Washington should dictate the future of the 
     West. It is a philosophy that wants control of water and an 
     end to irrigated agriculture. It is a philosophy that hides 
     behind the need for conservation in the arid west to drive 
     its particular vision. This is an ongoing struggle that 
     surfaces here with attempts to make farming uneconomic and 
     municipal water supplies prohibitively expensive. It surfaces 
     elsewhere on grazing, on mining, on mineral leasing.
       I take great pride in what I was able to accomplish in 
     returning salmon runs to portions of Idaho that had not seen 
     salmon in years. I managed to do that while respecting State 
     law and the primacy of State water law. I take great pride in 
     moving the Hells Canyon legislation through the Congress, but 
     I did that in full compliance with State law including 
     subjecting federal reserved rights to future upstream 
     beneficial uses. As anyone can see, we have not dried up the 
     Snake.
       Mr. Chairman, the federal-state relationship is not one of 
     master-servant, as much as Secretary Babbitt may want it to 
     be. Federalism means a respect for the rule of law and a 
     recognition that this is a Republic of sovereign States with 
     a central government of limited delegated powers. These rules 
     violate that trust.

  Mr. President, the sole reason behind the motion to strike is a 
desire to continue the predation undertaken by Secretary Babbitt on 
Western farmers. There is not the slightest concern for farmers, small 
or large, family or corporate. What the committee did was solely to 
permit individuals or districts holding repayment or water service 
contracts to pay off the intolerable subsidy that the proponents of the 
motion to strike have complained of for so long. The outrageous 
discount that the ``Dear Colleague'' complains of is language imposed 
by the Senator from New Jersey on the prepayments that he has agreed to 
over the past 6 years--it is his language. The language also includes a 
provision that requires a premium if the district were to use tax 
exempt bonding--as many of them could. There is no such requirement in 
reclamation law or in any of the existing contracts that provide for 
prepayment or accelerated payment. That is a requirement also insisted 
on by the Senator from New Jersey in our recent legislation and we have 
included it here.
  In short, Mr. President, the cries of ``corporate welfare'' and 
``unwarranted subsidies'' ring very hollow when the true motivation is 
simply to protect the scorched earth assault on the West being 
conducted by this administration through Secretary Babbitt and his 
allies. Even Director Rivlin plaintively objects to this provision as 
an unjustified provision allowing prepayment--unjustified solely 
because farmers might be able to go back to farming without fear that 
this administration will succeed in driving them off their land.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield my 30 seconds to Senator Craig 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President I hope we could oppose this amendment.
  In the bill we are attempting to pass, we are asking reclamation 
projects ready to prepay to repay now upon a negotiated relationship 
with the Bureau of Reclamation, to return money to the Treasury now.
  The Senator from New Jersey is striking that. We think we have 
crafted good law, which is exactly the intent of the original 
reclamation law, only we advance the opportunity to pay it out and then 
turn those authorities to the owners of the property according to those 
within the projects.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced-- yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 538 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

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

                                NAYS--39

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3023) was agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request 
that has been cleared by all parties, if I might make that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order, please. I did not hear the 
Senator from New Jersey.


                            Position on Vote

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have cleared a unanimous consent 
request with the managers of the bill. It is simply to state on 
rollcall 531 I was present, voted aye. The official Record has me 
listed absent. There was some confusion at the front.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official Record be 
corrected to accurately reflect my vote. There is no change in the 
outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 3024

  (Purpose: To ensure the health of newborn children by allowing low-
  income unemployed pregnant women otherwise in compliance with food 
 stamp work requirements and all other requirements of the Food Stamp 
 Act to receive food stamps throughout pregnancy; to provide nutrition 
 funding for American Samoa; and to provide an offset by implementing 
 the reduction in the food stamp standard deduction one month earlier 
           than otherwise would have occurred under S. 1357)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the following unanimous consent request has 

[[Page S 16020]]
  been cleared with the majority managers.
  On behalf of the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration, and further, I ask 
unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with after it is 
started, the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to table the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3024.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement was it not be read.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 103, on line 6, strike ``(D)'' and insert (``E)''.
       On page 103, strike line 5 and insert the following:
       ``(D) until October 1, 1998, a pregnant woman not otherwise 
     exempt under this paragraph; or''
       On page 130, strike line 14 and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 1430. PROVIDING FUNDING FOR AMERICAN SAMOA.

       Section 19 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2028) is 
     amended by adding the following new subsection--
       `(e) From the sums appropriated under this Act, the 
     Secretary shall pay to the Territory of American Samoa up to 
     $5,300,000 for each of the 1996 and 1997 fiscal years to 
     finance 100 percent of the expenditures of a nutrition 
     assistance program extended under P.L. 96-597 during that 
     fiscal year.'.

     SEC. 1431. EFFECTIVE DATE.''

       On page 152, line 7, strike ``December 31, 1995'' and 
     insert ``November 30, 1995''.
       On page 152, line 8, strike ``January 1, 1996'' and insert 
     ``December 1, 1995''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further explanation of this 
amendment?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have an explanation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has just requested that, I say to 
the Senator from West Virginia.
  What is the explanation of the amendment.
  Mr. EXON. This amendment allows pregnant women to stay on food 
stamps, if they otherwise are eligible for food stamps, even after 6 
months if they cannot find a job. This treats pregnant women with their 
first child in the same manner as women who care for dependent 
children. The amendment is paid for by cuts in the standard deductions. 
The amendment saves money.
  Without this change, pregnant women will be taken off food stamps in 
their third trimester of pregnancy if they cannot find a job.
  That is a brief explanation of the amendment that has been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 3024) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill contains a 
provision which would put the Hyde language permanently into law. This 
is the first time that this has been done. The Hyde language has always 
appeared in annual appropriations bills which are open to modification.
  This provision, subsection 2123(g) of the Social Security Act, as 
added by section 7191(a) in the reconciliation measure, does not 
produce a change in outlays or revenues and is not necessary to 
implement a provision that does change outlays or revenues.
  I, therefore, raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(a) of 
the Budget Act against that provision.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, to 
strike certain restrictive language from the Medicaid block grant 
portion of this bill, and I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this 
important amendment. I consider the inclusion of this language to be 
yet another attack on poor women waged by this Congress, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this motion to strike.
  The Medicaid block grant proposal approved by the Senate Finance 
Committee includes a provision which bars States from using Federal 
funds to pay for most abortions for poor women. The bill allows States 
to use Federal dollars to fund abortions only in cases of rape, incest 
or where the mother's life is in danger. This is not a new idea--we 
have seen restrictions like this one, known as the Hyde amendment, 
added to appropriations bills year after year. The key difference is 
that, now, this discriminatory ban could be made permanent--and I urge 
my colleagues to join us in ensuring this does not happen.
  Including this ban as a component of Medicaid law is an unprecedented 
and alarming evolution in the attempt to restrict women's access to 
abortion, and will have devastating effects on the women who rely on 
the Medicaid program to provide health care coverage. Even more 
offensive, the target in this case is low-income women, who deserve the 
same access to critical reproductive health services available to other 
women in this country. If we do not strike this language from the bill, 
we are allowing Congress to single out poor women, and this sends a 
very strong message to the women of this country.
  This ban is shortsighted, careless, and insulting to women across our 
Nation. Voting to include the Hyde language tells these women--we do 
not care. Without providing coverage for abortion services, we will be 
sending low-income and poor women straight to the back alley where they 
will be forced to choose unsafe alternatives and risky procedures--and 
make no mistake, Mr. President--women will die.
  Women who receive an average of $400 a month from public assistance 
cannot raise the estimated $300 for a first-trimester abortion. What do 
you think a woman in this position will do? Will she divert money she 
should be spending on rent? Will she be forced to use the money she 
sets aside to feed herself or her child she already has? Or will she 
choose the cheaper, albeit unsanitary and dangerous, alternative? I do 
not want to place poor women in the position of having to make this 
kind of choice. It is wrong and it is cold-hearted.
  And lastly, Mr. President, how does this federally-mandated 
restriction on how States can spend block granted funds fit into the 
mantra of the Republican reform agenda--State flexibility? This ban 
does not foster State innovation, and it certainly is not about getting 
Washington, DC out of local policy decision-making. In fact, this ban 
ties the State's hands and is really nothing short of the kind of 
Federal micro-management the Republicans are usually so quick to 
attack.
  I want to commend Senator Chafee for his commitment and his 
leadership on this issue. I know he tried to strike this restrictive 
and discriminatory language in Committee, but was unfortunately 
defeated. I thank him for trying again here on the floor, and I am 
proud to join in his efforts. I urge my colleageus to support this 
amendment.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the debate is over.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904(d) of the Budget 
Act, I move to waive the Budget Act for this provision if included in 
the conference report on this measure.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Oklahoma. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 539 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats 

[[Page S 16021]]

     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, there are 55 yeas, 44 nays. 
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 well taken.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3025

  (Purpose: To strike the sale of 25 millions of barrels of Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve oil in order to protect our national energy security 
  and to fully offset the revenue loss by imposing a 2.5 percent net 
           smelter return royalty on certain hardrock mines)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment to be brought 
up per agreement is Senator Bumpers with a Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
amendment, and I yield the 30 seconds to Senator Bumpers for the 
purpose of proposing the amendment and appropriate remarks.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did not the Chair have to rule on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did rule. The provision has been 
stricken.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I apologize to the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the Bumpers amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3025.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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. BUMPERS. Mr. President, in the last 133 years, the mining 
companies of America have mined $254 billion worth of gold and silver 
off Federal lands and have not paid 1 cent in royalty.
  This amendment provides for a royalty of approximately 50 percent of 
what they pay in the private sector, and it offsets the sale of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which loses $600 million.
  I agree with the Senator from Texas. It is time these corporate 
welfare people in the back of the wagon get out and help the rest of us 
pull it. I strongly urge your support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this Senate has asked for 4 years for major 
mining law reform. In this legislation for the first time is a complete 
rewrite of the 1872 mining law, with new royalties, new reversionary 
clauses, and all that you have asked for and scored by CBO to yield 
$150 million.
  You asked for mining law reform, and we have given it to you in a 
fair and balanced way that allows the public land to yield to the 
taxpayers what you would want it to yield.
  I hope you would stay with us on this very important provision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the Bumpers 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 vote is on the motion by the Senator from 
New Mexico to table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 540 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Wellstone
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 3025) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, how long was that last vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 8 minutes. The Chair stands 
corrected: 11 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. That is what I thought. We have been running over 4 or 5 
minutes on each vote. With five or six votes, that is a half hour. 
Again, let me say to my colleagues, this next time, we are going to 
shut it down. I hope we do not make anybody upset over it.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  The clerk can call the roll and record Senators better if Senators do 
not block the clerks' view. I ask again Senators not come into the well 
during the time the clerk is tallying the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have two unanimous consent requests 
that I believe will be acceptable. Senator Mikulski asked us to approve 
a unanimous consent request in her behalf, and Senator Nickles has a 
similar one in terms of what we would be agreeing to.
  So I want to pose these unanimous consent requests. We agreed to 
Senator Mikulski's? Correct my remarks. We want to do the same for 
Senator Nickles that we did for Senator Mikulski.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Nickles, 
immediately after Senator Mikulski offers her motion to instruct, to 
move to instruct the conferees with reference to the Hyde amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from 
Maryland.


                 mikulski motion to instruct conferees

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk on behalf of 
myself, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Snowe, Senator Boxer, Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Murray, and Senator Moseley-Braun and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] moves to instruct 
     the conferees on the part of the Senate to insist upon 
     guaranteeing to the American public that the quality and 
     effectiveness standards set forth by the Clinical Laboratory 
     Improvement Amendments of 1988 will be maintained by striking 


[[Page S 16022]]
     certain provisions in the House amendment relating to section 353 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (standards that ensure quality 
     in testing for risk factors such as a heart attack or stroke, 
     kidney disease, prostate and colon cancer, gout and strep).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the purpose is to instruct conferees to 
reject the provisions in the House bill to repeal the Clinical Lab 
Improvement Amendments of 1988.
  Before 1988, clinical labs lacked uniform standards. Dirty labs were 
tolerated. Tests were misread. Diseases were misdiagnosed. Staff was 
inadequately trained and overworked. People died of sloppy work.
  What does the House bill do? It repeals CLIA '88 for all physicians' 
labs except when the labs conduct Pap smears. I urge conferees to stick 
with the Senate position and to reject the House repeal of CLIA '88.
  Let me tell my colleagues what CLIA is. And why it is so important.
  CLIA '88 set for the first time uniform quality standards for all 
clinical labs. I am proud that this law, which I authored, was passed 
with broad bipartisan support.
  CLIA was passed in 1988 and implemented in 1992 to address serious 
and life-threatening conditions in clinical labs.
  To now even suggest we turn back the clock to pre-1988 will have 
devastating results. Do we really want to:
  Turn back to a time when tests were misread and diseases 
misdiagnosed.
  Turn back to the bad old days of misdiagnosis of the HIV/AIDS virus, 
when doctors were using inferior methods of reading slides; when people 
with the virus went undetected because the virus was mutating and was 
unrecognized by physicians.
  Or turn back to a time when the lab technicians were overworked and 
undersupervised, when slides were taken home, when dirty labs were 
tolerated, when lab technicians had little or no formal training, 
resulting in many diseases going undetected.
  My colleagues, CLIA works. It works because CLIA saves lives.
  Prior to CLIA, women were dying after having pap smears misread 2 or 
3 years in a row.
  Prior to CLIA, complex tests for heart disease, conducted improperly, 
put patients at risk of serious impairment or death. As we know, 
medical conditions like heart disease not detected early, not only are 
more expensive to treat but result in certain disability or death.
  Today, the stakes are high for quality lab tests and diagnosis. The 
need for quality testing for HIV and AIDS and the impact this has on 
our communities is without question. We are talking here about a matter 
of life and death.
  CLIA ensures quality testing and quality laboratories.
  For the first time, all labs that perform similar tests must meet 
similar standards, whether located in a hospital, a doctor's office or 
other site.
  Americans must be assured that all labs are of the highest quality 
and performance standards.
  CLIA saves tax dollars by curbing fraud and abuse.
  An unexpected benefit of the CLIA law has been to weed out the most 
unscrupulous of labs that run scams and take advantage of the most 
vulnerable members of our society.
  Today, CLIA is threatened. Why?
  The House Reconciliation bill repeals CLIA for all physician labs 
except when the lab conducts pap smears. No hearings, no review of the 
Inspector General's report on the impact of CLIA, no opportunity for 
the public to respond.
  The House even recognized the importance of CLIA by carving out one 
exemption--for labs that conduct pap smears.
  My question is this: Does the Senate really want to tell somebody 
facing the prospect of heart attack or diabetes, that we do not care 
that your tests are performed adequately?
  That we only care if quality standards are met for one particular 
test and not the entire battery of other life-saving tests being 
conducted? I do not think so.
  Quality standards in labs are critical to saving lives. Uniformity is 
the key. Safe and effective standards are the goals of CLIA--no matter 
where the lab is located--in a hospital, doctor's office or other 
health setting.
  My colleagues, the Senate position is right. The Senate wisely left 
CLIA alone.
  Changes in CLIA should not be done in the context of Reconciliation, 
but should be done with careful and deliberate consideration in the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee.
  CLIA is so important. We should not act hastily. To do otherwise, 
puts lives in danger, puts families at risk. I am not willing to take 
that chance, are you?
  My motion is simple. Stick with the Senate position. Leave CLIA 
alone.
  I urge support for the Mikulski motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
motion, because the House had some provisions to allow some flexibility 
for physicians to conduct tests in their offices.
  Frankly, we are talking about some simple tests; in some cases, strep 
tests or blood tests. CLIA, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act, 
drives up the cost of doing a lot of these tests, in some cases makes 
it prohibitive to do it, so they have to send off the test to the 
bigger cities. That wastes time, it wastes money, it makes health care 
a lot more expensive and dangerous in many areas of the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 541 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the motion was rejected.
  Mr. DOLE. 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.


                   Smith Motion to Instruct Conferees

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Oklahoma is recognized to make a motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. SMITH. On behalf of the Senator from Oklahoma, [Mr. Nickles] and 
myself, I send a motion to instruct conferees to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments to 
     the bill S. 1357 be instructed to recede to the House 
     amendment relating to the prohibition on federal funding 
     for Medicaid Abortions except to save the life of the 
     mother or in cases of rape or incest.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the Chafee point of order, a few minutes 
ago, removed the Hyde language, which 

[[Page S 16023]]
is no Federal funding for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, 
or life to the mother, which has been on the books a long, long time.
  Basically, the Nickles and Smith motion would instruct the conferees 
to preserve the status quo on Federal funding of abortions.
  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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senate just sustained a point of 
order, we are only going to reverse this and bring it up when the bill 
comes back. I hope you will vote against the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the balance of his 
time?
  Mr. EXON. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 542 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
  So the motion 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.
  Mr. EXON. It is my understanding and agreement with the chairman I 
will recognize the Senator from North Dakota and yield to him for 30 
seconds.


                        conrad motion to commit

  Mr. CONRAD. I have a fair share balanced budget plan at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], moves to 
     commit.

  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent reading of the motion be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the motion follows:
       Mr. President, I move to commit the bill S. 1357 to the 
     Committee on Finance with instructions that the Committee 
     report the bill back to the Senate within 3 days (not to 
     include any day the Senate is not in session) with the 
     following changes to legislation in the Committee's 
     jurisdiction:
       (1) Modify the medicare provision to achieve 
     $156,000,000,000 in savings instead of the excessive 
     $270,000,000,000 in the Republican plan.
       (2) Modify the medicaid provisions to achieve 
     $125,000,000,000 in savings instead of the excessive 
     $182,000,000,000 in the Republican plan.
       (3) Modify the welfare provisions to achieve 
     $26,000,000,000 in savings instead of the excessive 
     $65,000,000,000 in the Republican plan.
       (4) Modify the tax provisions by eliminating the tax cuts 
     totalling $245,000,000,000 and instead raise revenue beyond 
     the corporate welfare provisions in title XII be eliminating 
     $228,000,000,000 in tax loopholes, breaks, and preferences 
     without affecting taxpayers with incomes below $140,000.
       The changes in the legislation shall be made in a manner 
     that achieves the same deficit or surplus in fiscal year 2002 
     as the current bill, balances the budget without counting 
     Social Security surpluses in 2004, and accomplishes the 
     following:
       (1) A reduction in agriculture programs by no more than 
     $4,000,000,000 instead of the $13,000,000,000 reduction in 
     the Republican plan.
       (2) A reduction in food and nutrition programs by no more 
     than $19,000,000,000 instead of the $35,000,000,000 reduction 
     in the Republican plan.
       (3) No reductions in student loan programs instead of the 
     $10,000,000,000 reduction in the Republican plan.
       (4) A reduction in veterans programs by no more than 
     $5,000,000,000 instead of the $6,000,000,000 reduction in the 
     Republican plan.
       (5) No reductions in domestic discretionary programs beyond 
     a hard freeze instead of slashing investments in our economic 
     future $191,000,000,000 below a hard freeze as in the 
     Republican plan.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we previously voted on my plan during 
consideration of the budget resolution. I received 39 votes. Today, if 
we held a vote, I might add a few votes to that total but I am under no 
illusion that I would prevail.
  In order to spare my colleagues another rollcall vote and in the 
fleeting hope that I might inspire some of my other colleagues to 
withdraw amendments that are not absolutely necessary we vote on this 
evening, I withdraw my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
  So the motion was withdrawn.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for his fine 
statement.
  I might suggest we move two other matters I understand we have 
clearance on--the Lott amendment and the Bingaman amendment.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of 
Senator Helms that on rollcall vote 520 wherein he voted no be changed 
to aye. He made a mistake, and the changing of this vote will not 
affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3026

(Purpose: To eliminate reasonable cost reimbursement under the Medicare 
  Program of legal fees after an unsuccessful appeal of denied claims)

  Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of Senator Bingaman and myself, I offer an 
amendment looked at by our Finance Committee, and which is obviously 
satisfactory on that side.
  We believe the Medicare law already prohibits payments to providers 
for legal fees when the providers lose an appeal.
  However, the GAO has reported some loopholes in the Medicare law so 
that this might not be the effect out in the field--even losers may 
collect losers' fees.
  This will correct the situation. I send the amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself and 
     Mr. Bingaman proposes an amendment numbered 3026.

  Mr. EXON. 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 subtitle A of title VII, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC.   . ELIMINATION OF REASONABLE COST REIMBURSEMENT FOR 
                   CERTAIN LEGAL FEES.

       Section 1861(v)(1)(R) (42 U.S.C. 139x(v)(1)(R) is amended 
     by striking ``section 1869(b)'' and inserting ``section 
     1869(a) or (b)''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
prohibit the payment of legal expenses to providers when they appeal 
the denial of a claim or cost adjustment and lose that appeal. 
Providers would still be able to recover other legal expenses, 
including the cost of an appeal if they prevail on the appeal under the 
provisions of this amendment.
  The amendment would save money for Medicare part A and prevent a 
potentially large abuse of the current system. The Federal Government 
should not be paying for individuals or corporations to sue the Federal 
Government especially when they sue and lose their appeal.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield back our 30 seconds. I agree with 
the understanding that has been made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

[[Page S 16024]]

  So the amendment (No. 3026) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3027

(Purpose: To amend the Civil War Battlefield Commemorative Coin Act of 
                     1992, and for other purposes)

  Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of Senator Lott and Senator Jeffords, I send 
another amendment to the desk.
  This is to amend the Civil War Battlefield Commemorative Coin Act of 
1992, which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Lott, 
     for himself, and Mr. Jeffords proposes an amendment numbered 
     3027.

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

       On page 205, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 3005. AMENDMENTS TO THE CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD 
                   COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT OF 1992.

       (a) Distribution and Use of Surcharges.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6 of the Civil War Battlefield 
     Commemorative Coin Act of 1992 (31 U.S.C. 5112 note) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 6. DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF SURCHARGES.

       ``(a) Distribution.--An amount equal to $5,300,000 of the 
     surcharges received by the Secretary from the sale of coins 
     issued under this Act shall be promptly paid by the Secretary 
     to the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, 
     Incorporated (hereafter in this Act referred to as the 
     `Association'), to be used for the acquisition of 
     historically significant and threatened Civil War sites 
     selected by the Association.
       ``(b) Civil War Sites Included.--In using amounts paid to 
     the Association under subsection (a), the Association may 
     spend--
       ``(1) not more than $500,000 to acquire sites at Malvern 
     Hill, Virginia;
       ``(2) not more than $1,000,000 to acquire sites at Cornith, 
     Mississippi;
       ``(3) not more than $300,000 to acquire sites at Spring 
     Hill, Tennessee;
       ``(4) not more than $1,000,000 to acquire sites at 
     Winchester, Virginia;
       ``(5) not more than $500,000 to acquire sites at Resaca, 
     Georgia;
       ``(6) not more than $250,000 to acquire sites at Brice's 
     Cross Roads, Mississippi;
       ``(7) not more than $250,000 to acquire sites at 
     Berryville, Kentucky;
       ``(8) not more than $1,000,000 to acquire sites at Brandy 
     Station, Virginia;
       ``(9) not more than $250,000 to acquire sites at Kernstown, 
     Virginia; and;
       ``(10) not more than $250,000 to acquire sites at Glendale, 
     Virginia.''.
       (2) Transfer of surcharges.--
       (A) To treasury.--Not later than 10 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, Civil War Trust, formerly called the 
     Civil War Battlefield Foundation (hereafter in this section 
     referred to as the ``Foundation'') shall transfer to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury an amount equal to $5,300,000.
       (B) To the association.--Not later than 10 days after the 
     transfer under subparagraph (A) is completed, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall transfer to the Association an amount 
     equal to the amount transferred under subparagraph (A).

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Congress passed commemorative coin 
legislation in 1992. These funds were to be used for the preservation 
and acquisition of Civil War battlefields.
  Proceeds from the sale of the coins have been accumulating in the 
trust fund, rather than being spent to purchase land.
  This amendment will not add to the deficit; it merely will require 
that these funds be used for their original purposes.
  Under this amendment, the funds would be used to purchase land only 
in places where there is already a commitment of private matching 
funds. The $4.8 million designated here will purchase $24.1 million in 
battlefield land; that is 20 percent coin revenues leverages the 
remaining 80 percent from other sources.
  If these funds are not expended, options on the land will be lost and 
the battlefields will be developed rather than preserved.
  Mr. EXON. I have to advise my colleague, I thought this was cleared. 
I am now advised we have one Senator that has asked to be consulted on 
this yet.
  I am wondering if we could hold this up momentarily.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if we could accept the 
amendment without reconsideration.
  Mr. EXON. I apologize. I thought it was cleared. I think we can clear 
it if we can hold it over temporarily.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that it be temporarily set 
aside, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment is another 
amendment by the Senator from Arkansas with regard to asset sales. For 
the purpose of introducing that amendment and explaining it, I yield 
our 30 seconds to the Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 3028

(Purpose: To restore fiscal sanity to the budget process by prohibiting 
  the scoring of asset sales to ensure that taxpayers are adequately 
                               protected)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Bradley, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3028.

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

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

                      ``TITLE XIII--BUDGET PROCESS

       ``For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     amounts realized from sales of assets shall not be scored 
     with respect to the level of budget authority, outlays or 
     revenues.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, from 1987 until 1995 we had a specific 
prohibition against scoring asset sales for a very good reason. You 
cannot balance the budget by selling off all our assets. It is like 
Rudolph Penner who talked about the lawyer coming home one night and 
told his wife he had a great day. She said, ``What happened?'' He said, 
``I sold my desk.''
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
       Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, did we miss something?
       Mr. EXON. Yes. But it is all right.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the asset sale 
scoring prohibition amendment jointly offered by Senators Bumpers, 
Bradley, and me.
  The budget resolution before us has been termed an historic document. 
It certainly is. For the last decade, the Congress of the United States 
has recognized that our public lands and other Federal assets were too 
precious to sell or lease unless Congress or the Administration decided 
that so doing was in the best interest of the public. That is good 
policy and one that traditionally has enjoyed strong bi-partisan 
support.
  But it is a new day. Today, we may well vote to sell our children's 
heritage to pay our debts. I reject this approach to debt reduction and 
I reject this approach to disposition of our Federal assets.
  While this bill only puts up for sale the rights to develop oil and 
gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, these wilderness lands are 
only the beginning. Other public lands, national treasures and assets 
are being proposed for sale in the House budget reconciliation bill and 
more likely will be targeted next year and the year after. Henceforth, 
unless this amendment is adopted, any public lands or Federal assets 
can be sold for the quick cash and political capital gained from 
balancing the budget in a given year. It is a dangerous, bad precedent.
  Mr. President, our assets should not be sold simply to reduce the 
deficit. Instead, our Federal assets should be sold only when, after 
reasoned debate and a full public airing, we decide their sale is in 
the best interest not only of our generation--but of every generation 
that follows. We owe our children much more than a balanced budget. We 
owe them their heritage.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support our important 
amendment and thwart efforts to sell our heritage for quick cash.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bumpers/Bradley 
amendment to restore the traditional method of scoring asset sales that 
the Congress changed last June in the Budget Resolution. The change 
allows Congress to count the sale of public assets--parks, powerplants, 
buildings, 

[[Page S 16025]]
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even oil in national storage 
facilities --as deficit reductions despite the fact that such sales are 
actually money-losers.
  This budgetary innovation opened the floodgates for proposals to 
unload valuable Federal assets in return for the fast buck, often at 
fire-sale prices. Many of these proposals, in fact, will lead to 
reduced revenues in the future, and higher deficits. This approach 
relies on political myopia--a simpleminded scoring of sales revenue 
within the limited budget window--and fails to withstand the straight 
face test. Only by railroading these proposals through the Senate, 
under the very restrictive and controlled conditions of budget 
reconciliation, would many of these proposals ever have a chance of 
becoming law.
  The Energy Committee's title is loaded down with asset sales that 
follow the same pattern. While they produce deficit reductions in their 
first few years, as valuable assets are sold off, after a few years the 
pattern reverses and deficit reductions are turned into increases. In 
most cases the red ink continues far out into the future, easily 
dwarfing the deficit reductions of the early years. Thus asset sales 
are both short term and short sighted.
  Why we produce these budget resolutions in the first place? The 
reason is not to balance the budget. If it were, I am sure we could 
create some appropriate fiction which showed budgetary balance by 
definition.
  But that is not what we were supposed to be doing here. We are 
supposed to be systematic. We are supposed to be honest. We are 
supposed to be consistent. We are supposed to address the substantive, 
structural issues which keep the Federal Government spending--year in, 
year out--more money than it takes in.
  So what do we have here, buried deep in this bill? We have a trick, a 
gimmick. We cut spending, by redefining what a cut is. Now, for the 
first time since we gave this budget process teeth--with the passage of 
Gramm-Rudman--we can sell off national property--national assets--and 
include the proceeds as deficit reduction.
  Mr. President, because of these cynically clever changes, we can now 
propose all sorts of asset sales, from ANWR to the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, and chalk that up to deficit reduction.
  This asset sale formula leads to all sorts of questionable proposals. 
Because even outrageously low sales prices would still score as deficit 
reductions for the short period of the budget window, asset giveaways 
could receive a budget blessing.
  In fact, I doubt that any business accountant or economist would 
agree with the underlying budgetary premise--that liquidating public 
assets adds to public wealth. If I sell my stock portfolio and put the 
returns in my checking account, do I become wealthier? Have I protected 
my children? It may make sense to sell my stocks, but the transaction 
itself produces no wealth--except for my broker.
  Consider the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We can lease the Refuge 
to oil developers and sell any oil that might be underground to them. 
We will get some money. The companies will get the rights to oil. If 
they find oil, probably it will be shipped to the Pacific rim and 
burned completely. Have we done a lot for our kids? You must be joking.
  At best, we can claim for our children a neutral financial 
transaction. But what about the larger issues? If we go ahead with the 
development of ANWR, we damage probably irrevocably a unique, world-
class ecosystem. We consume utterly a non-renewable resource. We get 
some cash.
  If we forego the drilling of ANWR, we preserve intact this ecosystem. 
We preserve intact any oil underground and the possibility of future 
development. We do not get the cash.
  I, frankly, reject any claim that our children will thank us for 
using up this oil and running oil rigs and oil pipelines across the 
Arctic Plain.
  Mr. President, what the American public expects, and what our 
children expect, is for us to get our fiscal house in order. Our 
children are not asking us to sell off their collective inheritance. 
Our children are not asking us to look narrowly at some budget window 
and forget that many of these assets produce public value--and I do not 
just mean financial value--beyond the window.
  When one Member from the other side of the aisle, Senator Craig, 
considered this issue as a House Member, he said, ``Asset sales are in 
fact blue smoke and mirrors at best. If they are to happen, they should 
be set off budget.'' Exactly right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not think I will even address the amendment.
  Mr. President, the amendment does not produce a change in outlays or 
revenues and is not necessary to implement the provisions of this 
budget. Therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates 
the Budget Act.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Nebraska. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 543 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
50. 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. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3027

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe we laid aside the Lott-
Jeffords amendment with reference to Federal commemorative coins. I 
think we have clearance from the Senator that they have approved it; is 
that correct?
  Mr. EXON. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So we ask we proceed with it.
  I yield back my time on it.
  Mr. EXON. I yield back my time and call for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 3027 offered by the Senator from Mississippi.
  The amendment (No. 3027) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  
[[Page S 16026]]



                           Amendment No. 2942

 (Purpose: To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to extend the 
          hours of debate permitted on a reconciliation bill)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the next in order, according to the list 
that we have agreed to, is recognition of the Senator from West 
Virginia for an amendment.
  I yield our 30 seconds to him for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 30 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I ask that the amendment be called up at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2974.

  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I know of no legal or constitutionally binding reason why 
the Senate has to ever pass a reconciliation bill. It may have some 
budgetary consequences if the Senate does not. But as long as we are 
going to pass such a bill--and I assume that we will continue to do so 
for a while--we should lengthen the time for debate.
  This is not a partisan amendment. It is not a political amendment. It 
is for the good of the institution----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. The budget process, and the good of the American people.
  I hope Senators will vote for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President and fellow Senators, it is with greatest 
respect and some degree of sorrow that I have to raise the Byrd rule 
against the amendment.
  But Senator Byrd has made sure under the rules that you cannot change 
the budget or the Budget Act without sending the matter through the 
committee of jurisdiction. So this amendment will increase from 20 to 
50 hours the time limitation on debate on future reconciliation 
measures; increase the time limitation from 10 to 20 hours on Senate 
consideration of conference reports; and, therefore, it violates the 
Budget Act.
  I make a point of order against it.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe the clerk read the wrong 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is correct. The 
Chair will correct it. The amendment is 2942, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2942.

  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . DEBATE ON A RECONCILIATION BILL AND CONFERENCE 
                   REPORT.

       (a) Consideration of a Bill.--Section 310(e)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking ``20 
     hours'' and inserting ``50 hours''.
       (b) Consideration of a Conference Report.--Section 
     310(e)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Debate in the Senate on 
     a conference report on any reconciliation bill reported under 
     subsection (b), and all amendments thereto and debatable 
     motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited 
     to not more than 20 hours.''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator want to do this one?
  Mr. BYRD. I want the amendment that I wanted called up.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We assumed that was the amendment.
  I ask for 30 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. This is the amendment that extends the time for debate from 
20 to 50 hours on reconciliation measures and from 10 to 20 hours on 
conference reports.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that is what I addressed. That violates 
the Byrd rule, and I, therefore, raise a point of order against the 
amendment under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Budget Act.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable section of that act 
for the consideration of the pending amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  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.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 544 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
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     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
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this motion, the ayes are 47, the nays are 
52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion fails.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 539, I voted 
``aye.'' It was my intention to vote ``no.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous 
consent to change my vote. It will not affect the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. We have been waiting to do the Biden amendment. I 
understand that has been worked out. So I yield at this time to Senator 
Biden for the offering of his amendment, including the 30 seconds which 
is a part of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 3029

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

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3029.

  Mr. BIDEN. 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 1463, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 11042. AUTHORITY TO PAY PLOT OR INTERMENT ALLOWANCE FOR 
                   VETERANS BURIED IN STATE CEMETERIES.

       Section 2303 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Subject to the availability of funds appropriated, in 
     addition to the benefits provided for under section 2302 of 
     this title, section 2307 of this title, and subsection (a) of 
     this section, in the case of a veteran who--
       ``(1) is eligible for burial in a national cemetery under 
     section 2402 of this title, and
       ``(2) is buried (without charge for the cost of a plot or 
     interment) in a cemetery, or a section of a cemetery, that 
     (A) is used solely for the interment of persons eligible for 
     burial in a national cemetery, and (b) is owned by a State or 
     by an agency or political subdivision of a State,

     the Secretary may pay to such State, agency, or political 
     subdivision the sum of $150 as 

[[Page S 16027]]
     a plot or interment allowance for such veteran, provided that payment 
     was not made under clause (1) of subsection (b) of this 
     section.''.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, following the admonition of Senator Long 
years ago, if the amendment is accepted, I have nothing to say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 3029) 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.


