[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 183 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17247-S17315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S 17247]]


         THE 7-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

                              (Continued)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. President, I say very briefly there is once again information on 
the floor that must be corrected: the argument that the tax cuts 
included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 are going to the very 
wealthy in our country. In fact, Mr. President, 65 percent of all the 
tax cuts that are being provided for in this legislation go to people 
who are making less than $75,000 a year, 80 percent goes to people 
making less than $100,000.
  If you are in those categories, according to what we have just heard, 
you are rich. In my State of Michigan, people making less than $75,000 
a year are not the wealthiest people in America, and I do not think 
they are the wealthiest people in America or any other State.
  The other claim, Mr. President, with respect to children, I think it 
is hard to argue that the policies which we are changing with this 
legislation are going to be worse for children than what we have seen 
under the policies that have been in existence for so many years.
  Today, more children and more people are in poverty than when the war 
on poverty began. Today, children in America born this year are faced 
with huge debts that we have been running up on the Federal 
Government's unlimited credit card. There can be no greater punishment 
for the children in America today than to let the spending spree in 
Washington continue. That will continue if we do not pass the Balanced 
Budget Act which we are dealing with right now.
  I yield 11 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, of the 15 we 
have allotted, and then 5 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first I want to say I listened to the 
Members of the Democratic side speak this afternoon and, with the 
exception of the Senator from Nebraska, I have not heard one of them 
step up to the plate and try to do something about the deficits the 
country is facing.
  Yes, they attack everything we have done, every proposal we have, but 
they have not offered a single proposal of their own to address what I 
believe is the most serious domestic problem facing this Nation of 
ours, which is the continuing deficits.
  True, there is a lot of mileage in being against it and they are 
experts at it. The word ``shame'' was used by the Senator from 
Massachusetts about the approach we have taken. I say shame to those on 
that side who criticize but offer no alternatives.
  With few exceptions, there is little willingness on that side of the 
aisle to tangle with this desperate problem that our country faces.
  Mr. President, I believe that we truly do face a historic choice: to 
put our Nation on a path to a balanced budget by passing this Balanced 
Budget Act, or to continue business as usual, borrowing from our 
children and grandchildren to meet current Federal obligations.
  This is the first time, Mr. President, in my 19 years in the Senate 
that we have had the opportunity to vote on a balanced budget. Yes, we 
have made attempts in the past to reduce the deficit. We had the Gramm-
Rudman plan, firewalls, all kinds of approaches, but never have we had 
the political courage in both branches to make the tough choices to 
produce a balanced budget.
  Whether one agrees with this legislation or not, it clearly 
represents a bold and a decisive step. Those courageous enough to vote 
for it deserve kudos, particularly in the House of Representatives, 
where they face the voters every 2 years.
  As a Senator, as a parent, as a grandparent and as a concerned 
citizen, Mr. President, I have come to believe, as I mentioned before, 
that the deficit is the most pressing domestic problem our Nation 
faces. We cannot continue on this reckless course of spending more than 
we take in. Individuals and families, obviously, have to live within 
their budgets. So should our national Government.
  Now, the Federal deficit is literally snowballing downhill, totally 
out of control. In 1980, we had a national debt of $1 trillion. This 
amount was amassed over a period of 200 years, from the inception of 
the Republic. Yet from 1980 to the present--just 15 years, we have run 
up $4 trillion more--four times what it took us 200 years to 
accumulate. So now our national debt has reached almost $5 trillion.
  Absent decisive action, we are looking at annual deficits continuing 
out into the future of $200 billion a year. In other words, every 5 
years we will add another $1 trillion of debt to the bill we are 
sending to future generations of Americans to pay.
  Interest alone, never mind paying down that principal, is the third 
largest expenditure in the Federal budget. The largest is Social 
Security, the second largest is defense, the third largest is interest 
on the debt.
  Mr. President, $235 billion a year. That is nearly a quarter of a 
trillion dollars that will not be available for better education, 
better schools, more help to college students, disease prevention, 
improved health, better housing, and more environmental protection. 
This staggering debt burden prevents us from making those expenditures, 
and obviously the $235 billion this year will go up every year.
  Thus, I am committed to reaching a balanced budget within a specified 
time period, and the Balanced Budget Act will accomplish that objective 
within 7 years, by the year 2002. 

[[Page S 17248]]

  Whether one agrees with all of the provisions of this or not, there 
is another very important reason to vote for the Balanced Budget Act. 
It will get us beyond the current budget impasse and on to direct 
negotiations with the President.
  As far as I am concerned, the sooner we get to the negotiating table 
with the administration, the better. We need to get beyond the finger 
pointing and on to negotiations. We must get past this veto--which 
everyone agrees is going to take place--and on to constructive, 
bipartisan dialog with the White House, and congressional Democrats, to 
balance this Federal budget within 7 years.
  Now, a new forecast was conducted at the University of Rhode Island 
indicating that my State is still languishing in the doldrums of a 
protracted recession. At best, the recovery we have experienced over 
the past several years has been uneven and anemic. This continued 
stagnation is sapping the vitality of my State and dashing the hopes of 
many of its citizens.
  We need to get this entire economy moving--from one end of the 
country to the other--and balancing the budget is the single most 
important step we can take to make this country prosper. This is not me 
saying this. This is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Alan 
Greenspan, and a host of economists that testified before the Finance 
Committee earlier this year.
  The very action of enacting legislation to put us on the path to a 
balanced budget, with annual deficits on a downward trend, would 
provide an almost immediate reduction in short and long-term interest 
rates. This, in turn, would do several things. It would free up capital 
to fuel growth, increase demand for goods and services, and increase 
employment in our country.
  For consumers, the cost of financing a college education for their 
children, buying an automobile, or financing a home, would all come 
down in response to falling interest rates. For businesses, the cost of 
borrowing capital would become more affordable, enabling them to 
expand, and to create new jobs.
  Now, Mr. President, I do not agree with every aspect of this massive 
bill. I say without hesitation or regret that I fought the good fight 
on a number of issues about which I care deeply, with some success and 
some failures.
  However, when the goal is as important as securing the economic 
future of our Nation, as I believe it is, one works to advance the 
process despite any misgivings one might have.
  That said, I would like to offer a few of my own thoughts to those 
who will have the difficult task of negotiating a final agreement with 
the administration once this bill is vetoed. When the negotiations 
convene in early December, I am confident an agreement can be reached 
if both sides come to the table in good faith.
  Here are my suggestions for them.
  At a time when we are trying to balance the budget, I believe tax 
cuts are difficult to justify. I, personally, am against any the tax 
cuts. However, if we are to have some tax reductions, they should not 
become effective until substantial progress has been made toward 
reaching our goal of a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Both sides have proposed tax cuts. The administration rails against 
our tax cut proposal but, indeed, the President has also proposed tax 
cuts totaling more than $100 billion. I believe both sides should defer 
the implementation of any tax cuts.
  Second, congressional Republicans are exactly right in taking 
significant steps to control the future growth of Medicare. The long-
term financial problems facing this program must be addressed in a 
forthright manner. The President and congressional Democrats must step 
up to the plate on this issue.
  By the way, I hope everybody saw the editorial in yesterday's 
Washington Post, hardly a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, which 
excoriated the Democrats for their failure to face up to this issue of 
Medicare. The President and the congressional Democrats are equally to 
blame for failing to offer real solutions to the problems confronting 
the Medicare program. We Republicans believe in income-testing, 
requiring wealthier citizens to pay more for Medicare, as well as other 
entitlement programs. In addition, steps must be taken to conform 
Medicare administration and management with modern insurance practices. 
Moreover, we should give seniors more choices, such as choosing an HMO, 
or Preferred Provider Organization. I strongly believe we should not 
reduce Part B premiums because doing so would require additional tax 
dollars, further increasing the deficit of our Nation. In this regard, 
the Republican budget plan keeps the premiums at exactly the same 
percentage that they are today, 31.5 percent.
  Republicans are right in insisting upon a fixed timetable of 7 years 
to reach a balanced budget. We have repeatedly promised fiscal 
discipline and repeatedly failed to deliver it. So, when people 
suggest, oh, you can do it in 9 years, in 10 years, or 15 years--
beware. Let us set an early date. I believe 7 years is a reasonable 
one. That is not tomorrow, that is not the year after next. Within 7 
years--by 2002--we ought to be able to deliver a balanced budget. We 
are in peacetime. There is no war. There is relative prosperity. We 
ought to be able to balance the budget in 7 years.
  Severing the individual entitlement and turning the Medicaid program 
over to the States as a block grant causes me grave concerns, and could 
end up costing our health care system a lot more than the present 
program. A per capita cap on the Federal entitlement and much greater 
State flexibility are the appropriate solutions to the problems 
confronting this program. I also question the wisdom of trying to find 
such a high level of savings from Medicaid.
  Next, the Senate welfare reform bill was a sound package which won 
significant bipartisan support, and I hope the result which emerges 
from negotiations----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 11 minutes of the Senator have expired.
  Mr. CHAFEE. If I might have 1 more minute?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the Senator an additional minute.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I hope the result which emerges from negotiations on the 
welfare part of the Balanced Budget Act will be closer to the Senate 
bill. The conference agreement appears to depart significantly from the 
Senate bill in areas such as foster care and children's Supplemental 
Security Income, for example. In addition, it is unreasonably 
restrictive with respect to the treatment of legal immigrants, which I 
find quite troubling and unacceptable.
  We should bite the bullet and correct the Consumer Price Index, which 
is a measure of inflation used to compute cost-of-living adjustments 
for Social Security benefits, as well as to conform Federal tax 
brackets with inflationary changes. There is growing bipartisan 
consensus within Congress, and among economists, that the CPI 
overstates inflation. Even a modest correction of five-tenths of 1 
percent would reduce outlays by about $122 billion over 7 years, 
affecting only a $4 or $5 reduction in the increase the average 
beneficiary would receive.
  The approaches I have outlined will help the respective parties reach 
an agreement to balance the budget by providing the flexibility needed 
to reduce the reliance on savings from Medicaid and other programs 
serving the needy, particularly those serving poor children.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, this legislation presents us with a 
tremendous opportunity to fulfill our responsibilities to put our 
fiscal house in order. I urge passage of this legislation so that we 
can move on to direct negotiations with the White House toward a final 
budget agreement. I thank the Chair and the manager.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do support this Balanced Budget Act of 
1995. I want to make a few comments about the continuing resolution 
that is going to go to the President and its relationship to this bill.
  I was deeply disturbed when the President vetoed the second 
continuing resolution. This will be the third one, because, you know, 
we did have one from October 1 to November 13. I do hope the messages 
are getting through to the President. I have been heartened every 
morning when I come into the office and review the logging-in of the 

