[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 180 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17041-S17042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      BUDGET RECONCILIATION VOTES

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, during consideration of the Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1995, the Senate conducted a remarkable number of 
rollcall votes, including a record 39 votes on Friday, October 27. I 
want to take some time now to discuss several of the more critical 
votes about which I was unable to comment at the time.
  First of all, Mr. President, I generally voted against motions to 
waive the Budget Act for amendments that resulted in higher deficits 
and amendments to strike budget savings in the bill because they would 
have moved us away from the goal of balancing the budget by the year 
2002. These amendments included the Jeffords amendment on two-part 
dairy, the Specter amendment to strike all of the savings derived from 
the Medicare disproportionate share payments, and the Moynihan 
amendment to strike the indirect medical payments provisions. Aside 
from the respective merits of each amendment, their adoption would have 
resulted in a deficit in the year 2002, taking the reconciliation 
package out of balance and causing us to miss our primary goal in this 
budget process--enactment of a balanced budget.
  Second, I voted against amendments to roll back the $245 billion in 
tax relief for middle-class families and small businesses. As I have 
noted previously, as a consequence of the $900 billion in savings 
generated from our budget over 7 years, the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that an economic dividend will accrue to the Federal 
Government. In my mind, this tiny surplus belongs to the taxpayers who 
make all the other Government programs possible, and for that reason, I 
opposed all amendments to reduce the size of the tax cut. These 
amendments included the Rockefeller motion to reduce the savings from 
Medicare to $89 billion and to offset this reduction by reducing the 
tax cuts by a like amount; the Bumpers amendment to delay the tax cut 
for 7 years; the Dorgan-Harkin-Kennedy amendment to limit the capital 
gains tax reduction; the Lautenberg amendment to prohibit high-income 
people from benefiting from the lower taxes; the Baucus amendment to 
strip out the tax cuts in order to avoid any reductions in spending 
that might impact rural America; the Simon-Conrad substitute amendment 
to strike the tax cuts and entitlement reforms; and the Byrd amendment 
to strike the tax cuts altogether.
  As I have said previously, I fully support providing American 
families and businesses with this modest tax cut. The Republican budget 
projects that the Federal Government will spend about $12 trillion over 
the next 7 years. The tax cut included in this bill would return to the 
taxpayers just a fraction of that amount. This is certainly reasonable, 
especially considering the primary beneficiaries of these tax cuts are 
low- and middle-income families--families that have seen their Federal 
tax burden rise dramatically over the past 40 years.
  Mr. President, let me comment on the Rockefeller motion in 
particular. The effort to tie the tax cuts included in the budget 
reconciliation bill with the necessary reforms made to Medicare is 
disingenuous. With or without tax cuts, the Medicare trustees have 
stated in no uncertain terms that the Medicare trust fund will go 
insolvent in 2002. The Senate reconciliation bill makes the fundamental 
reforms necessary to keep Medicare solvent and it lays the foundation 
for long-term reform of the Medicare system. These reforms have nothing 
to do with any tax cuts included in the bill and everything to do with 
preserving Medicare for future generations.

  Mr. President, there were a few amendments offered that pertained to 
the treatment of low-income families. I opposed Senator Bradley's 
motion to increase spending for the earned income tax credit by raising 
unspecified taxes. While the basic premise and goals of the earned 
income tax credit are sound, it is apparent that the program is in need 
of reform. As was stated clearly during the debate, the EITC has 
suffered in recent years from fraud and abuse. According to the 
Governmental Accounting Office, the EITC has an error and fraud rate of 
between 30 and 40 percent. Aside from cheating the taxpayers, this 
problem is also cheating deserving families from receiving payments for 
which they are eligible.
  Under this budget, spending on the ETIC Program will continue to 
increase, from $19.8 billion this year to $22.8 billion in 2002. As a 
result, the maximum credit available to low-income families with two 
children will increase from $3,110 this year to $3,888 in the year 
2002. Contrary to what was argued during debate, EITC payments don't go 
down under this legislation, they go up.
  Another amendment worth commenting upon was the Breaux amendment to 
make the $500 per child family tax credit refundable against employee-
paid payroll taxes by limiting the tax credit to children under 16 
years of age and phasing it out to families with incomes between 
$60,000 and $75,000. As I noted at the time, I support making the $500 
family tax credit refundable against employee-paid payroll taxes. 
Nevertheless, I opposed this amendment because it would unfairly 
exclude many middle-class families who also need this relief. In my 
State of Michigan, there are many families where both the husband and 
the wife work. It's not hard to imagine a family where the husband is 
an auto worker, the wife is a teacher, and their combined incomes are 
well above the arbitrary cutoff established by the Breaux amendment. 
Furthermore, there are many families with children aged 16 or 17 who 
will also lose out under the Breaux amendment. I should point out that 
teenagers are just as expensive as younger children--if not more; I 
don't need to remind anyone just how much college costs these days, or 
car insurance for that matter. Parents of children aged 16 and 17 are 
struggling to make ends meet too, and they need the tax relief the 
Breaux amendment would take from them. It is my hope that FICA 
refundability will be raised during conference and that a solution will 
be adopted to provid tax relief to as many American families as 
possible.
  Another group of amendments related to Medicare, Medicaid, and other 
health related matters. Senator Graham of Florida offered a motion to 
recommit the reconciliation bill to the Finance Committee in an effort 
to reinstate the Federal entitlement and reduce the level of savings 
from the Medicaid program proposed in the Republican bill. This was, in 
essence, a killer amendment. As with the Rockefeller Medicare motion to 
recommit, the Graham amendment struck at the core of our efforts to 
balance the Federal budget by the year 2002.
  Republicans believe it is time to end the Washington knows best 
mentality that dominates our budget policies and programs. Under 
our budget, we want to give the States more control over the Medicaid 
Program in exchange for an overall reduction in the growth rate of the 
program. The States have proven that they can deliver government 
services more efficiently and at less cost if they are given the 
freedom to do so. The Republican bill does that by placing fewer 
strings on the funds it provides to the States while focusing its 
resources on those workers on the frontlines--providing direct 
assistance to the needy.