                          Exon Point of Order

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the next item on the agenda is the Exon 
point of order with regard to the Byrd rule.
  Because of the Budget Act of 1974, I raise a point of order that 
several provisions----
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we hear the Senator on this very 
important matter?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is correct. The 
Senate will please come to order. The Senator from Nebraska has 22 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313(d) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I raise a point of order that several 
provisions in the list I now send to the desk are extraneous and 
violate the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1) of that act.
  My point of order objects to about 50 provisions that the 
Parliamentarian has confirmed violate the Byrd rule against extraneous 
matter in reconciliation because they have nothing to do with deficit 
reduction, worsen the deficit, or otherwise violate the rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might request of the Senator from 
Nebraska, this is a very important subject matter and the Senator has 
been selective. There are many. I wonder, if the Senator would give us 
a little time to review it.
  Mr. EXON. Yes, I will be glad to do that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will not take a long time. We would like to review 
it and discuss it with the Senator.
  Mr. EXON. That is perfectly reasonable.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. EXON. We will lay that temporarily aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the point of order will be 
set aside.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the next amendment is an amendment that the 
Senator from Arkansas is prepared to offer--I do not see the Senator 
from Arkansas on the floor--with regard to mining payments and 
royalties. I have not been advised by the Senator he does not wish to 
offer the amendment.
  Mr. President, I advise my friend from Arkansas that he is up next on 
the mining patents and royalties amendment. Does the Senator wish to 
offer that amendment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I do.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds of my time to the Senator from Arkansas 
for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3030

(Purpose: To clarify the Senate's intent that hardrock mining companies 
 pay fair market value for the purchase of Federal lands and minerals 
pursuant to the 1872 mining law and to strike the sham hardrock mining 
    industry sponsored royalty provisions from the bill which would 
continue the giveaway of taxpayer owned minerals to some of the richest 
                        companies in the world)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Bradley, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3030.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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:

       Strike ``for'' on line 4 of page 369 through ``thereby'' on 
     line 19 on page 395.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there is some confusion about what fair 
market value is in this bill. This amendment simply says that the 
mining industry, when they apply for patents from the Interior 
Department for land, will pay fair market value.
  Fair market value means just what it says: Land and minerals. Is that 
fair? All you have to do is vote ``aye'' and the U.S. Government will 
receive fair market value.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is the same item we have already 
dealt with in budget reconciliation. In fact, we already voted on this. 
It will be a repeat of the same amendment my friend from Arkansas 
proposed previously.
  Given Senator Bumpers' rhetoric and the ``we only print one-side of 
the issue'' perspective of the national media, it is difficult to get a 
clear understanding of what's going on with mining law reform in the 
104th Congress.
  Senator Bumpers, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, and the 
national media are long on mining law rhetoric but short on substance.
  Senator Bumpers often argues the goal of mining law reform should be 
significantly revise patenting, to impose a royalty on the production 
of hardrock minerals, and to establish a mechanism to clean up 
abandoned mines throughout the country.
  I happen to agree, but would quickly add one more essential point. 
Any reform bill passed by Congress should also aim to preserve the 
economic foundation of hardrock mining in this country--a critical 
industry that provides high-paying jobs for tens of thousands of 
American men and women.
  It is on this point that legislation sponsored by mining critics like 
Mr. Bumpers falls flat on its face. The punitive royalties and onerous 
environmental provisions he favors would make future mining on Federal 
lands nearly impossible.
  Economic analyses of Senator Bumpers' comprehensive mining law reform 
legislation, including in-house studies done by the Department of the 
Interior, conclude that the punitive royalty supported by Senator 
Bumpers will cost thousands of U.S. jobs. His legislation would shift 
exploration and development capital over seas, export U.S. jobs, 
decrease our tax base, and increase our balance of trade deficit.
  I take strong exception to criticisms that members representing 
western mining States oppose mining law reform legislation. What we 
oppose is punitive legislation that would cause unnecessary economic 
harm to rural mining communities across working America.
  In our effort to impose a royalty on the hardrock mining industry we 
should not presume that more is better.
  One would hope that Congress would learn from history. In 1990, when 
Congress enacted the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, we imposed a 
significant tax on luxury items, including high-end luxury yachts. 
Unfortunately, instead of taxing the rich, this recklessness destroyed 
the yacht building industry and eliminated thousands of jobs in this 
country.
  In addition, we should learn from our foreign competitors. In 1974, 
British Columbia enacted the Mineral Royalties Act, which imposed 
royalties on mines located on Crown Lands and the Mineral Land tax Act 
which subjected owners of private mineral rights to royalties 
equivalent to those applied to Crown Lands. The result was a disaster.
  During the period the royalty was in effect, no new mines went into 
production and several mines closed. Two years later, after thousands 
of mine related jobs were lost, the royalty was repealed.
  Should the hardrock mining industry pay a royalty to the Federal 
Government? The answer is yes. But let's not make it so punitive that 
we destroy the industry or run it off-shore. We need to remember, just 
like Arkansas rice farmers, the domestic mining industry must compete 
in a worldwide market.
  At the outset of the 104th Congress, I cosponsored the Mining Law 
Reform 

[[Page S 16028]]
Act of 1995 (S. 506), a bipartisan bill that recognizes the world of 
change in which we now live. The bill balances economic reality with 
the environmental concerns facing today's hardrock mining industry. 
I've actively pursued enactment of this legislation during the past 
several months.
  It's worth noting that Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt 
continues to issue press releases decrying the shortcomings of the 
existing mining law. Yet he offers no reform proposal of his own. Why? 
Very simply, it is much easier to be critical than to be constructive.
  It's no secret this is a divisive issue. In an effort to strike an 
acceptable compromise, the Senate Energy Committee included mining law 
reform provisions in its budget reconciliation package.
  Those provisions represent significant compromise by both sides in 
this debate.
  For the first time in history, the legislation would require miners 
to pay fair market value for the surface estate of patented land.
  For the first time in history, the legislation requires patented land 
used for nonmining purposes to revert back to the Federal Government.
  This would end the so-called Federal land give-away.
  For the first time in history, miners would be required to pay a 
royalty to the Federal Government for the production of minerals on 
Federal land.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates the royalty will generate 
over $36 million dollars during the first 7 years. As new projects come 
into production, revenues received from the royalty are expected to 
increase to $25-$50 million per year.
  Finally, for the first time in history, we would create an abandoned 
mine land fund [AML fund], establishing a mechanism to clean up old 
mines, many of which were abandoned in the 1800's.
  The program will be financed by one half of the royalty receipts. As 
royalty revenues increase, funds for the AML fund will also grow.
  The legislation contained in the committee's reconciliation package 
answers the urgent call for increased Federal revenue without adding 
layers of crippling new Federal regulations or usurping the rights and 
responsibilities of individual States to oversee mining operations 
within their own jurisdictions.
  Simply put, it would significantly revise the existing patenting 
system; impose a royalty on the production of minerals; and create a 
mechanism to fund the cleanup of abandoned mines; all while allowing 
Americans to enjoy the benefits of a strong domestic mining industry.
  It's time for mining critics to stop the rhetoric and begin working 
to enact reform.
  Senator Bumpers' amendment is not a good faith effort at enacting 
responsible reform. His claims of a Federal land give-away cannot hold 
water in the face of the dual requirements in budget reconciliation of 
fair market value for the surface of patented lands and a royalty on 
produced minerals from the subsurface.
  The time is right for reform. The language in the budget 
reconciliation package represents comprehensive reform that ends the 
so-called Federal give-away, and according to CBO, raises $148 million 
dollars.
  I urge critics of the mining industry to support the mining law 
provisions in the budget reconciliation package and oppose the 
amendment being offered by Senator Bumpers.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 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. 3030. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 545 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3030) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. EXON. 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.


                           Amendment No. 3031

  (Purpose: To modify the estate tax reform proposals by striking the 
 provisions excluding up to $3.25 million in business assets from the 
estate tax and by inserting a package of reforms specifically designed 
to ease the burden of estate taxes for true small businesses and family 
                                 farms)

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3031.

  Mr. BRADLEY. 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 1622, beginning on line 8, strike all through page 
     1636, line 12, and insert the following:

     SEC. 12301. MODIFICATIONS TO TIME EXTENSION PROVISIONS FOR 
                   CLOSELY HELD BUSINESSES.

       (a) Increased Cap on 4 Percent Interest Rate.--Subparagraph 
     (A) of section 6601(j)(2) (relating to 4-percent portion) is 
     amended by striking ``$345,800'' and inserting ``$780,800''.
       (b) Partnership, Etc., Restrictions Lifted.--Subparagraph 
     (A) of section 6166(b)(7) (relating to partnership interests 
     and stock which is not readily tradable) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--If the executor elects the benefits of 
     this paragraph (at such time and in such manner as the 
     Secretary shall by regulations prescribe), then for purposes 
     of paragraph (1)(B)(i) or (1)(C)(i) (whichever is 
     appropriate) and for purposes of subsection (c), any capital 
     interest in a partnership and any non-readily-tradable stock 
     which (after the application of paragraph (2)) is treated as 
     owned by the decedent shall be treated as included in 
     determining the value of the decedent's gross estate.''
       (c) Holding Company Restrictions Lifted.--Paragraph (8) of 
     section 6166(b) (relating to stock in holding company treated 
     as business company stock in certain cases) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) In general.--If the executor elects the benefits of 
     this paragraph, then for purposes of this section, the 
     portion of the stock of any holding company which represents 
     direct ownership (or indirect ownership through 1 or more 
     other holding companies) by such company in a business 
     company shall be deemed to be stock in such business 
     company.'',
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B),
       (3) by striking ``any corporation'' in subparagraph (D)(i) 
     and inserting ``any entity'', and
       (4) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to estates of decedents dying after December 31, 
     1995.
       On page 1639, beginning on line 10, strike all through page 
     1649, line 9, and insert the following:

     SEC. 12304. OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT CERTAIN FAILURES UNDER 
                   SECTION 2032A.

       (a) General Rule.--Paragraph (3) of section 2032A(d) 
     (relating to modification of election and agreement to be 
     permitted) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Modification of election and agreement to be 
     permitted.--The Secretary shall 

[[Page S 16029]]
     prescribe procedures which provide that in any case in which the 
     executor makes an election under paragraph (1) (and submits 
     the agreement referred to in paragraph (2)) within the time 
     prescribed therefor, but--
       ``(A) the notice of election, as filed, does not contain 
     all required information, or
       ``(B) signatures of 1 or more persons required to enter 
     into the agreement described in paragraph (2) are not 
     included on the agreement as filed, or the agreement does not 
     contain all required information,

     the executor will have a reasonable period of time (not 
     exceeding 90 days) after notification of such failures to 
     provide such information or signatures.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds if the Senator would like to have it.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, under the pending bill, estates worth $5 
million or more would receive a tax break of $1.7 million. This is 
because the bill effectively shields the first $3.25 million from tax.
  This amendment would strike these provisions and substitute a package 
of reforms that are designed to ease the burden of estate taxes on true 
small businesses and family farms.
  Mr. DOLE. The estate tax provision of the bill has strong bipartisan 
support. I think 20 to 30 Senators--we had this discussion in 
committee. We believe we are on the right track, trying to save farms, 
ranches, small businesses held by one family, two families or three 
families.
  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 72, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 546 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

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

                                NAYS--27

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3031) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I tell all that we are moving along at a 
reasonably rapid pace.
  The next amendment is the last amendment that I have for Senator 
Bradley of New Jersey.
  I yield my 30 seconds to him.


                           Amendment No. 3032

(Purpose: To provide additional funds to the medicaid program by using 
    the revenues resulting from the disallowance of deductions for 
       advertising and promotional expenses for tobacco products)

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

       The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Bradley), for himself and 
     Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 3032.

  Mr. BRADLEY. 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 1772, after line 23, add the following new section:

     SEC. 12809. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS FOR ADVERTISING AND 
                   PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES RELATING TO TOBACCO 
                   PRODUCT USE.

       (a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle A (relating to items not deductible) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 280I. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR TOBACCO 
                   ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES.

       No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for 
     expenses relating to advertising or promoting cigars, 
     cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, or any similar 
     tobacco product. For purposes of this section, any term used 
     in this section which is also used in section 5702 shall have 
     the same meaning given such term by section 5702.''
       (b) Use of Funds for Medicaid Program.--Section 2121(b) of 
     the Social Security Act, as added by section 7901 of this Act 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Appropriation of additional amounts for pool 
     amounts.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the pool amount for 
     each fiscal year is increased by an amount that is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated and is appropriated equal to 
     the increase in revenues for such year as estimated by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury resulting from the amendment made 
     by section 12809(a) of the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act 
     of 1995.''
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     part IX is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 280H the following new item:

``Sec. 280I. Disallowance of deduction for tobacco advertising and 
              promotion expenses.''
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable year beginning after December 31, 
     1995.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered denies 
a tax deduction for the expense of advertising tobacco products. 
Federal savings of $3.2 billion would be used to offset cuts in 
Medicaid. Currently tobacco manufacturers deduct the cost of their 
advertisements from their taxable income. In other words, it favors the 
Joe Camel ad. This amendment would eliminate that deduction.
  The amendment would not prohibit tobacco manufacturers from 
advertising their products. It only removes the Federal subsidy through 
the Tax Code for their advertising.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this denies a legitimate business from 
taking a deduction under legitimate costs. And it will go to all 
companies in the future, if we allow this one to prevail.
  So, Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the pending 
amendment. It violates section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1994 because it is not germane.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1994, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act 
for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Nebraska. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 22, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 547 Leg.]

                                YEAS--22

     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     DeWine
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Rockefeller
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--77

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy 

[[Page S 16030]]

     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). On this vote, there are 23 yeas, 
76 nays. 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 has been sustained, and the provision fails.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3033

 (Purpose: To limit the capital gains deduction to gain on assets held 
    for more than 10 years and to impose a $250,000 lifetime limit)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to report that two Senators 
have been successful in working together to offer two amendments in a 
joint form. The two Senators are Senator Dorgan and Senator Harkin. I 
yield each of them 30 seconds as per the previous arrangement.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will still report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3033.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It changes 
the capital gains portion of the legislation. It would provide that if 
you hold an asset for 10 years, this would exclude up to $250,000 of 
capital gains--an exclusion, twice as much benefit for the first 
quarter of a million dollars in capital gains. But that is what the 
limit would be. It actually saves $10 billion over the capital gains 
provisions in the bill.
  I yield to Senator Harkin for the explanation of the second provision 
in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is the so-called Benedict Arnold 
amendment. Many of the very wealthy individuals who renounce their U.S. 
citizenship then later reside in the United States for up to 180 days. 
Under this amendment, such individuals would resume paying taxes in the 
United States as if they were resident aliens similar to U.S. citizens 
if they would stay in the United States for 30 days.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As to Senator Harkin's portion of the bill, let me 
remind Senators, Senator Moynihan had put this provision together. And 
it strikes an appropriate balance. This would essentially do away with 
the Moynihan balance in this bill.
  The Dorgan part of this limits the capital gains tax to a lifetime of 
$250,000. This would be incredibly difficult to keep track of and 
almost impossible to enforce if it was fair.
  I move to table both amendments. They are both en bloc.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to table the amendment numbered 3033. This is on both amendments in 
tandem.
  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 66, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 548 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--33

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3033) was 
agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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 is an amendment by 
Senator Feingold, from Wisconsin, with regard to tax loopholes. I yield 
to him at this time the 30 seconds we have for each amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Feingold.


                           Amendment No. 3034

 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the 
percentage depletion allowance for mercury, uranium, lead and asbestos)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Wellstone 
and Senator Bumpers, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr. 
     Wellstone, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3034.

  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:

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

     SEC.  . CERTAIN MINERALS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PERCENTAGE 
                   DEPLETION.

       (a) General Rule.--
       (1) Paragraph (1) of section 613(b) (relating to percentage 
     depletion rates) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and uranium'' in subparagraph (A), and
       (B) by striking ``asbestos,'', ``lead,'', and ``mercury,'' 
     in subparagraph (B).
       (2) Subparagraph (A) of section 613(b)(3) is amended by 
     inserting ``other than lead, mercury, or unranium'' after 
     ``metal mines''.
       (3) Paragraph (4) of section 613(b) is amended by striking 
     ``asbestocs (if paragraph (1)(B) does not apply),''.
       (4) Paragraph (7) of section 613(b) is amended by by 
     striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking 
     the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ''; 
     or'', and by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following 
     new subparagraph:
       (D) mercury, uranium, lead, and asbestos.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subparagraph (D) of section 
     613(c)(4) is amended by striking ``lead,'' and ``uranium,''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment eliminates the special 22 
percent percentage depletion allowance for certain mine substances--
asbestos, lead, mercury, and uranium.
  It would allow mining companies to deduct only the cost of their 
capital investments as other businesses have to do. The amendment would 
save $83 million over 5 years, and the bulk of this tax break goes to 
lead mining. I do not think that makes any sense to have this kind of 
subsidy when State and local and Federal health officials and 
environmental agencies are spending precious resources for lead 
abatement and testing. 

[[Page S 16031]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not going to use my 30 seconds. I 
just now make a point of order against the amendment under section 
305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the sections of that act for the 
consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays 
on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 549 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my vote on 
the Bradley amendment No. 3032 be changed from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' This 
request will not change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                             Change of Vote

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. On rollcall vote No. 548, I voted ``no.'' It was 
my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome 
of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if we can take a short reading on 
what may be happening tonight or tomorrow.
  I have had a discussion with the distinguished Democratic leader, 
Senator Daschle, and I think he is prepared to give us a fairly 
optimistic report on amendments left on that side.
  I will be happy to yield to the Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have consulted with colleagues, and I 
think we are down to five amendments. One of those may fall. We are 
within reach now. That is the total on our side.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think on this side we have just the 
Finance Committee amendment. As I have indicated, there would be some 
additional debate on that--probably not more than 10 minutes will be 
allotted--because it is a 46-page amendment.
  I know the Senator from Florida was suggesting additional debate 
time.
  I say to my colleagues, if we can move as quickly as we can here and 
finish this bill at a reasonable time tonight, we will not be in 
tomorrow and we will be not be in on Monday. I think it would depend on 
how quickly we can complete action on the bill.
  In addition, we are now looking at the Byrd-Exon package on different 
matters that have been subjected to the Byrd rule. We have not had that 
list very long, but we have people working on it now to match it 
against our list to see why some are left out and some are put in. It 
is a rather selective list.
  I suggest that may require some additional votes. I am not certain.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Would the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. I yield.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Did I hear the majority leader say if we can expedite 
this and come to final passage tonight on the bill, we would not be in 
session on Monday. Is that correct?
  Mr. DOLE. That is correct. We have some conference reports, but I 
think they can be disposed of very quickly on Tuesday morning.
  I have also discussed this with the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, who has a very important appointment on Monday. I want to try 
to accommodate every Senator where I can. I think I can.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I discuss the points of order that were submitted 
as a package by Senator Exon?
  Senator, as you might know, since it is a very selective list, it has 
caused a lot of concern on our side; some are just working with me to 
see what they want to do about it. The first step we are taking so we 
will know is, we are comparing your selected list with our list to 
first find out whether there are any that we do not think should be in 
there.
  We would like to handle those in a way--by presenting those to you on 
the basis that if they do not properly belong in that we might drop 
them out. We are not sure there are a lot but there are some and they 
are of concern.
  I might also suggest a goodly number of the motions of the Byrd rule 
problems come from the welfare bill--not all, but many.
  I might reflect for a moment how that happened. The Senate cleared a 
welfare bill with how many votes? Mr. President, 87-12. That bill was 
put in the reconciliation bill and it has its own track going. It was 
never perfected by the U.S. Senate or by any committees in a way that 
made it absent the Byrd rule problems.
  In other words, we handled that on the floor. It turns out when you 
put it in reconciliation, obviously it has a lot of points of order.
  We are concerned because most of the Senators on the other side of 
the aisle and this side voted for that bill. In fact, 87 voted for it. 
We might want to present to the Senate a package of those Byrd rule 
violations and see if you all want to waive them on the basis that they 
got 87 votes, or if you might want to reconsider since they got 87 
votes.
  After all, we are the ones who vote on the 60-vote number that is 
required under the law. We can make that decision.
  It is not simple. Frankly, it comes late, which is no one's fault. 
Everybody on our side knew or should have known that, as they moved 
their committee work law, the Byrd rule was imperative. If we did not 
know it on the welfare bill--because we were not preparing the welfare 
bill for reconciliation.
  I think we may take a little time tonight because I have a lot of 
concern on my side for the Senators, and I want to make sure they 
understand and get a chance to evaluate it. I do not think you would 
deny us that. We will give you adequate time on our major 

[[Page S 16032]]
amendment. This is major, major to some people on our side.
  With that explanation, let us proceed, and we will do the best we 
can.
  Mr. DOLE. I indicated before, I know we will do these things, but if 
we do them as quickly as we can, then it will make things easier for 
all of us and make it possible to leave here tonight by 10:30 or 11 
o'clock and not be here on Monday.
  Mr. EXON. May I have 30 seconds? I simply say that I will be glad to 
listen and look at anything that is presented to us. I simply point out 
to my colleagues that the points raised were the most serious, in my 
view, of the violations of the Byrd rule. We believe they are all valid 
points of order and the Parliamentarian has so told us.
  We published a comprehensive list of all budget rule violations in 
yesterday's Record. This is no surprise deal.
  I certainly say that I will look forward to hearing from your side 
and, as usual, take a careful look at your proposition.


                      Lautenberg Motion to Commit

  Mr. EXON. The next motion would be by the Senator from New Jersey, 
Senator Lautenberg.
  I yield to him the 30 seconds I have as part of my time for his 
disposition.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. This is to commit the bill to the Finance Committee 
with instructions to report back on an amendment that would expand the 
deductibility of expenses that occurred in connection with business 
that one conducts in one's moment.
  In 1993, the Supreme Court decision drastically reduced the 
deductibility of items in connection with a home/office kind of 
business.
  If one was a plumber or electrician or an accountant and operated out 
of home, they would lose their deductibility because their clients 
would not have visited the home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  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, not to include any day the Senate is not in 
     session, inserting provisions to expand the deductibility 
     of expenses incurred in connection with the business use 
     of one's home, and to offset the resulting costs by 
     adjusting the corporate capital gains tax rate.

               motion to expand the home office deduction

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a motion that 
would benefit home-based small business owners. My motion would send 
the Senate reconciliation bill back to the Committee on Finance and 
would instruct the committee to insert language expanding the home 
office deduction. For a relatively small sum, to be offset by a 
modification to the corporate capital gains tax rate, Congress can 
remedy a 2-year-old court holding that interpreted a section of our Tax 
Code too narrowly.
  Under current law, a taxpayer may only obtain a home office deduction 
in one of the following ways: First, If the office is the principal 
place of business for a trade or business; second, if the office is a 
place of business used to meet with patients, clients, or customers in 
the normal course of the taxpayer's trade or business; or third, if the 
office is physically separate from the home. A 1993 Supreme Court 
holding interpreted the principal place of business too narrowly, thus 
effectively denying this deduction to taxpayers unless their offices 
were physically separate from their homes or unless their clients 
physically visited their offices.
  This court decision, and the IRS's subsequent application of it, have 
prevented taxpayers from obtaining a deduction Congress intended them 
to have. The Government should not be providing a disincentive to those 
persons who have made the decision to work at home, a decision that was 
most likely based upon economic constraints and family considerations.
  Women-owned businesses are being disproportionately hurt by this 
narrow interpretation of section 280A of our Tax Code. Women are more 
apt to work out of their homes than men and they should not be punished 
for choosing to work near their families. By voting for my motion, my 
colleagues will be sending a profamily message to their constituents.
  Expanding this deduction would also help workers who have been 
displaced by corporate downsizing to remain in the work force and avoid 
welfare by defraying some of their startup costs should they decide to 
go into business for themselves. My motion would also benefit the 
elderly and persons with physical disabilities who want to work but for 
whom commuting to traditional offices is simply too difficult.
  Mr. President, expanding the home office deduction was endorsed by 
the recently held White House Conference on Small Business, which had 
participants from every State. The Committee on Finance held a hearing 
on this matter in June and it has strong support in the small business 
community. Legislation was introduced earlier this year that would 
accomplish the same goal I am seeking today. I would ask unanimous 
consent that a letter written to the Majority Leader Dole by dozens of 
small business groups supporting this goal be inserted into the Record. 
I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my 
motion.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   April 11, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: The undersigned associations strongly 
     urge you to cosponsor S. 327, the Home Office Deduction Act. 
     The original sponsors of the bill are Senators Orrin G. 
     Hatch, Max Baucus, Charles E. Grassley, James J. Exon, Robert 
     J. Kerrey, Joseph I. Lieberman, Bennett J. Johnson, and John 
     H. Chafee.
       S. 327 will promote economic growth and help create 
     prosperity for the nation's work force. It is designed to 
     ameliorate the economic hardships caused by the 1993 U.S. 
     Supreme Court decision in the Commissioner v. Soliman case.
       Tens of thousands of persons stand to lose the home office 
     deduction as a result of the Soliman decision; particularly 
     if (a) these people visit customers outside the home and (b) 
     they generate revenues of the business outside the home. The 
     list of people potentially losing the deduction includes 
     independent sales persons, plumbers, electricians, remodeling 
     contractors, home builders, veterinarians, travel agents and 
     others. The bill would put home-based businesses like these 
     on a more equal footing with other businesses.
       S. 327 is an excellent response to the current spate of 
     corporate downsizings which have resulted in the layoffs of 
     tens of thousands of workers. They, like many other people, 
     are now attempting to live the American dream by starting 
     businesses out of their homes.
       The bill shows a clear appreciation for the convenience 
     offered American families by home-based businesses. A home-
     based business provides a spouse (including a single parent) 
     the emotional benefits of taking care of his or her children 
     at home while earning money at the same time. S. 327 also 
     takes into account modern telecommunications equipment (such 
     as personal computers, facsimile machines, and modems) which 
     can make home-based business technologically competitive with 
     any commercially leased space.
       Thank you for considering cosponsoring S. 327. If you would 
     like to cosponsor the bill, please call West Coulam (4-0134) 
     of Senator Hatch's office.
           Sincerely,
       Alliance for Affordable Health Care.
       Alliance of Independent Store Owners and Professionals.
       American Animal Hospital Association.
       American Association of Home-Based Businesses.
       American Society of Media Photographers.
       American Society of Travel Agents.
       American Veterinary Medical Association.
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.
       Bureau of Wholesale Sales Representatives.
       Communicating for Agriculture.
       Communicating for Health Consumers.
       Council of Fleet Specialists.
       Direct Selling Association.
       Family Research Council.
       Home Office & Business Opportunities Association of 
     California
       Illinois Women's Economic Development Summit.
       National Association for the Cottage Industry.
       National Association for the Self-Employed.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Association of Private Enterprise.
       National Association of the Remodeling Industry.
       National Association of Women Business Owners.
       National Electrical Manufacturers Representative 
     Association.
       National Federation of Independent Business.
       National Small Business United.
       National Society of Public Accountants.
       Promotional Products Association International.
       Retail Bakers of America.
       Small Business Legislative Council. 

[[Page S 16033]]

       SMC--``The Voice of Small Business.''
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this would increase corporate tax rates 
from 28 to 32 percent in order to expand the deduction of home business 
expenses, and I believe it adds new language to the bill by way of the 
home-business expenses.
  Therefore, it is subject to a point of order on germaneness. I raise 
that point under the Budget Act.
  Mr. EXON. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I 
move to waive the sections of that Act for the consideration of the 
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to 
waive the Budget Act.
  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 (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote? The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 39, nays 
60, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 550 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

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

                                NAYS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     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
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). On this vote, the yeas are 39, 
the nays are 60. 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 motion falls.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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.


                           Amendment No. 3035

 (Purpose: To delay for 2 years the repeal of the 50-percent interest 
             exclusion for employee stock ownership plans)

  Mr. EXON. The next amendment I have is an ESOP amendment that will be 
offered by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon]. I yield him the 30 
seconds of our time for however he wishes to use it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment in behalf of Senator 
Stevens, Senator Breaux, and myself. The employee stock option plan----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself, Mr. 
     Stevens, and Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 3035.

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

       On page 1771, line 25, strike ``1995'' and insert ``1997''.
       On page 1772, line 3, strike ``1995'' and insert ``1997''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer this in behalf of Senator Stevens, 
Senator Breaux, and myself. Our former colleague, Russell Long, helped 
to develop the employee stock option plan. Even the Chamber of Commerce 
says when it is enacted in companies, it increases productivity 3 to 17 
percent.
  What this bill does, without my amendment, it starts to strangle the 
ESOP's. CBO says it will cost $27 million. Let me just add----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SIMON. Not a single hearing has been had on this. This would just 
delay the date 2 years.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong 
supporter of Senator Simon's amendment to strike a provision ending 
favorable consideration for banks providing loans to employee stock 
ownership plans.
  This provision, known as section 133, was originally put in place by 
Senator Long, when he was the honorable chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee. It allows banks making loans for the establishment of 
employee stock ownership plans [ESOP's] to deduct half of the interest 
received from that loan from income. In practice, this provision has 
lowered the costs of establishing an ESOP, and thus expanded employee 
ownership. It is estimated that about 50 ESOP's are established in this 
manner each year.
  Mr. President, I support the current provision because I support 
employee ownership. In a time when corporations are enjoying soaring 
profits and wages remain stagnant, employee ownership gives workers a 
means to share in the profits of their labor. In cases in which 
employee ownership is significant and in which voting rights are 
extended to employee owners, as required by section 133, it also can 
give workers an important voice in corporate decisions.
  Beyond helping individual workers, there is significant evidence that 
employee ownership enhances the competitiveness of corporations. 
Several studies, including a 1995 study by Douglas Kruse of Rutgers 
University, have established a positive link between employee ownership 
and corporate performance. It is no surprise that workers are more 
productive when they own the fruits of that productivity. In a global 
economy, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to encourage 
corporations to be more competitive?
  Beyond these substantive policy reasons for striking the anti-ESOP 
provision in this legislation, I believe that there are budgetary 
reasons for striking this language. Most notably, it is my 
understanding that the revenue estimates attached to this provision are 
grossly overstated. No hearings have been held on the provision or its 
revenue effects, and the ESOP Association has done an analysis showing 
the anticipated revenue is extremely unrealistic. I ask that a copy of 
that analysis be included at the conclusion of my remarks.

  In summary, Mr. President, I believe that the provision in the 
legislation before disallowing the preferential tax treatment of ESOP 
loans is bad policy, and I urge support of Senator Simon's amendment to 
strike it.
  There being no objection, this material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         The ESOP Association,

                                 Washington, DC, October 17, 1995.
     To: Tax Staff of the U.S. Senate.
     From: The ESOP Association.
     Re: Incredible Revenue Estimate on Repeal of ESOP Provision.
       The revenue estimate for the proposed repeal of the ESOP 
     tax provision known as the ESOP lenders interest exclusion 
     (Code Section 133) is unbelievable for each year estimated.
       Fact, the average ESOP leveraged transaction, where 
     borrowed money is used to acquire stock for employee owners, 
     is at most, $5 million per transaction.
       Fact, at the highest, only 50 transactions a year since 
     January 1, 1990, have used the tax incentive that is proposed 
     to be repealed.
       Fact, 50 times 5 equals 250. If the interest rate on the 
     $250 million in ESOP loans is 10%, the interest paid on these 
     loans is $25 million per year. The lender may exclude $12.5 
     million of this interest from its income tax. The revenue 
     loss to the Treasury is $3.5 million per year.
       The revenue estimates that in the year FY '99, for example, 
     that the revenue loss is $149 million is ridiculous. To reach 
     this level of revenue loss, the amount of 50% plus ESOP 
     transactions would be $8.6 billion per year! Never, ever, has 
     the value of ESOP transactions where employees acquired 50% 
     or more, and use borrowed money, come close to this level.
       The ESOP community in its wildest dreams would wish that 
     there were that 

[[Page S 16034]]
     many 50% plus ESOP transactions a year to justify such an estimate. 
     Sadly for America there is not.
       The ESOP Association knows how many transactions a year 
     there are. Obviously those wishing to damage employee 
     ownership are not informed as to the facts.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this amendment would lose $500 million over 
7 years. It would chip away at the deficit reduction package of 
corporate welfare reforms and loophole closures. This is a big, big 
ESOP loophole.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Whatever time we have we release.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 551 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3035) 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.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have now had 34 amendments considered 
today. And I have an amendment. I am going to ask I be permitted to 
yield to the Senator from West Virginia, and that he may proceed for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from West Virginia is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader.
  May we have order in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. Senators 
will take their conversations to the Cloakroom.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 31 years ago the Senate, on June 16, 1964, 
broke the record for the number of rollcall votes cast in one calendar 
day by casting 34 rollcall votes. I should say that the record number 
of votes in any one legislative day was made in 1977, when the Senate 
debated the Natural Gas Deregulation Act. There were 38 rollcall votes 
cast on that legislative day, 26 before midnight, and 12 after 
midnight, so that there were parts of 2 calendar days included in one 
legislative day. That was 38 total votes on one legislative day.
  But for the record number of votes cast on any single calendar day, 
that occurred, as I say, on June 16, 1964. We are about to cast the 
35th rollcall vote to occur in one calendar day--a new record.
  Let me reminisce, if I just might, for a moment about that occasion.
  June 16th was 3 days before the final action occurred on the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. I filibustered against that bill. I spoke for 14 
hours and 13 minutes. I was the only non-Southern Democrat to vote 
against the bill. Alan Bible of Nevada and Carl Hayden and I were the 
only three Non-Southern Democrats to vote against cloture on June 10.
  Now, so that I might not impose on the time of the Senate, let me 
just read from Volume II of my history of the Senate.
  ``When the bill arrived from the House on February 26, 1964, it went 
directly to the Senate calendar.'' On March 9, Majority Leader Mike 
Mansfield moved to take up the bill, ``and the motion was debated until 
March 26''--therefore, the debate on the motion to proceed required 17 
days--``when the Senate voted, 67-17, for the motion [to proceed] . . . 
From March 26 [then, when the bill was first brought before the Senate, 
following the debate on the motion to proceed,] until cloture was 
invoked on June 10, the bill was before the Senate for a total of 77 
days--including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays--and was actually 
debated for 57 days, 6 of which were Saturdays. Still, the bill was not 
passed until 9 days after cloture was voted. Hence, 103 days had passed 
between March 9, the day that the motion was first made to proceed to 
take up the bill, ``and final passage on June 19.''
  That was a very historic occasion. The vote on cloture occurred on 
June 10, which was the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's 
nomination for a second presidential term. The 34 rollcall votes 
occurred on June 16, and the bill passed on June 19 by a vote of 73 to 
27.

  Mr. President, this is another historic occasion today. We are about 
to cast 35 rollcall votes, which will, of course, set a new record, the 
first such new record in 31 years.
  I wish we would pause just a moment and think about the contrast 
between the bill that was before the Senate then and the bill that is 
before the Senate now--not the subject matter at this point, but the 
procedural aspects.
  On that occasion, we had one bill which was before the Senate. There 
had been hearings on that bill. There had been 17 days of debate on a 
motion to proceed to take the bill up. There had been 57 days of actual 
debate, including Saturdays. There had been scores of amendments 
offered thereon and cloture was finally invoked. And then more 
amendments were called up and additional votes occurred.
  Think of the time that it took the Senate to dispose of that bill: 
103 days. It was a historic bill. I voted against it, to my regret 
today. I have said that many times. But here we have a bill that has 
been before the Senate now 2 days--3 days; only 3 days--and we are 
limited to 20 hours on this bill--20 hours.
  On that bill in 1964, we had 103 days; on this bill the limit is 20 
hours and only 2 hours on an amendment, and the motion to proceed to 
this bill was non-debatable. But we are down to the point now where we 
have only 30 seconds to the side for debate on an amendment--30 seconds 
for debate. I am not criticizing either party or anybody in either 
party, in saying this. I am just concerned and discouraged by what we 
have seen taking place here in the Senate on this bill.
  It is a historic bill also, but we have gone from 103 days on a 
massive bill--one bill--to 20 hours on what consists of a number of 
bills, not just one bill. No hearings. No hearings on this bill. There 
were hearings by committees on parts of it, but no single committee had 
hearings on the whole bill, 1,949 pages.
  I am concerned with what we are doing to the Senate, what we are 
doing to the legislative process. We are inhibited from calling up 
amendments. We have had a very insufficient time for debate on this 
massive, comprehensive bill, a bill that may be even more far-reaching 
in some respects than was the civil rights bill of 1964.
  I hope that we will, in the coming days and weeks and next year, 
consider revising the reconciliation process, that part of the 
legislative process 

[[Page S 16035]]
dealing with the Budget Act. I was here when we adopted the Budget Act 
of 1974. I never comprehended, never could I have imagined that the 
reconciliation process would have been used as it is being used here, a 
reconciliation process in which we bring several bills into one massive 
bill, on which the time for debate is severely restricted. Cloture is 
nothing as compared with the time limitation on the reconciliation 
bill. Cloture is but a speck on the distant horizon as compared with 
this bear trap.
  It is most unfortunate. I do not think it is in the best interests of 
the institution. I do not think it is in the best interests of the 
legislative process. I do not think it is in the best interests of the 
American people, because we Senators do not know--to a very 
considerable degree--what we are voting for. There is not a Senator in 
this body--not one--who knows everything that is in this bill. Not one. 
And so that is the situation we are in. It troubles me.
  I thank the distinguished majority leader for asking that I be 
recognized for 10 minutes. It is a special honor for me to be able to 
offer the amendment on which the record will be broken. I regret that 
we had to break the record in a situation such as I have described, but 
it is an honor to me. This is a historic occasion. I lived on that 
occasion--Senator Thurmond, Senator Pell, Senator Kennedy, Senator 
Inouye, and I are the only Senators who were here when the 1964 record 
vote was cast.
  I say to the leader, may I proceed with my amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I hope Senators will now provide the second historic 
occasion that will take place today. [Laughter.]