[[Page S 17249]]
public opinion messages that come to my Alaska offices and here in 
Washington. I want to tell the Senate, of all the calls we have 
received during this period, about 15 percent of those calls agree with 
the President; 4 percent rightly urge us to get together and settle 
this problem; but over 80 percent of all the calls we received so far 
tell me to stay the course and balance the budget. They tell me to 
continue this fight that we have, to try to bring about some 
restoration of, really, the fiscal solvency of the country and to 
realign our laws so they make sense.
  Alaskans, really, who have sent us here, tell us a balanced budget is 
worth fighting for. It is time we dealt with this issue. I just managed 
the defense bill. Most people realize how large that defense bill is, 
and we were criticized on reporting it because it was so large.
  I wonder how many people realize that the interest on the national 
debt this year is the same as the amount of money we are spending for 
national defense. The difficulty is, the debt is rising now at an 
astounding rate of $335,000 a minute, $20 million an hour, $482 million 
a day. We have a deficit already standing at $176 billion, and it is 
projected to remain roughly at that level through the end of the 
century--almost $200 billion a year through the end of the century.
  Alaskans realize we cannot use the Federal credit card to get out of 
this debt. We have to find some way to meet it. We also have to find 
some way to provide the services that we need.
  It will be the small States that are squeezed out if these interest 
payments continue to rise, and we know that. We rely on things like the 
Coast Guard and the FBI and FAA and so many groups that are involved in 
our livelihood, the fisheries and forestry programs of NOAA. All of 
that is discretionary spending that is wiped out as interest rates go 
up. The reason we are committed to reducing this deficit and trying to 
balance the budget is to preserve the kind of services that small 
States need.
  We could commit ourselves to just reducing the rate of growth to 3 
percent across the board or 5 percent across the board. Instead, we 
have a very complicated bill before us. It is a bill that makes sense. 
The year 2002 makes a lot of sense to me. That is the first midterm 
election following the election that will take place in the year 2000. 
It gives the American public a chance to really react if Congress has 
failed to meet its commitment.
  I really have come to the floor today to say I just do not believe 
the President can reject this continuing resolution that we have sent 
to him. In my judgment, he has campaigned for a 5-year balanced budget 
during his campaign in 1992. He has accepted the 7-year period on 
several occasions. We are asking for no more than he himself has 
pledged in the past to the American public. And in the State of the 
Union Message, when he came before us in 1993, he urged us to use the 
Congressional Budget Office, not the political appointees of the Office 
of Management and Budget, to determine whether the bills that Congress 
sends him would meet the goals of balancing the budget.
  I think that we need to have this bill which is before us passed. 
There is no question about that. But I say to the President, I urge you 
to sign the continuing resolution. We are seeing the collision between 
the two massive entities of our Federal Government--the executive 
branch and the legislative branch--one under the control of one and the 
other under the control of the other, and there is no way for them to 
get together unless we have some time. This continuing resolution would 
give us that time and keep the commitment not only to balanced budget 
by 2002, but to do so using sensible economics as delineated by the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, under a previous agreement I am allowed 15 
minutes, as I understand it.
  Mr. President, let me begin doing what someone recently alleged on 
the other side of the aisle that no one has done.
  Let me compliment the Republicans of the majority party. I think some 
of what they have done in this reconciliation bill makes a lot of 
sense. Some of the proposals are courageous proposals. Some of them 
move us in the right direction.
  I am not going to support this bill. I think there are some terrible 
ideas in here as well. But let me say all of us have to work together 
to find common ground. Some of the proposals make a lot of sense. There 
are a good number of the proposals that I do support.
  Mr. President, the debate is not about whether we balance the budget 
in 7 years. Frankly, if we could get the Federal Reserve Board to take 
its foot off the brake and get a little economic growth, we ought to be 
able to balance the budget in 5 years. The Federal Reserve Board cranks 
up interest rates because they say our economy is growing too fast. Let 
us get the Fed to get its foot off the brake, get some growth, and we 
can do it before 7 years. That is not the debate, 7 years, 5 years, 8 
years.
  Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the budget reconciliation bill that we are 
now debating should have come to the floor of the Senate by June 15. 
That is what the law requires. Now we are 5 months later and we have a 
bill.
  Of course, no one in this Chamber has read it--no one. Not one Member 
of the Senate, in my judgment, has read this entire bill. It just came 
yesterday. It was put in the Congressional Record in legislative 
language of I guess probably 1900 pages long. But I wanted to explain 
to my colleagues some of what is in this bill. I think some of what I 
will explain is not understood by anybody in the Senate. It is just 
there.
  We are told now that this bill is going to balance the budget, this 
plan must be adopted, this plan or no plan, this is the plan that will 
save America, and this is the plan that will solve the fiscal policy 
problems. Well, there are other ways to do the same thing and to do it 
the right way. So let me go through some of the things that I think can 
be changed and must be changed in this plan.
  If you go through this plan in some detail, what you will see is the 
choices that are made on spending cuts and the choices that are made on 
tax cuts seem always to be overweighed in terms of helping those who 
have money with additional blessings of tax cuts and hurting those who 
do not have much with the added burdens of budget cuts.
  Let me show my colleagues something that I will bet no one in the 
Senate understands is there. In fact, let me do it by talking about 
cows, if the Senate will permit me to do that.
  Section 1240, chapter 4, ``livestock and environmental assistance,'' 
which is a fancy way of saying--it is called LEA, ``livestock and 
environmental assistance.'' It includes something called ``manure 
management.'' I will bet not many can visit with me about this. You do 
not know it is in there--LEA, manure management.
  Who gets the money under manure management? If you have up to 10,000 
beef cows, or a big herd, you are eligible for $50,000 in manure 
management.
  But what if you have a small herd? Not beef cows, but dairy cows. If 
you have a small herd of dairy cows, and you have more than 55, you are 
eligible for zero. Big herd of cows, you get $50,000 for manure 
management. But a cow with spots, 56 of them, zero.
  Look, this is a cow that wakes up at 5 in the morning and offers 
herself to give milk. This is a working cow.
  With these cows, if you have 10,000 and they are in a feed lot, they 
sit around, eat all day and belch a lot. They do not shift much. So you 
have a big herd, small herd; big interests, little interests; big 
folks, little folks.
  The entire bill does exactly what it does to cows. Tax cuts? The big 
interests can smile. They get a lot. Little guys, little folks? There 
is not much there. Spending cuts? The little folks, they bear the 
burden. Big folks, no problem.
  I have not had an opportunity to have the analysts look at this, but 
they were able to look at the Senate's version of this bill, and here 
is what they said. And let me talk about this in terms of people, 
because that's what our country is all about.
  Let us take a roomful of people, just a roomful the size of my 
hometown of 400 people, and set up chairs so they are all seated. You 
say, ``By the way, let's figure out who in here has what money. Let's 
take the 20 percent in 