  There were separate amendments offered by Senators Chafee and Dodd 
related to Medicaid eligibility issues. I voted to maintain the 
Medicaid eligibility criteria already included in the reconciliation 
bill by the Finance Committee. The Chafee and Dodd amendments would 
have mandated to the 

[[Page S 17042]]
States to cover certain classes of individuals under the State-run 
Medicaid Program. Again, this runs counter to our effort to provide 
States with more flexibility--not less.
  A similar amendment was offered by Senator Pryor. His amendment would 
have extended existing Medicaid standards with regard to nursing home 
facilities. At the time of the vote, it was my understanding that the 
Senate leadership would offer a subsequent amendment addressing the 
concerns raised by the Senator from Arkansas. This amendment was 
offered and accepted, and it ensures that Federal nursing home 
standards remain the minimum protection level afforded to nursing home 
residents. Under this amendment, States may receive a waiver from 
Federal requirements, but only if the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services determines that the State's regulations are as tough--or 
tougher--than Federal regulations. With the understanding that this 
amendment would be offered, I voted against the Pryor amendment.
  Mr. President, another amendment worthy of note was the Kassebaum 
amendment to restore funding to the school loan program. I had an 
opportunity to address these issues first as a member of the Senate 
Labor Committee. At that time, we were confronted with the need to meet 
our reconciliation instructions by reducing the cost of the school loan 
program. While the committee met its instruction by choosing the most 
acceptable of undesirable alternatives, several of my colleagues and I 
promised to work to reduce the impact these cuts would have on students 
and their parents. The result of this effort was the Kassenbaum 
amendment to strike provisions eliminating the 6-month grace period for 
student, imposing a loan fee on institutions, and increasing the 
interest rate on PLUS loans. This amendment effectively shielded 
college students from increased out-of-pocket costs, and I was pleased 
to see it adopted.
  Senator Biden offered President Clinton's education tax credit 
proposal as an amendment to the bill. I voted against it because the 
reconciliation bill already includes a student loan tax credit of up to 
$500 for middle-class families. Our plan also provides considerable 
additional relief to those families struggling to find enough resources 
in their limited family budget to cover the rising costs of college.
  Senator Baucus offered an amendment to strike the ANWAR provisions of 
the bill. I support responsible, environmentally controlled efforts to 
explore and develop certain wilderness areas and, for that reason, I 
voted to table this amendment.
  It is important to note that, on this issue, the State of Alaska and 
its citizens have spoken out. The Eskimos and Alaska's elected 
representatives recognize the potential benefits of development and 
support exploration of the region. The Inupiat Eskimos are the historic 
residents of Alaska's North Slope; they are subsistence hunters who 
live off the land. Proceeds from oil production means good schools, 
medical services, and a better standard of living for them and their 
children.
  Furthermore, responsible development of these oilfields is in 
Alaska's and the Nation's best interest. Alaska's current production 
facility at Prudhoe Bay, which provides more than 20 percent of 
domestic oil, is in decline. The State's revenues from oil are 
projected to fall from more than $2 billion today to $700 million in 
2010. This could cause a grave fiscal crisis for Alaska. By contrast, 
if a commercial field is discovered projected Federal revenues could 
approach $40 billion.
  Finally, it should be noted that the Eskimos, who are dependent on 
the Caribou, fish, and other wildlife, believe that opening the refuge 
is compatible with their lifestyle and crucial to their survival.
  For these reasons, I support the exploration of the coastal plain. I 
believe exploration can be done in a manner that protects the 
environment and also provides needed economic development.
  A final tax matter which was addressed during debate was the Specter 
amendment supporting replacing the current Tax Code with a flat tax. As 
an extraneous matter, this amendment was subject to a point of order. I 
voted to sustain this point of order, but I want to emphasize that this 
vote should not be interpreted as opposition to the idea of the flat 
tax--but rather opposition to including it on this vehicle at this 
time. I agree with Senator Specter that our current Tax Code is too 
complex and inefficient and needs to be replaced, and I support 
investigating the benefits of all of the proposed reforms that have 
been put forward, including a flat tax.

                          ____________________