                           Amendment No. 2974

   (Purpose: To strike the provisions in title XII reducing revenues)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Simon, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Robb, and 
     Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 2974.

       On page 1469, strike beginning with line 1 and all that 
     follows through page 1650, line 9.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, How can we possibly tell the American people 
that the budget will be balanced in 2002, even if we carry out the 
provisions of this reconciliation measure? CBO's deficit estimates have 
been off the mark by an average of $45 billion per year since 1980.
  Yet, we are not only being asked to accept CBO's projections for 
seven years (as opposed to the usual five-year projections)--we are 
being asked to then take a so-called ``fiscal dividend'' that will 
occur if CBO's projections of a balanced budget turn out to be correct 
seven years down the road and to use that as the basis for enacting a 
huge $245 billion tax cut for the wealthy right now. Not later, after 
the budget is actually balanced, but now. Let us give Americans a tax 
cut now and promise them a balanced budget seven years from now. Why? 
Because it makes good politics. It fooled the American people in 1981. 
Why not do it to them again in 1995? If we are serious about balancing 
the budget, let us use the spending cuts that will occur this year and 
in the coming 7 years to cut the deficit and only to cut the deficit. 
The current drag race that is going on between the administration and 
the Republican Congressional leadership to see who can get to the tax 
cut finish line first with the most is discouraging and will, I fear 
ultimately result in a repeat of the failures of Reaganomics--a return 
to using the American people's credit card to pay for never ending 
deficits.
  There is no fiscal dividend with which to cut taxes. It is a hoax.
  I urge Senators to reject the hoax by voting for the pending 
amendment which eliminates the $245 billion tax cut from this bill and 
applies the moneys to the deficit.
  Mr. President, the amendment speaks for itself. It eliminates the tax 
cut in the bill and applies the savings that are projected--and we know 
how the projections have been in error so many times, and that is not 
to be critical of CBO--but it applies the savings to the deficit.
  I thank all Senators for listening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think everybody understands this 
amendment. It would strike all the tax cuts that were provided for 
children, those where we want to correct the marriage penalty and the 
like.
  Let me suggest rather than talk about that, I say to Senator Byrd, 
your speech was eloquent, and I thank you for it. But I must suggest 
that you were part of putting this together, and we thank you for it, 
because if you had not helped us put this kind of process together, we 
could never change the country.

  I guarantee you that if we did not have a reconciliation process, 
what we wanted to change would take 30 years. Any piece of this 
amendment could be subject to the exact same 69, 79, 89 days as that 
legislation, which the distinguished former majority leader brought to 
our attention. That is just too long to change things and turn things 
around.
  So once a year, we get an opportunity to proceed to change the 
country and vote on very large, significant, substantial changes under 
the privilege of a reconciliation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is true this is not the cleanest of 
processes, and I submit a clear reading of the Budget Act, which, 
again, the Senator from West Virginia had a very big hand in drawing, 
that clearly it was intended that when you put a budget of the United 
States together, that the U.S. Congress would not avail itself of 
delaying tactics to implement it. As a matter of fact, the implementing 
of it to make it reconcile with the budget is from whence the word 
``reconciliation'' comes.
  So maybe it is being used for too many things, and maybe it is too 
difficult, and perhaps we ought to fix that process a bit. But I 
guarantee you, if you do not find something to take its place and 
abolish it, you will not change America in important matters for year 
after year after year.
  I like the rules. But I think once a year you ought to comply with 
the budget of the United States and change the laws to change the 
country, to comply with the fiscal policy. That is why we are here. It 
is difficult. I am glad that I am chairman when we broke the record--I 
am not sure of that, although I am very pleased with the record. We won 
almost every vote and, for that, I thank the Republicans. I think they 
knew what they were voting about and for. Essentially, the truth of the 
matter is that we have no other way to get it done, as imperfect as it 
is. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the Byrd amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 552 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     
[[Page S 16036]]


                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2974) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
recognized for 15 seconds out of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. A little earlier I stated that Senator Thurmond and I were 
the only two Senators who voted on June 16, 1964, and I inadvertently 
overlooked Mr. Pell who was here, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Inouye. Those 
three Senators also were here on that record date.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, when the vote was announced on the last 
amendment, was that reconsidered and tabled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). It was.
  Mr. EXON. As near as I can tell, and I stand to be corrected if I am 
in error, we have three amendments and possibly one that I do not think 
will be offered.
  The three amendments upcoming are the Wellstone amendment, then the 
Exon amendment with regard to the violations of the Byrd rules, and 
then the Finance package. So I think we only have three with the 
possibility of one more.
  At this time, then, to move along, I suggest that we recognize the 
Senator from Minnesota, who has an amendment to offer. I yield him the 
30 seconds off of our bill.


                           Amendment No. 3036

 (Purpose: To strike the deep water regulatory relief provision for a 
 number of reasons, including: (1) although the provision is estimated 
to save $130 million over seven years, the Congressional Budget Office 
  estimates that the provision will cost the Treasury $550 million in 
  lost receipts over the next 25 years, leading to a net loss of $420 
 million; (2) the provision provides yet another unneeded subsidy for 
   the oil and gas industry, which was described by the Wall Street 
Journal on October 24, 1995 as experiencing a ``Gush of Profits'', and 
 by Business Week in the October 30, 1995 issue as benefiting from new 
technologies that cut the cost of deep-water drilling; and (3) a short-
  term savings of $130 million over seven years does not justify the 
            ultimate giveaway of $420 million over 25 years)

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3036.

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

       Strike sections 5930, 5931, and 5932.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment knocks out what is 
euphemistically called the deep water royalty relief. It in fact is 
probably the most brazen subsidy that goes to oil companies that are 
doing very well. So well, Mr. President, that in the House of 
Representatives, 261 Representatives voted against this--100 
Republicans.
  That is why it got put in reconciliation. That is why somehow it 
wound up in this reconciliation bill. It ought to be knocked out.
  This is not public interest. This is special interest. It is brazen. 
It is really a scandalous subsidy when we are asking all sorts of 
citizens to tighten their belt. I hope we will vote to knock this out.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield our time to Senator Johnston of Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, according to the Mineral Management 
Service, this provision which Senator Wellstone would seek to knock 
from this bill would produce 320 million barrels of oil in the central 
gulf which would otherwise not be produced.
  Need I remind my colleagues that the Mineral Management Service is 
part of the Department of the Interior. Bruce Babbitt, a Secretary who 
has never been known as being in the pocket of the oil companies--this 
is backed by Secretary Babbitt. It is backed by Secretary O'Leary.
  I ask unanimous consent that her letter backing this be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                 Washington, DC, October 19, 1995.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Natural 
         Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston: The Administration reiterates its 
     support for the title providing deepwater royalty relief to 
     the central and western Gulf of Mexico.
       In the energy policy plan, ``Sustainable Energy Strategy: 
     Clean and Secure Energy for a Competitive Economy'' in July 
     1995, the Administration outlined its overall energy policy 
     stressing the goals of increased energy productivity, 
     pollution prevention, and enhanced national security. To 
     achieve these goals, ``the Nation must make the most 
     efficient us of a diverse portfolio of domestic energy 
     resources that will allow us to meet our energy needs today, 
     tomorrow, and well into the 21st century. The Administration 
     continues to promote the economically beneficial and 
     environmentally sound expansion of domestic energy 
     resources.'' (page 33) In furtherance of this objective, 
     ``The Administration's policy is to improve the economics of 
     domestic oil production by reducing costs, in order to lessen 
     the impact on this industry of low and volatile oil prices.'' 
     (page 35) One of the ways indicated to lower these costs is, 
     ``providing appropriate tax and other fiscal incentives to 
     support our domestic energy resource industries.'' (page 34) 
     Finally, the ``Strategy'' specifically targets the 
     opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico.
       ``One of our best opportunities for adding large new oil 
     reserves can be found in the central and western Gulf of 
     Mexico, particularly in deeper water. Royalty relief can be a 
     key to timely access to this important resource. The 
     Administration supports targeted royalty relief to encourage 
     the production of domestic oil and natural gas resources in 
     deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. This step will help to 
     unlock the estimated 15 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in 
     the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, providing new energy supplies 
     for the future, spurring the development of new technologies, 
     and supporting thousands of jobs in the gas and oil 
     industries. (emphasis in original, page 36)''
       The royalty relief provision in S. 395 as adopted by the 
     conference committee is a targeted, deepwater royalty relief 
     provision that the Administration supports. For existing 
     leases, it targets relief for only those leases that would 
     not be economic to develop without the relief. For new 
     leases, the provision is targeted for a specific time period 
     for only a specific number of barrels of production, and 
     could be offset by increased bonus bids.
       The Minerals Management Service has estimated the revenue 
     impacts of new leasing under section 304 of S. 395. For lease 
     sales in the central and western Gulf of Mexico between 1996 
     and 2000, the deepwater royalty relief provisions would 
     result in increased bonuses of $485 million--$135 million in 
     additional bonuses on tracts that would have been leased 
     without relief; and $350 million in bonuses from tracts that 
     would not have been leased until after the year 2000, if at 
     all, without the relief. This translates to a present value 
     of $420 million, if the time value of money is taken into 
     account. However, the Treasury would forego an estimated $553 
     million in royalties that would otherwise have been collected 
     through the year 2018. But again taking into account the time 
     value of money, this offset in today's dollars is only $220 
     million. Comparing this loss with the gain from the bonus 
     bids on a net present value basis, the Federal government 
     would be ahead by $200 million.
       It is important to note that affected OCS projects would 
     still pay a substantial upfront bonus and then be required to 
     pay a royalty when and if production exceeds their royalty-
     free period. A royalty-free period, such as that proposed in 
     S. 395, would help enable marginally viable OCS projects to 
     be developed, thus providing additional energy, jobs, and 
     other important benefits to the nation.
       In contrast, in the absence of thorough reform of the 1872 
     Mining Law, hard rock mining projects on Federal lands can be 
     initiated without paying a substantial bonus and are never 
     required to pay a royalty on the resources developed. The end 
     result is that the public is denied its fair share of the 
     benefits from the resources developed.
       The ability to lower costs of domestic production in the 
     central and western Gulf of Mexico by providing appropriate 
     fiscal incentives will lead to an expansion of domestic 
     energy resources, enhance national security, and reduce the 
     deficit. Therefore, the Administration supports the deepwater 
     royalty relief provision of S. 395.

[[Page S 16037]]

       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that it has 
     no objection to the presentation of these views from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
     Hazel R. O'Leary.
                                                                    ____


                                   REVENUE IMPACT OF DEEP WATER ROYALTY RELIEF                                  
                                     MMS estimates--(In millions of dollars)                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Nominal dollars          Present value       Interest
                                                      ------------------------------------------------  saved by
                                                                                                        retiring
                                                        Increased   Foregone      Bonus     Foregone   $200 mil.
                                                          bonus     royalties   revenues    royalties   of debt 
                                                        revenues                                        by 2000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................................          97  ..........          97  ..........  .........
1997.................................................          97  ..........          90  ..........  .........
1998.................................................          97  ..........          83  ..........  .........
1999.................................................          97  ..........          77  ..........  .........
2000.................................................          97  ..........          71  ..........  .........
2001.................................................  ..........       (2.4)  ..........       (1.6)         16
2002.................................................  ..........       (7.1)  ..........       (4.5)         17
2003.................................................  ..........      (16.4)  ..........       (9.6)         19
2004.................................................  ..........      (29.6)  ..........      (16.0)         20
2005.................................................  ..........      (44.4)  ..........      (22.2)         22
2006.................................................  ..........      (57.4)  ..........      (26.6)         24
2007.................................................  ..........      (65.7)  ..........      (28.2)         25
2008.................................................  ..........      (67.2)  ..........      (26.7)         27
2009.................................................  ..........      (62.6)  ..........      (23.0)         30
2010.................................................  ..........      (54.8)  ..........      (18.7)         32
2011.................................................  ..........      (44.1)  ..........      (13.9)         35
2012.................................................  ..........      (34.9)  ..........      (10.2)         37
2013.................................................  ..........      (25.8)  ..........       (7.0)         40
2014.................................................  ..........      (18.5)  ..........       (4.6)         44
2015.................................................  ..........      (11.5)  ..........       (2.7)         47
2016.................................................  ..........       (6.7)  ..........       (1.4)         51
2017.................................................  ..........       (2.9)  ..........       (0.6)         55
2018.................................................  ..........       (1.3)  ..........       (0.2)         59
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................................         485       (553)         418       (218)        599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Present Value: 8% discount rate.
       The present value of a stream of revenues is the amount of 
     current dollars that would have to be invested in a risk-free 
     asset in order to end up with the same stream of dollars in 
     future years. If the government were to invest $218 million 
     in T-bonds, it could draw down the investment each year 
     between 2001 and 2018 to offset the foregone royalties in 
     that year. The government would still have $200 million left 
     for deficit reduction in the five-year budget. (This is 
     comparable to an individual planning for reduced income in 
     retirement by investing in an annuity to replace the lost 
     income in the future.)
       To analyze fully the impact on the Treasury over 25 years, 
     the impact of reducing the debt by $200 million has to be 
     included. By the year 2018, the taxpayers would be ahead by 
     an additional $599 million, the amount of interest that would 
     not have to be paid to finance $200 million of debt from 2000 
     to 2018.
       If you have any question, contact Shirley Neff.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. It raised $200 million for the Treasury, according to 
the Mineral Management Service, which that report shows. It is 
supported by the administration.
  It is necessary to meet our target, and it came out of the Energy 
Committee by 17 to 2.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane to 
the provisions of the reconciliation. I raise a point of order against 
it pursuant to the Budget Act.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act, I move to waive the section of that Act for the 
consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays 
on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Yeas and nays were ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted-- yeas 28, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 553 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--71

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 28, the nays are 71. 
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 
well taken and the amendment fails.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are still examining the different items 
of the package, the so-called Byrd-Exon package on the Byrd rule.
  I wonder if we might proceed on the Finance Committee amendment. 
Senator Roth I think is prepared to proceed on that amendment. We would 
be prepared to enter into some lengthier time agreement than the 10 
minutes we were allotted under yesterday's unanimous-consent agreement. 
We would like to keep it as tight as possible, but we understand the 
Senator from Florida in particular wanted some additional time.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I have consulted with a number of our colleagues, and I 
think that a half-hour on either side might accommodate the needs of 
Senators interested in participating in debate on the Roth amendment if 
that would accord with the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Half-hour on each side.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Half-hour on each side.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent there be an hour equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to an hour equally divided?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 3037

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I had been trying to clear a correcting 
amendment to the D'Amato amendment that had heretofore been adopted. I 
understand it has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. EXON. It has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     D'Amato, proposes an amendment numbered 3037.

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

       On page 187, line 3, and on page 187, line 22, strike ``5'' 
     and insert ``10.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield back any time I have on the 
amendment.
  Mr. EXON. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Is there objection to the amendment? Without objection, the amendment 
is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 3037) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, buried in this gigantic reconciliation bill 
is a provision, Section 12874, that would amend a carefully wrought 
bipartisan measure enacted in 1992 to protect the health benefits 
promised to retired coal miners and their dependents. This provision 
would jeopardize these health benefits and put the 92,000 retired 
miners and their dependents at risk. I understand this provision was 
added at the last minute and is a modification of a bill, S. 878, which 
has not been the subject of hearings by the Finance Committee. Hiding 
this provision, that has not received careful review or consideration, 
in a 1,949-page bill is an outrage.
  Section 12874 represents a major policy change that would overturn 
existing statute and case law in order to provide a two-year tax break 
to a select group of coal companies at the expense of other coal 
companies. In so 

[[Page S 16038]]
doing, this provision would not only change a major provision of the 
Coal Act of 1992, it would also overturn dozens of district and Federal 
court decisions.
  Under the 1992 Coal Act and case law, companies are required to pay 
health insurance premiums for their former workers, with whom they 
contractually committed to pay lifetime health benefits. Section 12874 
would relieve certain coal companies from this commitment by allowing 
them to forego these premiums for 2 years.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), over the 7-year 
period, 1996-2002, this provision would produce a net increase of only 
$8 million.
  In light of the fact that Section 12874 represents a major policy 
change, which would overturn existing statutory and case law, while 
having a minor budgetary impact of only $8 million over 7 years, it is 
clearly a violation of section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, which reads as follows:

       A provision shall be considered extraneous if it produces 
     changes in outlays or revenues which are merely incidental to 
     the non-budgetary components of the provision;.

  Therefore, it is my view that Section 12874 should be stricken from 
the reconciliation bill as being in violation of the Byrd Rule.
  In addition to the blatant violation of the Byrd rule, Mr. President, 
this provision is just bad policy.
  The 1992 Coal Act was enacted to save the health benefits of over 
120,000 miners and their dependents. The situation which led to the 
need for enactment of the Coal Act was the impending crisis resulting 
from the dwindling number of coal companies left to pay for the health 
benefits promised to coal miners and their dependents. This situation 
put miners' health benefits in jeopardy. The Coal Act averted this 
crisis by requiring companies to pay the health benefit premiums of 
their former employees, and further solidified the promises made to the 
miners that they would keep their lifetime health benefits.

  Miners' health benefits have a unique history in that the federal 
government has played a role since the coal strike of 1946. Over the 
years, miners gave up increases in wages and pensions and in return 
were promised lifetime health benefits by the coal companies. Health 
benefits are important to coal miners. The coal miner lives 
dangerously, working in cramped, hazardous conditions. The brutal 
nature of mine work and the risks to miners' health that go hand in 
hand with this labor make good health benefits extremely important to 
miners.
  The provision included in the Reconciliation legislation would, for 
two years, provide relief to reachback companies, those companies that 
were not signatories to the 1988 National Bituminous Coal Wage 
Agreement, by reducing the premiums they are required to pay to the 
Combined Fund if it is calculated that the Fund has a surplus. The 
calculation of a surplus would be done on the cash method of 
accounting, not the accrual method, and the surplus would be reduced by 
10 percent of benefits and administrative costs. Requiring the 
calculation of a surplus using the cash method of accounting is unwise, 
could lead to a misleading statement of surplus, and is not the 
standard practice with regard to health plans. Further, the provision 
provides that if a shortfall in the Fund occurs, all companies' 
premiums would be increased, even though only a specific group of 
companies would get relief.
  The financial status of the Combined Fund is precarious. Guy King, 
the former chief actuary for the Health Care Financing Administration, 
in an analysis of the Combined Fund, suggests that all of the net 
assets in the Fund will be necessary to pay benefits for the next ten 
years. The annual growth in the premium rates will be insufficient to 
cover the anticipated rate of increase in expenses of the Fund; 
therefore, the surplus in the Fund is necessary for the Fund to remain 
solvent in the years ahead. It is patently absurd to absolve certain 
companies, who can clearly afford to keep their promises, of 
responsibility for their former employees and, thus, jeopardize the 
financial status of the Fund. Given the uncertainty surrounding the 
Combined Fund, I must adamantly oppose this provision to relieve 
certain companies of their responsibility to their former employees.
  Section 12874 is a violation of the Byrd rule because the savings 
attributed to the provision are solely incidental to the goal of policy 
change. In addition, this provision does not adequately safeguard the 
financial status of the Combined Fund, and would jeopardize the health 
benefits of 92,000 retired miners and widows, including approximately 
27,000 who live in West Virginia. I hope that the Senate will vote to 
remove this ill-advised provision from the Reconciliation legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  There will be 30 minutes on a side. The Chair asks the Senate to be 
in order.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator desire on 
the amendment? We have 30 minutes on our side.
  Mr. ROTH. Five minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Roth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Will the Senate please be in order.


                           Amendment No. 3038

(Purpose: To make various changes in the spending control provisions in 
     the matter under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance)

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  It is very difficult for the Chair to hear even. If the staff does 
not stay quiet, we will order that the staff be removed.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Parliamentary inquiry. Are we about to debate the 
Finance Committee amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. And how much time is there on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 hour equally divided.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if we could get the people who are speaking on 
it to tell us whether they are going use the entire hour or not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not think that is a 
parliamentary inquiry. I do not think that is within the province of 
the Chair, to demand in advance whether time will be used.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Would I be within my rights to ask the distinguished 
chairman of the Finance Committee how much time he intends to take?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Will the Senator from Nebraska yield for a question? The Senator from 
Arkansas has a question.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The question is, how much time does the Senator from 
Nebraska intend to use, if he knows?
  Mr. EXON. Is the Senator asking about the half-hour time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. EXON. I will try to allocate the time as best I can.
  I just have had a brief meeting with the Senator from Florida, who 
said he would wish to begin debate. He asked for more time. I said I 
will have to be a tough traffic cop. We have a half an hour. I have 
agreed to give 10 minutes to the Senator from Florida. I will allot the 
rest of the time as we can. Anybody who wishes to speak on this, I wish 
they would come over and visit with me about it, and I will try to 
accommodate as many Senators as possible.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am not asking for time. I am curious whether or not we 
are going to be here for another hour before we vote.
  Mr. EXON. There will be at least another hour before we vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3038.

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

[[Page S 16039]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this amendment includes modifications in 
Medicare and Medicaid. The first change in the Medicare provisions 
establishes a fully prospective payment system for skilled nursing 
facilities within 2 years.
  Now, until this new skilled nursing home prospective system is 
implemented, the amendment changes how Medicare will pay nursing homes 
for nonroutine services. The change establishes payments based on each 
nursing home's cost in 1994 with an inflation adjustment.
  The second change in the Medicare provisions is a slower phase-in for 
changes in Medicare's indirect medical education payments to teaching 
hospitals.
  Mr. President, this amendment also makes several modifications to the 
Medicaid provisions in the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator suspend?
  Would the Senators take their conversations off the floor, please?
  Mr. ROTH. The----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend? The Chair will start 
naming names. Please take the conversations off the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. That is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. The first modification would modify the Federal quality 
standards for nursing homes under Medicaid. We have worked with Senator 
Cohen on this modification, and he is supportive of these changes. The 
modification would reduce the costly and duplicate requirement that 
States perform preadmission screening and annual resident review. In 
addition, a modification to the nurse aide training requirements would 
make it easier to train nurse aides in rural areas.
  The amendment would allow States with equal or stricter nursing home 
standards to seek a waiver from the Secretary of HHS to use the State 
standards in lieu of the Federal standards. However, the Secretary of 
HHS would continue to enforce State compliance with the Federal 
standards. States not in compliance with the Federal standards would be 
assessed a penalty of up to 2 percent of their Federal Medicaid funds.
  Second, the amendment creates a Medicare-Medicaid integration 
demonstration project to permit Medicare and Medicaid funding to be 
combined to provide comprehensive services through integrated systems 
of care to elderly and disabled individuals who are eligible for both 
programs.
  Third, the amendment creates a separate set-aside for low-income 
Medicare beneficiaries. This set-aside would be in addition to the set-
asides already in the bill for pregnant women and children, the 
disabled and the elderly. Under this provision States would be required 
to spend a minimum amount on Medicare premiums for low-income Medicare 
beneficiaries. The amount States must spend must be at least 90 percent 
of the average percentage spent on Medicare premiums under Medicaid 
over fiscal years 1993 through 1995.
  Fourth, the amendment requires States to apply the same solvency 
standards for health plans under Medicaid as the States set for health 
plans in the private sector.
  And, fifth, the amendment modifies the distribution formula under the 
Medicaid program.
  Let me start by saying we have worked very hard to improve the 
Medicaid formula----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. To improve the Medicaid formula which was adopted by the 
Finance Committee. Under the modification, each State's base would be 
the higher of, first, fiscal year 1995 spending, minus all payments to 
disproportionate share hospitals; second, fiscal year 1994 spending, 
including all disproportionate share hospital payments, plus 3.4 
percent; or, third, 95 percent of fiscal year 1993 spending minus all 
disproportionate share hospital payments.
  Each State's funding would increase by 9 percent for fiscal year 
1996. And beginning in fiscal year 1997, each State's base would be 
increased by a growth rate determined by a formula subject to floors 
and ceilings. The ceilings have been modified by this amendment. We 
have tried to give more funds to the high-growth States by raising the 
growth ceilings in future years. States would be able to carry over a 
credit of unused Federal funds for 2 consecutive years on a rolling 
basis. And after 2 years, unused funds from the previous years would 
begin to go into a redistribution pool. States can apply for additional 
funds from this redistribution pool.
  Finally, the amendment strikes section 2116 of the bill limiting 
causes of action under Federal law.
  Finally, the provisions in this amendment are paid for by adopting 
the 2.6 percent cost-of-living adjustment recently----
  Thirty seconds?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Fine.
  Mr. ROTH. Recently announced by the administration for 1996 for 
programs under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction that are updated by 
the CPI-W. The CBO baseline assumes the CPI-W would be 3.1 percent.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. President, could I seek 1 minute from the manager?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I rise in support of this landmark Medicare reform 
provision, S. 1357, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. For 
the first time in the 30-year history of the Medicare program, Congress 
is preparing to give the Nation's 38 million elderly and disabled 
Medicare beneficiaries the opportunity to play a greater role in the 
design of their health benefits. That opportunity is the Medicare 
Choice program.
  Largely because of its status as a government program, Medicare has 
fallen behind the times. When it was established in 1965, Medicare was 
based on the prevailing private sector indemnity health insurance 
plan--what we have come to know as fee-for-service.
  For the first 15 years or so, there was little change in the 
utilization of American health care, but beginning in the late 1970's, 
health care price inflation began to skyrocket. Within a decade, 
American employers were staggering under the weight of rising health 
care costs. It is important to remember, as well, that by far, health 
care costs were fully carried by employers.
  By the early 1980's we began to see the advent of managed care. 
Basically, the American business community demanded a more affordable 
health insurance product, and the insurance industry responded. The 
best company plans were and remain those which were able to offer a 
choice of coverage to their employees, not unlike the manner in which 
the Federal Government does today in the Federal Employee Health 
Benefit Plan (FEHBP).
  Meanwhile, in 1983, the Medicare Program also abandoned traditional 
cost-based reimbursement and replaced it with what we have come to know 
as the prospective payment system. The Health Care Financing 
Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services devised a 
special payment for every medical procedure in advance and, in general, 
that was all Medicare would pay. It was and is the biggest and most 
expensive health care regulatory system in America.
  The problem we face today is that Medicare is going broke. The pre-
set payments we put into place in 1983 were based on a measure of 
private health care costs which have continued to rise at a rate beyond 
any other sector of the economy. Furthermore, Americans are getting 
older--more beneficiaries with fewer and fewer workers paying the FICA 
taxes that maintain the Hospitalization Insurance [HI] trust fund.
  The combination of these conditions, together with the never dreamed 
of costs of medical high technology, have worked to undermine the 
financial strength of Medicare. The major hospitalization fund goes 
into deficit in just a very few years, and is projected to use up 
whatever surplus we have accumulated by the year 2002.
  So what should be our policy? The first priority is to secure the 
future of 

[[Page S 16040]]
the program for the beneficiaries. Medicare will have more demands upon 
it than ever before when the baby boom generation begins retiring 
around the year 2010. Our plan is to limit or cap the built-in 
automatic growth of the program which, as I mentioned, has been based 
on medical price inflation and is one of the principal contributing 
factors to approaching insolvency. Rather than letting the program 
grow, as it would, at a rate of 10 to 16 percent per year, we will hold 
the line at an average of 6.2 percent. I repeat, the program will grow 
by an average rate of 6.2 percent a year.
  This translates into some important numbers that Medicare 
beneficiaries need to know. In 1995, Federal spending on Medicare will 
reach $157.7 billion. By the year 2002, the program will have grown by 
52 percent to $239.6 billion. This equals for every beneficiary an 
annual increase in the value of their benefit from $4,800 in 1995 to 
over $7,000 in 2002. This is growth, Mr. President, not cuts, and we 
should make every effort to make sure that our constituents fully 
understand.
  Our next priority has been to actually improve Medicare benefits, and 
much, much work has gone in to determining our course. Should we pursue 
another top-down big government strategy as we did in 1983, or should 
we return to the roots of the program and follow the private sector.
  As I said before, the best private employers are able to offer their 
employees a variety of health care choices--choices which best suit the 
needs of their employees and their families. The Congress is now 
striving to do the same for Medicare, putting together an array of 
health insurance options second to none. Older and disabled Americans 
have earned their Medicare entitlement, and it is our responsibility to 
maintain and improve it in the best possible manner.
  Older people being what they are--and I am over 65 myself so I can 
say it--many are naturally reluctant to change. We therefore guarantee 
their No. 1 option to stay in the present system. Furthermore, we 
guarantee that their share of the principal expense of the program--the 
part B Premium--will be maintained at 31 percent of program costs. The 
U.S. Treasury pays for 69 percent of Medicare part B today, and it will 
as well in the year 2002.
  Medicare is not a bargain. Beneficiaries today are asked to pay for 
20 percent of doctor visits. The program does not pay for prescription 
drugs. Millions of beneficiaries have had to purchase medigap insurance 
at further costs to pay for what Medicare does not.
  We will offer a selection of managed care options which can be far 
more affordable for older Americans living on fixed incomes. These will 
be options for beneficiaries to study and discuss with their families 
to see if they would in fact present a better health care choice than 
the standard plan. Beneficiaries will be given an annual open season to 
join if they feel that it is right for them. All options will include, 
for a reasonable copayment, the right to see a favorite physician who 
might not be in their local plan.
  Perhaps the most innovative option will be access to newly available 
medical savings accounts [MSA's].
  In my State of Virginia, which has a reputation for fiscal 
conservatism, MSA's have prompted a great deal of interest and support 
by doctors and patients alike.
  Medicare would offer a catastrophic health insurance policy which, 
for example, would cover all costs over $3,000 per year. Remember that 
today, Medicare hospitalization begins to run out after 60 days in the 
hospital.
  The beneficiary would then be given an annual Medicare allotment, in 
this scenario, of $1,500 a year which they could use to directly pay 
for physician visits, prescription drugs or even new eyeglasses. There 
would be no redtape between the doctor and the patient, no burdensome 
insurance forms, no lengthy waits for reimbursement. Beneficiaries 
could even use a simple debit card to pay for care directly from their 
MSA.
  Moneys not utilized by the end of the year could be rolled over to 
the next, without tax consequences, or withdrawn as taxable income for 
personal use. The only possible out-of-pocket expense, as compared with 
the copayments and Medigap insurance used by current beneficiaries, 
would be that measure of $1,500 between the MSA and the catastrophic 
plan. If the beneficiary chooses to save his or her unused MSA funds, 
as many thrifty Americans will no doubt do, the $1,500 amount could 
easily be accumulated in the MSA in just a few years.
  While an MSA will not be suitable for everyone, I believe it can have 
a real impact on the medical marketplace and consumer choice. 
Beneficiaries can shop around for the best price, and providers will 
want their business. With the prospect of no Medicare redtape, I 
imagine that doctors will jump at the chance to care for MSA 
beneficiaries.
  Mr. President, we are veritably on the brink of a new day in 
Medicare. We hope to restore long-term solvency to the program by 
curtailing exorbitant growth, and open the door for beneficiaries to 
the modern health care marketplace. Millions of Medicare beneficiaries 
are already educated consumers, and it is my great hope that they will 
lead the way in demonstrating the value of Medicare choice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, to start out the debate, we will yield 5 
minutes to Senator Rockefeller. Following that, depending on the flow 
of business, I intend to, at my discretion, allow 5 minutes to Senator 
Pryor, 4 minutes to Senator Kennedy, 3 minutes to Senator Wellstone, 
and then the closing arguments will be made by Senator Graham from 
Florida.
  So, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Nebraska and the Presiding 
Officer.
  Mr. President, I find it noteworthy that sometime very recently all 
of a sudden we get 46 pages of actual legislative language, the 
manager's amendment. I guess we should be grateful for small deeds. The 
amendment magically comes up with about $10 billion. We believe there 
is a very good chance that comes from Social Security, which is most 
interesting, for more Medicare aid, more Medicaid money, parcels it out 
to various health care institutions, HMO's, et cetera.
  I think there are a number of reasons to reject this bill, which will 
be my recommendation. One, to protest what is underneath this 
amendment, a bill that will cut Medicare and Medicaid by unprecedented 
amounts of money. No last-minute amendments by the managers are going 
to soften the blow of this combination of Medicaid and Medicare cuts 
put together. It is a stunning--a stunning--cut.
  I think we have to question how all of a sudden this new money 
appeared. I suspect it came from Social Security. But we will hear more 
about that. HMO's, nursing homes, got money. Different people were 
accommodated. We had that process a little bit in the House, and it was 
not generally given very high marks.
  I find it, again, amazing that money is falling from the sky to 
satisfy different folks, and yet these are the same folks who said $270 
billion in cuts for Medicare, for example, was the only possible way to 
save Medicare.
  So before yielding to three other Senators, I will say, where did all 
this money come from, and is it from Social Security, for example? Or 
is it from some other place?
  There is a very bizarre formula for Medicaid in which I think the 
Republican States somehow end up doing much better than the Democratic 
States, but I may be wrong on that. Senator Graham will speak on that.
  Also, the amendment weakens the nursing home standards, a subject 
which is incredibly important to me. The Senator from Arkansas will 
speak on that subject.
  At this point, with the permission of the Senator from Nebraska, I 
suggest that we go to the Senator from Arkansas, if that is all right 
with the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not wish to use his time.
  Mr. EXON. Yes, I wish to use my time.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
  
[[Page S 16041]]