[[Page S 17250]]
here with the lowest income, and you all move your chairs over to this 
side of the room.'' So we have all of you with the lowest income, 20 
percent of you sitting over there. Now we are going to tell you about 
your spending cuts. The folks with the 20 percent of the lowest incomes 
in this room, we will give you 80 percent of the burden of the spending 
cuts.
  The news is not all bad, however. You folks with the 20 percent of 
the highest incomes, move your chairs over to this side of the room 
because we have some awfully good news for you. We are going to cut 
taxes, and you folks, you 20 percent that have the highest incomes in 
this room, you get 80 percent of the tax cuts.
  Let me repeat that. Under this bill, the 20 percent with the least 
income get hit with 80 percent of the burden of the budget cuts or 
spending cuts. And the 20 percent with the highest incomes get 80 
percent of the rewards of the tax cuts.
  Some of us think that is not a fair way to apportion the burden of 
spending cuts and the blessings of tax cuts.
  Let me talk about some other provisions that are in this bill. I will 
bet there are not 1 or 2 percent of the Senate who understand what they 
are. A couple of people put them in here, so they probably know.
  Go to page H 12680 of the Record, which is where this bill was placed 
last evening, and you find ``Repeal of inclusion of certain earnings 
invested in excess passive assets.'' It reads, ``Paragraph 1 of section 
951(a) relating to amounts included in gross income of U.S. 
shareholders'' et cetera, ``Repeal of inclusion amount, Section 956(a) 
is repealed.''
  What does that mean? I will bet there is not anyone on the floor who 
knows what that means. Not one person, I will bet, knows what that 
means.
  I will tell you what it means, Mr. President. It means several 
hundreds of millions of dollars is given to the largest corporations 
around, who move their jobs overseas, earn income overseas, and under 
today's law must repatriate that income and pay taxes on it to this 
country.
  But this bill on this page says we are of a different mind. We would 
like in this bill to put a bow and some wrapping and a little package 
which we want to give those companies to encourage them to continue to 
keep their jobs outside of this country--several hundred millions of 
dollars in a tax cut to encourage companies to stay out of this country 
with their jobs. That is one.
  How about page 12638, ``corporate alternative minimum tax reform"? 
Not many will know what this means, except in the old days you would 
read a story that said XYZ corporation made $2 billion in income and 
paid zero in income taxes. So the Congress said that is not very fair. 
So let us have an alternative minimum tax so that we do not have to 
read stories like that.
  The House of Representatives wanted to repeal this alternative 
minimum tax completely. This conference report agreement would in 
effect repeal the alternative minimum tax with respect to depreciation.
  What does that mean? It means 2,000 corporations in America will get 
a $7 million tax cut each, on average--$7 million apiece for 2,000 
corporations buried on page 12638.
  Is this what we are supposed to vote for? If we do not vote for this, 
are we somehow thickheaded? Or is this a gift?
  Is this one of those special little prizes like the ones that go to 
the big herd for manure management, one of those little prizes that 
goes to the big interests that we are not supposed to see and we are 
not supposed to debate?
  Maybe this would come to the floor under normal circumstances and we 
could debate the wisdom of such a policy at a time when we say to 
55,000 kids on Head Start: We do not have enough money for you. You are 
going to get kicked off the Head Start program; you kids going to 
college, you are going to pay more to go to college. We do not have 
enough money for student financial aid; you folks on Medicare pay more 
and get less for your health care; you people on Medicaid, we will 
block grant that money to the States and maybe they will have money for 
your health care, or maybe not.
  But we say we have plenty of money to give a tax break to companies 
that move their jobs overseas, and we have plenty of money to virtually 
repeal the alternative minimum tax.
  Some of us think that is not a priority that makes much sense.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). About 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday, I spoke in the Chamber about 
priorities and choices. Let me in the middle of my remarks again 
compliment the Republicans, the majority party. Their desire for a 
balanced budget is commendable. I compliment them genuinely for it. The 
desire ought to be universally shared on this floor.
  The question of how you achieve that goal, the choices and the 
priorities you make, are important. They are important to a lot of 
people.
  I was in the Chamber yesterday talking about a little program called 
Star Schools, a tiny little program. It tries to create Star Schools in 
math and sciences, at an annual cost of $25 million. This bill would 
cut Star Schools by 40 percent--40 percent in a tiny little program.
  There's another program called star wars. That one is increased 100 
percent. The majority's priority is star wars, which is not ordered, 
not needed, not wanted. In the defense spending bill they boosted the 
Pentagon's star wars program by 100 percent. Supposedly we have plenty 
of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, for that program because the 
sky is the limit. We are all loaded when it comes to the star wars 
program, but a 40 percent cut in a tiny program called Star Schools.
  Nowhere is there a better example of warped priorities, in my 
judgment.
  Tax cuts. I would like to see tax cuts for every American, but I 
would say this. I offered an amendment in this Chamber saying let us at 
least limit the tax cuts to those who make $250,000 a year or less and 
use the savings from that limitation to reduce the hit on Medicare. Of 
course, that did not pass. Everybody here knows that every dollar of 
tax cut in this bill is borrowed. No one can deny that. The facts 
demonstrate it. Every single dollar that is given in a tax cut is going 
to be borrowed. Every dollar of tax cuts will increase the Federal debt 
by a dollar.
  Balanced budget. We are told this is the balanced budget. Well, 
again, let me commend the Republicans because I think there needs to be 
a greater and more energetic effort to try to balance the budget, but 
this budget is not balanced.
  The Director of the Congressional Budget Office says it is not a 
balanced budget. It will have a $108 billion deficit in the year 2002. 
I can read the letter if you want. She wrote it on October 19.
  You can call it a balanced budget if you misuse $110 billion in 
Social Security funds in the year 2002, but, of course, that would be 
dishonest, and it would also violate the law.
  This is not a balanced budget. It has a $108 billion deficit in 2002. 
In fact, the very budget bill that was brought to the floor that was 
described as the Balanced Budget Act has on page 3 under the category 
``Deficits,'' $108 billion in deficits in the year 2002. So it is not a 
balanced budget.
  We are not talking about the facts when people assert that it is a 
balanced budget.
  There are many ways to create a balanced budget. There are many 
competing interests in this country. There are almost unlimited needs, 
and there are limited resources. We would do this country a favor in my 
judgment by creating a fiscal policy that balances the budget the right 
way. As we do it, let us still continue to invest in the things that 
make America great; let us continue to make our promises.
  What makes America great? Investment in education and investment in 
our children advance this country's economic interests.
  You have all heard the admonition: if you are worried about a year, 
plant rice; if you are worried about 10 years, plant some trees; if you 
are worried about a century, educate your children. Education advances 
this country's interests. That is an investment. We do this country no 
favor by deciding that the way to balance the Federal budget is cut 
education and build star wars. The choices, it seems to me, are 
difficult, but they are not choices in which we have to reach the wrong 
result time after time after time. 

[[Page S 17251]]

  There are many things, as I said when I started, in this proposal for 
which we should commend the Republicans, but there can be a much better 
approach to balancing the budget, fairer to all Americans if we could 
get together and understand the consequences of these choices on all of 
the interests, big interests and little interests, big folks and little 
folks and all Americans.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time I would yield 10 minutes to 
the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at the close of Tuesday's first budget 
meeting with White House officials, I expressed to Chief of Staff Leon 
Panetta and Treasury Secretary Rubin my disappointment with their 
inflexible posture.
  I told Mr. Panetta, and these are my exact words:

       Don't assume the President isn't going to change his 
     position. He's changed his mind before.

  Mr. Panetta did not respond and just walked off.
  It was suggested to me that this may have been taken as a slap at or 
insult to the President.
  Let me assure you that I meant no malice, nor did I intend it as a 
partisan swipe at the President.
  I was simply making a statement of fact.
  And the fact is, the President changes his mind quite frequently.
  And if the President refuses to negotiate in person with 
congressional leaders, then those he sends must fully appreciate the 
fact that the President changes his mind a lot and that they as White 
House negotiators must be more flexible and open-minded.
  The fact that the President changes his mind frequently may not be 
well known by the public at large, but it is something that those of us 
who work with him know very well.
  The House Appropriations ranking Democrat, Congressman David Obey 
understands this.
  In June Mr. Obey told the Associated Press:

       I think most of us learned sometime ago that if you don't 
     like the President's position on a particular issue, you 
     simply need to wait a few weeks.

  Again, that was an observation, a simple statement of fact, from a 
Democratic congressional leader, that President Clinton changes his 
mind quite frequently.
  President Clinton has changed his mind frequently on the question of 
a balanced budget. On January 8, President Clinton promised to 
``present a 5-year plan to balance the budget.''
  On May 20, he said he thought balancing the budget ``clearly can be 
done in less than 10 years.'' So you see, he changed his mind again.
  He changed his mind again on June 13, when he said, ``It took decades 
to run up this deficit; it's going to take a decade to wipe it out * * 
*.''
  On October 19, President Clinton changed his mind again about 
balancing the budget. He stated ``Well, I think we could reach it in 
seven years * * *''
  So you see, Mr. President, my point to Mr. Panetta was that if he and 
the other White House negotiators would be a bit more flexible, we 
could quickly resolve this impasse that has shut down the Government.
  I am sure Mr. Panetta is persuasive enough to convince the President 
to change his mind again * * * to do the right thing by committing to 
supporting a CBO certified? Well, CBO has long been recognized as the 
reliable, unbiased, nonpartisan budget scorer.
  Unfortunately, on this point, President Clinton has also changed his 
mind again.
  In 1993, President Clinton touted CBO as the independent and more 
accurate budget scorer.
  But then he changed his mind. He now is trying to convince Americans 
that OMB, which is controlled by President Clinton, is the reliable, 
unbiased, and nonpartisan budget scorer.
  President Clinton offered what he claimed was a 10-year balanced 
budget plan that was cooked up by the OMB that he controls.
  Even the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 
Senator Bob Kerrey, criticized the President's so-called 10-year 
balanced budget plan by stating

       They cooked the numbers . . . He needs to get back to the 
     CBO numbers.

  And, of course, as we all know, CBO's analysis exposes the fact that 
the President's budget does not balance, not in 5 years, 7 years, 10 
years or ever.
  Instead, CBO shows that it would compound the burden of our children 
and grandchildren by increasing the deficit to the tune of over $200 
billion each of those 10 years.
  This is why President Clinton's budget was defeated in the Senate by 
a vote of 96 to 0. Not one Democrat voted for President Clinton's 
budget, not one Republican.
  President Clinton has changed his mind on taxes. He campaigned 
promising a large tax cut.
  Once elected President, he changed his mind. He instead pushed for 
and signed into law the largest tax increase in our Nation's history--
$251 billion. It was a tax increase that hit our elderly and young 
people alike.
  Recently, he changed his mind again about his 1993 tax increase. He 
told people in Houston that, and I quote:

       Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at 
     that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. 
     It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too 
     much, too.

  I do not suppose it is any more than a mere coincidence that he had 
that particular change of mind during his Presidential campaign 
fundraiser in Texas.
  President Clinton has changed his mind on Medicare spending a good 
number of times as well.
  At the AARP Presidential Forum in 1993, President Clinton proposed to 
restrain the growth of Medicare spending to two times the rate of 
inflation. He said, and I quote:

       Today. . . . Medicare (is) going up at three times the rate 
     of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the 
     rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare--cut . . .

  Mr. President, guess what? President Clinton has changed his mind 
again--on two different counts here.
  The Republican plan to save Medicare allows Medicare spending to go 
up--now listen carefully--two times the rate of inflation.
  That is exactly what President Clinton proposed in 1993, but now he 
attacks Republicans for proposing the same.
  Furthermore, whereas in 1993 he argued before AARP that doing this 
was not a cut, now that the Republicans are recommending this, 
President Clinton says that it is a cut.
  Mr. President, we could go on and on and on, if we attempted to list 
every time President Clinton changed his mind, but I will not suffer my 
colleagues through such an ordeal.
  But the point should be clear to White House negotiators such as Mr. 
Panetta, that the President does change his mind often, and thus, they 
should not be so closed-minded and entrenched in our negotiations.
  Almost everything we Republicans and Americans want, and that 
remarkably has led to this unfortunate juncture, the President has at 
one time or another, has said that he supports as well.
  There is no justified reason for him to disagree with us now.
  He said we could balance the budget in 7 years, so let us do it.
  If he can come up with a plan to do it in 5 years as he said he 
would, then let us consider that instead.
  He said CBO is the most reliable budget scorer, so let us use their 
numbers, instead of those rosy numbers cooked up by his OMB.
  He said he wanted to restrain the growth of Medicare spending to two 
times inflation like we Republicans are currently proposing, so let us 
do it.
  He promised Americans a major tax cut, so he should join us 
Republicans and just do it.
  It is time President Clinton quit listening to his Democrat campaign 
consultants who brag about subscribing to terror to make people hate, 
and start listening to some sound advice that is good for the country, 
class warfare and generational/warfare tactics.
  Mr. President, it is time to do the right thing.
  There is no reason President Clinton cannot change his mind one more 
time--one more time to do what is right.
  As the ad campaign says, ``Just Do It.''