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager for 
recognizing me and allowing me a few moments.
  This morning, by a vote of 51 to 48, the U.S. Senate voted in a 
bipartisan way to restore the OBRA 1987 nursing home regulations. They 
have worked well. They have served residents well. They have served the 
taxpayers well, and I am strongly committed to achieving that end once 
again.
  Mr. President, with all due respect to the distinguished manager's 
amendment that we now have before the Senate, even though the 
distinguished manager says we are fixing or even improving upon current 
Federal nursing home standards, over the course of today I have been in 
contact with numerous consumer groups and nursing home reform advocates 
who are extremely critical of the language offered in the so-called 
manager's amendment.
  First, this so-called ``fix'' does not indicate in any way the length 
of time for which a State could operate under a waiver and opt out of 
the Federal standards. Would the waiver last for 1 month where there 
would be no Federal standards applying to a nursing home or to a State? 
Would the waiver be for 1 year or 2 years or 10 years? There is nothing 
in the amendment to address this issue. Basic question.
  Also, in the manager's amendment, there is absolutely no guidance 
whatsoever as to how the Director of HCFA or HHS would determine that a 
state's standards were sufficient to opt out of the Federal standards; 
there is no guidance whatsoever as to what the rules or the guidelines 
would be in granting making that determination.
  Also, Mr. President, there is a major flaw in this amendment, I say 
with all due respect. I am just wondering if the distinguished manager 
knows that under this particular proposal that unless the Federal 
Government revokes a State's waiver, it could take--I repeat this--the 
Federal Government could take no action whatsoever against an 
individual facility, no matter what was going on in a particular 
nursing home. No action whatsoever means that the Federal Government's 
hands are tied, notwithstanding the fact that we are appropriating 
billions and billions and billions of dollars for the safety and well-
keeping of the some 2 million nursing home residents out there in our 
country.
  The very worst facilities in America could be getting away with just 
about anything, and the Federal Government would have absolutely no 
power, no recourse, no opportunity to go in and correct the wrongs in a 
particular home, simply because the State would have a waiver from 
Federal regulations and all of the Federal involvement allowing it.
  Also--and finally, Mr. President--the Roth amendment provides a 120-
day period during which the Secretary must review a State's waiver 
proposal to make sure that it contains all the essential elements, 
which would be insufficient time to go out and investigate that State's 
nursing homes or a particular nursing home.
  This timeframe, 120 days, to decide whether or not a State could get 
a waiver, opt out of the programs, free of Federal regulations is going 
to be an impossible time to meet.
  Let me say once again that the regulations that we adopted on a 
bipartisan basis in 1987 have worked and they have worked well. I do 
not know of one Member on either side of the aisle who can argue 
against that. I am very hopeful that we will make certain that when 
this process is over, that we will have the very strongest standards, 
and I truly believe that those strongest standards were supported this 
morning by the vote of 51 to 48 for the so-called Pryor-Cohen amendment 
adopted by the U.S. Senate.
  I hope that will ultimately be the language that will be retained and 
that we will follow in the decades to come.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.
  On rollcall vote No. 553, I voted ``no.'' It was my intention to vote 
``aye.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to 
change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment purports to improve a very 
bad bill, but it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address the 
fundamental problem. This Republican program slashes Medicare and 
Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. It sacrifices working 
families, children and senior citizens on the altar of sweetheart deals 
and tax breaks for the powerful special interests.
  This amendment symbolizes what is worst about the 2,000 pages of the 
bill as a whole. Every time you turn one of those pages, something ugly 
scuttles out. Look at what is in the so-called perfecting amendment.
  It weakens the nursing home standards we adopted just this morning. 
This morning we restored the strong standards that are in current law 
and that the Republican bill would have repealed. This evening, our 
Republican colleagues are trying to water those standards down.
  The Medicaid formula changes are the last piece needed to put 
together a majority. Vote against seniors, vote against children, vote 
against families and, in return, we will rig the Medicaid formula so 
the disaster in your State is not quite as bad as in some other State. 
Like the underlying bill, this amendment was put together in the dark 
of night, and no wonder there is nothing to be proud of here.
  The issue is clear: Who stands for senior citizens; who stands for 
working families; who stands for children; and who stands for the 
special interests against the interests of the Americans who work so 
hard to support their families, educate their children and build this 
country?
  This amendment is a disgrace, and it does not deserve to be adopted. 
The underlying bill is an outrage. It deserves to be rejected by the 
Senate, vetoed by the President and condemned by the American people. 
Greed is not a family value.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the status of the time, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 21 minutes, 45 seconds; the 
minority has 19 minutes, 46 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator D'Amato. How much would 
Senator Cohen like? And 5 minutes to Senator Cohen, in that sequence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator D'Amato is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I want to commend the manager and all 
those who have helped us come so far on this historic occasion.
  Senator Domenici and Senator Roth have done an incredible job. I 
believe some of us have done a rather poor job of letting the American 
people know exactly what is in this package. If you listen to some of 
the demagoguery that we hear about ``greed'' and ``special interests,'' 
and ``tax breaks for the wealthy,'' you would not really know what is 
in this package.
  When I hear this business that ``they are weakening nursing home 
standards,'' that is nonsense. Bull. I want to know how we can weaken 
nursing home standards when you must meet the Federal levels that you 
have today. You must have at least that or better. If that is not 
demagoguery, I do not know what is.
  It is out and out fear and deception that is being practiced. When 90 
percent of the tax cuts go to families earning under $100,000, I defy 
you to tell me that that is going to the wealthy. Let me be a little 
more particular: $141 billion in tax cuts goes to families that have 
children. Those families have to earn under $110,000. The bulk of that 
goes to families in the $50,000 to $60,000 range. Now, let us stop the 
nonsense about greed and wealthy people. That is working middle-class 
families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield another minute to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. We are attempting to keep the promise that was broken by 
the President of the United States when he said, ``We are going to give 
tax cuts to the middle class.'' Then he went and raised those taxes. 
And now 

[[Page S 16042]]
he says, ``Well, maybe I made a mistake.''
  Well, he did make a mistake. We are returning IRA's to working 
middle-class families. And we are doing something about the marriage 
penalty. We always complained about that. There has not been anybody 
here on the floor who has run and did not say we need to do something 
about the marriage penalty. That is $12 billion in relief--a move in 
the right direction. And in student loans, a billion dollars to help 
pay for the interest.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill, and it deserves our support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to address 
some of the Medicare and Medicaid provisions of this budget 
reconciliation legislation.
  For the past few months, the debate on Medicare has been rife with 
partisan fingerpointing. Democrats accuse Republicans of ravaging 
Medicare, while Republicans counter with charges that the Democrats are 
failing to restore solvency to the program.
  But the simple fact is that the Medicare hospital trust fund is going 
broke, and spending for Medicare part B--the optional program that 
covers seniors' doctor bills--is increasing at an unsustainable rate. 
Reasonable minds may disagree on how to resolve the looming crisis. But 
we cannot take the easy route and pretend to senior citizens--or 
Medicare providers--that the crisis will go away if we simply look the 
other way.
  Changes in Medicare are crucial if it is to survive at all for 
current and future senior citizens. The Republican budget plan takes 
the tough steps necessary not only to restore solvency to the trust 
fund but also to prepare Medicare for the 21st century.
  The President and congressional Democrats claim that $90 or $100 
billion in savings will be sufficient to ``fix'' Medicare, and that the 
$270 billion in savings proposed in this bill cut too far and too deep.
  What the Democrats have proposed would certainly be more politically 
palatable. But their proposal falls far short of the reforms that will 
be necessary to prepare Medicare for the future.
  Guy King, the former chief actuary for the Health Care Financing 
Administration agrees with the Democrats that $90 billion will keep the 
trust fund solvent until 2006. But, by 2010, the year the baby boomers 
begin to retire, it will leave Medicare $309 billion in the red. It 
will be difficult enough to cope with this tidal wave of retirees when 
Medicare is solvent. It will be impossible if the program is over $300 
billion short.
  Under Republican budget, Medicare spending will continue to grow at 
an average annual rate of 6.2 percent over the next 7 years--less than 
the current 10 percent rate of growth, but still twice the rate of 
inflation. In fact, per beneficiary spending in Maine will increase by 
almost $2,000 over the next 7 years.
  Equally important to controlling growth, the proposal will give 
beneficiaries more choice. The ``Medicare Choice'' plan contained in 
the bill closely resembles the Federal Employee Health Benefit program. 
Each year, Medicare beneficiaries will be given information on a number 
of plans available in their areas. They will then be able to elect to 
remain in the traditional fee-for-service plan or they can choose from 
a variety of other insurance options, such as health maintenance 
organizations, physician and hospital sponsored networks, or medical 
savings accounts.
  The proposal does include, for the first time, an ``affluence test'' 
that would require the wealthiest beneficiaries to pay a fairer share 
of the costs of the Medicare program.
  Taxpayers currently subsidize about 70 percent of the costs of 
Medicare beneficiaries' part B premium cost. The Republican plan phases 
out these taxpayer subsidies for upper-income retirees and eliminates 
them completely for individuals with incomes over $100,000 and couples 
over $175,000.
  I believe that this is fair. There is no good reason why a working 
family with an income of $40,000 should be subsidizing wealthy retirees 
earning more than four times as much. Further, the vast majority of 
Medicare beneficiaries will be unaffected by the change--about 98 
percent of all Maine Medicare beneficiaries have an income below the 
``affluence test'' threshold.
  I am very pleased that this budget bill includes tough anti-fraud 
legislation that I introduced earlier this year to help rid Medicare of 
the fraud and abuse that robs the program of as much as $15 billion a 
year.
  Specifically, the proposal creates tough new criminal statutes to 
help prosecutors pursue health care fraud more swiftly and efficiently, 
increases fines and penaties for billing Medicare and Medicaid for 
unnecessary services, over billing, and for other frauds against these 
and all federal health care programs, and makes it easier to kick 
fraudulent providers out of the Medicare and Medicaid program, so they 
do not continue to rip off the system.

  More importantly, the bill establishes an anti-fraud and abuse 
program to coordinate Federal and State efforts against health care 
fraud, and substantially increases funding for investigative efforts, 
auditors, and prosecutors by flowing back a portion of fines and 
penalties collected from health care fraud efforts to law enforcement.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, these provisions will 
yield over $4 billion in scorable savings to Medicare--without costing 
a penny to senior citizens. I am convinced that the long-term savings 
are much greater, and that billions more will be saved once dishonest 
providers realize that we are cracking down on fraud, and that they can 
no longer get away with illegally padding their bills to pad their own 
pockets.
  The proposal also makes significant reforms in the Medicaid program. 
Like Medicare, Medicaid is one of our fastest growing entitlement 
programs. Over the past few years, Medicare spending has increased at 
an alarming rate. Between 1988 and 1993, program costs have more than 
doubled. From 1990 to 1992, Medicaid grew at an average annual rate of 
28 percent, while private health care and Medicare costs grew at less 
than one half that rate.
  The current growth in Medicaid spending clearly cannot be sustained 
by either Federal or State budgets. In Maine, 22 cents out of every 
dollar spent by the State goes to pay for Medicaid, and next year, it 
may be even more. We simply cannot sit back and watch the program 
consumer get bigger and bigger bites out of the taxpayer dollar each 
year.
  Under this budget plan, the growth in Federal Medicaid spending--
which is now just over 10 percent a year--would be limited to a 7.2 
percent growth rate in 1996, 6.8 percent in 1997, and 4 percent for the 
remaining 5 years. The plan achieves the necessary savings by 
converting Medicaid into a block grant which would guarantee only a 
lump sum payment to the States with very little in the way of strings.
  While I strongly support increased State flexibility with regard to 
Medicaid, I believe that some Federal standards should remain in place 
to help ensure quality and to maintain some protections for vulnerable 
populations. This is especially important given the fact that the 
Federal Government will be committing nearly $800 billion in Federal 
dollars over the next 7 years toward the Medicaid program.
  Therefore, I worked to ensure that guarantees of coverage for low-
income children, pregnant women and the disabled--including the 
disabled elderly--were included in the final package. I am pleased that 
the bill as amended by the Senate includes provisions to provide these 
minimum guarantees to our vulnerable citziens.
  I am also pleased that the final bill includes provisions that I and 
other moderate Republican Members authored, namely, a requirement that 
States continue to pay Medicare premiums for low-income Medicaid 
beneficiaries and requirements that States apply the same solvency 
requirements on Medicaid providers as on private sector plans.
  I am also pleased that this package provides has incorporated several 
of the provisions included in my legislation. The Private Long-Term 
Care Family Protection Act of 1995 to improve access to long-term care 
services. The legislation takes a big step forward in creating 
incentives for older Americans and their families to plan for future 
long-term care expenses and 

[[Page S 16043]]
removes tax barriers that stifle the private long-term care insurance 
market.
  As Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I know the 
obstacles many disabled older Americans and their families face paying 
for necessary long-term care. Despite heroic caregiving efforts by 
spouses, children and friends, many disabled Americans do not receive 
the appropriate medical and social services they desperately need. 
Families are literally torn apart or pushed to the brink of financial 
disaster due to the overwhelming costs of long-term care.
  While approximately 38 million people lack basic health insurance, 
almost every American family is exposed to the catastrophic costs of 
long-term care. In fact, less than 3 percent of all Americans have 
insurance to cover long term care.
  Sadly, many families are under the erroneous impression that their 
current insurance or Medicare will cover necessary long-term care 
expenses. It is only when a loved-one becomes disabled that they 
discover coverage is limited to acute medical care and that long 
nursing home stays and extended home care services must be paid for 
out-of-pocket.
  This bill encourages personal responsibility and makes it easier for 
individuals to plan for their future long-term care needs. It provides 
important tax incentives for the purchase of long-term care insurance 
and places consumer protections on long-term care insurance policies so 
quality products will be affordable and accessible to more Americans.
  A strong private long-term care market will not only give individuals 
greater financial security for their future, but will ease the 
financial burden on the Federal Government for years to come, as our 
population ages and more elderly persons need long-term care services.
  In addition to providing better access to long-term care services, 
this bill incorporates a demonstration project I introduced last year 
to explore ways to better integrate long-term care with the rest of the 
health care system. Today, many of the most expensive, chronically-ill 
elderly and disabled Americans are eligible for both Medicare and 
Medicaid services. While these programs may cover most of their 
necessary care, patients are often faced with a bias toward 
institutional care and a maze of complex and often incompatible 
policies and rules.
  The demonstration project included in this bill will allow up to 10 
States to pool Medicare and Medicaid dollars for the purpose of 
creating a more balanced and cost-effective acute and long-term care 
delivery system. These projects will help States develop ways to better 
manage the care of high cost beneficiaries and offer elderly and 
disabled Americans full integration of services, including case 
management, preventive care and interventions to avoid 
institutionalization whenever possible.
  I am also very pleased that this bill now maintains the tough Federal 
standards that are currently in place to protect elderly and disabled 
individuals living in nursing homes. Placing a parent, spouse, disabled 
child, or other loved one in a nursing home is one of the most 
agonizing decisions a family ever faces. Even once at peace with that 
decision, the nagging fear that a loved one may not receive adequate 
care, or may be abused or neglected in a nursing home, continues to 
haunt families nationwide. The continuation of OBRA '87 nursing home 
regulations is a major victory for today's two million nursing home 
residents, and tomorrow's growing elderly and disabled population.
  This week I chaired a hearing of the Senate Special Committee on 
Aging hearing to examine the need for strong Federal quality of care 
standards in nursing homes. The testimony from family members and 
expert witnesses convinced me more than ever that the Federal 
Government must continue a central role in monitoring and enforcing 
nursing home standards. Witnesses shared with me heart-wrenching 
stories of how their family members were overdrugged, placed in 
physical restraints, and left to sit in their own waste while in 
nursing homes. I was also handed a picture by a daughter of one nursing 
home patient that showed a bloody, oozing bed sore that I will not soon 
forget.

  The basis for this Federal nursing home standards law is simple, 
strong, and clear: that residents in nursing homes which receive 
Federal Medicare or Medicaid dollars should be treated with care and 
dignity. The law provides a framework through which facilities can help 
each resident reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, 
and general well-being. It also provides critical oversight and 
enforcement of nursing home standards, following years of evidence that 
the states simply did not make enforcement of nursing home standards a 
high priority.
  While the Finance Committee bill required that states include certain 
quality of care provisions in their Medigrant State plans, I had strong 
concerns that many of the important OBRA '87 provisions were eliminated 
that the bill lacked adequate Federal oversight and enforcement of 
nursing home standards.
  Over the past few days I have worked with the Republican leadership 
and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that 
this bill keeps intact the standards, enforcement and Federal oversight 
now contained in current law. No family member should have to lie awake 
at night worrying if their loved-ones are being abused or neglected in 
a nursing home. This bill gives nursing home residents and families 
peace of mind that their rights are protected and that the Federal 
Government will be ensuring States continue to enforce quality 
standards for nursing home care.
  The bill provides for states to receive waivers from the Federal 
nursing home reform law only in tightly crafted circumstances. 
Specifically, a State may apply for a waiver of standards only if its 
standards are equal to or more stringent than the Federal requirements. 
The amendment clearly indicates that no such waiver is allowed unless 
the Secretary approves the waiver, and only if each standard is equal 
to or more stringent than the Federal standard. Further, the provision 
specifies that waivers allowed under this section in no way waives or 
limits the Federal Government's enforcement of tough nursing home 
standards, patient protections, and other provisions of OBRA 87.
  Mr. President, while I believe that this package includes many 
important steps toward reforming Medicare and Medicaid, there are some 
elements of the proposals that I do not support.
  During the course of the debate on the bill, I have supported 
amendments and worked to incorporate provisions aimed at striking a 
more appropriate balance between Federal responsibility and State 
flexibility, and ensuring protections for our most vulnerable 
populations. This effort is far from complete and I will continue to 
work toward achieving the goals of deficit reduction and Medicare and 
Medicaid reform.
  Mr. President, let me address the issues raised by my colleague from 
Arkansas, since he and I have worked for many years in dealing with the 
nursing home reform. It was called OBRA 87, but it is basically the 
nursing home reform that we worked 15 to 17 years to get passed. We 
held a hearing this week in the Aging Committee in which we, once 
again, reaffirmed the need and saw the need to maintain strong Federal 
standards over nursing homes in our country--not only standards, but 
enforcement, oversight and enforcement procedures.
  This is not, as some might think, a last-minute attempt to weaken and 
dilute what was done this morning. I should tell my colleagues that I 
have been working for the past 3 or 4 days with the majority leader and 
his staff, anticipating that we would have a debate, understanding the 
House of Representatives wants no standards imposed. They want to turn 
it over to the States entirely.
  In anticipating that, I went to the majority leader saying, this is 
important to me, it is important to us, it is important to the country. 
We need to develop these standards and do it in a way that we can have 
broad, bipartisan support. So that has been something we have worked on 
for the past 3 days. In fact, we worked until last night midnight 
trying to work out the language.
  So I just want to assure my colleagues on the other side, this is not 
something that has been concocted in 

[[Page S 16044]]
the dark of the night in order to weaken what was done this morning. I 
supported strongly what was done this morning.
  This particular measure reaffirms the need to have OBRA 87 standards. 
We want the nursing home reform standards we passed in 1987. We finally 
started to get the civil monetary penalties imposed as of July of this 
year. We finally have some bite into those standards. I do not want to 
see those thrown overboard.
  I said to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that we need these 
standards. Let us reaffirm our support for them. Let us reinsert OBRA 
87, as such, and we can make some changes in some of the paperwork and 
the burdens that the nursing home industry has complained to us about.
  I think my colleague from Arkansas will agree that we have had these 
complaints. No law is perfect. We have tried to modify laws over the 
years to make sure that, if we overreach, if something is too 
burdensome, too costly, or duplicative, we make changes. So we made 
some minor changes which I think are positive as far as I am concerned.
  The one apprehension I had is in the point raised by my friend from 
Arkansas; that is, ``If States show that they have standards equal to 
or greater than. . .''--I saw that as a red flag and said, wait a 
minute, I do not want to create that much of an exemption. I am not 
sure where the enforcement is going to lie.
  I worked very hard late last night with my staff and with the 
majority staff to make sure that any State--and I do not know of any 
State that has the same or better ones than the Federal ones. But 
assuming States come forward, as they have not in the past, and raise 
their standards to those at the Federal level, if they can establish 
that, and if they can satisfy the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services that they have done that, that does not mean they are free and 
clear to go forward and then abuse their patients. I insisted that the 
Federal Government still retain oversight and still retain enforcement 
responsibilities.
  I believe that is in the law itself, in the language--that the 
Federal Government would still have the ability to go in to find out if 
there are violations and to enforce penalties. I know my colleague from 
Arkansas disagrees with that interpretation. But that is specifically 
what we worked out last evening. I believe that is in the language 
itself. I will yield to my friend if he has a question.
  Mr. PRYOR. If my good friend from Maine, who has worked very hard on 
this bill, would point out where in this language it says that after a 
State receives a waiver--where in the world the Senator might even 
infer that the Federal Government would have an opportunity to impose 
fines, penalties, or to have any jurisdiction on individual facilities? 
In fact, if I might, on page 37, it says, ``. . . State oversight and 
enforcement authority over nursing facilities,'' not Federal.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes, equally 
divided between the two Senators to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes so that the 
Senators can respond.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield an additional minute to Senator 
Cohen.
  Mr. COHEN. If you look on page 38 under section (D):

       No Waiver of Enforcement. A State granted a waiver under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be subject to (i) the penalty 
     described in subsection (b); (ii) suspension or termination, 
     as determined by the Secretary, of the waiver granted under 
     subparagraph (A); and any other authority available to the 
     Secretary to enforce the requirements of section 1919, as so 
     in effect.

  What we have done in this section is to say that just because you get 
a waiver, you are not free from the enforcement provisions here. The 
Federal Government retains the authority to go in and impose those 
penalties. Were that not in there, I would not be supporting this.
  Let me say one other thing to my colleagues. As I indicated before, 
the House has no such protection. We passed the measure we supported 
this morning by, I think, three votes. It is my belief--and I support 
what we did this morning, and I reaffirm that action--that we are going 
to be in a much stronger position with a majority endorsing what we are 
doing here and going to the conferees and saying we want this 
provision, and it will remain in the bill, and we will have it when it 
goes to the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the manager. Mr. President, on page 
38 in section (C)--let me say to my good colleague and friend from 
Maine that, according to this section and the sections preceding it, if 
a State has opted out, if they have been granted a waiver for an 
indeterminate amount of time--and it could be 30 days or 30 years; who 
knows?--but if that State is under a waiver of the requirement, the 
Federal Government cannot fine any nursing home in that particular 
State, the Federal Government cannot penalize, cannot say you cannot 
take in any more Medicaid patients. Only the State has this 
jurisdiction.
  I am trying to impress upon my friend that, he not knowingly, not 
willingly, is helping to weaken drastically the nursing home standards 
that have worked so well since 1987.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not think we should be voting on 
this amendment.
  In the last several hours, my State of Minnesota just discovered that 
it will be faced with $500 million more in reductions on top of the 
$2.4 billion. What happened, Senators, in the last several hours? What 
kind of decisionmaking process is this?
  It does seem to me that people in Minnesota and across this country 
have a right to know what in the world is going on here. These are the 
lives of our children--they are covered. These are the lives of elderly 
people, nursing homes--they are covered. These are the lives of people 
with disabilities--they are covered.
  We should not even be voting tonight. This is back-room deals. This 
is not a democratic--with a small ``d''--process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
  I have listened carefully to the debate this evening, but I think the 
simple fact is that no State in the Union is impacted by this amendment 
and this bill to the extent that California is.
  Senator Rockefeller asked earlier where the money comes from to pay 
for this amendment. Mr. President, I'll tell you where the money comes 
from.
  $4.2 billion of it comes from Medicaid that in the earlier version 
went to California. California is the biggest loser in this amendment. 
This will affect more than 8.6 million people in the State of 
California.
  This bill, I believe, is immoral, egregious, and in my 2\1/2\ years I 
never thought I would stand here on the floor of the Senate and see the 
largest State in the Union treated the way it is in this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 12 minutes and 32 seconds 
remaining, and the Democrats have 16 minutes and 32 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in the time that I have remaining, I wish to 
allocate 2 additional minutes whenever he wishes to use it to the 
Senator from West Virginia, and I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida for use whenever he thinks appropriate.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, when Harry Truman was running for 
President in 1948, at one of his whistle stops the people cried out, 
``Give 'em hell, Harry.'' He said, ``Friend, I don't have to give them 
hell. I just tell them the truth and the truth gives them hell.''
  That is what we are talking about tonight. The truth gives them hell.
  We have heard from Senator Pryor what this does to rape the standards 
that have made life tolerable for hundreds of thousands of persons--our 
most vulnerable people--in nursing homes.
  Let me talk about two other features of this bill. Let me talk about 
how we 

[[Page S 16045]]
are going to allocate over $770 billion of your American taxpayers' 
money over the next 7 years and the standards by which those allocation 
decisions were made.
  There is no rationale to the allocation formula which is in this 
bill. I have been asking for better than 36 hours to get the 
legislative language. Finally, at 6:25 p.m., we got the first version 
of the legislation but not the last version. The last version came at 
9:45.
  Let me direct your attention, if you have the 6:25 version, to page 
36. I ask someone on the Republican side to explain the theory and 
philosophy behind this allocation.
  On page 36, line 11, it says, ``Additional Amounts Described. The 
additional amounts described in this paragraph are as follows,'' these 
are additional amounts that go to States just because they are the 
States.
  Arizona gets $63 million; Florida gets $250 million, thank you; 
Georgia gets $34 million; Kentucky, $76.5 million; South Carolina, $181 
million; the State of Washington, $250 million.
  That was the list as of 6:25. But by 9:45, Vermont has come on for 
$50 million.
  Friends, we have talked a lot about balanced budget, about fiscal 
prudence and responsible use of taxpayers' money. That is how your 
money is being used.
  Let me tell you another little fact in terms of the rationale of 
distribution. Of the States which have two Democratic Senators, the 
difference between what those States would have received out of a pool 
of dollars that was $10 billion less--$10 billion less--total money to 
be distributed. Those States which have two Democratic Senators lost 
$3.605 billion. Of the States that have two Republican Senators, they 
gained $11.222 billion.
  That is the rationale way in which we are distributing $770 billion 
of the taxpayers' money.
  Now, how did we arrive at these absurd allocations? We did it largely 
because, unlike the Finance Committee which very thoughtfully made the 
decision to restrict the amount of money that a State could continue to 
take into its base for allocation, those funds which were derived from 
what is called disproportionate share, disproportionate share.
  What is disproportionate share? It was the amount of money that was 
distributed to States over the periods of the 1970's and 1980's 
theoretically to make up for the hospitals that had a high incidence of 
poor and underserved populations. That became the fastest growing 
element of the Medicare program. In fact, in 1990, disproportionate 
share was only $1 billion; by 1992, it had gone to $17.4 billion.
  Why had we seen this enormous increase? We had seen the enormous 
increase according to a GAO report, General Accounting Office report, 
dated April of this year, because there were States which were scheming 
this money. The swapping and redirecting of revenues among providers, 
the State and the Federal Government resulted in increased Federal 
spending, increased funds for providers, and in some cases additional 
revenue for State treasuries.
  So States were manipulating this disproportionate share to their 
benefit. Under the original Finance Committee, we would have retained 
and limited the benefit that could have been gained by that previous 
predatory action. We have now taken all of the constraints off. We have 
now said that a State can go back to 1994 and count every dollar that 
they had gotten under that disproportionate share.
  Let me tell you something, Mr. President, that may be surprising. The 
GAO did a report, a special report, on three States. I will be blunt 
and say who they were: Michigan, Tennessee and Texas. Michigan, 
Tennessee, and Texas.
  Of all of the new money that came into this plan in the last 24 
hours, the $10 billion, how much do you think Michigan, Texas and 
Tennessee got? Mr. President, $6.5 billion. They got almost 2 out of 
every 3 new dollars that went to those States which have been 
identified as the principal perverters of the system.
  What kind of policy is that? We are going to reward and benefit those 
States which have been ripping off the Federal taxpayers? What kind of 
a plan is this? I would be very interested to get a response from our 
Republican colleagues on that issue.
  Friends, the fact that we are about to rape the elderly nursing home, 
the fact we are raping the Federal Treasury and rewarding 
inappropriate, I would say criminal past behavior is not the end of it.
  Where are we getting the $10 billion from? We are getting the $10 
billion by raiding Social Security.
  The last position of this legislation states that how we are going to 
fund this $10 billion, where it will come from, is because we are going 
to say that we will break our previous practice of using the 
Congressional Budget Office as the means of calculating what our 
deficit position is, and we will for this year take the lower cost-of-
living number, which has just recently been reported, leave everything 
else in our revenue estimates the same, but plug in that new number, 
which is a 2.6 cost-of-living factor rather than a 3.1.
  Now, we are not going to do this as it relates to revenue. You know 
there are some rich people that benefit by this cost of living because 
their taxes are indexed. They get held down by virtue of a higher cost 
of living. We are only going to use this against the old folks--
primarily Social Security and other Federal retirement programs--who 
are going to have their money used as the basis of funding this raid in 
order to benefit a handful of politically powerful--and I would say 
probably politically greedy--States in order to pass this atrocious 
proposition.
  What has the Congressional Budget Office had to say about this 
particular raid on the Federal Treasury? The Congressional Budget 
Office has stated--this is Paul Van de Water, who is the Assistant 
Director for Budget of the Congressional Budget Office. He states that 
the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget 
``do not score savings for legislating a COLA that would happen anyway 
under current law. This rule was applied to veterans compensation in 
1991 and to food stamps in 1992.''
  In other words, we are changing our previous Congressional Budget 
Office policy.
  But, friends, it gets worse. Mr. Van de Water goes on to say that:

       At the request of the Budget Committees, the CBO has from 
     time to time updated the baseline to reflect recent economic 
     and technical developments. In such circumstances, however, 
     we insist on incorporating all relevant new information, not 
     just selected items, such as COLAs. In this instance . . .

  Friends, listen to this sentence.

       . . . if we were to include all of the information in our 
     August baseline, plus the actual 1996 COLA, our estimate of 
     the 2002 deficit . . . would be higher.

  It would be higher, not lower.
  So we are using a fraudulent method in order to calculate what is 
presented to be savings in order to fund this atrocious raid on the 
public Treasury when the Congressional Budget Office said, if they were 
asked the right question they would not only not have scored this as 
creating any additional money, but they would have said that we would 
have a greater deficit than we started with.
  So, friends, that is what we are about with this amendment in the 
Finance Committee that we have waited 36 hours to get. If you want to 
know why this stealth bomber was out there all those hours when we kept 
asking, Can we see what is in this proposal, can we see the legislative 
language, can we see the State-by-State numbers--we could not get any 
answer. Sorry, it is too complicated. It is being worked. The 
technicians are pouring over it.
  I am certain the technicians came up with a formula that gave $11 
billion of additional funds to States that just happened to be 
represented by Republicans and cut the funds from the States that 
happened to be represented by Democrats. That was just a technical 
oversight.
  And then to have the gall to raid our Social Security fund as a means 
of financing this, is there no limit to what we ask our older people to 
do? We are cutting their Medicare. We are eliminating other important 
programs for the elderly. And now we are using their Social Security in 
this back-door means as the basis to fund an additional $10 billion 
which does not exist, which is going to add further to the deficit, to 
give money to a few favorite States so that they can corral the votes 
to pass this steamy mess. 

[[Page S 16046]]

  My friends, I wish this thing would stay the stealth bomber. It is 
better if we did not see it than if it finally appeared on the radar 
scope and we are able to look and appreciate the details.
  Mr. President, fellow colleagues, the answer tonight is a simple 
answer; that is, to defeat this amendment. As bad as the proposal 
passed by the Finance Committee was, it looked so much better than what 
we are about to vote upon. We have converted a frog into a beauty with 
this amendment.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote this amendment down, and let us at 
least send the conference something that we in the Senate can have some 
degree of satisfaction as it is taken up in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico has 12 minutes and 32 seconds, and the 
Senator from Nebraska has 4 minutes, 24 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with reference to the formula, let me 
just state for the record that 46 States are better off under this 
formula than the House formula. Many of those have Democratic Governors 
and many of those have Democratic Senators. Many of those have 
Republican Governors and Republican Senators.
  Let me repeat. Under this formula, 46 States are better off than in 
the House formula.
  Mr. President, Senator Cohen has adequately answered the remarks with 
reference to nursing homes. I do not know how anybody could stand on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate and say that we are raping the nursing 
homes when we have just heard Senator Cohen, one of the strongest and 
best advocates, say that has been fixed in this bill. He just said it. 
He repeated it. He read the language. And so we hear it from that side 
over and over again.
  Let me tell you with reference to the money in this budget that is 
used for some of the reallocation, that there is nothing wrong with it. 
It is not phony. It is plain and simple, the fact: We have already 
established in the United States of America that the Consumer Price 
Index is not 3.1 percent, but, rather, 2.6 percent. We are not talking 
about 3 years from now. We are talking about right now. It is not 3.1, 
as estimated in this budget. It is 2.6. The reality is that is not 
going to change. It is 2.6 for the rest of the year. It just happens, 
if you do the numbers, that saves $13.1 billion. That means $13.1 
billion less is being spent because of the real Consumer Price Index--
not speculation and not changing anything. That is where you get $13.1 
billion.
  The reason we only use $13.1 billion is because we did not want to 
use the tax revenues and spend them. We left them there. So we only 
used the revenues that I have just described. It does not mean we 
changed anything on the Tax Code. The taxes are going to come out at 
the 2.6 level in terms of the bracket creep that will be adjusted. So 
that argument just misunderstands what we have done and what the 
reality is.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I am led to believe that, in spite 
of this interoffice memorandum, there is nothing from the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office. This is somebody that works there 
named Paul Van de Water, writing to somebody named Sue Nelson, who is 
on the staff of the Budget Committee, and gives a little history of 
what has and has not been done.
  The truth of the matter is that Chairman Sasser last year came to the 
floor--in 1993, excuse me--and he said, ``I want to adjust the numbers 
for reality, for the real thing.'' And, in fact, he adjusted two items 
in the budget for what he perceived to be the real numbers. In doing 
that, revenues and moneys were found to make their budget come out as 
planned.
  Frankly, ours is absolutely real because the Consumer Price Index is 
not 3.1 percent. The checks are going out at 2.6. We are not taking 
money away from anyone.
  I am led to believe this is not subject to a point of order, and we 
decided that we were going to reallocate some money because a number of 
States felt that they had not been treated fairly here. Some said they 
had been treated fairly in the House. Others said they had not, and we 
still have to go to conference in order to come out with the final 
formula and final distribution.
  So as far as that part is concerned, how the allocations came about, 
I was not part of that committee. I trust them. I think they did a good 
job. And the chairman is here. They all worked together on it. Perhaps 
he wants to explain in more detail.
  But let me suggest that we in no way--in no way--are attempting to 
defraud anyone. As a matter of fact, this budget will be balanced in 
the year 2002, and if you need a letter on that from June O'Neill, we 
will get it for you.
  This does not unbalance the budget, because we have a $13 billion 
surplus in 2002, and we do not use up that surplus. You do not even 
come close to using it, so we will still be in balance.
  If I have not used my time, I wish to yield it back. And I want to 
ask Senator Roth if he wants to talk for a couple minutes, or Senator 
Dole.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 35 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes 35 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will reserve our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 24 seconds and 
previously yielded time, I believe 2 minutes.
  Does the Senator wish to reallocate his time?
  Mr. EXON. The Senator from West Virginia is not interested in 
additional time.
  I wish to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I will not use all my 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, I rise to ask a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. President, this morning by a vote of 51 to 48, the Senate voted 
for an amendment offered by myself and Senator Cohen of Maine. The 
amendment was adopted and agreed to. Presently pending is another 
amendment with different language proposed by the distinguished 
chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, in the manager's 
amendment. Should the manager's amendment pass, does the manager's 
amendment encompassing or including the nursing home provisions of 
Senator Roth, does it prevail over the amendment passed this morning by 
a vote of the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that by virtue of the 
fact that this amendment covers a broader spectrum of the bill, if the 
Senate adopts this amendment, it would prevail over the previous text 
that was included in the smaller reaching amendment that was voted upon 
this morning.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, then if I have any time remaining, I would 
simply ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, why? Why are 
we obliterating these nursing home standards that have worked so well 
for these years, that my colleague from Maine was saying just now are 
having their bite? Why are we taking that bite out?
  I think, Mr. President, we are going to be committing a terrible 
mistake if we do. I hope we will not adopt the chairman's amendment.
  Mr. EXON. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes 50 seconds to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 2 
minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to make a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the inquiry.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Are outlay reductions to Social Security used to offset 
the spending of this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is not in a position to answer that 
question.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Chair like to be informed on that matter so 
that he might be in a position to answer that question? 