[[Page S 17252]]

  President Clinton, Just Do It.
  I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time for the 
rest of the speakers.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. First, Mr. President, I would like to compliment my 
colleague and friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for an excellent 
speech. Also, I would like to compliment Senator Domenici for his 
leadership in bringing this budget package to the floor, as well as 
Senator Dole and Senator Roth, and Senator Abraham, who is managing the 
floor, and I think doing an exceptional job.
  Mr. President, in my opinion, this is probably the most important 
vote that we will cast in my 15 years in the Senate. We had historic 
votes during President Reagan's term and President Bush's. But we 
really never really had a vote to balance the budget. We never had a 
vote that would enact into law changes necessary to balance the budget.
  Tonight we are going to have that vote. And I understand that our 
colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle and the President will not 
support us. I think that is unfortunate. I hope that after this vote 
maybe they will work with us to enact a balanced budget.
  For the first time in history, we are going to have the courage to do 
what is right and actually balance the budget. Such action by Congress 
has not happened in decades. You would have to go back to 1969 to find 
the last time we balanced the budget.
  I think it is important, too, that we use facts. I have several 
charts I am going to put in the Record to back up some of the comments 
I am going to make.
  One, I want to refute some of the statements that President Clinton 
has made. He said, his 1993 budget reduced deficits by $500 billion. I 
heard him say that as recently as yesterday.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a chart that shows the CBO baseline in January 1993, which had very 
high deficit projections, and the CBO baseline in August of 1995, which 
had significantly lower deficits. This chart shows why those deficits 
are lower. I ask unanimous consent to have that chart and others 
printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the charts were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              SOURCE OF DEFICIT DECLINE SINCE PRESIDENT CLINTON TOOK OFFICE                                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Clinton term                          Out Years                  
                                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------------           
                                                                           103d Congress          104th Congress          105th Congress         Total  
                                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------------           
                                                                         1993        1994        1995        1996        1997        1998               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO deficit baseline (January 1993).................................        310         291         284         287         319         357       1,848 
Tax and fee increases...............................................          0         (28)        (47)        (54)        (65)        (64)       (259)
Spending increase/(cuts)............................................          4           9           3         (18)        (39)        (56)        (98)
Technical, economic, and debt service...............................        (59)        (69)        (79)        (24)          2          (7)       (236)
CBO deficit baseline (August 1995)..................................        255         203         161         189         218         229       1,255 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office reports.                                                                                                            
Amounts which reduce the deficit are shown in (parenthesis). Details may not add due to rounding.                                                       


                                                                                  MEDICARE SPENDING COMPARISONS                                                                                 
                                                                              [Gross mandatory outlays in billions]                                                                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                           7 year       7 year  
                                                                    1995         1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002        total       average  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balanced Budget Act...........................................          178          196          211          217          228          250          270          293        1,664             
Growth over 1995..............................................                        18           33           39           50           72           92          115          417             
Percent growth................................................                        10            8            3            5           10            8            8           64          7.4
President II..................................................          174          192          208          223          239          254          271          289        1,676             
Growth over 1995..............................................                        18           34           49           65           80           97          115          458             
Percent growth................................................                        10            8            7            7            6            7            7           66          7.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: SBC Majority & OMB data. Includes GME outlays.                                                                                                                                         


                                                                 BUDGET PLAN COMPARISON                                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Sum 1996-  Compared to
                                    1995        1996        1997        1998        1999        2000        2001        2002        2002       a freeze 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balanced Budget Act (CBO                                                                                                                                
 scoring):                                                                                                                                              
    Outlays....................      1,518       1,590       1,629       1,660       1,703       1,764       1,801       1,857      12,004         1,378
    Revenues...................      1,357       1,412       1,440       1,514       1,585       1,665       1,756       1,861      11,233           607
      (Deficit)/surplus........       (161)       (178)       (189)       (146)       (118)       (100)        (46)          4        (773)             
Clinton budget (OMB scoring):                                                                                                                           
    Outlays....................      1,518       1,579       1,655       1,713       1,777       1,847       1,903       1,966      12,440         1,814
    Revenues...................      1,357       1,415       1,474       1,549       1,628       1,716       1,817       1,903      11,492         1,993
      (Deficit)/surplus........       (161)       (163)       (179)       (161)       (146)       (125)        (91)        (58)       (923)             
Clinton budget (CBO scoring):                                                                                                                           
    Outlays....................      1,518       1,611       1,680       1,737       1,822       1,904       1,983       2,073      12,810         2,184
    Revenues...................      1,357       1,416       1,467       1,538       1,608       1,684       1,772       1,864      11,349         1,850
      (Deficit)/surplus........       (161)       (196)       (212)       (199)       (213)       (220)       (211)       (210)     (1,461)             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: CBO and OMB.                                                                                                                                   


                                              EARNED INCOME CREDIT                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Minimum income  Maximum income                
                      Year                        Maximum credit    for maximum     for maximum      Phaseout   
                                                                      credit          credit          income    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Two or more children                                              
                                                                                                                
                                                   Historical                                                   
1976............................................            $400          $4,000          $4,000          $8,000
1977............................................             400           4,000           4,000           8,000
1978............................................             400           4,000           4,000           8,000
1979............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1980............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1981............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1982............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1983............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1984............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1985............................................             550           5,000           6,500          11,000
1986............................................             550           5,000           6,500          11,000
1987............................................             851           6,080           6,920          15,432
1988............................................             874           6,240           9,840          18,576
1989............................................             910           6,500          10,204          19,340
1990............................................             953           6,810          10,730          20,264
1991............................................           1,235           7,140          11,250          21,250

[[Page S 17253]]
                                                                                                                
1992............................................           1,384           7,520          11,840          22,370
1993............................................           1,511           7,750          12,200          23,049
1994............................................           2,528           8,425          11,000          25,296
1995............................................           3,110           8,640          11,290          26,673
                                                                                                                
                                                Clinton expansion                                               
                                                                                                                
1996............................................           3,564           8,910          11,630          28,553
1997............................................           3,680           9,200          12,010          29,484
1998............................................           3,804           9,510          12,420          30,483
1999............................................           3,932           9,830          12,840          31,510
2000............................................           4,058          10,140          13,240          32,499
2001............................................           4,184          10,460          13,660          33,527
2002............................................           4,320          10,800          14,100          34,613
                                                                                                                
                                               Balanced Budget Act                                              
                                                                                                                
1996............................................           3,564           8,910          11,630          25,425
1997............................................           3,680           9,200          12,010          26,254
1998............................................           3,804           9,510          12,420          27,145
1999............................................           3,932           9,830          12,840          28,059
2000............................................           4,058          10,140          13,320          28,940
2001............................................           4,184          10,460          13,660          29,856
2002............................................           4,320          10,800          14,100          30,821
                                                                                                                
                                                    One child                                                   
                                                                                                                
                                                   Historical                                                   
                                                                                                                
1976............................................             400           4,000           4,000           8,000
1977............................................             400           4,000           4,000           8,000
1978............................................             400           4,000           4,000           8,000
1979............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1980............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1981............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1982............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1983............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1984............................................             500           5,000           6,000          10,000
1985............................................             550           5,000           6,500          11,000
1986............................................             550           5,000           6,500          11,000
1987............................................             851           6,080           6,920          15,432
1988............................................             874           6,240           9,840          18,576
1989............................................             910           6,500          10,240          19,340
1990............................................             953           6,810          10,730          20,264
1991............................................           1,192           7,140          11,250          21,250
1992............................................           1,324           7,520          11,840          22,370
1993............................................           1,434           7,750          12,200          23,054
1994............................................           2,038           7,750          11,000          23,755
1995............................................           2,094           6,160          11,290          24,396
                                                                                                                
                                                Clinton expansion                                               
                                                                                                                
1996............................................           2,156           6,340          11,630          25,119
1997............................................           2,227           6,550          12,010          25,946
1998............................................           2,305           6,780          12,420          26,846
1999............................................           2,380           7,000          12,840          27,734
2000............................................           2,455           7,220          13,240          28,602
2001............................................           2,533           7,450          13,660          29,511
2002............................................           2,615           7,690          14,100          30,462
                                                                                                                
                                               Balanced Budget Act                                              
                                                                                                                
1996............................................           2,156           6,340          11,630          23,055
1997............................................           2,227           6,550          12,010          23,814
1998............................................           2,305           6,780          12,420          24,637
1999............................................           2,380           7,000          12,840          25,454
2000............................................           2,455           7,220          13,240          26,252
2001............................................           2,533           7,450          13,660          27,085
2002............................................           2,615           7,690          14,100          27,957
                                                                                                                
1976............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1977............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1978............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1979............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1980............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1981............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1982............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1983............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1984............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1985............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1986............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1987............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1988............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1989............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1990............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1991............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1992............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1993............................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1994............................................             306           4,000           5,000           9,000
1995............................................             314           4,100           5,130           9,230
                                                                                                                
                                                Clinton expansion                                               
                                                                                                                
1996............................................             324           4,230           5,290           9,520
1997............................................             334           4,370           5,460           9,830
1998............................................             346           4,520           5,650          10,170
1999............................................             357           4,670           5,830          10,500
2000............................................             369           4,820           6,020          10,840
2001............................................             380           4,970           6,210          11,180
2002............................................             392           5,130           6,410          11,540
                                                                                                                
                                               Balanced Budget Act                                              
                                                                                                                
1996............................................               0           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1997............................................               0           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1998............................................               0           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
1999............................................               0           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
2000............................................               0           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
2001............................................               0           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
2002............................................               0           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.                                                                            



                                                                                                                

[[Page S 17254]]
              EARNED INCOME CREDIT--REDUCING PROGRAM COSTS              
                   [Fiscal year, billions of dollars]                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Revenue               
           Fiscal year             Outlay cost      cost      Total cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Historical                               
                                                                        
1985.............................        1.179        0.482        1.661
1986.............................        1.498        0.586        2.084
1987.............................        1.552        0.553        2.105
1988.............................        2.996        1.033        4.029
1989.............................        4.276        1.655        5.931
1990.............................        4.669        1.943        6.612
1991.............................        5.430        1.681        7.111
1992.............................        7.955        2.756       10.711
1993.............................       10.062        3.091       13.153
1994.............................       12.254        3,489       15.743
1995.............................       16.730        3.117       19.847
                                                                        
                            Clinton expansion                           
                                                                        
1996.............................       20.257        3.505       23.762
1997.............................       22.039        3,831       25.870
1998.............................       22.922        4.025       26.947
1999.............................       23.893        4.184       28.077
2000.............................       24.938        4.400       29.338
2001.............................       25.897        4.639       30.536
2002.............................       26.912        4.823       31.735
                                                                        
                           Balanced Budget Act                          
                                                                        
1996.............................       20.094        3.445       23.539
1997.............................       18.771        2.648       21.419
1998.............................       19.409        2.731       22.140
1999.............................       20.137        2.793       22.930
2000.............................       20.893        2.907       23.800
2001.............................       21.607        3.012       24.619
2002.............................       22.453        2.978       25.431
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.                                    


  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, what this chart shows is that the 
President did not make any spending cuts in his first 3 years 
whatsoever, none. He did have significant tax increases, actually, the 
largest tax increase in history. But the bulk of the so-called deficit 
reduction was technical changes, economic changes and debt service 
savings, in other words, reductions that were not the result of his 
policies.
  But I wanted to note, of that $500 billion in so-called deficit 
reduction, in the first 3 years there were no spending cuts. Actually, 
spending increased over the CBO baseline $4 billion in 1993, $9 billion 
in 1994, $3 billion in 1995. So now, those facts are in the record. 
Also, we heard the President say in one press conference that he wanted 
to balance the budget. He mentioned the word ``balanced budget'' 16 
times in a recent short press conference. As a matter of fact, he has 
mentioned several times about his desire to balance the budget.
  As a candidate in 1992, he said that he would submit a 5-year plan to 
balance the budget. On May 20 of this year he said, ``I think balancing 
the budget clearly can be done in less than 10 years.'' In June he 
said, ``It's going to take a decade to wipe out the deficit.'' In 
October he said that ``We could reach it,'' balancing the budget, ``in 
7 years.'' Also, in October he said, ``We can do it in 8 years.'' Also, 
in October he said, ``We can do it in 9 years.'' The President has been 
all over the lot on how long it would take to balance the budget.
  The point is, Republicans actually have a bill--not a statement--we 
have a bill before us which, if enacted, will balance the budget in 7 
years. I think that is real. It is significant. It is substantive.
  Now, I heard some of my colleagues on the floor say, ``Well, if we 
enact your plan, it is going to devastate Medicare, it is going to 
devastate Medicaid, and it is going to give all these wealthy people 
big tax cuts. They say that we are going to cut these programs and 
transfer more wealth to the wealthy.''
  That is totally, completely, irrefutably false. And I will put the 
facts in the record to prove it. But first, I want to talk about these 
cuts for a second.
  For example, Medicare spending rises under our plan. This year it is 
$178 billion. In the year 2002, it is $293 billion. That happens to be 
a 65-percent increase. Not a decrease, an increase. Medicaid spending 
rises from $89 billion to $122 billion. That is a 37-percent increase. 
Overall mandatory spending increases from $739 billion to over $1.93 
trillion. That is a 48-percent increase.
  Maybe we did not cut spending enough. Those are big increases. Today 
we are spending about $1.5 trillion. In 7 years, we are going to spend 
$1.85 trillion. In other words, spending increases every single year.
  Do we slow the growth of spending down? Yes. Do we make these 
programs grow at more affordable rates? Yes. Do we offer some tax 
relief for middle-income Americans? Yes. Should we make apologies for 
that? I say definitely not.
  I think this package that we have put together is a fair package. I 
think it is a good package.
  Also, I have to say, Mr. President, we have to compare it to the 
President's budget. What has he submitted as his plan? In January 1995, 
he submitted a budget that never came into balance. His budget actually 
had deficits rising substantially.
  He submitted a revised budget in June. According to CBO, the deficits 
in his new budget go up as well. Let me give you his deficit figures. 
This year, the deficit was $164 billion. Under the President's plan, it 
rises to $210 billion in the year 2002.
  Our budget has a surplus in the year 2002 of $4 billion. We actually 
balance the budget in 7 years. The President's budget deficits continue 
to escalate to over $200 billion for as far as the eye can see. That is 
the difference in our visions for the future.
  Those are the only two proposals on the table. I might mention, the 
President's proposal was about 20 pages on a fax machine. Not a 
significant, substantive document. It was more a theoretical document. 
We have a real budget that says if we curb these entitlement programs 
and make other spending cuts, we are going to have a balanced budget.
  Republicans are going to change budget laws. We did not balance the 
budget under President Reagan, and I love President Reagan. We did not 
do it under President Bush, and I think very highly of President Bush. 
But we never had the votes or the courage to curtail the growth of 
entitlement programs.
  Some of these programs are exploding in cost. Over the last several 
years Medicaid grew at 28, 29, 30, 31 percent. The earned-income credit 
grew from $2 billion in 1985 to $23 billion in 1994. That is an 
unbelievable growth rate, 11 times what it was just 9 years ago. In 
other words, we had a lot of entitlement programs just exploding in 
cost.
  Now, for the first time, we are curtailing the growth of those 
programs. Some people say we are slashing those programs. I take issue 
with that.
  Medicare is probably the one issue that has been demagogued by 
opponents of this package more than any other. I mention, in our 
budget, that in 1995 in Medicare we spend $178 billion. By the year 
2002, we spend $293 billion. That is a 65 percent increase.
  Mr. President, what is shocking--I hope my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will look at this chart--as I compare the spending 
that we propose in Medicare every year to the spending proposed in the 
President's June budget--and I find very, very little difference. Under 
our proposal, Medicare grows at an annual rate of 7.4 percent. Under 
the President's proposal, Medicare grows at 7.5 percent.
  Under our proposal, for which we are being lambasted so much--I heard 
people say we are killing Medicare and we are being unfair to senior 
citizens--actually, our budget proposes spending more in the year 2002 
than the President's proposal in Medicare. That is kind of surprising.