[[Page S 16047]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would be happy to listen to the 
Senator from Florida.
  The Senator has 2 minutes 30 seconds. The parliamentary inquiry does 
not come out of the time.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send to the desk for the review of the 
Chair as well as for inclusion in the Record the 1996 COLA versus 
conference resolution baseline assumptions data, October 16, 1995.
  I would like to ask that these be compared with the projections which 
are utilized to produce the revenue for purposes of supporting the 
funding contained in this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       All Cash Benefit Programs Indexed to the CPI

                                                               ACTUAL 1996 COLA VERSUS CONFERENCE RESOLUTION BASELINE ASSUMPTIONS                                                               
                                                                     [Outlays shown by fiscal year, In millions of dollars]                                                                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002         2003         2004         2005   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security...............................................       -1,273       -1,729       -1,769       -1,782       -1,788       -1,788       -1,795       -1,811       -1,836       -1,867
Railroad Tier I...............................................          -18          -25          -26          -26          -26          -26          -27          -27          -28          -28
Railroad Tier II..............................................           -4           -5           -5           -5           -5           -5           -5           -5           -5           -5
SSI...........................................................          -83         -110         -127         -135         -215         -150         -217         -248         -260         -271
Food Stamp Offset.............................................           16           23           24           25           34           27           34           38           39           41
Military Retirement...........................................          -11         -144         -150         -160         -167         -174         -182         -190         -198         -206
Vets Compensation.............................................          -50          -81          -78          -74          -90         -100         -111         -124         -138         -153
Vets Pensions.................................................          -10          -13          -12          -11          -12          -12          -12          -12          -12          -12
Civilian Retirement...........................................          -94         -188         -189         -191         -193         -196         -198         -201         -203         -206
FECA..........................................................           -3           -5           -3           -1           -1           -1           -1           -1           -1           -1
Foreign Service...............................................           -1           -2           -2           -3           -3           -3           -3           -3           -3           -3
PHS Retire....................................................            0           -1           -1           -1           -1           -1           -1           -1           -1           -1
Coast Guard Retire............................................            0           -2           -3           -3           -3           -3           -3           -3           -3           -3
SMI Offset....................................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Medicaid Offset...............................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................       -1,529       -2,290       -2,340       -2,365       -2,468       -2,431       -2,520       -2,587       -2,648       -2,716
Cola Assumptions (in percent):                                                                                                                                                                  
    Actual 1996...............................................          2.6          3.4          3.4          3.2          3.2          3.2          3.2          3.2          3.2          3.2
    Resolution Baseline.......................................          3.1          3.4          3.4          3.2          3.2          3.2          3.2          3.2          3.2          3.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is running.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it was my understanding that time for 
points of order and parliamentary inquiry is not charged against the 
time. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Respectfully, the Senator has been answered as 
far as the parliamentary inquiry is concerned. The Chair is not capable 
of making the comparisons the Senator wishes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico or the Senator 
from Delaware as chairs of the respective committees would like to 
comment whether they believe there are outlay reductions to Social 
Security used to offset the spending in this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am satisfied with the ruling of the Chair. I have no 
comment on that.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 
310(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair might inform the Senator from 
Florida, and will not use the time but give back his time, until the 
time is all used, it is not yet in order to make a point of order.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will withhold, but reserving the time to 
make a point of order at the appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will have that time. He has 45 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, just to prepare for the consideration of 
the point of order that will be made, I would draw the attention of the 
Chair to subtitle (c) of the Social Security Act, section 13301 which 
states:

       Off budget status of Social Security Trust Funds. Exclusion 
     of Social Security from all budgets. Notwithstanding any 
     other provisions of law, the receipts and disbursements of 
     the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be 
     counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, for 
     deficit or surplus, for the purposes of the budget of the 
     U.S. Government submitted by the President, the Congressional 
     Budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder who wants time on this side.
  I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. First of all, Mr. President, I think it is important to 
understand that 45--45--of the 50 States are better off under the 
Senate amendment than they are under the House. And I would just like 
to make passing reference to the three States that are said to have 
Democratic Senators.
  Just let me point out that in the case of California, it is up $700 
million from the House; Florida is up $1.3 billion from the House, and 
Minnesota is up $500 million from the House.
  Now, one of my distinguished colleagues on the other side mentioned 
the treatment for seven States on page 36. And I just want to point out 
that six of these seven States that get additional amounts have one 
Republican Senator and one Democratic Senator. That was not based on 
partisanship. It was based upon need. And that is the point I wish to 
make.
  In concluding, the statement was made that we are using the savings 
from Medicare and Medicaid for a tax cut. That is pure demagoguery. 
There is no truth to that.
  As a matter of fact, the President's board of trustees, long before 
we talked about tax cuts, said we had to do something about the trust 
funds for Medicare. And that is what we are doing with this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time is left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes twelve seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The other side has used all their time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Cohen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  If I could point out what is also in this measure that has not been 
talked about in the last few moments.
  No. 1, there are set-asides for the QMB program. I think everyone is 
familiar with what I am talking about. That is in the manager's 
amendment. There is a requirement that States impose strong solvency 
standards on Medicaid providers. That is in this amendment. There is an 
increase in Medicaid funding. That is in this amendment. There is more 
money for Medicare in direct education payments, and allows for more 
causes of action to enforce Medicaid provisions.
  What was not talked about in terms of this measure is the following: 
We, under this measure, are imposing the nursing home reforms on the 
States. OBRA 1987 will remain in effect. That is what this amendment 
contains.
  No. 2, not only do we have the same standards in effect, we also have 
enforcement in effect. Those two key points have to be made. The States 
are required to comply with the national standards, and those 
enforcement standards remain in effect.
  There is a waiver provision contained on page 38. And I call all of 
the attention of my colleagues to it. What it says is, if a State does 
in fact have equal to or greater standards, they 

[[Page S 16048]]
may qualify or try to apply for a waiver. They can do that. If they 
have penalties that are equal to or greater than what is in the Federal 
law, they can apply for the waiver.
  The Secretary of HHS has 120 days, in which time he either grants it 
or denies it. And assuming he or she grants it, he or she still retains 
the authority to go in there and impose penalties upon the State if 
there is any deviation from the standards. They can suspend and 
terminate the institution. They can terminate the waiver.
  No. 3, at the bottom of the page, please look at it. ``Any other 
authority available to the Secretary to enforce requirements of section 
1919.'' That is OBRA. That says the Secretary of HHS still has all of 
the authority to enforce every single provision in OBRA '87, all the 
way up to the change we made as of this date.
  So, I want to assure my colleagues I would not be supporting this if 
I did not believe that we for the first time have the majority saying 
we want to maintain OBRA '87. We want the same standards. We want the 
same enforcement levels. We will provide some opportunities for a 
waiver, but only if they measure up to what we expect, and then the 
Secretary retains the authority to impose every single penalty. So in 
many ways we give more authority to the Secretary under these 
circumstances.
  So, please, I hope everyone will not mischaracterize what is being 
done here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes 13 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Dole.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I just want to say I think we had a fair discussion of this 
amendment, and we indicated to the Senator from Florida this morning we 
would have that discussion. He did have access, as he indicated, to the 
information at about 6:27. So, I believe we had adequate time to take a 
look at it.
  We made a lot of changes. Changes are always made in a big, big 
package like this by either party, both parties, whatever. I believe 
the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Delaware and others pointed 
out these have been very constructive changes.
  We always have these formula fights. And there is always someone 
running around with a sheet of paper saying how much one State got over 
the other State. I can name a State with two Republican Senators where 
they are getting $500 million less than they had in the middle of the 
week. They were not very happy about it, but that is the way the 
formula worked. Florida gets $1 billion more, California $700 million 
more than we had in the committee. Minnesota gets $508 million more 
than we had on the House side.
  So we believe we are making progress. We are going to go to 
conference. We discussed this with the Senator from Minnesota, I might 
add. He is aware of it. He was concerned we were going to adopt a House 
formula which was $508 million less.
  So, I say to my colleagues, it is time, I think, we wrap it up around 
here. And I hope that we will have every--all the votes. Everybody 
ought to vote for this amendment. This is a very constructive 
amendment, whether it is nursing homes, whatever it is. I know there is 
a lot of politics about nursing homes. I know the liberal media bought 
into the spin put on by the Democrats.
  But the Senator from Maine would not be standing up here making these 
statements if they were not accurate. If anybody wants to question the 
integrity or the credibility of the Senator from Maine, they ought to 
stand up and do it. They are not going to do it because he has total 
integrity and total credibility on this issue.
  I believe that we have made constructive changes. I hope we will 
have, if not any support from that side, solid support on this side of 
the aisle for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am directing my attention to section 
7482 of the legislation, which begins on page 45 and states:

       Cost-of-Living Adjustments During Fiscal Year 1996.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of 
     any program within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Finance of the United States Senate which is adjusted for any 
     increase in the consumer price index for all urban wage 
     earners and clerical workers (CPI-W) for the United States 
     city average of all items, any such adjustment which takes 
     effect during fiscal year 1996 shall be equal to 2.6 percent.

  It is to that section, Mr. President, that I direct the point of 
order. I raise the point of order under section 310(d) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against the pending amendment because 
it counts $12 billion in cuts to Social Security which is off budget to 
offset spending in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico wish to be 
heard on this point of order?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to say the dollar numbers being referred to are 
actual. That is all I want to say.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, could I respond to the--do you wish 
further debate on the point of order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not debatable. I note the Senator from 
New Mexico wishes not to make a statement.
  The scoring of this bill under the Budget Act is under the control of 
the chairman of the Budget Committee, and the precedents of the Senate 
do not go beyond that. The point of order is not well taken.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. HARKIN. I raise a point of order under section 310(g) of the 
Budget Act because the pending amendment achieves its savings by 
changing the cost-of-living provisions of section 215 of the Social 
Security Act, and changing title II of that act violates section 310(g) 
of the Congressional Budget Act.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. CPI was not changed as referred in that act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that the provisions in 
the act cited are not applicable to this instance and that the point of 
order is not well taken.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. State the inquiry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Section 7482 on page 45 of the pending amendment, line 
22, states: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . .'' 
Parliamentary inquiry. Is this not referencing title II of Social 
Security?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that that would not be 
interpreted as referencing anything. That is to indicate that without 
regard to any other provision of law, this provision of this bill would 
become law.
  Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  Is the Chair then ruling that by that very sentence, 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' that that would, in 
fact, cover title II of Social Security since it is law? And that, 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' therefore, that 
overcomes title II of Social Security?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would state that that 
interpretation--I must yield to the Senator's inquiry. The Senator is 
asking this Chair to act as a court and make a determination of law and 
the conflicts of law, and that is not within the proper prerogative of 
this Chair.
  Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Is the Chair ruling, as pertains to the ruling on Senator 
Graham's point of order, is the Chair ruling that the Social Security 
Act, title II, may be changed within the reconciliation process by 
drafting a provision to read, ``notwithstanding any other provision of 
law''?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair's ruling with regard to the point of 
order of the Senator from Florida was on the basis of the issues he 
stated. The Chair is not ruling--the Chair is not ruling--as the 
Senator indicated, that there is any indication here before the Chair 
of a provision to change the Social Security Act.
  Mr. HARKIN. One last----
  Mr. GREGG. What is the regular order?
  Mr. HARKIN. One last parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GREGG. I am asking for the regular order.
  
[[Page S 16049]]

  Mr. HARKIN. One last parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is for the Chair to 
determine if there is a bona fide parliamentary inquiry being presented 
to the Chair. One further inquiry.
  Mr. HARKIN. If that is the ruling of the Chair, the Social Security 
law must be naked to attack under reconciliation.
  Would not section 310(g) of the Budget Act be now rendered 
meaningless by the precedent the Chair is now setting?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has no intention of rendering 
meaningless any provision of the Budget Act. We are attempting to 
comply with the Budget Act. The Chair is informing that the chairman of 
the Budget Committee has the authority, as did the previous chairman, 
to make the determination that has been made with regard to this aspect 
of this bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  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. 554 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 3038) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other amendments to this bill?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I think we may be down to the last vote. Our 
bipartisan staffs have visited with the office of the Parliamentarian. 
That office has confirmed----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold. The Senate is 
not in order.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, our bipartisan staffs have visited with the 
office of the Parliamentarian. That office has confirmed that each and 
every provision in our point of order is indeed a violation of the Byrd 
rule. So I renew my point of order under the Byrd rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair is informed that the 
Parliamentarian's office has indicated it has reviewed the presentation 
made concerning extraneous provisions, some 49 provisions. On the basis 
and advice of the Parliamentarian, the Chair sustains 46 of those.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to waive some or all of these.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, could we have a ruling of the Chair?
  Mr. DOMENICI. If you do the ruling, we cannot appeal it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed the motion to waive 
would take precedence over the ruling.
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. State the inquiry.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If I move to waive and send that to the desk with an 
attached list of the points of order but not all of them, what governs 
the debate on that proposal?
  Is there any debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time left for debate without 
agreement. The point of order has been raised. The motion to waive is 
in order. The motion to waive is not debatable. It is subject to a vote 
by the Senate.
  Mr. DOLE. I wonder if the Democratic leader would have, say, 10 
minutes equally divided.
  Mr. DASCHLE. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of 10 
minutes equally divided on this issue?
  Does the Chair interpret the leader to mean on the motion to waive 
the point of order? Is there objection?
  Five minutes on a side, then, on this issue.


                domenici motion to waive the budget act

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a list of the points of order 
that I am moving to waive--a partial list of the Exon points of order.
       Mr. President, pursuant to section 904(c) of the Budget 
     Act, I move to waive the Budget Act for the consideration of 
     the following provisions and for the language of the 
     provisions if included in the conference report:

              TITLE VII.--FINANCE, MEDICAID AND WELFARE EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS, RECONCILIATION 1995              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Subtitle and Section                  Subject            Budget Act Violation         Explanation      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2174.................................  Individual Entitlement.  313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; no         
                                                                                          budgetary impact. This
                                                                                          title shall not be    
                                                                                          construed as providing
                                                                                          for an entitlement.   
Subtitle C--Welfare:                                                                                            
    403(a)(3)........................  Supplemental Grant for   313(b)(1)(B)...........  Extraneous; costs.     
                                        Population Increases                              Provides additional   
                                        in Certain States.                                grants to states with 
                                                                                          higher population     
                                                                                          growth and average    
                                                                                          spending less than the
                                                                                          national average.     
    403(b)(2)........................  Treat Interstate         313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; no         
                                        Immigrants Under Rules                            budgetary impact. A   
                                        of Former States.                                 State may apply to a  
                                                                                          family some or all of 
                                                                                          the rules, including  
                                                                                          benefit amounts, or   
                                                                                          the program operated  
                                                                                          by the family's former
                                                                                          state if the family   
                                                                                          has resided in the    
                                                                                          current state less    
                                                                                          than 12 months.       
    405(b)(1)........................  No Assistance for More   313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; does not   
                                        Than Five Years.                                  score. States may not 
                                                                                          provide assistance for
                                                                                          more than 5 years on a
                                                                                          cumulative basis; can 
                                                                                          opt to provide it for 
                                                                                          less than 5 years.    
    406(6)...........................  State Option to Deny     313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; does not   
                                        Assistance For Out-of-                            score. States may deny
                                        Wedlock Births to                                 assistance for a child
                                        Minors.                                           born out-of-wedlock to
                                                                                          an individual who has 
                                                                                          not attained 18 years 
                                                                                          of age, or for the    
                                                                                          individual.           
    406(c)...........................  State Option to Deny     313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; does not   
                                        Assistance For                                    score. States may deny
                                        Children Born to                                  assistance for a minor
                                        Families Receiving                                child who is born to a
                                        Assistance.                                       recipient of          
                                                                                          assistance.           
    406(f)...........................  Grant Increased to       313(b)(1)(B)...........  Extraneous; costs.     
                                        Reward States That                                Provides additional   
                                        Reduce Out-of-Wedlock                             funds to states that  
                                        Births.                                           reduce out-of-wedlock 
                                                                                          births by at least 1  
                                                                                          percent below 1995    
                                                                                          levels, and whose     
                                                                                          rates of abortion do  
                                                                                          not increase.         
                                                                                          Secretary can deny the
                                                                                          funds if the State    
                                                                                          changes methods of    
                                                                                          reporting data.       
    418..............................  Performance Bonus and    313(b)(1)(B)...........  Extraneous; costs. 5   
                                        High Performance Bonus.                           States with highest   
                                                                                          percentage performance
                                                                                          improvement receive a 
                                                                                          bonus. Note: this is  
                                                                                          paid for with previous
                                                                                          year's penalties so   
                                                                                          some might claim it is
                                                                                          deficit neutral.      
                                                                                          However, it is a      
                                                                                          separate and discrete 
                                                                                          section.              
    7202.............................  Services Provided by     313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; no cost    
                                        Charitable, Religious,                            impact. Allows states 
                                        or Private                                        to provide services   
                                        Organizations.                                    through contracts with
                                                                                          charitable, religious,
                                                                                          or private            
                                                                                          organizations.        
    7207.............................  Disclosure of Receipt    313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; no cost    
                                        of Fed Funds.                                     impact.               
Subtitle D--SSI:                                                                                                
    Chapter 5:                                                                                                  
        7291.........................  Repeal of Maintenance    313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; no cost    
                                        of Effort Requirements                            impact. Savings       
                                        Applicable to Optional                            accrues to the state. 
                                        State Programs for                                                      
                                        Supplementation of SSI.                                                 
    Chapter 6:                                                                                                  
      7295...........................  Eligiblity for SSI       313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; no cost    
                                        Benefits Based on Soc.                            impact within the 7-  
                                        Sec. Retirement Age.                              year budget window.   

[[Page S 16050]]
                                                                                                                
Subtitle G--Other welfare:                                                                                      
    Chapter 1:                                                                                                  
      7412...........................  Reductions in Federal    313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; no direct  
                                        Bureaucracy.                                      spending impact.      
                                                                                          Reduction is on the   
                                                                                          discretionary side of 
                                                                                          the budget.           
        7445.........................  Abstinence Education in  313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; no direct  
                                        Welfare Reform                                    spending impact.      
                                        Legislation.                                      Authorization of      
                                                                                          appropriations.       
Subtitle J--COLA's:                                                                                             
    7481.............................  SoS Regarding            313(b)(1)(A)...........  Extraneous; no direct  
                                        Corrections of Cost of                            spending impact. Finds
                                        Living Adjustments.                               that the CPI          
                                                                                          overstates the cost of
                                                                                          living in the US, and 
                                                                                          that the overstatement
                                                                                          undermines the        
                                                                                          equitable             
                                                                                          administration of     
                                                                                          Federal benefits.     
                                                                                          Expresses the Sense of
                                                                                          the Senate that       
                                                                                          Federal law should be 
                                                                                          corrected to          
                                                                                          accurately reflect    
                                                                                          future changes in the 
                                                                                          cost of living.       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me explain what is in it: only provisions included 
in the welfare bill.
  The reason I did that is because the Senate approved the welfare 
bill--87 votes on the welfare side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time for debate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will have to look and see whether 
there are any of these provisions not covered by the ruling that the 
Chair was prepared to make.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hold up for a minute, please.
  What is the parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. KERRY. The parliamentary inquiry was whether or not the Chair was 
in the process of giving a ruling which would assist us to know what 
the relevancy of the waiver is. The Senator would certainly appreciate 
hearing the ruling.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senate that the 
Parliamentarian has indicated the proper procedure would be to act on 
the motion of the Senator from New Mexico to waive the point of order.
  It is a partial waiver, he sees. During the vote on that matter, we 
will assert whether the items that the Parliamentarian informed the 
Chair were not acceptable were covered by this motion.
  If they are not, we will then proceed to rule. There were three items 
that the Parliamentarian indicated should be dropped from the statement 
of extraneous provisions provided by the Senator from Nebraska.
  There is now 10 minutes equally divided, 5 minutes on a side.
  Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  We have a time agreement now. There can be no further parliamentary 
inquiry without using the time.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 1 minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to know which three the Chair has ruled on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has not ruled and will not rule 
under the Parliamentarian's advice until the Chair acts on the motion 
to waive the point of order on a series of these items.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KERRY. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time until we use this 10 minutes, 
except for that purpose.
  Mr. KERRY. Parliamentary inquiry takes precedence over request for 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not unless----
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I want to let people know what is in this motion. What 
this motion would do, what the motion of the Senator from Nebraska 
would do is strike the 5-year limit. There will no longer be a time 
limit on welfare.
  Some people would like that, but we voted 87 to 12. You want to end 
welfare as we know it, in what the President said he campaigned on, put 
a time limit on welfare. If this motion is not waived, we will not have 
a time limit on welfare.
  The growth formula--we worked very long and hard on trying to find 
money to be able to give to the States as they grow under the welfare 
system. All the growth formulas are struck--no more money. Whatever you 
get in the original formula, you do not get any additional money. We do 
not take into account any growth in welfare population. They strike it 
all.
  Want to provide for assisted suicide payments? You can do that. Under 
the original bill, you cannot actually reimburse people who actually 
tried to go out and help people kill somebody else. Now you can. You 
can do it because we will strike it under this provision.
  There is a laundry list of things here that are just punitive. We had 
a vote, an overwhelming vote, on doing something about illegitimacy. We 
talked long and hard about how we wanted to do something on 
illegitimacy. The bonus for States who reduce their out-of-wedlock 
birth rate is struck from the welfare. Everyone will come back home and 
say we care about it and strike it.
  So, no time limit on welfare. No growth formula for States --and many 
of you profit very well on both sides of the aisle from the growth 
formula put in place--for more money. It is gone.
  I just want people to think long and hard. You have basically gutted 
the welfare bill. There is no way this thing will be able to survive 
and States will be able to survive under the rules that you will put 
into effect here.
  I hope that we would stand by the 87-12 vote on this welfare and 
stand by the Senate vote before and vote with the chairman of the 
Budget Committee on his motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes and 12 seconds left. 
The Senator from Nebraska has 4 minutes and 47 seconds left.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I rise to oppose a motion to waive, including a major welfare bill in 
this massive, multi-page bill under a fast-track procedure. It is a 
gross violation of the process. It is extremism.
  Yes, most of us voted for the welfare bill, as did this Senator. But 
putting this major policy change in a bill whose sole purpose is to 
reduce the deficit is abuse. This is just the sort of thing that the 
Byrd rule was designed to prevent.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to waive.
  I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, about 2 weeks ago we made a profound 
mistake in voting the welfare measure we did. A report now surfaces 
from the White House that says it will instantly plunge 1.1 million 
children into poverty.
  If that is the desire of this body, vote not to waive. You have a 
chance of redemption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I voted for the welfare bill, as well.
  Let me say I do not hold the same view as the distinguished Senator 
from New York about the consequences of the bill that we passed here in 
the Senate.
  Obviously, I would like to see a lot more done in welfare reform, and 
ultimately I think we will do a lot more. If we feel strongly about 
welfare, it is important enough to separate out from reconciliation. It 
ought to stand on its own. It ought to be considered policy for policy 
sake, not a source of revenue, referred out of current welfare programs 
into other things.
  That is what we are doing in the reconciliation package. That is why 
I support the point of order raised by the ranking member, the Senator 
from Nebraska.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the balance of our time. I ask for the 
yeas and nays on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I voted for the welfare bill, but I did not 
vote on each of the items, which may be in violation of the Byrd rule 
on this bill. That is what we are narrowing it down 

[[Page S 16051]]
to at this point. Is it extraneous to the reconciliation bill?
  A point of order has been made against certain areas, against certain 
amendments, as being in violation of the Byrd rule. That is the 
question to be decided.
  The Senator from New Mexico, the distinguished manager, has moved to 
waive this Byrd rule point of order.
  The Senate will vote one way or the other. If the Senate votes to 
waive the point of order, then there is no point of order. It falls. 
But if the Senate votes not to waive the point of order, then the Chair 
will rule on each of the amendments, either en bloc, or, if there are 
one or two that the Chair disagrees with, he can so state, as he sees 
it.
  I hope the Senate will uphold the Byrd rule, the intention of which 
was to rule out extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. No matter 
what your thinking is on the welfare bill--and the point of order has 
now been made--is that bill extraneous in the context of the 
interpretations that have been made, the precedents, the definitions, 
and the rule itself?
  I hope the Senate will vote against the motion to waive so that the 
Chair may rule on the point of order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if I could reclaim 45 seconds 
of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, every rule, including the Byrd rule, is 
made for waiver. It is not a rule that Senators cannot apply any 
judgment to. And the reason we think this is appropriate is because 87 
Senators have already voted for these provisions. I mean, I do not 
bring a waiver of the Byrd rule here willy-nilly just to defy the very 
admirable efforts of the Byrd rule to keep a bill rather clean. But I 
do not think leaving in a welfare bill, which is in this reconciliation 
bill, provisions that you already voted for with 87 votes, I do not 
believe that is a trivial matter for those who voted for it, if they 
are going to vote the opposite way tonight as they choose to strip the 
welfare bill of provisions they voted for before.
  If I have any time remaining, I yield it back.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for just a moment for a 
question of the Senator from New Mexico?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. State the request.
  Mr. CONRAD. The question that I would have----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Thirty seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is their objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Does the waiver of the Senator from New Mexico only apply 
to welfare provisions?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I have taken out of the large package 
purposefully only those that apply to welfare and ask that we waive 
them. Then we will go on to vote and see what we want to do about it.
  Mr. CONRAD. Do we have a list of what those provisions are?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, we do.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could Senators have a copy of that before they vote?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. I had 10 or 12 made. I will be happy to give them 
to you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator say he wished time to deliver 
a copy to every Senator before the Senate votes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No. I said if any Senators want to see it, we have it 
available.
  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. 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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 555 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, there are 53 yeas, 46 nays. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  Now, if the Senate will be in order.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold for the Chair to 
state one problem?
  Mr. DOLE. The Chair is not going to rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, but I wish to state that the Chair has 
been informed that each of these extraneous provisions is subject to a 
motion to waive. It would be incumbent on the Chair somehow to get an 
agreement with the Senate how to handle this. We have never handled 
such a massive list of extraneous provisions before.
  The majority leader has suggested a quorum. The clerk will call the 
roll. There is this problem.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senate will be in order. Will Senators please take their seats?
  Mr. DOLE. I ask to proceed for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think rather than take further time of the 
Senate tonight, we can knock all the other provisions out in conference 
with the Byrd rule, the very selective list sent up by the Democrats. 
We can take care of the other provisions in a conference. They are also 
subject to the Byrd rule. So, I think rather than do that here this 
evening, we will take care of those in conference.
  Let the Chair rule, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is prepared to rule pursuant to the 
general order provisions that were added to the Byrd rule in 1990. And 
the Chair, on the advice of the Parliamentarian, does rule that of the 
49 items listed on extraneous provisions, 46 are well taken, 3 are not.
  One is the provision regarding exemption of agriculture and 
horticultural organizations from unrelated business income tax on 
associate dues.
  The second is the tree assistance program under the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  And the third is the provision of the Commerce Committee dealing with 
the Spectrum language on page 207.
  Those are the three items.
  The Chair must advise that after such a ruling any Senator may appeal 
the ruling of the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just a point of inquiry.
  If this material would be incorporated in the conference report, when 
it comes back would it be subject to the same point of order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised it would be.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did you rule?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair ruled that 46 items listed on the 
extraneous provisions are subject to the Byrd rule. Those items are 
individually appealable. 

[[Page S 16052]]

  The clerk will enter in the Record those items presented to the Chair 
and those that were ruled upon pursuant to the advice of the 
Parliamentarian.
  The extraneous provisions are as follows:

                                   EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS, RECONCILIATION, 1995                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtitle and Section                 Subject          Budget Act Violation           Explanation        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              TITLE I.--AGRICULTURE                                             
                                                                                                                
1113(e)(2).........................  Makes available         313(b)(1)(A)..........  No budgetary impact.       
                                      additional peanuts if                                                     
                                      market price exceeds                                                      
                                      120% loan rate.                                                           
1115...............................  Savings adjustments to  313(b)(1)(A)..........  No budgetary impact.       
                                      prorate payments to                                                       
                                      farmers if deficit                                                        
                                      targets aren't met.                                                       
                                                                                                                
                                            TITLE II.--ARMED SERVICES                                           
                                                                                                                
Sec 2001...........................  Sale of Naval           313(b)(1)(E)..........  The sale of Naval Petroleum
                                      Petroleum Reserves.                             Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk   
                                                                                      Hills), as provided in    
                                                                                      7421a., and the sale of   
                                                                                      naval petroleum reserves  
                                                                                      other than Naval Petroleum
                                                                                      Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk   
                                                                                      Hills), as provided in    
                                                                                      7421b., produce a loss of 
                                                                                      offsetting receipts in the
                                                                                      outyears that is not      
                                                                                      offset within the title.  
                                                                                      Specifically, CBO         
                                                                                      estimates that selling the
                                                                                      NPR will result in a loss 
                                                                                      of offsetting receipts in 
                                                                                      years 2003-05 of $1.02    
                                                                                      billion. Thus, the        
                                                                                      provision produces revenue
                                                                                      losses in years not       
                                                                                      covered by the budget     
                                                                                      resolution.               
                                                                                                                
                                      TITLE III.--BANKING AND URBAN AFFAIRS                                     
                                                                                                                
3002...............................  Deposit Insurance       313(b)(1)(A)..........  Instituting a study does   
                                      Study, Requires                                 not have an impact on the 
                                      Secretary of the                                deficit. (Not in cost     
                                      Treasury to conduct a                           estimate).                
                                      study on converting                                                       
                                      the FDIC into a self-                                                     
                                      funded deposit                                                            
                                      insurance system.                                                         
                                                                                                                
                                TITLE IV.--COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION                                
                                                                                                                
4002...............................  Annual Regulatory Fees  313(b)(1)(A)..........  Authorizing regulatory fees
                                                                                      has no impact on the      
                                                                                      deficit until after       
                                                                                      appropriations. (not in   
                                                                                      cost estimate).           
                                                                                                                
                                     TITLE V.--ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES                                     
                                                                                                                
Subtitle B, DOI:                                                                                                
    5100...........................  California Land         Byrd 313(b)(1)(D).....  Savings are merely         
                                      Directed Sale.                                  incidental to the transfer
                                                                                      of Federal land (Ward     
                                                                                      Valley) to the state of   
                                                                                      California for the purpose
                                                                                      of creating a low-level   
                                                                                      radioactive waste site.   
Park K:                                                                                                         
    5920...........................  Radio and TV Site       Byrd 313(b)(1)(A).....  Extraneous, no budgetary   
                                      Communication Fees.                             impact. Enactment of this 
                                                                                      section would have no     
                                                                                      impact on receipts because
                                                                                      the baseline already      
                                                                                      assumes that the BLM and  
                                                                                      the Forest Service would  
                                                                                      raise fees by the level   
                                                                                      beginning in 1996.        
Subtitle F, Oil and Gas:                                                                                        
    5509...........................  Royalty in Kind.......  Byrd 313(b)(1)(A).....  Non-budgetary. Clarifies   
                                                                                      the Secretary's option to 
                                                                                      take royalty of oil and   
                                                                                      gas in kind.              
    5510...........................  Royalty Simplification  Byrd 313(b)(1)(A).....  Non budgetary. Requires the
                                                                                      Secretary to streamline   
                                                                                      royalty management        
                                                                                      requirements, and submit a
                                                                                      report to Congress.       
    5512...........................  Delegation to States..  Byrd 313(b)(1)(A).....  Delegates various auditing 
                                                                                      responsibilities to the   
                                                                                      States.                   
                                                                                                                
                                     TITLE VI.--ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS                                    
                                                                                                                
Section 6002(c)....................  Rescission of highway   313(b)(1)(C)..........  This section is not within 
                                      demonstration                                   EPW's jurisdiction.       
                                      projects.                                                                 
                                                                                                                
                                          TITLE VII.--FINANCE, SPENDING                                         
                                                                                                                
1895A(b)(1)(B)(iii)................  Medical savings         313(b)(1)(B)..........  Creates Medical Savings    
                                      accounts of the                                 Accounts. Increases the   
                                      Social Security Act                             deficit by $3.5 billion   
                                      as added by sec. 7001                           over 7 years.             
                                      of the bill.                                                              
7116...............................  Anti-kickback           313(b)(1)(A)..........  Directs Secretary to study 
                                      penalties.                                      benefits of volume and    
                                                                                      combination benefits under
                                                                                      Medicare. Produces no     
                                                                                      change in outlays or      
                                                                                      revenues.                 
7175...............................  Budget Expenditure      313(b)(1)(A)..........  Produces no change in      
                                      Limitation Tool                                 outlays or revenues.      
                                      (BELT).                                                                   
                                                                                                                
                                    TITLE VII.--FINANCE, MEDICAID AND WELFARE                                   
                                                                                                                
Subtitle B, Medicaid:                                                                                           
    2106...........................  Medicaid Task Force...  313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no budgetary   
                                                                                      impact. The Secretary is  
                                                                                      to establish and provide  
                                                                                      administrative support for
                                                                                      a Medicaid Task Force;    
                                                                                      membership is specified.  
                                                                                      An advisory group is to be
                                                                                      established for the Task  
                                                                                      Force; the membership of  
                                                                                      the advisory group is     
                                                                                      specified.                
    2122(g)........................  Authority to Use        313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no budgetary   
                                      Portion of Payment                              impact. Superwaiver.      
                                      for Other Purposes.                             Allows State to use up to 
                                                                                      30 percent of the grant   
                                                                                      during a fiscal year to   
                                                                                      carry out a State program 
                                                                                      pursuant to a waiver      
                                                                                      granted under Section 1115
                                                                                      involving the new Temp.   
                                                                                      Assistance block grant,   
                                                                                      MCH block grants, SSI,    
                                                                                      Medicare, Title XX (SSBG) 
                                                                                      and the Food Stamp        
                                                                                      program. States required  
                                                                                      to approve or disapprove  
                                                                                      waiver within 90 days and 
                                                                                      State are to encourage    
                                                                                      waivers.                  
2123(h)............................  Treatment of Assisted   313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no budgetary   
                                      Suicide.                                        impact. No payments made  
                                                                                      to pay for or assist in   
                                                                                      the purchase in whole or  
                                                                                      in part of health benefit 
                                                                                      coverage that includes    
                                                                                      payment for any drug,     
                                                                                      biological product or     
                                                                                      service which was         
                                                                                      furnished for the purpose 
                                                                                      of causing, or assisting  
                                                                                      in causing, the death,    
                                                                                      suicide, euthanasia, or   
                                                                                      mercy killing of a person.
2174...............................  Individual Entitlement  313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no budgetary   
                                                                                      impact. This title shall  
                                                                                      not be construed as       
                                                                                      providing for an          
                                                                                      entitlement.              
Subtitle C, Welfare:                                                                                            
    403(a)(3)......................  Supplemental Grant for  313(b)(1)(B)..........  Extraneous; costs. Provides
                                      Population Increases                            additional grants to      
                                      in Certain States.                              States with higher        
                                                                                      population growth and     
                                                                                      average spending less than
                                                                                      the national average.     
    403(b)(2)......................  Treat Interstate        313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no budgetary   
                                      Immigrants Under                                impact. A State may apply 
                                      Rules of Former State.                          to a family some or all of
                                                                                      the rules, including      
                                                                                      benefit amounts, or the   
                                                                                      program operated by the   
                                                                                      family's former State if  
                                                                                      the family has resided in 
                                                                                      the current State less    
                                                                                      than 12 months.           
    405(b)(1)......................  No assistance for More  313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; does not score.
                                      Than Five Years.                                States may not provide    
                                                                                      assistance for more than 5
                                                                                      years on a cumulative     
                                                                                      basis; can opt to provide 
                                                                                      it for less than 5 years. 
    406(b).........................  State option to Deny    313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; does not score.
                                      Assistance For Out of                           States may deny assistance
                                      Wedlock Births to                               for a child born out-of-  
                                      Minors.                                         wedlock to an individual  
                                                                                      who has not attained 18   
                                                                                      years of age, or for the  
                                                                                      individual.               
    406(c).........................  State option to Deny    313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; does not score.
                                      Assistance For                                  States may deny assistance
                                      Children Born to                                for a minor child who is  
                                      Families Receiving                              born to a recipient of    
                                      Assistance.                                     assistance.               
    406(f).........................  Grant Increased to      313(b)(1)(B)..........  Extraneous; costs. Provides
                                      Reward States That                              additional funds to States
                                      Reduce Out-of-Wedlock                           that reduce out-of-wedlock
                                      births.                                         births by at least 1      
                                                                                      percent below 1995 levels,
                                                                                      and whose rates of        
                                                                                      abortion do not increase. 
                                                                                      Secretary can deny the    
                                                                                      funds if the State changes
                                                                                      methods of reporting data.
    418............................  Performance Bonus and   313(b)(1)(B)..........  Extraneous; costs. 5 States
                                      High Performance                                with highest percentage   
                                      Bonus.                                          performance improvement   
                                                                                      receive a bonus. Note:    
                                                                                      this is paid for with     
                                                                                      previous year's penalties 
                                                                                      so some might claim it is 
                                                                                      deficit neutral. However, 
                                                                                      it is a separate and      
                                                                                      discrete section.         
    7202...........................  Services Provided by    313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no cost impact.
                                      Charitable,                                     Allows States to provide  
                                      Religious, or Private                           services through contracts
                                      Organizations.                                  with charitable,          
                                                                                      religious, or private     
                                                                                      organizations.            
    7207...........................  Disclosure of Receipt   313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no cost impact.
                                      of Fed Funds.                                                             
Subtitle D, SSI:                                                                                                
    Chapter 5: 7291................  Repeal of Maintenance   313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no cost impact.
                                      of Effort                                       Savings accrues to the    
                                      Requirements                                    State.                    
                                      Applicable to                                                             
                                      Optional State                                                            
                                      Programs for                                                              
                                      Supplementation of                                                        
                                      SSI.                                                                      
    Chapter 6: 7295................  Eligibility for SSI     313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no cost impact 
                                      Benefits Based on                               within the 7-year budget  
                                      Soc. Sec. Retirement                            window.                   
                                      Age.                                                                      
Subtitle G, Other welfare:                                                                                      
    Chapter 1:                                                                                                  
        7412.......................  Reductions in Federal   313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no direct      
                                      Bureaucracy.                                    spending impact. Reduction
                                                                                      is on the discretionary   
                                                                                      side of the budget.       
        7445.......................  Abstinence Education    313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no direct      
                                      in Welfare Reform                               spending impact.          
                                      Legislation.                                    Authorization of          
                                                                                      appropriations.           
Subtitle J, COLAs:                                                                                              
    7481...........................  SoS Regarding           313(b)(1)(A)..........  Extraneous; no direct      
                                      Corrections of Cost                             spending impact. Finds    
                                      of Living Adjustments.                          that the CPI overstates   
                                                                                      the cost of living in the 
                                                                                      U.S., and that the        
                                                                                      overstatement undermines  
                                                                                      the equitable             
                                                                                      administration of Federal 
                                                                                      benefits. Expresses the   
                                                                                      Sense of the Senate that  
                                                                                      Federal law should be     
                                                                                      corrected to accurately   
                                                                                      reflect future changes in 
                                                                                      the cost of living.       
                                                                                                                
                                       TITLE X.--LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES                                      
                                                                                                                
Sec.  10002(c) (1) ``(a)(2)(C)''...  Participation of        313(b)(1)(A)..........  Total administrative funds 
                                      Institutions and                                are fixed in              
                                      Administration of                               1002(c)(1)``(a)(1)(A)'',  
                                      Loan Programs,                                  therefore the limitation  
                                      Limitation on Certain                           on indirect expenses and  
                                      [administrative]                                the use of funds for      
                                      Expenses.                                       promotion does not score. 
Sec.  10003(d).....................  Loan Terms &            313(b)(1)(A)..........  Permitting development of  
                                      Conditions, Use of                              forms does not score. [Not
                                      Electronic Forms.                               in cost estimate.]        
Sec.  10003(e).....................  Loan Terms &            313(b)(1)(A)..........  Clarifying use of          
                                      Conditions,                                     electronic forms does not 
                                      Application for Part                            score. [Not in cost       
                                      B Loans Using Free                              estimate.]                
                                      Federal Application.                                                      


                                                                                                                

[[Page S 16053]]
                             EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS, RECONCILIATION, 1995--Continued                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtitle and Section                 Subject          Budget Act Violation           Explanation        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  10005(g).....................  Amendments Affecting    313(b)(1)(A)..........  Permitting authority to use
                                      Guarantee Agencies,                             clearinghouse is not a    
                                      National Student Loan                           term and condition. [Not  
                                      Clearinghouse.                                  in cost estimate.]        
Sec.  10005(h).....................  Amendments Affecting    313(b)(1)(A)..........  Only recovery of reserves  
                                      Guarantee Agencies,                             scores. [Not in cost      
                                      Prohibition Regarding                           estimate.] Not term or    
                                      Marketing,                                      condition of Sec.         
                                      Advertising, and                                10005(b), (c), (d), or    
                                      Promotion.                                      (f).                      
                                                                                                                
                                               TITLE XII.--FINANCE                                              
                                                                                                                
12104..............................  Distribution to         313(b)(1)(A)..........  No budgetary impact.       
                                      collectibles.                                                             
12401..............................  Requires Secretary of   313(b)(1)(A)..........  No budgetary impact.       
                                      Labor to implement a                                                      
                                      program to encourage                                                      
                                      small businesses to                                                       
                                      find qualified                                                            
                                      employees.                                                                
12431..............................  Exempts Alaska from     313(b)(1)(D)..........  Merely incidental budgetary
                                      diesel dyeing                                   impact. Joint Tax         
                                      requirements.                                   Committee scores as a $1  
                                                                                      million loss over seven   
                                                                                      years.                    
12705..............................  Provides exceptions to  313(b)(1)(A)..........  No budgetary impact. Joint 
                                      the notification                                Tax Committee scores as   
                                      requirements to                                 ``negligible.''           
                                      beneficiaries of                                                          
                                      charitable remainder                                                      
                                      trusts.                                                                   
12874..............................  Reduces insurance       313(b)(1)(D)..........  Merely incidental.         
                                      premiums to reachback                                                     
                                      companies.                                                                
12131b.............................  Exempts Simple          313(b)(1)(A),           No budgetary impact.       
                                      retirement from ERISA.  313(b)(1)(C).           Jurisdiction of Labor     
                                                                                      Committee.                
12202d.............................  Medicare Consumer       313(b)(1)(A),           No budgetary impact. Merely
                                      Protection Act--        313(b)(1)(D).           incidental.               
                                      regulation of health                                                      
                                      care insurance                                                            
                                      duplication.                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mrs. MURRAY. President, we have been debating this budget 
reconciliation for several days now, and I must say it looks no better 
now than it did when we were debating the budget resolution 5 months 
ago. In fact, its details are more troubling than I could have 
imagined, and, not surprisingly, the concern in my home State is much 
greater than I ever predicted.
  What concerns me most is this budget seems to have no core values or 
principles that mean anything to American families. Its principles seem 
to be program cuts for the sake of program cuts, and tax cuts for the 
sake of tax cuts, with little regard for the consequences. I cannot 
understand the philosophy that prevails here that we have to somehow 
scorch the Earth in order to balance the budget.
  Mr. President, I, too, want to balance this Nation's budget. In fact, 
I am proud to say I supported the 1993 budget package. That plan has 
this Nation on the right track; since its passage, our annual deficits 
have declined in each consecutive year. Earlier in this debate, I 
supported a balanced budget proposal put forth by my colleague from 
North Dakota, Senator Conrad. His plan would have balanced our Nation's 
deficit in a fair and equitable manner. It would have maintained a 
commitment to education, health care and retirees. It would have 
brought our spending in line with our national priorities, and it would 
have postponed the tax breaks until we can afford them. It was a 
responsible and realistic alternative; most importantly, it had core 
values and principles that are important to every citizen in this 
country.
  And, I, too, want to reduce taxes. Believe me, I know what it takes 
to raise a family, balance the family books and pay taxes. I know how 
badly my friends and neighbors want tax relief, and I understand how 
difficult it can be for families to cope with their tax burdens. I also 
know how expensive it is for small, family-owned businesses to keep 
their businesses in the family, and I believe targeted estate tax 
relief is one example of good tax reform; as is allowing first-time 
homebuyers to make tax-free IRA withdrawals for the purchase of a new 
home.
  But, there is a right way and there is a wrong way to balance the 
budget, and the plan before us balances our budget the wrong way. We 
cannot afford to balance this Nation's budget on the backs of our 
children and the elderly, so that those who are already better off can 
put more cash in their checking accounts. We cannot afford to give tax 
breaks to people who don't need them, and then increase taxes on the 
working poor and health insurance on the elderly.
  It is interesting to note that many of my colleagues argue on behalf 
of this budget package by claiming it will benefit our children and 
grandchildren in the long run. They claim we will give our children a 
better economy and lower interest rates tomorrow by balancing the 
budget today. They fail to note that this plan cuts our investments in 
the future to do so; programs like head Start and WIC and college loans 
and AmeriCorps.
  I ask, what good will lower interest rates do for my children and 
grandchildren if we reduce their access to higher education and 
vocational training, ultimately limiting their ability to acquire the 
skills they will need to find a family wage job?
  Moreover, the proponents argue these tax breaks will enable families 
to save more for the future. However, current estimates reveal that 
these tax breaks will increase our Nation's debt by roughly $93 
billion. That's $93 billion our children and grandchildren will be 
paying back through higher taxes later. This sounds like the 1980's all 
over again.
  It is imperative that we understand how this budget plan really 
impacts our children and families. How does it impact average 
Americans? Does this budget provide hope, or does it tell hardworking 
Americans they're on their own? Does it provide security and safety for 
our children and elderly, or does it lead to uncertainty and 
anxiousness? These are just a few of the important questions I 
considered when looking at this budget reconciliation. We should be 
providing hope for the families that are struggling to pay their rent, 
feed their children and care for their elderly parents. Instead, we are 
showing these families and their children that the only way to address 
these difficult issues is to cut the heart out of what they need to 
survive--education, health care and good jobs.
  Last month, I held a forum back in Washington State to talk about the 
varied issues surrounding Medicare. I expected one or two dozen to 
attend. Instead, over 500 people showed up to express their views. 
people are concerned. They are anxious, and not quite certain what a 
$270 billion Medicare cut means to them. How much more money will be 
taken out of their Social Security check each month? And what are 
seniors on a fixed income going to get for their sacrifice? I hope it 
is more than a tax break for somebody else. This budget is not 
providing certainty or hope. My constituents see difficult times ahead. 
They are wondering how they will pay for health care.

  And then there's Medicaid. This program serves the elderly in nursing 
homes, the adult disabled, pregnant women, and children--the most 
vulnerable in our society, and the working families that support them 
and care for them every day. This budget will take $187 billion out of 
Medicaid, do away with the standards of care, block grant the program, 
and let States decide who won't have their medical costs covered.
  The fears that working families have about the Medicaid cuts can best 
be summed up by a letter I recently received from a worried mother:

       What will happen to our family when my mother, who has 
     Alzheimer's disease and lives with us, has no more funds and 
     we can no longer care for her at home? My children's 
     education depends on both my husband and me working. If one 
     of us becomes unemployed or must take on full-time care 
     taking responsibilities, we risk grave financial consequences 
     for all of us.

  The lack of social priorities isn't the only problem in this budget. 
It fundamentally stalls the best economic development initiatives this 
country has in order to compete in the global marketplace.
  There are over 30,000 Boeing employees in my home State on strike as 
we speak. There No. 1 issue is job security. The global economy and 
increased competition has made these employees, and many others like 
them, uncertain about the future. They increasingly look to us for 
support. They want to know what the Federal Government will do to help 
them compete in the global marketplace.
  This budget provides no security or hope. Instead, it proposes deep 
cuts in trade promotion programs and trade adjustment assistance. It 
demolishes the Commerce Department at a time when Secretary Brown has 
maximized 

[[Page S 16054]]
its effectiveness on behalf of American businesses. This budget sends 
the message that the Federal Government will provide no leadership in 
international competition, and has no role in cultivating good, high-
paying jobs that will lead our families into the 21st century.
  And what about the tax increases in this budget? This budget says 
working families do not count in the scope of principles governing this 
budget.
  Many families will see tax increases because of the proposed cuts to 
the earned income tax credit. We all know how important the EITC is, 
and we're all aware of the bipartisan support it has received over the 
years. As President Reagan once said, ``this credit is one of the most 
successful profamily, prowork initiatives ever to come out of 
Congress.'' The budget before us will reduce the EITC by $43.5 billion 
over 7 years. In my home State, low-income working families with two 
children will see a $452 tax increase in 2002 and a $522 tax increase 
in 2005.
  The worst aspect of this tax proposal is that it increases taxes on 
approximately 17 million hard-working Americans while the top 13 
percent of income earners will reap 40 percent of the tax breaks. Does 
this provide security and hope for our low- and middle-income 
taxpayers? It does not. Reducing the EITC simply will drop many working 
families into poverty, and make it more difficult for families to take 
care of their children and parents.
  The environment doesn't escape this budget, either.
  I am concerned about the impacts this bill will have on public lands 
and other national assets. For decades, the Congress of the United 
States has recognized that our public lands and assets are too precious 
to sell unless their sale is in the best interest of the public. But it 
appears to be a new day. Today, this committee may vote to sell--or 
lease--our children's heritage to pay our debts. The leasing of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in particular is not an issue of 
revenues. It's a question of values. It's a question of whether we are 
willing to trade off open space, parks, wilderness, and wildlife 
values--the natural legacy for our children--for a short-term payment 
toward the bills we have accumulated--or worse, for a tax cut for 
ourselves.
  There truly is a right way to balance the budget; a way that provides 
security and hope and a way that assures average Americans that we are 
looking out for them. I tried to instill some of this common sense into 
the budget resolution, and I am pleased the Senate responded to my 
amendment calling for an appropriate level of Impact Aid funding. I 
only wish we could have had more cooperation across the board on other 
education needs like Head Start, School-to-Work, and Safe and Drug Free 
Schools, and AmeriCorps.
  Mr. President, given the fundamental disrespect for families in this 
budget, I am forced to oppose this reconciliation package. It does not 
have important core principles, and I'm afraid it is leading toward an 
America far different from the one I grew up in. I am alarmed at its 
shortsightedness. I fear it was motivated by a desire to balance the 
budget by a given date, regardless of the consequences.
  This budget leads us down a new road; a road none of us have 
traveled. It says the Federal Government is no longer responsible for 
the welfare of its people. But, yet, who will be? Who will rise to the 
occasion? Who will pick up the slack? None of us know, but each of us 
should be prepared. Prepared, because this budget is calling each of us 
to be more vigilant, more aware of the needs of our families and 
neighbors, more willing to pay for the health care needs of our 
parents, children, and friends. Those of us in this room may be able to 
pick up the slack, but many in our home States will be hard pressed to 
meet this challenge.
  This budget is not good public policy. It is not why I was elected, 
and it's certainly not what the families in Washington State want.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, once again, we are lying to the American 
people. Instead of a serious attempt to get our fiscal house in order, 
the reconciliation bill that we are now considering is little more than 
a political document. It is more about getting a Republican in the 
White House than getting rid of red ink. The American people will not 
be fooled. The Republican reconciliation bill does not balance the 
budget--it merely front loads goodies such as the tax cuts and back 
loads all the tough decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that two tables that I have prepared exposing the realities of the GOP 
budget be included in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            ``Here We Go Again'': Senator Ernest F. Hollings

                        [In billions of dollars]

1995 CBO outlays..................................................1,530
1996 CBO outlays..................................................1,583
                                                               ________

    Increased spending..............................................+53

           GOP ``SOLID,'' ``NO SMOKE AND MIRRORS'' BUDGET PLAN          
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    CBO       Cumulative
               Year                CBO outlays    revenues     deficits 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.............................        1,583        1,355         -228
1997.............................        1,624        1,419         -205
1998.............................        1,663        1,478         -185
1999.............................        1,718        1,549         -169
2000.............................        1,779        1,622         -157
2001.............................        1,819        1,701         -118
2002.............................        1,874        1,884          +10
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................       12,060       11,008       -1,052
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   DEBT (\1\ OFF CBO'S APRIL BASELINE)                  
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  National     Interest 
                                                    debt        costs   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995..........................................      4,927.0        336.0
1996..........................................      5,261.7        369.9
1997..........................................      5,551.4        381.6
1998..........................................      5,821.6        390.9
1999..........................................      6,081.1        404.0
2000..........................................      6,331.3        416.1
2001..........................................      6,575.9        426.8
2002..........................................      6,728.0        436.0
                                               -------------------------
    Increase 1995-2002........................      1,801.0        100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1996         2002   
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Debt includes (off CBO's August-baseline):                          
  1. Owed to the trust funds..................      1,361.8      2,355.7
  2. Owed to Government accts.................         81.9        (\2\)
  3. Owed to additional borrowing.............      3,794.3      4,372.7
                                               -------------------------
      [Note: No ``unified'' debt; just total                            
       debt]..................................      5,238.0      6,728.4
``Paper'' Balancing:                                                    
  1. By borrowing and increasing debt (1995-                            
   2002)--Includes $636 billion                                         
   ``embezzlement'' of the Social Security                              
   Trust Fund.................................  ...........      1,801.0
  2. Smoke and Mirrors........................  ...........  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Included above.                                                     


                                                                        
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Outlays      Revenues 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 CBO BASELINE BUDGET......................        1,874        1,884
                                               =========================
This assumes:                                                           
  1. Discretionary freeze plus discretionary                            
   cuts (in 2002).............................  ...........         -121
  2. Entitlement cuts and interest savings (in                          
   2002)......................................  ...........         -226
                                               -------------------------
      [1996 cuts, $45 B] spending reductions                            
       (in 2002)..............................  ...........         -347
  Using SS Trust Fund.........................  ...........         -115
                                               -------------------------
      Total reductions (in 2002)..............  ...........         -462
  + Increased Borrowing from tax cut..........  ...........          -93
                                               -------------------------
      Grand total.............................  ...........         -555
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Promised balanced budgets

                        [In billions of dollars]

1981 budget.......................................................\1\ 0
1985 GRH budget...................................................\2\ 0
1990 budget....................................................\3\ 20.5

\1\ By fiscal year 1984.
\2\ By fiscal year 1991.
\3\ By fiscal year 1995.

                                                                            BUDGET TABLES: SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS                                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Government budget                                                                                                               
                            Year                                   (outlays in           Trust funds         Unified deficit        Real deficit       Gross Federal debt      Gross interest   
                                                                    billions)                                                                                                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968........................................................                 178.1                   3.1                 -25.2                 -28.3                 368.7                  14.6
1969........................................................                 183.6                  -0.3                  +3.2                  +2.9                 365.8                  16.6
1970........................................................                 195.6                  12.3                  -2.8                 -15.1                 380.9                  19.3
1971........................................................                 210.2                   4.3                 -23.0                 -27.3                 408.2                  21.0
1972........................................................                 230.7                   4.3                 -23.4                 -27.7                 435.9                  21.8
1973........................................................                 245.7                  15.5                 -14.9                 -30.4                 466.3                  24.2
1974........................................................                 269.4                  11.5                  -6.1                 -17.6                 483.9                  29.3
1975........................................................                 332.3                   4.8                 -53.2                 -58.0                 541.9                  32.7
1976........................................................                 371.8                  13.4                 -73.7                 -87.1                 629.0                  37.1

[[Page S 16055]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                
1977........................................................                 409.2                  23.7                 -53.7                 -77.4                 706.4                  41.9
1978........................................................                 458.7                  11.0                 -59.2                 -70.2                 776.6                  48.7
1979........................................................                 504.0                  12.2                 -40.7                 -52.9                 829.5                  59.9
1980........................................................                 590.9                   5.8                 -73.8                 -79.6                 909.1                  74.8
1981........................................................                 678.2                   6.7                 -79.0                 -85.7                 994.8                  95.5
1982........................................................                 745.8                  14.5                -128.0                -142.5               1,137.3                 117.2
1983........................................................                 808.4                  26.6                -207.8                -234.4               1,371.7                 128.7
1984........................................................                 851.8                   7.6                -185.4                -193.0               1,564.7                 153.9
1985........................................................                 946.4                  40.6                -212.3                -252.9               1,817.6                 178.9
1986........................................................                 990.3                  81.8                -221.2                -303.0               2,120.6                 190.3
1987........................................................               1,003.9                  75.7                -149.8                -225.5               2,346.1                 195.3
1988........................................................               1,064.1                 100.0                -155.2                -255.2               2,601.3                 214.1
1989........................................................               1,143.2                 114.2                -152.5                -266.7               2,868.0                 240.9
1990........................................................               1,252.7                 117.2                -221.4                -338.6               3,206.6                 264.7
1991........................................................               1,323.8                 122.7                -269.2                -391.9               3,598.5                 285.5
1992........................................................               1,380.9                 113.2                -290.4                -403.6               4,002.1                 292.3
1993........................................................               1,408.2                  94.2                -255.1                -349.3               4,351.4                 292.5
1994........................................................               1,460.6                  89.1                -203.2                -292.3               4,643.7                 296.3
1995........................................................               1,530.0                 121.9                -161.4                -283.3               4,927.0                 336.0
1996 estimate...............................................               1,583.0                 121.8                -189.3                -331.1               5,238.0                 348.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CBO's January, April, and August 1995 Reports                                                                                                                                           


         

                        [In billions of dollars]

                                                              Year 2002
1996 budget:
  Kasich Conf. Report, p. 3 [Deficit]..............................-108
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

1996 budget outlays (CBO est.)..................................1,583.0
1995 budget outlays.............................................1,530.0
                                                             __________

    Increased spending............................................+53.0
         

                                                                        
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Outlays      Revenues 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO baseline assuming budget resolution.......        1,874        1,884
                                               =========================
This assumes:                                                           
  1. Discretionary freeze plus discretionary                            
   cuts (in 2002).............................  ...........         -121
  2. Entitlement cuts and interest savings (in                          
   2002)......................................  ...........         -226
  3. Using SS Trust Fund (in 2002)............  ...........         -115
                                               -------------------------
      Total reductions (in 2002)..............  ...........         -462
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        

                           energy provisions

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as a member of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, I am pleased the distinguished chairman, Mr. 
Murkowski, has agreed to participate in a colloquy with me and my 
colleague from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, concerning the energy 
provisions of S. 1357. Has the chairman reviewed our proposed amendment 
concerning aircraft services for the Department of the Interior?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have reviewed the amendment submitted 
by the Senators from Idaho, and it reads as follows:

       On page 395, line 24, after ``shall'' insert ``, unless it 
     would be more cost-effective for the Department to use 
     government-owned and operated aircraft,''.
       On page 396, lines 8 and 9, after ``suppression'' insert 
     ``and those that it would be more cost effective to retain 
     under subsection (a).''.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. As the chairman knows, the Energy provisions of S. 
1357 would change Department of the Interior practices relating to 
aircraft services by requiring the Secretary to sell all DOI aircraft 
and related equipment and facilities--except those whose primary 
purpose is fire suppression--and instead contract necessary aircraft 
services from private entities. Am I correct that this provision is 
targeted at saving tax dollars and stopping Government waste?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, an independent study of the Bureau of 
Reclamation's Government-owned, Government-operated aircraft service in 
Boise, ID, found that it saved more tax dollars than other options, 
including contracting out. Would the chairman agree that the committee 
did not intend to eliminate truly cost-effective programs that happened 
to be Government-owned and operated, such as that of the Bureau of 
Reclamation in Idaho?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is correct. Let me assure the Senators 
from Idaho that we are committed to achieving the best and fairest deal 
for American taxpayers. We will work in conference to further clarify 
the changes in S. 1357 to address the concerns of my colleagues from 
Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for making a 
clarification that I believe will serve the best interests of taxpayers 
and the efficient delivery of Government services.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I also thank my chairman for accommodating 
our concerns while preserving the fairness and cost savings of the 
Energy Committee's provisions.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill contains 
the essential elements of S. 959, the Capital Formation Act of 1995.
  That bill, which I cosponsored with Senator Hatch, had over 40 
cosponsors.
  I am pleased that the bill before us contains a broad-based capital 
gains tax cut as well as a targeted provision which provides a 
sweetened incentive to invest in small businesses. I would have liked 
it if the real estate loss provision had been included by the Senate 
Finance Committee and I intend to work to see that that provision is 
included in conference.
  I think it is important to understand that the benefits of a capital 
gains cut are not limited to the wealthy. Anyone who has stock, who has 
money invested in a mutual fund, who has investment property, who has a 
stock option plan has a state in this debate. We are talking about 
millions and millions of American families.
  Unlike most other industrialized nations, we stifle savings and 
investment by overtaxing that savings and investment.
  This capital gains bill rewards those who are willing to invest their 
money and not spend it. It rewards people who put their money in places 
where it will add to our national pool of savings. Businesses can draw 
on this pool of savings to meet their capital needs, expand their 
businesses, and hire more workers.
  Of course, people who are wealthy can benefit from this proposal 
capital gains cut but only because they are willing to put their money 
in places where that money will create wealth.
  I would like to close with a quote from this year's Nobel Prize 
winner in economics, Robert Lucas. He said, and I quote, ``When I left 
graduate school in 1963, I believed that the single most desirable 
change in the U.S. tax structure would be the taxation of gains as 
ordinary income. I now believe that neither capital gains nor any of 
the income from capital should be taxed at all.'' Professor Lucas goes 
on to say that his analysis shows that even under conservative 
assumptions, eliminating capital gains taxes would increase available 
capital in this country by about 35 percent.
  I could not agree more on the need to increase available capital and 
I would invite anyone who does not think we have a problem with 
available capital to visit any of the thousands of economically 
distressed urban and rural countries across this country. While the 
capital gains provision before us reduces, but does not eliminate the 
tax on capital gains as Professor Lucas would prefer, I hope that you 
will join in supporting this provision.


                           amendment no. 2985

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I voted for the resolution offered by the 
senior Senator from Pennsylvania which expresses the sense of the 
Senate that this body should enact a flat tax.
  Our current Tax Code is complicated and almost incomprehensible to 
many of our citizens who must comply with its provisions.

[[Page S 16056]]

  It is high time that we simplify the Tax Code. Simplification should 
and must be on the front burner.
  We need to consider a flat tax in our search for simplification. But, 
whatever we do, we must not abandon fundamental fairness and 
progressivity.
  A number of questions remain to be answered with respect to the flat 
tax. What will be the impact of disallowing the mortgage interest 
deduction or the charitable deduction? If companies can no longer 
deduct their contributions to employee pension plans or health care 
plans--will they continue to make those contributions?
  There are a lot of questions that need to be answered about a flat 
tax. But it does have one thing going for it. It has to be simpler than 
our current code.
  As we develop an alternative to the current tax structure, we want to 
keep an eye on simplicity and fairness.
  We need an alternative to our current Tax Code. This sense-of-the-
Senate resolution starts us on our way to structuring a simplified tax 
system.


                        enhanced enterprise zone

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment 
with Senator Abraham to supercharge the enterprise communities and 
empowerment zones we created in 1993
  This amendment builds on S. 1252, the Enhanced Enterprise Zone Act of 
1995, which I have introduced with Senator Abraham. Our effort has been 
very bipartisan--to date Senators Santorum, Moseley-Braun, DeWine, 
Breaux, and Frist have all agreed to sign on as cosponsors of 1252.
  Across this country, there are differing views on the state of race 
relations, affirmative action, and minority set-aside programs like the 
8(a) program. Racial divisions in this country have been highlighted by 
the O.J. Simpson trial and to some extent, I believe, healed by the 
message that came out of the Million Man March.
  The differences across America on issues like affirmative action and 
8(a) also exist among Members of the U.S. Senate. That being said, I 
believe that each and every Member of the Senate believes the 
following: that regardless of what we each believe we should do about 
the racial divisions in this country, what to do about affirmative 
action, and what to do about minority set-aside programs, we all 
believe that not enough is being done to help those people who live and 
work in and want to start business in the economically distressed urban 
and rural areas of this country. Any response to the economic distress 
in urban and rural areas which does not include a mechanism to attract 
businesses and jobs back to these areas is a response that is destined 
for failure.
  Last week the Senate Small Business Committee held a hearing on S. 
1252 and former Housing Secretary Jack Kemp had this to say:

       The train wreck is not so much the inability to reconcile 
     the differences between the House and the Senate over the 
     budget . . . The real train wreck is what those 400,000 men 
     were saying on the Mall a few days ago: that there are not 
     enough jobs in America. We are not creating enough 
     opportunities for people to become entrepreneurs, to become 
     owners, to become homeowners, to become business owners. To 
     get jobs not only as truck drivers, but someday to own the 
     truck and maybe start a little trucking company.

  We took a step toward identifying and helping these areas of economic 
distress by passing the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities Act 
in 1993 with much-needed help from this President. With the passage of 
that legislation, Congress recognized something that our States have 
acknowledged for many years: Government loses the war on poverty when 
it fights alone. What we really need to do is figure out a way to pull 
the people and the places with little or no stake in our economic 
system, into our system.
  The 1993 legislation was a fundamental change in urban policy. It was 
a recognition that American business can and must play a role in 
revitalizing poor neighborhoods.
  The 1993 legislation was a critical step in the right direction. But 
we need to go further, particularly in helping the existing 94 
enterprise communities. This amendment is designed to supercharge these 
zones. We propose to add tax incentives and other Federal assistance to 
these zones with an eye toward the creation of economic opportunities 
for the urban and rural poor.
  Very briefly, this amendment provides a zero capital gains tax on the 
sale of any qualified zone stock, business property, or partnership 
interest that has been held for at least 5 years within an EZ or EC; it 
allows individuals to deduct the purchase of qualified enterprise zone 
stock from their incomes--up to $100,000 in 1 year and $500,000 in 
their lifetime and it allows businesses to double the maximum allowable 
expensing for purchases of plant and equipment in enterprise zones.

  This amendment also includes a modified version of a proposal which 
Senator Hutchison has been working on to provide a limited tax credit 
to businesses to help defray the cost of construction, expansion, and 
renovation. While revenue constraints have forced us to scale back that 
proposal we hope it will work so well that we will want to expand it in 
the future.
  A third initiative embraced by this package is low-income home 
ownership and residential management of public housing. Jack Kemp has 
been instrumental in pressing us to make this happen.
  Setting down a stake in the system has been out of reach for the 
poorest among us for far too long. We believe this amendment will 
create opportunity for those who work hard, ownership opportunities for 
those who want to own property and support for those families who need 
it.
  Last week, the New York Times carried a story about Mr. Lavale 
Thomas, a former Green Bay Packer running back and current black 
entrepreneur, speaking to a group of high school students in 
Washington, DC. And here are the questions the students asked Thomas: 
``How did you get a loan? Was it harder for a black man to get banks to 
lend money than a white man? Would blacks buy from other blacks? What 
did he give back to the community?''
  These are great questions for kids to be asking. They all get at the 
issue of, ``How do I become part of the system?'' This amendment is 
designed to make it easier for these students to become part of the 
system and to build a better future for themselves.
  While we will not be offering this amendment today, I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting much-needed help for our 
economically distressed areas by supporting S. 1252.


                         nursing home standards

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I voted yes today on the Cohen-Pryor 
amendment to reinstate Federal nursing home standards. I did so in part 
because the so-called Finance Committee manager's amendment, which 
included a provision on nursing home standards, was not completed and 
available at the time of the vote on Cohen-Pryor. The language in the 
manager's amendment may be preferable over Cohen-Pryor. But, because 
the amendment was not available for review, I was not able to compare 
the language of Cohen-Pryor with the manager's amendment to see which 
is the better version for seniors and nursing homes in Montana.
  My vote on Cohen-Pryor in no way means that I favor the Cohen-Pryor 
amendment over the nursing home provisions in the manager's amendment, 
which the Senate hopefully will be able to review later today.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk 
about a proposal I have been working on to make the child tax credit 
better. This proposal, called Kid$ave, would do much to address a 
number of the fundamental problems we face today as well as the 
problems our children will face in the future. I had hoped to offer 
this proposals as an amendment to the bill before us but I am not 
convinced there is adequate time in this process to give this proposal 
a thorough airing. For this reason, I would like to outline this 
proposal and ask that the conferees on this bill review this proposal 
in conference.
  Kid$ave would transform the $500 middle-class tax credit being 
considered by the Finance Committee into a long-term retirement savings 
account. In addition to providing for the economic security of the next 
generation, the proposal would buttress savings and investment for the 
economic security of this generation.
  Kid$ave allows parents to set aside an annual $500 credit in an IRA 
in their child's name. The tax-deferred account would be governed by 
IRA rules, with 

[[Page S 16057]]
one exception: children would be allowed to take a 10-year loan against 
this money for their higher education. Thanks to the wonders of 
compound interest, $500 a year set aside from birth to age 18 would, at 
10 percent interest a year, grow to $1.3 million by the time the child 
reached age 59\1/2\, the age at which IRA funds can start to be 
withdrawn with no penalty.
  One of our greatest challenges is how to create economic opportunity 
and wealth for the working families of this country. I believe Kid$ave 
helps us meet that challenge in an affordable, responsible way. If 
there is going to be a tax credit to help families with children, I 
believe there is no better way to provide that help than to offer 
parents the opportunity to ensure a sound financial future for their 
children.
  That is good news for the future. But Kid$ave is good news for the 
present, as well. Kid$ave will help our economy today by creating a 
pool of savings available for investment. As you know, savings and 
investment rates in the United States are at historic lows: our 
household savings rate is 4.6 percent of disposable income, compared to 
Japan's 14.8 percent and Germany's 12.3 percent. When government 
deficits are factored in, U.S. net national savings falls to 2.07 
percent. When our historic trade deficits are added to our plummeting 
savings rates, the result is an immense disinvestment in our economic 
future.
  While the Social Security trust fund is locked into Federal 
securities, Kid$ave would create a savings pool that would soon be the 
largest in the country, available for investment directly in our 
economy. It would deal directly with our national savings problem by 
assuring a long term capital source for economic growth and job 
creation. In other words, Kid$ave can help children when they retire, 
and it can help them find work until they retire.
  The proposal speaks to the problems we will face from changing 
national demographics. Because the baby boom is such a large population 
group, we will be imposing a vast financial burden on our children's 
generation to fund upcoming social security, pension and health care 
obligations, jeopardizing the long term availability of those programs 
to the following generations of Americans. This will create what 
Professor Rudy Dornbusch of MIT calls a true crunch in world capital 
markets, since we share that demographics problem with our industrial 
competitors in Europe and Asia. That capital shortage--which means 
major government and private sector borrowing to meet social and 
pension obligations and resulting sky high interest rates--will have 
serious ramifications for future economic growth unless we act now to 
head it off. The best course to take is to encourage a large buildup in 
private savings rates. Kid$ave tackles that problem head on.
  One additional advantage of Kid$ave should be noted, although it is 
harder to quantify at this time. This is the effect of encouraging 
Americans to save. The ethic of thriftiness seems to have been lost in 
recent decades, replaced by a credit car mentality. We would compound 
our problems if we pass such bad habits on to future generations. 
Kid$ave can help us turn the tide of indebtedness into a groundswell of 
savings and can transform our whole attitude toward money and how to 
use it to best advantage. That will yield incalculable dividends for 
our nation down the road.
  I would like to offer Kid$ave to all children in America. But I 
understand that revenue targets may require limits on who receives the 
credit, at least at the outset. I also understand that the Senate is 
divided between those who would like to cut taxes for middle-class 
families now and those who would prefer to balance the budget first. I 
believe Kid$ave can bridge that divide because it is a better kind of 
tax cut, one that helps us address the Nation's savings and investment 
crisis even as it provides tax relief.
  But best of all, unlike any other proposal on the table, Kid$ave 
gives our children a tangible, financial head start on the rest of 
their lives.
  In closing, let me say that whether or not you believe a family tax 
cut is a good idea at this time, this is an idea that improves on that 
credit. Last week's Baltimore Sun carried an article coauthored by an 
unlikely pair: John Rother of the AARP and Martha Philips of the 
Concord Coalition As they point out, they do not agree on much, but 
they do agree that a Kid$ave-like approach to a tax cut makes sense. 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of their article 
be printed in the Record and I would encourage my colleagues to take a 
close look at this idea.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Baltimore Sun, Oct. 17, 1995]

       If We Must Have a Tax Credit for Children, Do It This Way

                  (By Martha Phillips and John Rother)

       Washington.--You can probably count on half the fingers of 
     one hand the number of times recently that the Concord 
     Coalition, which works for a balanced budget, and the 
     American Association of Retired Persons, which advocates for 
     the elderly, have been on the same side of a public-policy 
     battle. The current debate over the child tax credit is one 
     of those rare instances of common ground.
       We are dismayed at the prospect of enacting an unnecessary 
     and large tax cut at this time--even one benignly labeled a 
     ``child tax credit.'' A large tax cut only makes the job of 
     reducing the deficit that much tougher and leads to deeper 
     program cuts than otherwise would be necessary, including 
     cuts in programs that help children. The economy is not 
     faltering, so there is little justification for stimulating 
     it by pumping another $500 a year per child into consumer 
     spending. Over the long term, the economy needs more savings, 
     which is the chief rationale for balancing the budget in the 
     first place.
       Congress and the president nevertheless have signed on to 
     the child tax credit notion, so some version seems likely to 
     be enacted. If there is to be a new children's tax credit, we 
     think an idea that Senators Bob Kerrey and Joe Lieberman and 
     several others have been working on is much better than 
     anything else we have seen.
       Although the specific details remain to be worked out, 
     their central idea is simple. Allow a $500 tax-refundable 
     credit for children under age 18 only if the money is 
     invested in qualified retirement accounts for that child's 
     old-age security. Funds in the accounts would not be taxed 
     until they were withdrawn by the child at retirement age.
       If the child saves the $500 credit every year from birth 
     for 18 years, there would be a retirement nest egg of $9,000, 
     plus another $4,000 to $16,000 in compounded earnings by the 
     time the child reached age 18. That's nice, but it gets much 
     better. Over every 40-year period since the Great Depression, 
     diversified equity funds have generated returns of somewhere 
     between 6 percent and 10 percent. Even if another penny were 
     never added to the account after age 18, by the time the 
     child reached age 65, the account would be worth a quarter of 
     a million dollars at a 6 percent real rate of return, and 
     three quarters of a million dollars at 8 percent. Leaving the 
     initial $9,000 untouched until age 70 would result in $1.1 
     million at an average 8 percent return.
       These savings would be available to fuel long-term economic 
     growth and could help provide not only future jobs but an 
     improving standard of living for today's children when they 
     are grown. The impressive results of compound earnings over 
     65 or 70 years would help assure old-age economic security 
     for a generation whose prospects today appear uncertain. 
     Since private pensions today cover fewer than half of all 
     workers, and since economic surveys show most households with 
     inadequate levels of private retirement savings, it is clear 
     that we need a new approach. The income from these 
     individually-owned retirement savings would permit everyone 
     in future generations to supplement Social Security benefits, 
     as originally intended.
       In order to minimize unnecessary risk and overhead, these 
     retirement accounts could be administered in the same way as 
     the federal-employee retirement-savings program. There could 
     be a wide range of investment options combined with the 
     efficiencies and safety of large pools of investment funds.
       There will inevitably be pressure to permit non-retirement 
     withdrawals from such accounts. Withdrawals for education or 
     health-care needs may very well be in the child's best long-
     term interests, but any exceptions permitting early 
     withdrawals must be narrow. The full retirement-income 
     benefit to the individual will be at risk for early 
     withdrawal, and one exception leads to pressures for another, 
     undermining the long-term benefit of this approach.