  My point is, these cuts are not draconian, they are not drastic. 
Somebody said, ``The Republicans are trying to cut Medicare $270 
billion and the President is only trying to cut $124 billion.''
  The President uses different economic assumptions. He assumes the 
health care costs are going to grow at a slower rate than we do on the 
Republican side.
  Our point is that we are using the Congressional Budget Office. I 
might mention, President Clinton originally said that he would use the 
Congressional Budget Office. It does make a difference. Over a 10-year 
span, the President's budget comes to balance by assuming a more 
favorable economic situation that equals $475 billion more that he 
would like to spend.
  But the President, in his State of the Union Address in 1993, 
explained to Congress why he used CBO numbers to score his budget 
proposal. He said:

       I did this so that we could argue about priorities with the 
     same set of numbers. I did this so that no one could say I 
     was estimating my way out of this difficulty. I did this 
     because if we can agree together on the most prudent revenues 
     we're likely to get if the recovery stays and we do the right 
     things economically, then it will turn out better for the 
     American people than we say.

  The President was right: We should use the same numbers. But 
unfortunately, now he is trying to estimate his way out of difficulty.
  We need to balance the budget. We need to make difficult decisions. 
It is not always easy to do, but I think we have a very balanced 
proposal, one that does not inflict undue paid. Somebody said, ``Oh, 
look at all the pain.'' I do not see pain in this proposal. I see us 
doing what we should do. 

[[Page S 17255]]

  Let us look at Medicare. My Democrat colleagues on the Finance 
Committee offered to cut Medicare part A, the hospital portion, by $89 
billion. They offered that as an amendment on the floor too. So we 
basically agree on the amount of cuts on hospitals.
  Then they said, ``Republicans are trying to raise premiums on part B 
beneficiaries, the doctor portion.'' What do we really do? We keep the 
premium rate at 31.5 percent of program costs. That is what the 
beneficiaries pay today. That is fair; that is reasonable. The program 
started out at 50 percent. Keeping it at 31.5 percent, I think, is 
fair.
  Do premium costs increase? Yes, but they increase under the 
President's proposal too. As a matter of fact, the President's increase 
in part B premiums follow right along with ours. There is only, I 
think, a $5 difference in the year 2002 in premiums. What he did not 
tell people is, ``Present law goes down to 25 percent, and I am going 
to take credit for that and really lambaste and demagog the 
Republicans.''
  The fact is, keeping premium levels at 31.5 percent is fair. We also 
say wealthier people should pay a little more. We should not be asking 
everybody who is making $20,000 to be subsidizing wealthier people on 
their part B premium.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. We also made some tax changes that are fair to American 
families. I have heard a lot of colleagues say, ``Well, that's not 
fair.'' The heck it is not. We are giving tax relief to individuals and 
families who have kids, a $500 per child tax credit. Somebody says that 
does not mean very much. Well, I disagree. I only have one child now 
who would qualify, because they have to be under the age of 18. I used 
to have four kids who would qualify.
  A lot of American families need help. Four kids is $2,000 in tax 
relief. That is targeted toward the American family. That will help. An 
individual or couple who has two kids gets $1,000. That is $1,000 that 
they get to spend on themselves instead of sending it to Washington, 
DC, to have politicians spend on a multitude of items.
  It is the idea that they can choose. They may want to spend it on 
education or a home or transportation or to buy food or pay utilities. 
We want to let families make that decision, not the Government.
  We have targeted the bulk of tax relief to American families. We did 
it with the inheritance tax; we did it with the child credit; we did it 
with IRA savings accounts; we did it with medical savings accounts.
  Mr. President, I think this is a balanced package, it is a good 
package, and it is the only package we have before us that will balance 
the budget.
  We said we were going to do it. We are going to do it. I think what 
we are doing is vitally important. I thank the manager of the bill and 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair and the distinguished minority manager 
of the bill.
  Mr. President, I just heard one speaker say that this will be the 
most important vote in the Senate in 15 years. I respectfully disagree. 
I think the most important vote in the Senate in 15 years will be the 
vote when we return with a reconciliation package that has been 
negotiated and which fairly reflects the administration, the minority 
and the majority in the Senate, as an expression of all of our desires 
to balance the budget. That will be the most important vote. But I do 
not want to quibble or deny the notion that this is not an important 
statement.
  I would like to say that, from at least this Senator's perspective, 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle deserve credit. I think 
it is appropriate for us to talk more honestly about what is at stake 
here and, perhaps, depart from some of the partisan rhetoric, though it 
is hard because of the circumstances.
  The fact is that the majority is proving what many of us said as we 
opposed the balanced budget amendment. What we said was that we do not 
need an amendment, we simply need legislators with the courage to 
balance the budget. And indeed, the Republicans have picked up that 
challenge and they deserve credit for having returned to the floor with 
a budget that, in their view, expresses their values and their 
direction for the country.
  So they are offering a balanced budget. Regrettably, their choices, 
which are more unilateral than most of us would have hoped we would 
arrive at because in effect it represents exclusively the Republican 
House and Republican Senate to the exclusion of most of the efforts of 
the rest of us. Theirs is a statement of values. Their budget sets 
forth the Gingrich-Republican view of how America ought to be. And the 
fact that some of us oppose that view does not mean that we oppose 
coming to the floor and voting for a balanced budget.
  I will vote ``no'' on this view of America, with the hopes that after 
the President has vetoed it we will return with a more compromised, 
centrist, and hopefully more diverse, shared view of where this country 
should go in this important statement of a budget.
  It is my hope that many of us who want to balance the budget and do 
it responsibly, with a fair reflection of the values of this country, 
will have an opportunity to do so after the real negotiations take 
place.
  Mr. President, I have already voted for a balanced budget. It was the 
so-called Conrad plan. It was a plan that I did not agree with every 
part of, but I think it was far more fair than the plan or any other 
plan that we have had on the floor. It was a plan that gave tax breaks 
to middle-class working families. It closed tax loopholes, reduced 
corporate welfare. But instead, in this plan we are now confronted 
with, contrary to the fairness that we tried to achieve previously, the 
Republicans are raising $32 billion worth of taxes from Americans 
earning less than $30,000 a year.
  I voted for a balanced budget plan that was honest about the need to 
do something about Medicare. I agree with my colleagues. There has been 
a lot of heightened rhetoric about it. The truth is that we have to 
restrain the growth on entitlements generally, and we have to retain 
the growth particularly in Medicare and Medicaid the fastest-growing 
portions of the budget. I voted for a budget, Mr. President, that was 
fair in what it asked seniors to do in sharing that burden. It saved 
the Medicare plan without cutting twice as much as we need to, twice as 
much as is currently reflected in this budget. I voted for a 
commonsense reduction in Medicare to save the system. The Republicans 
are essentially, in order to give a tax cut, taking the heart out of 
Medicare with the $270 billion reduction.
  I voted, Mr. President, for a balanced budget that would preserve 
access to health care for those people with disabilities, for pregnant 
women, and for children. While we reduced--in our budget--Medicaid by 
about $125 billion, the Republicans have come to the floor with a 
budget that reduces it by $182 billion over 7 years.
  I voted for a balanced budget that invested in our children's 
education. It saved educational access, vital for job growth and 
competitiveness. But the Republicans now want to cut student loan 
programs by more than $5 billion, at a time when it is harder and 
harder for average Americans to send their kids to college. They also 
are going to wind up taking 1.8 million kids off of student loan rolls, 
and reducing by 1,250 the number of colleges that can participate in a 
direct lending plan. That is good for banks, Mr. President, but it is 
not good for students or for our colleges.
  I voted for a balanced budget that would feed hungry children in this 
country, and it added back more than half of the funds for food and for 
children. But instead the Republicans are going to slash $46 billion 
over the next 7 years that would leave literally millions of children 
hungry in this country.
  I voted for a balanced budget that would honor the service of 
veterans, not leave them scot-free, because we did in our budget reduce 
veterans' payments by about $5 billion, but the Republicans want to 
recklessly cut those 