                        A phase-out for the rich

       There is no need, of course, to give a $500-per-child 
     contribution to children whose parents can already provide 
     for their futures. So the tax credit should be phased out for 
     higher-income families with the option for those parents to 
     contribute $500 yearly on an after-tax basis.
       The intangible benefits of this approach may be hard to 
     measure, but may ultimately be more important. Children who 
     today see little prospect for their future will have a 
     tangible stake in thinking longer term. The fact that these 
     accounts exist in their names and are growing over time will 
     reinforce the importance of other types of deferred-
     gratification behavior. We shouldn't discount the 

[[Page S 16058]]
     impact that such accounts will have on our children, even though they 
     cannot use them immediately.
       Any legislative proposal must be evaluated in context as 
     part of a budget package. We need to be especially sensitive 
     to the impact of proposed spending reductions and other tax 
     changes on programs for children, working families and 
     vulnerable seniors. Again, our organizations do not think we 
     should be considering major tax cuts at this point. But if 
     Congress is determined to enact a tax cut, we think it should 
     consider this proposal first. It's good for our children, for 
     the economy and for the long-term needs of future retirement-
     age Americans.
       The concept that Senators Kerrey, Lieberman and others are 
     working on hasn't been introduced as legislation, and we may 
     well disagree with the particulars they finally devise. But 
     at bottom, the general proposal remains a very compelling 
     option. Properly structured, the children's saving credit 
     offers a way to leave a legacy of savings, responsibility and 
     security to Americans of all ages and income levels.


                stop the billion dollar golden giveaways

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill promises to cut 
corporate welfare, save taxpayers' money and balance the Federal 
budget. Yet, tucked away, deep in the more than 2,000 pages of the 
bill, is a golden giveaway of billions of taxpayers' dollars to a 
powerful special interest lobby.
  Initially passed to encourage settlement of the West, the 
anachronistic 1872 mining law enables gigantic mining interests--many 
of which are foreign-owned--to purchase the right to mine Federal land 
for as little as $5 per acre. Literally, for the price of a McDonalds 
value meal you can buy an acre of Federal land, loaded with gold, 
silver, platinum and palladium. If this was not enough of a ripoff, the 
law does not require mining concerns to pay any royalties to American 
taxpayers for these minerals, an annual loss of roughly $100 million. 
The net effect of this law is simple: Foreign mining companies get the 
gold, and American taxpayers get the shaft.
  The sham reform contained in the bill does little to change the 
current situation. Though the bill requires that fair market value be 
paid, it only applies this standard to the surface of, what is often 
times, barren desert land. No consideration is given to the minerals, 
to the gold, silver and platinum, which are buried underneath the 
ground. It sounds good on its face--paying fair market value--but this 
alleged reform is nothing more than face-saving.
  Our conservative colleagues argue endlessly that we need to run the 
Federal Government, more like a business. But how could any business 
survive, even for a day, by opening its warehouse doors and giving away 
its products?
  On top of these fraudulent prospective changes, the bill's grand 
fathering provisions guarantee the status quo for over 200 claims 
currently pending with the Interior Department. These applications, 
involving over 130,000 acres of public land, 18 national parks, and 
more than $15 billion in precious minerals, would be granted without 
the rightful payment to the taxpayers who own the land. Again, billions 
of taxpayers' money is given away, just handed over due to this 
antiquated law.
  Just last month, Secretary of the Interior Babbitt was forced to sign 
away over 100 acres of land, containing 1 billion dollars' worth of 
minerals to a Danish mining conglomerate which paid an embarrassing 
$275--Federal couch change. This century-old practice has become eerily 
reminiscent of the Teapot Dome scandal during the 1920's.
  Unlike farmers and ranches who have a vested interest in preserving 
their land, miners have virtually no stake in using the land in an 
environmentally sound manner. After the gold is taken, the shaft is 
plugged, and the company abandons the land, often times we are left 
with dangerous, toxic abandoned mines, which require millions of 
taxpayers' dollars to clean up. In fact, the Superfund national 
priority list of hazardous waste sites contains 59 properties 
associated with mining.
  The cosmetic mining law reform in this bill is exactly the type of 
nonsensical policy that has angered many Americans and caused them to 
lose faith in Government's ability to improve the lives of ordinary 
people. It ought to be rejected: The pot of gold should be found at the 
end of the rainbow, not at the end of a patent application. Americans 
deserve better.


                                  eitc

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise with a few thoughts on this bill 
overall, and on the cuts we are contemplating in the earned income tax 
credit [EITC] in particular.
  This bill has a lot to recommend it. It provides incentives in the 
tax code for positive goals. The super IRA provisions will encourage 
savings. That is a constructive step forward. The capital gains piece 
will encourage people to put money where it will create wealth--that is 
to say it will encourage investment. While I've supported a middle-
class tax credit, I think we could have made the credit even better by 
giving it to parents who set up retirement accounts for the kids. Those 
accounts would be governed by IRA rules with one exception--children 
would be allowed to take a 10-year loan against their account for 
higher education. And I'm not enthusiastic about what this bill does to 
Medicare--not because this bill does too much, but because it does too 
little to change the built-in flaws in this program.
  Overall, I'm encouraged by what this bill does to provide incentives 
for savings and investment and the creation of jobs and capital. 
However, in terms of incentives it falls woefully short in one area. 
That is in the dramatic and misguided cuts this bill makes in the 
earned income tax credit [EITC].
  Let me tell you why I like the EITC and why I think that the 
Republican Party should embrace, not eviscerate this program. Put 
simply, the EITC provides an incentive to work. It promotes work over 
welfare and it does so through the Tax Code, not through a new social 
service program run by bureaucrats in Washington. That is something 
both parties should be able to support and indeed, in the past, both 
supported the EITC.
  President Reagan championed this program as the ``best antipoverty, 
the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of 
Congress.'' Last week in testimony before the Senate Small Business 
Committee, former HUD Secretary Kemp cautioned against cutting back too 
far on the EITC ``because that is a tax increase on low income workers 
and the poor which is unconscionable at this time * * *''
  I am particularly troubled that the Senate has cut $43 billion out of 
this program over 7 years--this figure is nearly doublt what the House 
has cut from the EITC in their reconciliation package. And this cut of 
$43 billion is a dramatic increase in the cuts this Chamber agreed on 
during consideration of the budget resolution just 5 months ago. That 
resolution assumed $21 billion in EITC cuts. I found that proposed cut 
distressing. We are now talking about nearly tripling that cut. I find 
that downright alarming.
  Here are the people we will hurt the most with these proposals: 
Workers without children who receive the EITC. These are workers with 
incomes under $10,000; EITC families with one child and incomes above 
$12,000 and; EITC families with two or more children regardless of how 
low their income.
  In practical terms, about 17 million low- and moderate-income 
families--including nearly 13 million low-income families with children 
will feel the impact of these changes. In my home State of Connecticut 
alone, these changes would amount to an average increase of $311 for 
over 92,000 families. This simply makes no sense. It takes us further 
away from our goal of encouraging work and self-sufficiency.
  Of course we ought to get rid of waste and fraud in this program. I 
believe the administration has done a commendable job in helping in 
that effort. But the increase in this program in recent years has been 
by design not by fraud and deviousness. Congress voted to expand this 
program in 1986, 1990, and 1993. When the changes we made to the 
program in 1993 are fully phased in at the end of fiscal year 1996, the 
EITC will actually grow by very modest rate of 4.5 percent a year.
  This program has had bipartisan support because both sides of this 
aisle have been able to agree that we should use both hands to applaud 
those who are working to lift themselves out of poverty and then use 
one of those hands to give them the help and support they deserve.
  The Democratic Leadership Council, which I am pleased to chair, has a 
long history of support for this program. The research and writing arm 
of the DLC, the Progressive Policy Institute 

[[Page S 16059]]
[PPI] has done a lot of excellent work on the issue. At this point, I 
ask unanimous consent that an article by Mr. Jeff Hammond on the EITC, 
which appeared in the September 29 Washington Times, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Washington Times, Sept. 29, 1995]

                    Relief for the Hard-Working Poor

                          (By M. Jeff Hamond)

       This year, both House and Senate have proposed reforms to 
     the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) with the intent to save 
     money rather than make the program work better. The EITC--
     which helps millions of low-income working families escape 
     poverty--is an example of Congress targeting the good as well 
     as the bad in its quest to reduce social welfare spending.
       This is a program that should not go quietly into the 
     night. Unlike traditional welfare programs, the EITC is based 
     on the principle of reciprocal responsibility: It says that 
     the government is there to help, but only if you give 
     something back or help yourself in the process. Republicans 
     have supported the credit in the past; in fact, its biggest 
     one-year boost occurred under President Reagan, in 1986. Why 
     change now?
       Specifically, the EITC assists low-wage workers by 
     providing a wage supplement up to a certain level of 
     earnings, at which the credit reaches a maximum and then 
     begins to phase out. President Clinton's five-year, $21 
     billion expansion of the EITC, approved in 1993, was designed 
     to guarantee that families with full-time, year-round workers 
     would not live in poverty.
       By promoting work over welfare with virtually no overhead 
     costs or added bureaucracy, the EITC provides the foundation 
     for any serious effort at welfare reform. The program could 
     use some fine-tuning, but most of the charges leveled by 
     critics are exaggerated or plainly incorrect.
       Rising costs. Some critics of the EITC, most notably Sen. 
     Don Nickles, Oklahoma Republican, depict it as another out-
     of-control entitlement program, since its costs have grown 
     quickly. ``The EITC is the fastest-growing government 
     program, period,'' Mr. Nickles has said. ``It's growing much 
     faster than Medicare or Medicaid.''
       Detractors conveniently ignore, however, that Congress 
     voted to expand the program in 1986, 1990, and 1993, in part 
     as an alternative to increasing the minimum wage. This is in 
     stark contrast to the major entitlement programs such as 
     Medicare, which automatically grow every year with no 
     congressional action. To depict the EITC as simply another 
     exploding entitlement program is simply wrong.
       Waste, Fraud and Abuse. Critics of the EITC claim the 
     program has a fraud rate of 35 to 45 percent, costing 
     taxpayers billions of dollars in fraudulent refunds. This 
     statistic is based on a January 1994 IRS study, and is 
     inaccurate and misleading for several reasons.
       First, that statistic is an error rate, not a fraud rate. 
     If a worker claimed the credit but was $1 off--or claimed too 
     little--this was included in the statistic. Many of these 
     inadvertent mistakes are corrected by the IRS. Nearly half of 
     the supposed ``fraudulent'' claims were unintentional errors 
     of this type.
       Second, some taxpayers who claimed the credit in error 
     (i.e., when they did not qualify) may have done so 
     unintentionally, due to the complicated tax laws.
       Third, the study was based on 1993 returns. Since than, the 
     IRS has implemented new procedures to cut down on fraud, such 
     as double-checking the Social Security numbers of all 
     dependents claimed. Thus, the fraud and error rate will be 
     much lower for 1994 and future tax years.
       Work Disincentive. Some critics assert that the EITC is 
     actually a net work disincentive, because the phase-out of 
     the credit in effect applies an additional 16 to 21 percent 
     tax to earnings within the phase-out range.
       It is true that effective marginal tax rates are high in 
     this range, and that the maximum allowable income to be 
     eligible for the credit may be set too high. Nevertheless, 
     recent research shows that the EITC still provides a large 
     net positive work incentive. One recent estimate shows that 
     if market entrants work only 400 hours annually, the expanded 
     credit will increase the labor supply of low-income workers 
     by 20 million hours per year. Since the average EITC 
     recipient worked 1,300 hours in 1993, the final net benefit 
     is probably much larger.
       Suggested Reforms. We can get people to move from welfare 
     to work only if work pays, and the EITC ensures that it will. 
     This is why many Republican governors insist that the EITC is 
     an indispensable part of welfare reform. Yet, the program is 
     not perfect. Sensible reforms include:
       Adjusting the phase-in and phase-out ranges to maximize the 
     number of families in the former and minimize the number in 
     the latter. These changes will place more families in the 
     work incentive range of the EITC without increasing its total 
     cost. (Shortening the phase-out will increase the marginal 
     tax rate within the range, but it will affect fewer families. 
     Texas Republican Rep. Bill Archer's tax proposal--which 
     passed the Ways and Means Committee last Tuesday--does 
     shorten the phase-out range.)
       Implementing further policies designed to cut down on 
     fraud, such as requiring valid Social Security numbers for 
     all applicants to prevent undocumented workers from claiming 
     the credit.
       Finally, requiring firms to notify their low-wage workers 
     that the credit can be applied to each paycheck, rather than 
     collected at year's end. Less than one percent of EITC 
     recipients utilize this option. Since firms have an incentive 
     to verify hours worked (or else they will overpay payroll 
     taxes), such a requirement could further reduce fraud.
       At a time when phrases like ``shared sacrifice'' and 
     ``welfare-to-work'' are wielded on both sides of the isle, 
     the EITC stands as an item that should unite both parties. 
     The program needs some changes, but it has been one of our 
     most successful social policies. If conservatives are serious 
     about promoting work and ensuring that full-time workers 
     escape poverty, they will help improve and preserve this 
     program--not cut it simply to reach a budget target.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this bill includes a measure directing 
the sale and transfer of the federally owned Collbran Project, located 
near Grand Junction, Colorado. The provision is similar to S. 1109, 
which I introduced earlier this year with Senator Brown.
  Since the introduction of this legislation I have worked with the 
citizens of the Plateau Valley, with Mesa county officials, with 
various departments of the State of Colorado, and with the local and 
national staff of the Federal Reclamation, Forest Service, and BLM.
  In that process I have agreed to make dozens of changes to the bill; 
however, at the request of my colleagues on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee I will not take up the Senate's time and will 
instead have the changes made during conference on the budget bill.
  I do want to take a moment to describe the changes to the Collbran 
bill that I intend to make in conference.
  From the start I have wanted to make sure the bill protects the 
longstanding commitment to provide top quality public recreation at 
Vega Reservoir. I have worked with the State to make sure that the 
Federal commitment to make major improvements at Vega is retained, and 
to provide for State ownership of the recreation facilities and open 
space at the reservoir.
  The Forest Service and BLM wanted to make sure the bill would not 
affect recreation or any other multiple use of the national forest, and 
the agencies also wanted to avoid the creation of private inholdings 
within the Federal lands. In response, the bill will provide for 
easements to the water facilities, and provide a specific role for the 
Forest Service in preparing the annual operating plan for the project.
  The State asked, and I have agreed, that money contributed by the 
districts toward the recovery of endangered fish be spent on recovery 
efforts in Colorado.
  Many folks in the Plateau Valley have raised a concern with me that 
there will be insufficient opportunity for the public to be involved 
with the operation of the project. I understand this concern, it is 
legitimate, and I have tried to address it in various ways. The issue 
is ``To what extent will the Ute and Collbran Water Conservancy 
Districts be publicly accountable in their operation of this Federal 
water project?''
  First, the bill states that ``the power component and facilities of 
the project shall be operated in substantial conformity with the 
historic operations of the power component and facilities.'' That will 
be the law. The language is plain.
  Second, the bill requires annual reporting to the Secretaries of the 
Interior and Agriculture as to the operating plan for the project in 
the coming year. The purpose of this provision is for full public 
disclosure of annual operations.
  I will amend that provision to increase accountability by requiring 
full consultation with the Mesa County Commissioners and with the 
Forest Service in preparation of the annual operating plan. This will 
allow the public to raise issues through the Commissioners and through 
the Forest Service and get action on those issues through the annual 
planning process.
  Part of the concern that has been raised involves the extent to which 
the bill can affect the disposition of water between the Plateau Valley 
and the Grand Valley, and this is an issue on which I have broadly 
consulted with state officials and water lawyers. There are several 
reasons that federal legislation on this point would be unworkable. 

[[Page S 16060]]

  First, all changes in water use are subject to state water law and 
are adjudicated through the state water court process. The water court 
is charged with protecting the interests of all associated water users 
when a change in use is considered or requested.
  Second, the holding of a water right is a private property right and 
one in which I frankly would oppose Federal interference.
  And third, the Ute and Collbran Water Conservation Districts are 
publicly accountable organizations created in accordance with Colorado 
law. Colorado Law includes a number of provisions providing for public 
accountability, including the ability to elect board members. It would 
be inappropriate for the Congress to interfere with that structure.
  I will, however, amend my bill to prohibit any out of state 
transaction involving water from this project.
  I have appreciated the willingness of citizens and agency staff to 
work with me on the development of this legislation. I am open minded 
about making further changes to the bill, in addition to the many that 
have already been made.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.


                         HORMONAL CANCER DRUGS

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Senator Olympia 
Snowe's amendment that I and my colleagues sponsored and the Senate 
passed last night as part of the Budget Reconciliation bill.
  With prostate cancer striking 1 out of every 11 American men and 
breast cancer attacking 1 out of every 8 American women, we have an 
obligation to do everything we can to ensure that the best, most 
effective treatments are available to as many patients as possible.
  The amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that Medicare should 
cover oral hormonal cancer drugs. Oral hormonal drug therapy is 
critical in treating cancers that have spread beyond the prostate and 
in treating estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer tumors. These 
drugs can play a vital role in the postsurgical treatment of this type 
of breast and prostate cancer because they help prevent the recurrence 
of these tumors and improve the quality of life for thousands of cancer 
patients each year.
  In the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, we directed Medicare to 
cover some oral cancer drugs. However, the statute requires that those 
drugs be chemotherapeutic in nature and have been available in 
injectable or intravenous form. Oral hormonal cancer drugs do not fall 
within this category. I believe this is an unintended result of a well-
intentioned provision.
  The result is that Medicare currently discriminates against half of 
all women afflicted with breast cancer by denying coverage for 
postsurgical drug treatments to those with estrogen receptor positive 
tumors. Because estrogen-sensitive tumors are more likely to strike 
post-menopausal women, this type of cancer disproportionately afflicts 
Medicare beneficiaries. Denying Medicare coverage for orally 
administered hormonal therapy is an obvious case of being penny-wise 
and pound-foolish. Hormonal therapy is a less expensive treatment 
option when measured against the risk of treating new tumors which can 
result in the absence of such therapy.
  This relatively simple and straight-forward amendment puts the Senate 
on record in support of correcting this oversight from the 1993 
reconciliation bill. I believe that the conference report on the 1995 
reconciliation bill should include a provision to cover oral cancer 
drugs used in hormonal therapy. I am glad that the Senate passed this 
amendment, and I am glad to have been an original cosponsor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am delighted to learn the Finance 
Committee adopted a provision that would allow tax exempt organizations 
to be eligible to maintain pensions under section 401(k). It is my 
understanding that tribal governments would be allowed to sponsor 
401(k) plans under the budget reconciliation proposal reported by the 
Finance Committee.
  In order to ensure that I am clear that tribal governments would, in 
fact, be included under this provision I would like to ask the 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee a question to clarify 
the Finance Committee's budget reconciliation proposal.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank Senator Campbell. I would be happy to answer his 
question.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Is my understanding correct that tribal governments are 
eligible to sponsor 401(k) plans under the Finance Committee budget 
reconciliation proposal?
  Mr. ROTH. Yes; that is a correct statement.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I note the presence of the chairman of the Indian 
Affairs Committee, Senator McCain, and ask if he would have any 
comments.
  Mr. McCAIN. Senator Campbell, has long been a great advocate for 
Indian people. I would also like to extend my thanks to Senator Roth 
for his efforts to clarify this portion of the pension simplification 
proposal included in the budget reconciliation measure.
  I also wish to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Roth for 
including language affecting section 403(b) plans in the pension 
simplification section of the bill that will remove a very difficult 
problem that arose from a misunderstanding about earlier authority 
provided to tribal education organizations. Several years ago some 
tribal governments began to purchase plans provided under section 
403(b) of the code and promoted by insurance companies only later to 
find that such plans were not expressly intended for the use of 
government employees involved in activities other than education. Those 
retirement funds, affecting several tribes and the retirement savings 
of thousands of tribal employees, are now in jeopardy. I introduced S. 
1304 to fix this problem. Chairman Roth included a similar provision in 
section 12941 of the bill, and I thank him for that.


                        mfn status for cambodia

  Mr. McCAIN. For the past 2 years, I have been involved in an effort 
to grant most favored nations [MFN] trade status to Cambodia. Today, I 
intended to accomplish this by offering an amendment identical to the 
language already approved by the House. The chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Roth, has informed me, however, that he would prefer 
that trade provisions not be included in the reconciliation bill. In 
deference to his opinion and his responsibility for guiding this bill 
through the process, I have decided to withhold my amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from Arizona. I know that this is a 
very important issue for him. It is among a number of trade issues 
which must be dealt with by the committee in coming months. The Senator 
from Arizona has my assurance that the Fiance Committee will take up 
H.R. 1642--the House-passed bill dealing with this issue--the next time 
it meets to deal with trade issues, and that I will make every effort 
to have it reported out favorably.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman for his cooperation and for his 
interest in the issue. Cambodia has come a long way from the dire 
situation it faced just a few years ago. We can help the Cambodian 
people overcome the remaining challenges they face by empowering them 
to help themselves through economic development. This is what makes MFN 
such an important issue. An economically developed, prosperous Cambodia 
will be better able to create the foundations for democracy and 
contribute to the stability of Southeast Asia.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this is a historic moment in the history of 
our country. Over the past several weeks, we have heard vicious attacks 
on the balanced budget bill that is before the Senate today. The 
Republican balanced budget has been called immoral and irresponsible. 
The American people have been warned of devastating cuts in spending. 
To the casual observer, it might appear that the sky is about to fall.
  The truth is quite different. In fact, the budget before the Senate 
today is the only chance to save our country from an immoral, 
irresponsible, and devastating future. We are acting now only because 
previous Congresses have failed the American people.
  At the end of this year, our national debt will exceed $5 trillion. 
We are adding to the debt at the rate of $9,600 per second. Right now, 
every man, woman, and child in America is more than $18,000 in debt. 
The current trends are not sustainable.

[[Page S 16061]]

  Mr. President, our balanced budget plan is not perfect. If there was 
an easy solution to our fiscal problems, you can rest assured that 
Congress would have found it along ago. I do not agree with every 
provision in the bill before the Senate. If I could pick and choose, 
there are many priorities that I would change. On the balance, however, 
I think the product is a good one. It gets the job done. To my 
colleagues who disagree, I would say the following: you can't beat 
something with nothing. If you do not like our balanced budget, you 
have an obligation to produce an alternative. President Clinton's plan 
was recently rejected by the Senate, 96 to 0.
  The benefits of a balanced budget far outweigh any temporary pain. 
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a balanced budget will 
result in a reduction of long-term interest rates between 1 and 2 
percent. On a typical student loan, that reduction would save American 
students $8,885. On a typical car loan, it would save the consumer 
$676. On a 30-year, $80,000 mortgage, lower interest rates would save 
the homeowner $38,653 over the life of the mortgage.
  The bill before the Senate will balance the Federal budget in 7 
years. That fact has been certified by the Congressional Budget Office. 
The budget will save Medicare from bankruptcy, and strengthen and 
protect the program for future generations. The legislation completely 
overhauls our broken welfare system. It transfers power away from 
Washington bureaucrats and returns it to State and local officials.
  Mr. President, the Senate bill also provides significant tax relief. 
I know that many of my colleagues have expressed disdain at the idea of 
cutting taxes. They find it offensive to let American taxpayers keep 
more of their hard-earned money. I would ask, is it offensive to 
provide a $500 per child tax credit? Is it offensive to create a tax 
credit for adoption expenses? Is it offensive to provide a tax credit 
for interest paid on a student loan?
  I certainly do not think so.
  The critics of tax cuts think Members of Congress can spend money 
better than a family of four in Berlin, NH, or Cleveland, OH, or 
Atlanta, GA. I find that position arrogant, and I am not alone. As is 
now well known, the President now regrets his decision to raise taxes. 
Presumably, the President realized that the Government in Washington 
has enough tax dollars to spend. Those who oppose the tax cuts 
contained in the bill before the Senate today should understand this 
fact: the budget before the Senate today would reduce taxes by $245 
billion. It does not even completely refund the Clinton tax increase.
  Mr. President, we are witnessing the last gasp of air of big-
government, Washington-knows-best liberalism. It may come as a shock to 
many, but Uncle Sam is not the solution to every problem in America.
  I have held a good many town meetings in New Hampshire to talk about 
the budget, taxes, welfare reform, and Medicare. Often, when I say that 
Congress intends to balance the budget in 7 years, my constituents ask 
why we are waiting that long. The danger is not going ``too far, too 
fast,'' as many would have us believe. The real risk to all Americans 
is the risk that we will not get the job done.
  I urge my colleagues to support this budget. It is bold; it is real, 
and it stands alone as the only solution to our Nation's fiscal 
problems. The time for talking is over. The time for acting is now.


                           usec privatization

  Mr. WARNER. In title V of the bill before the Senate there are 
provisions that will provide for the privatization of the U.S. 
Enrichment Corporation. I understand the Energy Committee is also 
reporting this language out as a substitute to S. 755, a bill 
originally introduced by Senator Domenici to accomplish the same 
purpose.
  Mr. President, I commend Senators Domenici, Murkowski, Johnston, 
Ford, and others for their efforts to produce legislation that balances 
our country's need for a private uranium enrichment company with a 
nonproliferation solution that assists Russia in its weapons 
dismantlement. However, I seek a few clarifications, as well as your 
assurance, that the language in the reconciliation bill will allow the 
Russian Federation an opportunity to be able to fulfill its obligations 
easily with options, perhaps those offered by U.S. private industry to 
assist where possible.
  With regard to section 5007(c) of the reconciliation bill, the 
exclusion of U.S. Department of Energy facilities from production of 
highly enriched uranium, I want to urge the U.S. Enrichment Corporation 
to make use of sector services and facilities prior to making any 
contractual work agreements with the U.S. Government.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is true that our language allows 
USEC to contract with existing DOE facilities for activities and 
services other than the production of highly enriched uranium. To the 
extent that there is a longstanding government policy that the Federal 
Government not compete for work that the private industry can supply, I 
agree that the DOE should defer opportunities to the private sector.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator, I wish now for clarification of 
section 5012(b), regarding Russian HEU. Does this language provide for 
contingency private industry provisions to assist the Russians in 
meeting their obligations in the government-to-government agreement of 
providing the United States with low enriched uranium derived from 
highly enriched uranium?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The government-to-government agreement for the 500 
metric tons of highly enriched uranium contemplates the participation 
of the United States private sector and Russian enterprises in 
implementation of the agreement. Section 5012(b) facilitates this 
implementation by providing mechanisms for private sector entities to 
purchase the natural uranium component of LEU derived from Russian HEU, 
either directly from Russia or in an auction process, in an open and 
competitive manner. The United States and Russia also have the ability 
to increase the quantities delivered in any given year and accelerate 
the delivery schedule of this material to the United States, provided 
that this material is introduced into the U.S. commercial fuel market 
in full accordance with this legislation.
  Furthermore, neither this legislation nor the government-to-
government agreement limits the ability of Russia to sell additional 
quantities of enriched uranium, in excess of 500 metric tons called for 
by the government-to-government agreement, to third parties for 
delivery to the United States, subject to the market restrictions as 
stated in the bill before us and other applicable law.
  Overall, this legislation and its provisions will: First, advance the 
world's nonproliferation goals; second, provide the Russian Federation 
immediate hard currency and; third, assist the Russians in meeting 
future continuing obligations.
  Mr. WARNER. My last question. Are there provisions in this bill to 
allow either the change of executive agent or nominating more than one 
U.S. executive marketing agent to help facilitate these uranium 
transactions?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Our language recognizes and does not change the right 
of the U.S. Government under the government-to-government agreement to 
exercise its option of changing the U.S. executive agent or allowing 
for more than one after consultation with and upon 30 days notice to 
the Russian Federation.
  Mr. WARNER. Again, I commend you on this legislation that will 
promote the United States and Russia's nonproliferation goals, offer 
each country an opportunity to use private industry to meet these 
goals, and present to the world a concerted effort to denuclearize.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to set the record straight 
on the need to reform the corporate alternative minimum tax.
  What we have under current law is a nightmare for investment for 
businesses of all sizes. The AMT is not working as Congress intended 
when it was adopted in 1986. We never intended to so harshly penalize 
investment in equipment needed to modernize our factories; nor did we 
intend to force companies that have no profit to borrow money to pay 
their AMT. Yet this is precisely what current law does to some 
companies.
  There is bipartisan agreement on the need to fix AMT. President 
Clinton in 

[[Page S 16062]]
1993 recognized the need to fix the AMT and proposed shortening AMT 
depreciation recovery periods. To date, we have not adopted the 
President's proposal in full. For this reason, earlier this year, I 
joined with Democrats and Republican cosponsors of S. 1000, a 
reasonable piece of legislation, to help correct this antiinvestment 
tax system.
  While I commend the Finance Committee for taking some action on this 
issue, that action falls short of what ultimately needs to be done. 
There are two parts to AMT depreciation--method and recovery period. 
This bill fixes the method of depreciation, but does not do enough for 
the recovery period. Yet it is the unreasonably long recovery period 
for most investments under the AMT that creates the severe penalty on 
investment.
  S. 1000 fixes both parts of the AMT depreciation problem and I 
believe it is the right policy on AMT. I hope in conference and in 
negotiations with the White House that we can come up with a bill that 
will truly fix the antiinvestment nature of the AMT depreciation rules. 
This can be done in a way that preserves the integrity of the tax 
collection process by not letting truly profitable firms totally escape 
taxation while at the same time encouraging economic growth and job 
creation which I believe is essential to an improved standard of living 
for all Americans.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to confirm with my colleague from Alaska 
the committee's intent with respect to part E, subpart III of S. 1357, 
which provides for the sale and transfer of the Collbran project 
located in western Colorado. This legislation directs the Secretary of 
the Interior to transfer the Collbran project to the Collbran 
Conservancy District and Ute Water Conservancy District in the last 
fiscal quarter of the year 2000 in return for the payment of $12.9 
million by the districts to the United States. The transfer to the 
districts includes the listed facilities and other assets that comprise 
the Collbran project, but excludes the Vega recreation facilities owned 
by the United States or the State of Colorado. Several questions have 
been raised regarding the legislation. First, some have raised a 
concern that it may include or affect the Plateau Creek pipeline 
replacement project which has been proposed independently by the Ute 
Water Conservancy District.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Committee carefully defined the scope of the 
transfer so that this legislation will have no affect on the proposed 
Plateau Creek pipeline replacement project, which will be subject to 
all requirements of Federal and State law which would exist if the 
transfer did not occur.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Another issue that has arisen is regarding the 
relationship between the legislation and the Endangered Species Act. In 
particular, questions have been raised regarding the effect of the 
payment of $600,000 by the districts for use as a part of the Colorado 
River Endangered Species Fish Recovery Program, and whether a section 7 
consultation will be required for the transfer. My understanding of the 
legislation is that it has no effect on the Endangered Species Act, and 
that no determination has been made regarding the existence of any 
obligation or liability of the Collbran project or other existing water 
supply projects in the Colorado River Basin in Colorado with respect to 
species listed and critical habitat designated under the Endangered 
Species Act. In addition, because the transfer is mandatory, and will 
not involve any change in project operations or additional review or 
approval by any Federal agency, there is no need for a section 7 
consultation on the transfer.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. The legislation provides that, as a 
condition of the mandatory transfer, $600,000 of the total payment of 
$12.9 million be provided to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for use 
in the Recovery Implementation Program for the endangered fish apecies 
in the Upper Colorado River Basin, which is intended to serve as a 
reasonable and prudent alternative for water depletions from all 
existing and future water projects in the Colorado River Basin in 
Colorado. In the event that any such determination is made in the 
future, and if the Recovery Implementation Program no longer serves its 
intended purpose, the Collbran project will be treated the same as any 
other existing, similarly situated nonfederal project in western 
Colorado, and the districts will be able to claim credit for this 
contribution to the same extent as any other entities which have made 
cash contributions to the Recovery Implementation Program.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The transfer of the Collbran project is based on the 
requirement that the water and power resources produced by the project 
will continue to be used for the purposes for which the project was 
authorized for a period of 40 years from the date of enactment of the 
legislation. This requirement ensures that the transfer will not cause 
any significant change in project operations or distribution of 
benefits, and obviates any need for any further study or review of the 
transfer. However, some have sought assurance that the legislation does 
not interfere with the district's ability to negotiate a contract with 
preference power customers in the Salt Lake City Area Integrated 
projects office of WAPA or their designee for operation and maintenance 
of the power features of the Collbran project.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The legislation does not affect the ability of the 
districts to obtain additional cost savings by contracting with third 
parties in order to achieve more efficient operation of the power 
features of the project or for other purposes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I would also like to confirm my understanding that the 
transfer renders moot the pending litigation by the Department of 
Justice regarding water rights for Vega Reservoir.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. The pending litigation initiated by 
the Department of Justice for the purpose of obtaining water rights in 
the name of the United States for the Collbran project should be 
dismissed in light of the mandatory requirement for the transfer of the 
Collbran project to the districts.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Finally, the legislation provides that the Vega 
recreation facilities be transferred to the State of Colorado at a 
future date, which includes lands currently owned by the United States 
in sections 31, 32, and 33 of township 9 south, range 93 west, 6th 
principal meridian, and sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of township 10 south, 
range 93 west, 6th principal meridian. Does the transfer of these 
facilities to the State include any of Collbran project facilities, and 
does the transfer of the project provide the districts with any land 
that could be sold in the future for residential development?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. No, the Collbran project facilities, and the lands 
upon which they are located, are to be transferred to the districts. 
However, the lands to be conveyed to the districts do not include the 
undeveloped lands surrounding Vega Reservoir, as these lands are to be 
conveyed to the State of Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleague.


            Tax Credit for Research and Development Projects

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a 
bipartisan effort to extend the tax credit for research and development 
projects engaged in by American industry. I want to commend the 
chairman of the Finance Committee for his excellent leadership on this 
measure because I wholeheartedly believe that this program is critical 
to the future of our economy. We are the world leader in research and 
development, and I believe that technology is the engine for economic 
growth. This measure helps keep our competitive advantage on the world 
R&D market. The bill before us today extends the R&E tax credit for 20 
months, retroactive to July 1, 1995. Ideally, we wanted to extend the 
credit permanently and thus remove the uncertainty that has 
characterized the credit in recent years. Unfortunately, due to limited 
resources, we have had to go with a temporary extension instead. 
However, this is still a significant step forward, and I am glad to be 
a part of this effort.
  I want to express my concern for the companies engaged in significant 
research and development activity in the United States that are unable 
to qualify for the current credit. Several of my colleagues share this 
concern, and I would now like to engage Senator Baucus from Montana and 
Senator Lieberman from Connecticut on this 

[[Page S 16063]]
point. We support extending the R&E tax credit for another 20 months. 
We also support providing those companies that currently do not qualify 
for the R&E credit, and that are engaged in significant R&D activity, 
with an elective alternative incremental research credit [AIRC], as 
provided in the House tax bill. I look forward to my colleagues' 
remarks on this point.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, research and development keeps us 
competitive with our foreign trading partners. It supports high wage 
and high skilled jobs in the United States and enables us to compete in 
developing products that increase our quality of life. We must support 
our American industry here at home or face losing our edge in research 
and development to our foreign trading partners. Other countries offer 
much more generous R&E tax incentives: for example, Canada has a 20-
percent credit for all R&E expenditures; Japan and our European 
competitors all offer significant tax incentives to encourage research 
and development activity.
  A strong R&E tax credit not only maintains research and development 
activity here in the United States but it also contributes to the 
development of high-skilled jobs. It is my understanding that a 
substantial portion of the R&E credit is comprised of wages and 
salaries paid to our research employees. We need to continue this 
trend. In this age of global markets we need a research and development 
strategy that is competitive and strong. R&D grows our economy, it 
raises our living standards and develops a high skilled work force.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I echo my colleagues' sentiments and 
add that while our current R&E program supports many fine research and 
development activities, a number of significant R&D investors are 
ineligible to use this credit under our current law. The alternative 
incremental credit approved by the House enables those companies to 
take advantage of this resource, and while I am disappointed that the 
alternative credit is not part of the package before us today, I hope 
that the conferees will look kindly on this proposal.
  I am concerned that many U.S. companies engaged in high-technology 
research are unable to stay competitive in the global market due to 
declining Federal research dollars. By extending the tax credit for 20 
months and offering the AIRC program, we can provide our industries 
with some certainty in helping them plan their research and development 
strategy.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. president, I hope that our colleague, the chairman of 
the Senate Finance Committee, shares many of the concerns that we have 
expressed. I would respectfully ask that he take a careful look at the 
alternative incremental credit in the House package when the bill goes 
to conference.


                        Bipartisan Capital Gains

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to express my concerns about 
one provision that the Finance Committee was unable to include in its 
final tax package. It is a provision that was contained in the 
bipartisan capital gains legislation that Senator Hatch and I 
introduced, S. 959. The provision would change current law in ways that 
would be extremely helpful to families in my region of the country.
  Under current law, when an individual or family sells its principal 
residence for a gain, and for whatever reason, does not reinvest all of 
the proceeds in another home, any gain from that transaction is 
generally treated as a capital gain, and is taxed at more favorable 
capital gains rates. Special rules apply to individuals over age 55. 
They are permitted to completely exclude from tax up to $125,000 of 
their gains from sales of their residences. By contrast, if an 
individual or family sells a personal residence at a loss, that loss is 
treated as a personal loss, and no part of the loss may be recovered. 
No capital loss rules for losses on residences are provided under 
current law. No way presently exists for a family to be made whole from 
a genuine economic loss.
  S. 959, a bipartisan bill that has 45 cosponsors, included a 
provision to provide some relief to individuals who have experienced 
these true losses. S. 959 would permit capital loss treatment for loss 
on the sale of a principal residence. This proposal is fair, because it 
provides that both losses and gains on sale will be treated as capital, 
not ordinary.
  Until the 1980's, the possibility of suffering a loss on the sale of 
a principal residence was all but unthinkable. Then, starting with the 
oil price shocks of the early 1980's, we have experienced a series of 
regional economic slowdowns and recessions that have caused the prices 
of housing to fall. These occurred first in the Southwest, and more 
recently in California and New England.
  Several things--all bad--can happen when the value of a residence 
falls. In southern California and in New England in the early 1990's, 
homeowners began to experience what came to be known as the upside-down 
mortgage. Homeowners found that the value of their homes had fallen so 
much that the home was worth less than the outstanding debt of the 
mortgage. Thus, if the homeowners were forced to sell, they would come 
out of the deal actually owing their lender more money than they had 
from the sale. Then, if the banker forgave some portion of the debt, 
the homeowners actually owned income tax on the transaction. In 1992, 
it was estimated that 41 percent of the sales in California were in 
this upside down position. The problem of upside down mortgages in 
resolving itself in California, but it is a disaster for people caught 
in that bind. In New England, the downward trend in home values 
continues; thus, the problem of upside down mortgages persists.

  In my home State of Connecticut, many areas have experienced steep 
price declines since 1989. For example, the median sales price for an 
existing home in Hartford was $165,900 in 1989. The median home price 
has since declined to $133,400. The purchaser of a median priced home 
in Hartford, in 1989, has lost, on average $32,500 or over 24 percent 
of their home value over a 5-year period. This represent a loss of 
roughly $6,500 per year.
  Similarly, the median purchase price for an existing home in the New 
Haven-Meriden Metropolitan Area was $163,400 in 1989. The median home 
price in New Haven-Meriden metro areas has since declined to $139,600. 
The purchaser of a median priced home in New Haven-Meriden, in 1989 
would have lost $23,800 or slightly more than 17 percent of their home 
value by 1994. This represents an average annual decline in home equity 
of $4,760.
  If people sell their homes at a loss, they have suffered a true 
economic loss. Moreover, it is a loss that may represent the loss of 
their biggest source of savings. People who experience a loss on the 
sale of their home are often wiped out financially. The provision that 
Senator Hatch and I included in S. 959 permits capital loss treatment 
for these painful situations. Because of the mechanical operation of 
the capital loss rules, it may take many years for a family to recoup 
the true losses they have experienced. Still, the relief in S. 959 is 
only partial relief for some individuals. Because of the serious impact 
on families of these losses, it is only fair that we provide at least 
the capital loss relief as a form of rough justice so that these 
families can have some relief from the true losses they have incurred.
  This important provision is contained in the House bill. It is my 
hope that the chairman and the conferees will be able to accept this 
provision during the conference. It would provide critical relief to 
families that have sustained genuine losses, and is in the best 
interests of fairness and family.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand the concerns of my friend and 
colleague from Connecticut and am sympathetic to his position. This 
provision is an important one and is the right thing to do. A home is 
often the biggest and most significant investment that most families 
ever make. It is only fair that an economic loss on that investment be 
treated the same as economic losses on other investments. This is 
especially so since we tax the gain from a sale of that home. Like 
Senator Lieberman, I urge the chairman and the conferees to adopt this 
provision when it is considered in conference.


                           amendment no. 297

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there are a number of good things in this 
amendment, which was offered by my colleague from Arizona, John McCain. 
If 

[[Page S 16064]]
the amendment were crafted differently and was more limited in scope, I 
would support it.
  For example, I have consistently supported efforts to eliminate 
funding for the Market Promotion Program [MPP], a program that provides 
subsidies to companies that advertise American agricultural products 
abroad. Such promotional activities are a reasonable and fundamental 
cost of doing business for any industry.
  If the return on every dollar spent on export promotion is as good as 
MPP proponents suggest in terms of jobs and exports, then it would seem 
to be in the industry's own best interest to bear that cost itself.
  I understand that the industry's resources are finite. One more 
dollar could always be spent on promotional activities, particularly if 
each dollar produces significant gains in sales. But at some point, the 
agricultural industry, like any other industry, decides that it cannot 
expend any more; that the marginal gains do not justify the additional 
cost. Once the industry defines that point of diminishing returns, it 
is not appropriate to ask taxpayers to subsidize additional promotional 
efforts that the industry itself is unwilling to finance.
  The amendment also eliminates funding for 266 highway demonstration 
projects. I strongly support that. Earmarking scarce dollars for 
politically well-connected projects is one of the most unfair, least 
efficient, ways of allocating scarce transportation dollars.
  The earmarkings in the House version of last year's National Highway 
System bill totaled more than $2 billion--funds that would otherwise 
have been allocated according to the more equitable distribution 
formula established by ISTEA. I am talking about the House version 
because I served in the House of Representatives when that bill arose, 
and I was 1 of only 12 who voted against it at the time.
  The regular formula for distributing highway dollars is based on such 
objective factors as population, miles of roads, and vehicle miles 
traveled. Earmarking, however, is based largely on politics. For 
example, last year's House bill, just 10 States got 55 percent of the 
total funds available. Not coincidentally, those States were 
represented by 36 of the 64 Public Works Committee members. California, 
home State of the chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation 
Committee which produced the bill, took 15 percent of the total, about 
$290 million, for 51 projects. Arizona, by contrast, got just three 
projects, for a total of $15 million.
  Had the earmarkings been eliminated and the funding been distributed 
according to the ISTEA formula instead, Arizona would have gotten 
between $800,000 and $7.6 million more than it did under the bill. The 
three Arizona projects would most certainly be funded under this 
alternative approach--they all have merit, and are all of high 
priority--but the State would have had more to devote to other worthy 
projects as well. Twenty-seven other States would also have done better 
under the formula than they did under earmarking.
  The Senate refrained from such earmarking last year, and I am pleased 
that both the House and Senate have refrained this year. I support the 
provisions of the McCain amendment that would terminate 266 unstarted 
highway demonstration projects that were authorized or appropriated in 
prior years.
  The amendment also eliminates funding for the U.S. Travel and Tourism 
Administration [USTTA]. Like the Market Promotion Program that offers 
subsidies to the agricultural industry, the USTTA offers subsidies to 
the travel industry for promotional activities that I believe the 
industry ought to bear on its own.
  There are other programs, however, that, in my opinion, should not be 
a part of this package. They are not pork. They are not corporate 
subsidies.
  I am talking primarily about the B-2 bomber. This is a program that 
is in the national interest. This is not an Arizona project, so I am 
not here to defend it because my State has a major economic interest in 
its production. I do not differ with my colleague from Arizona very 
often, but on this issue, I must.
  Mr. President, the Nation's long-range bomber force consists 
primarily of two aircraft: the B-52 and the B-1. The 95 B-52's are all 
over 30 years old, and their ability to penetrate modern air defenses 
is doubtful. The 96 B-1's were procured as an interim bomber until B-
2's were available.
  For 40 years, the United States relied on forward presence, or the 
deployment of large forces in bases around the world engaged in almost 
constant maneuvers or exercises. With the decline in defense spending 
and the withdrawal of U.S. forces for overseas bases, the United States 
will rely increasingly on smaller military forces, operating 
principally from North America. In the past 6 years alone, the U.S. Air 
Force has reduced its major overseas bases from 38 to 15--a reduction 
of 61 percent.
  Rather than forward presence, current strategy calls for American 
power to be projected abroad in response to aggression in regional 
conflicts. The combination of a bomber with stealthy low observable, 
long-range, and precision strike capabilities provides the Nation with 
a competency never before achieved. With its range and large payload, 
B-2's can penetrate enemy air defenses and disrupt enemy advances in 
the critical early hours of conflict, before other forces arrive. Later 
in the conflict, B-2's can strike deep to interdict enemy follow-on 
forces or high-value strategic targets without fight escort.
  I have two letters that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the 
Record--one from seven former Secretaries of Defense, and the other 
from the former air commander of the Desert Shield/Desert Storm Air 
Forces--that further expand on the vital importance of the B-2 bomber 
to the future Armed Forces of the United States.
  For these reasons, I believe that the B-2 remains an integral 
component of our future national security, and I must, therefore, 
oppose the amendment.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing you to express our 
     concern about the impending termination of the B-2 bomber 
     production line. After spending over $20 billion to develop 
     this revolutionary aircraft, current plans call for closing 
     out the program with a purchase of only twenty bombers. We 
     believe this plan does not adequately consider the challenges 
     to U.S. security that may arise in the next century, and the 
     central role that the B-2 may play in meeting those 
     challenges.
       At present the nation's long-range bomber force consists 
     primarily of two aircraft the B-52 and the B-1. The 95 B-52's 
     are all over thirty years old, and their ability to penetrate 
     modern air defenses is very doubtful. The 96 B-1's were 
     procured as an interim bomber until B-2's were available.
       Even after all twenty B-2's are delivered, the inventory of 
     long-range bombers will total barely 200 aircraft. This is 
     not enough to meet future requirements, particularly in view 
     of the attrition that would occur in a conflict and the 
     eventual need to retire the B-52's. As the number of forward-
     deployed aircraft carriers declines and the U.S. gradually 
     withdraws from its overseas bases, it will become 
     increasingly difficult to use tactical aircraft in bombing 
     missions. It therefore is essential that steps be taken now 
     to preserve an adequate long-range bomber force.
       The B-2 was originally conceived to be the nation's next 
     generation bomber, and it remains the most-effective means of 
     rapidly projecting force over great distances. Its range will 
     enable it to reach any point on earth within hours after 
     launch while being deployed at only three secure bases around 
     the world. Its payload and array of munitions will permit it 
     to destroy numerous time-sensitive targets in a single 
     sortie. And perhaps most importantly, its low-observable 
     characteristics will allow it to reach intended targets 
     without fear of interception.
       The logic of continuing low-rate production of the B-2 thus 
     is both fiscal and operational. It is already apparent that 
     the end of the Cold War was neither the end of history nor 
     the end of danger. We hope it also will not be the end of the 
     B-2. We urge you to consider the purchase of more such 
     aircraft while the option still exists.
     Melvin Laird.
     Donald Rumsfeld.
     Caspar Weinberger.
     Dick Cheney.
     James Schlesinger.
     Harold Brown.
     Frank Carlucci.
                                                                    ____

                                                    June 22, 1995.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Earlier this month I wrote to your 
     colleagues in the House of Representatives about the need to 
     continue 

[[Page S 16065]]
     the B-2 program. The debate has now shifted to the Senate and my 
     concern with our future security compels me to share the same 
     thoughts with you. This is a difficult letter for me to write 
     as in more than thirty years of service in the Air Force, I 
     have always concentrated on military operations, and 
     refrained from commenting on issues such as whether or not to 
     purchase a specific aircraft. However, the Pentagon recently 
     released a study based on assumptions, constraints, and 
     methodology that can lead to the conclusion that the United 
     States can safely terminate B-2 stealth bomber production at 
     20 aircraft. As the former Air Commander of the Desert 
     Shield/Desert Storm Air Forces, I feel a duty to put the B-2 
     debate in perspective, and sound a warning on any 
     recommendation to stop production of this aircraft. To put it 
     bluntly, halting this nation's B-2 production capability is 
     dangerously short-sighted and would lead ultimately to the 
     extinction of the long-range bomber force, at the very time 
     when bombers are emerging as America's most critical 21st 
     Century military asset.
       Since B-2 is the only bomber in production or development, 
     and the Pentagon has no plans for a new bomber program in the 
     future, the B-2 program and America's bomber production 
     capability are one and the same. If this sole remaining 
     bomber capability is lost, replacing our aging bombers will 
     become unaffordable. Inevitably, the nation may lose its 
     manned bomber force, and the unique capabilities it provides. 
     A new bomber would take from 15-20 years to go from the 
     drawing board to the battlefield and cost tens of billions of 
     dollars just to design. With the current administration 
     balking at spending a fraction of this amount on a finished, 
     proven product, there is little likelihood of a future 
     government sinking many times that amount into a new program. 
     Even if a new program was initiated in the near term, most of 
     our existing bombers would be obsolete before the first ``B-
     3'' entered service. The next Desert Storm Air Commander 
     could be sending Americans into war aboard a 70-year-old 
     bomber, an act I find unconscionable.
       In my opinion, the B-2 is now more important than ever. 
     Heavy bombers have always possessed two capabilities--long 
     range and large payload--not found in other elements of our 
     military forces. As we base more and more of our forces in 
     our homeland, the bomber's intercontinental range enables us 
     to respond immediately to regional aggression with a rapid, 
     conclusive military capability. Just as important, this 
     capability may deter aggressors even as the bombers sit on 
     the air base parking ramps in the United States. In war, the 
     large bomber payloads provide a critical punch throughout the 
     conflict--just ask General Schwarzkopf what he wanted from 
     the Air Force when he was under attack in Vietnam, or 
     whenever our ground forces faced danger during Desert Storm.
       When the B-2 adds to this equation are two revolutionary 
     capabilities not available in any other long-range bomber--
     precision and stealth. The Gulf War showed how precision 
     weapons delivery from stealthy platforms provides a 
     devastating military capability. The F-117 stealth fighter 
     proved its effectiveness on the first day of the war when 36 
     aircraft flew just 2.5 percent of the sorties, but attacked 
     almost 31 percent of the targets.
       In the past, employing bombers for critical missions 
     against modern air defenses required large, costly packages 
     of air escort and defense suppression aircraft. The B-2's 
     unmatched survivability reduces the need for escorts and 
     defense suppression aircraft. As we found in the Gulf War 
     with the F-117, stealth allows the U.S. to strike any target 
     with both surprise and near impunity. Analysis of the Gulf 
     War air campaign reveals that each F-117 sortie was worth 
     approximately eight non-stealth sorties. To put B-2 
     capabilities into perspective, consider that the B-2 carries 
     eight times the precision payload of the F-117, has up to six 
     times the range, and will be able to accurately deliver its 
     weapons through clouds or smoke. What does all of this mean? 
     It means that a single B-2 can accomplish missions that 
     required dozens of non-stealthy aircraft in the past.
       Many may wonder why the Department of Defense would 
     advocate terminating the most advanced weapon system ever 
     developed. The B-2 program was cut by the Bush Administration 
     for budget-related political reasons, and some concern that 
     the program would not meet expectations. Since then, 
     delivered aircraft have demonstrated, without qualification, 
     that the B-2 is a superb weapon system--performing even 
     better than expected.
       Yet, defense spending has declined, bomber expertise has 
     been funneled out of the Air Force, and people's careers have 
     been vested in other programs. Unfortunately, some in the 
     Army and Navy believe the B-2's revolutionary capability is a 
     threat to their own services' continuing relevancy. Just the 
     opposite is true, long-range, survivable bombers will 
     contribute to the effectiveness of the shorter range carrier 
     air by striking those targets which pose the greatest threat 
     to our ships. The troops on the ground have long recognized 
     the value of air support, especially the tremendous impact 
     that large bomb loads have on enemy soldiers. This was again 
     demonstrated by the B-52 strikes used to demoralize the Iraqi 
     Army. If anyone needs B-2s, it's our soldiers and sailors. 
     Some people harp on the issue of the B-2's cost. The Air 
     Force, at times, seems at odds about asking for this much 
     needed aircraft because they fear it could endanger their 
     number one priority program, the F-22. All miss the point. 
     True the B-2 has a high initial cost, but its capabilities 
     allow it to accomplish mission objectives at a lower total 
     cost than other alternatives. And keep in mind, the true cost 
     of any weapons system is how many or how few lives of our 
     service personnel are lost. The B-2 lowers the risk to our 
     men and women. The B-2 will allow us to accept lower levels 
     of overall military spending without compromising our 
     security.
       As we approach this year's critical defense budget 
     decisions, it is important that we understand the long-term 
     national and international security ramifications of the 
     quantum leap in military capabilities offered by the B-2. If 
     we don't, it may disappear when we need it most, and can buy 
     it most cheaply. Make no mistake about this: the B-2 is 
     designed to extend America's defense capabilities into the 
     next Century. Can we afford to do less?
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles A. Horner,
                                             General, USAF (Ret.).


                     LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to express to my colleagues 
my deep concern regarding the House Ways and Means Committee's proposal 
to sunset the low-income housing tax credit in 1997, pending a GAO 
review of the management of the program.
  The low-income housing tax credit is the Federal Government's 
principal rental housing production program that results in significant 
private capital for the development of affordable rental housing. Since 
its inception, as part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the low-income 
housing tax credit has enjoyed broad bi-partisan support in both the 
House and the Senate. In fact, that support became very clear when 75 
percent of the House and nearly 90 percent of the Senate went on record 
as recently as 1992 in support of legislation to make the credit 
permanent. It was made permanent in 1993.
  Since 1986 the credit has mobilized private capital for public 
benefit, attracting more than $12 billion in private investment. Nearly 
800,000 units of rental housing for lower income working families and 
the elderly have been constructed or rehabilitated with the low-income 
housing tax credit. This has lead to the creation of 90,000 jobs each 
year and resulted in $2.8 billion in wages and $1.3 billion in 
additional tax revenues.
  According to the New York State Housing Finance Agency, in 1994, in 
our home State, over 6,100 units of rental housing were made possible 
because of the credit. Over 77 percent of those units, 4,700, were for 
low-income families, and the production of those units directly 
resulted in an estimated $520 million of housing investment in the 
State of New York.
  That being said, does the Senator from New York find it as puzzling 
as I do that the Way and Means Committee would propose to terminate the 
low-income housing tax credit without benefit of hearings; without any 
authoritative evidence that the program is not working in an effective 
manner, and, especially before any review or study?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I agree with the comments of my friend 
and colleague, Senator D'Amato, and I share his concern of the proposed 
sunset of the low-income housing tax credit.
  The credit is a principal incentive which Congress makes available to 
individuals and corporations to invest in apartment construction and 
rehabilitation devoted to low-income renters. In fact, when the credit 
became permanent in 1993, it attracted many new, high quality 
developers to the construction of lower income rental housing. Today, 
the credit accounts for one out of every four apartments constructed 
nationwide and virtually all of the production of affordable rental 
housing.
  More importantly, State agencies, acting under Federal guidelines, 
manage the low-income housing tax credit program with a minimum of red 
tape. Under current law, the credit is limited to $1.25 per capita per 
State and is administered by the States on behalf of the Federal 
Government. Investors provide equity to projects in exchange for the 
credits to facilitate the development of affordable units. For 1995, 
based upon our Nation's current population, the States will allocate 
$325 million in credits, resulting in about $1.85 billion of private 
equity being invested in affordable housing. I could not agree more 
that to sunset one of the best examples of public-private 

[[Page S 16066]]
partnership and Federal-State partnership would be a grave error.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to express to Chairman Roth 
and Senator Moynihan my hope that when we go into Conference on this 
matter, that the Senate will be firm in its resolve not to recede to 
the House on any proposal that would sunset the low-income housing tax 
credit.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I certainly understand and sympathize with 
the concerns raised by Senators D'Amato and Moynihan. I have received a 
number of letters from Members on both sides of the aisle that reflect 
the concerns you have voiced today. In addition, I have received many 
letters from Governors noting their strong opposition to terminating 
the low-income housing tax credit.


                                  anwr

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I strongly support the provisions of 
this legislation opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil and gas leasing, exploration and 
development.
  Mr. President, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] is seen by 
many as a place of great beauty. It is a place of vastness, a place 
where the land stretches farther than the eye can see. It provides 
important habitat for muskoxen, brown bears, polar bears, wolverines 
and a multitude of migrating and other birds. It is a place where, in 
the summer months, the porcupine caribou herd roams, and rainbows arch 
over the Beaufort Sea.
  But a different kind of national treasure is thought to underlie the 
surface of a small portion of ANWR. That national treasure is oil--huge 
quantities of oil. Simply put, the coastal plain of ANWR represents the 
most highly prospective onshore oil and gas region remaining in the 
United States.
  Mr. President, if developing the large quantities of oil thought to 
underlie the coastal plain would, as some suggest, destroy the 19 
million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, then the question of 
proceeding would be much more difficult. But that is not the issue. The 
coastal plain can and should be developed in an environmentally sound 
and sensitive way that does not despoil the wildlife and other 
environmental values of ANWR.
  Mr. President, the case for authorizing oil and gas leasing in ANWR 
is as compelling as it is straightforward.
  First, oil and gas activity would be limited to only a small portion 
of the refuge--the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain--also known as the 
``1002 area--'' an area some 30 miles wide by 100 miles long. 
Absolutely no oil and gas activity would take place on the remaining 
17.5 million acres that comprise the refuge. In fact, approximately 
eight million acres of ANWR, have already been designated as 
wilderness, including 450,000 acres of the coastal plain region between 
the Aichilik River and the Canadian border.
  In addition, the technology and the environmental sensitivity of oil 
field development in the Arctic have evolved steadily in the 25 years 
since the oil and gas facilities at Prudhoe Bay, which are located 
directly west of ANWR, were designed and constructed. Given these 
advances, and with the environmental safeguards that are currently 
applicable to all oil and gas activities in the Arctic, development can 
take place on the coastal plain in an environmentally sound manner 
without lasting effects.
  It is a serious misconception that oil and gas development would 
destroy the habitat functions of the coastal plain. In reality, full 
leasing, development and production from three oil fields, for example, 
would affect less than 1 percent of the area's land surface by both 
direct habitat alteration and by indirect effects such as road dust or 
local impoundments of water along a road. Ninety-nine percent of the 
area would remain untouched; and the area's habitat will not be altered 
sufficiently to affect the size, growth rate, or regional distribution 
of fish and wildlife populations. The area will continue to be used by 
caribou for calving and will continue to provide habitat for polar 
bears, brown bears, wolves, muskoxen, and millions of birds.
  The only significant change on the coastal plain would be aesthetic. 
If oil is discovered, widely spaced roads, pipelines, drilling 
structures, and support facilities would be visible on the coastal 
plain. Of course, even these facilities would be removed and graveled 
areas rehabilitated when production ceased. During the years of 
exploration and production, the coastal plain region will still support 
wildlife, provide recreational opportunities, and be home to the 
Inupiat Eskimo.
  Mr. President, the vegetation and wildlife inhabiting the coastal 
plain are well adapted to the extreme Arctic environment. Biological 
evidence does not support the popular notion that wildlife and plants 
in the region are fragile things, living on the edge of survival. After 
a decade of study, there is no evidence that oil development at Prudhoe 
Bay had an adverse effect on significant numbers of wildlife. The 
central arctic caribou herd uses Prudhoe Bay and the surrounding area 
for calving. This herd has grown from 3,000 to 18,000 animals since oil 
development activities began at Prudhoe Bay in the early 1970's. The 
caribou live alongside the structures related to oil and gas activity, 
such as roads, pipelines, and drilling pads, with no ill effects.
  While it is true that the porcupine caribou herd uses a portion of 
the coastal plain for 6 to 8 weeks each year, it is not true that this 
area contains core calving areas critical to the survival of the 
150,000 animals which currently comprise the herd. In the first place, 
the herd calves throughout a huge expanse of territory in Canada and 
Alaska, including portions of ANWR. In some years, probably as a result 
of snow conditions or the presence of predators, only a very few 
caribou calve in the coastal plain at all. In other years, there is a 
higher concentration of calving in certain areas of the coastal plain. 
The widespread and annually variable distribution of calving strongly 
suggests that no one small portion of this huge calving area is 
critical to maintaining the viability of the porcupine caribou herd.
  Finally, the human activity resulting from oil production would not 
be new to the coastal plain. Although human presence in the coastal 
plain region has been relatively light, there has been, and continues 
to be, evidence of man in the area. There have been three DEW. line 
stations--one of which is still active--there is a Native village, 
Kaktovik, which has been relocated in the area three times in recent 
history, and there have been, and continue to be considerable 
subsistence activities in the area.
  Mr. President, let me now turn to the crucial importance to our 
Nation of the oil thought to underlie the coastal plain. For the 
foreseeable future, oil will remain a critical fuel for the United 
States and other industrialized nations. Currently, the United States 
consumes approximately 17 million barrels of oil per day. The 
Department of Energy projects that under current policies, this may 
well increase to almost 23 million barrels per day by the year 2010. At 
the same time, domestic production will decline, resulting in a 
significant increase in foreign oil imports. DOE projects that domestic 
production of crude oil will fall from today's level of 6.8 million 
barrels per day to 5.4 million barrels per day in 2010, a decrease of 
21 percent.
  Imports of foreign oil are projected to increase substantially by the 
year 2010, making our Nation dependent on foreign oil for more than 60 
percent of our oil needs. This level of import dependence is extremely 
dangerous for our country.
  More significantly, as the Persian Gulf war tragically demonstrated, 
oil is an important strategic resource, and the struggle to control 
that region's vast oil reserves can disrupt the delicate balance of 
peace in the Middle East.
  United States oil imports are so massive, and the use of oil is so 
ingrained in our economy, that a substantial demand for oil will exist 
for the foreseeable future--certainly well into the early decades of 
the 21st century. This conclusion remains firm in the face of even the 
most optimistic assumptions about increases in energy efficiency and 
the substitution of alternative fuels. These policies alone will not 
suffice. Unless domestic oil production is encouraged and pursued, oil 
imports will continue to rise, and rise significantly.
  By any measure, the coastal plain of ANWR represents the primary 
prospect 

[[Page S 16067]]
for domestic onshore oil and gas exploration in the United States. The 
opponents of opening the coastal plain argue that the amount of oil at 
stake is not significant, that it is only a 200-day supply. However, a 
single field large enough to supply this country with all of the oil it 
consumes for 200 days represents a huge reservoir of oil. Eighty 
percent of all onshore oil fields discovered in the lower 48 States 
over the last 100 years have contained less than 1 day's supply.
  According to the BLM, the mean estimate of oil thought to be 
economically recoverable from the coastal plain of the ANWR is 3.2 
billion barrels. The range of estimated economically recoverable 
reserves runs from 400 million barrels to over 9 billion barrels. The 
probability of discovering economically recoverable oil has been 
estimated by that agency at 46 percent. The oil industry routinely 
considers probabilities of discovery in the range of 10 percent worth 
the payment of substantial bonuses for the right to explore for oil.
  As many of my colleagues know, the USGS has recently completed its 
1995 assessment of onshore oil and gas resources for the United States. 
In general, the assessment shows an increase in the amount of natural 
gas thought to be present in northern Alaska and a decrease in the 
amount of oil thought to be present in that area. The USGS has prepared 
a preliminary analysis of the oil potential of the coastal plain and 
has concluded in a draft memorandum that the mean estimate for oil in 
the 1002 area is slightly less than a billion barrels, with a 1 in 20 
chance that some 4 billion barrels are present. The agency is currently 
in the process of gathering more information from the 1002 area to 
refine its very preliminary estimate. The BLM, it should be noted, 
continues to have confidence in its earlier mean estimate of 3.2 
billion barrels for the 1002 area.
  Since 1980, when we began to debate the issue of opening the coastal 
plain of ANWR, there have been numerous studies and estimates of the 
amount of oil likely to be found if the area is opened to leasing. 
These estimates have been made by the BLM, USGS, the Energy Information 
Administration, the GAO, the State of Alaska, the American Association 
of Petroleum Geologists, and others. These estimates vary considerably 
due to different methodologies employed, different interpretations of 
geologic data, and differing geologic engineering and economic 
assumptions that are made relative to the methodology.
  As a result, it is very difficult to directly compare these 
estimates. However, two important conclusions can be drawn from these 
estimates.
  First, they all reflect a wide range of uncertainty, which is 
expected for an area that has not been drilled. Until we have reliable 
well data from the 1002 area, we simply have no way of knowing how 
great the potential of the area is. Second, all these estimates show a 
very large potential for oil and gas, with even the lowest estimates 
that have been made having an upside potential of at least 4 billion 
barrels.
  In addition to the benefits to the country provided by the oil 
itself, the Federal Treasury will also benefit. Under the ANWR 
provisions contained in the bill currently before the Senate, the CBO 
estimates that two lease sales in the coastal plain will occur between 
now and the year 2000 which will result in bonus bids totalling $2.6 
billion. The legislation requires a 50-50 revenue split with the State 
of Alaska--the same as other western States--which will mean that the 
Federal Treasury will receive $1.3 billion in new revenue during the 
next 7 years if the coastal plain is leased. Should oil be discovered 
and produced from ANWR in significant amounts, a steady stream of 
royalty income will also accrue to the Federal Treasury for many years 
to come.
  In addition to the direct budget plus for the Treasury, this measure 
provides that the Federal share--50%--of bonus bid revenues in excess 
of $2.6 billion will be made directly available for maintenance, repair 
and rehabilitation projects at our Nation's national parks and refuges. 
This provision will provide a significant funding source for our parks 
that so desperately need more money.
  Mr. President, oil and gas development on the coastal plain is a step 
that must not be postponed any longer. Most experts agree that it will 
take up to 10 or 15 years before commercial production could begin if 
the area is leased this year. Sometime between 2008 and 2014, the DOE 
estimates that production from Prudhoe Bay and adjacent fields, which 
currently account for nearly 25 percent of our domestic oil production, 
is projected to decline to approximately 300,000 barrels per day, the 
minimum level needed to operate the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System 
[TAPS]. If we continue to delay exploring for oil on the coastal plain 
and developing what we find there, the TAPS could be forced to shut 
down, and we will have lost our ability to transport billions of 
barrels of Alaskan oil to waiting consumers.
  When Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
Act in 1980, we declined to designate this portion of ANWR as 
wilderness and specifically reserved for ourselves the decision on 
whether that area should be made available for oil and gas leasing. We 
directed the Secretary of the Interior to study the area and to make 
recommendations on whether to allow oil and gas development. In 1987, 
the Secretary recommended that oil and gas development be allowed to 
take place. Since that report was issued, the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee alone has conducted 11 hearings and built a solid 
and thorough record on this issue. Our committee has voted on three 
separate occasions, on a bipartisan basis, to proceed with oil and gas 
leasing.
  It is now time for the Senate to exercise its responsibility and make 
a decision with respect to oil and gas development on the coastal 
plain. Our Nation can have the benefit of the oil from ANWR, the 
revenues leasing will generate, and still preserve the beauty and the 
vastness of the Refuge.

                          ____________________