[[Page S 17256]]
programs in a way that may close 35 of 170 hospitals, and certainly 
five next year.
  Mr. President, this budget process is the truest statement about any 
party's priorities or any individual's sense of what is fair. The 
bottom line is that this budget is about people. With this Republican 
budget tonight, they reverse some 60 years of a certainty that was 
built into the fabric of the American political structure--a certainty 
that our senior citizens would not grow old and be left with nothing--a 
certainty that families would be part of a community and that we would 
care for people, even if they were in the street, even if they were 
suffering or in need of help.
  I wonder whether this budget is really representative of what America 
has become in 1995, because if it is, then I think this Senate will 
long be remembered as the Senate that took away the good part of the 
certainty of American life, not the bad part, not the part that we know 
with respect to welfare and other programs has distorted values. I am 
talking about the good part, the part that allowed people to lift 
themselves up by their bootstraps, that allowed people in a nursing 
home to not have to get rid of every cent they had in order to stay 
there, the part that guaranteed that we are not going to suddenly have 
seniors strapped into wheelchairs again because nursing home standards 
are lifted. Those were certainties that we built into American life.
  This budget takes away those certainties, Mr. President. With this 
budget, thousands and thousands of women and children, our fellow 
citizens, thousands of families, thousands of seniors, who are 
struggling to pay for food or pay for health care, or simply meet the 
rent or save something for the future, they will be hurt. As my friend 
from North Dakota pointed out, they will be hurt in juxtaposition to 
countless millions of people who do not need that help, who will be 
helped.
  This budget violates everybody's fundamental sense of fairness, Mr. 
President. And that is something that we ought to care about as we care 
about the fabric of values and of life in this country.
  There will, as a result of this budget, no longer be a certainty in 
America that children will not go hungry. There will no longer be a 
certainty that an elderly widow in a Massachusetts hospital will not 
lose everything that she has. There is no longer a certainty that their 
children, who are already struggling, getting more and more behind, 
will be able to pay for her care without jeopardizing their future.
  There is no certainty in this budget that American children will get 
a better shot at a decent education or a better shot at a job, and 
there is no certainty that a pregnant mother or a disabled veteran will 
get the helping hand that we have always promised.
  There is not even the certainty that our drinking water will get 
cleaner or our wilderness will be protected or that toxic waste will be 
cleaned up or that we will hand down to our children a better country, 
Mr. President.
  I think the least we can do in a budget is express our responsibility 
to protect the certainties that those who came to this floor before us 
fought for.
  I can only say to my colleagues who tell us this budget is a sure 
thing that in the words of Robert Burns, ``There is no such uncertainty 
as a sure thing.''
  This budget will create uncertainties, uncertainties with respect to 
the environment, uncertainties with respect to people's capacity to 
strive to make the best of their own opportunities to get an education, 
to try to touch the new marketplace.
  Mr. President, there is an enormous giveaway to mining companies in 
this budget. There is oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. There are water subsidies to America's largest agricultural 
corporations. There is a royalty exemption from oil leases in the Gulf 
of Mexico. There are lots of little goodies in this budget which do not 
speak to the issue of fairness in this country.
  I might just say, Mr. President, with respect to some of the most 
important things we hear talked about on the Senate floor, values with 
respect to children, this budget is not friendly.
  We have heard a lot of talk about the number of children who are born 
out of wedlock, the number of kids who desperately need an opportunity 
through Head Start, or who desperately need a hot lunch. This budget 
creates an enormous shift of wealth from those who are at the lower end 
struggling to make ends meet and working families, not people on 
welfare but working families, and it takes that wealth from those 
struggling and gives it to people at the upper end who do not need it.
  Mr. President, in the name of fairness, I am pleased that the 
President has said he will veto this budget. The most important vote 
will be the vote that occurs after we have the negotiations that will 
take place in the next weeks, and I hope it will not take longer than 
weeks. It is my fervent plea in the course of that process more voices 
of America be heard and reflected in our budget.
  Again, I say, Mr. President, there are many on this side of the aisle 
who looked forward to the ability to be able to help shape that 
process. It is our hope we will join together around reasonable 
figures, perhaps some combination of CBO or OMB--figures that are 
reasonably arrived at and reflect the future economic growth of this 
country, and that we will use those figures to come up with an 
intelligent budget that all of us can take to America as we ask people 
to share the sacrifices necessary to balance the budget.
  It is my hope that day will come soon. That will be the most 
important vote in the U.S. Senate. I yield back my remaining time to 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a critically important debate. It 
ought to be informed, I think, by fact and reason and by law.
  Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk that what we have before 
us is a balanced budget. The fact is, the law says something different. 
The law says we do not have a balanced budget before the Senate.
  That is because if you look at subtitle C of Social Security, the 
off-budget status of Social Security trust funds, it makes very clear 
that Social Security surpluses are not to be included in any 
calculation of the deficit.
  The only way the Republican plan achieves balance is to use every 
penny of Social Security surplus generated between now and the year 
2002 --$636 billion of Social Security surplus funds will be raided so 
that the Republicans can claim their plan is balanced.
  Mr. President, this is not just my view. This is, in fact, the 
certification from the Congressional Budget Office. We have been 
through this debate before, and on October 20, Senator Dorgan and I 
asked the head of the CBO, if we follow the law, a law that 98 Senators 
voted for, and excluded Social Security surpluses, what would the 
deficit look like in 2002 under the Republican plan?
  The head of the CBO responded by saying the deficit in 2002 under the 
plan presented would be $105 billion.
  In the conference committee that number has grown. We now have a 
deficit in the year 2002 under this plan, if we obey the law, of $111 
billion. I think it is important to make that point for the record.
  This chart shows the looting of the Social Security trust fund that 
will go on during this period, from 1996 to 2002. These are the yearly 
totals that will be taken of Social Security surplus funds. This is the 
total over the 7-year period--$636 billion.
  Mr. President, we have heard from the other side assertions that the 
Democrats have no alternative balanced budget plan. It makes me wonder 
where some of our colleagues have been. We have had a series of 
alternatives offered on the floor of the Senate.
  The one I was most deeply involved in was the Fair Share balanced 
budget plan we offered during the budget resolution. It was an honest 
balanced budget plan but with a substantially different set of 
priorities than those contained in the Republican plan.
  Let me talk about some of the differences. The Fair Share Plan 
balanced the budget, without counting Social Security surpluses, by the 
year 2004--9 years without counting any Social Security surpluses. It 
produces more deficit reduction in 2002 than the Republican plan.
  In fact, the Fair Share Plan that 39 Democrats in this body voted for 
had $100 billion more in deficit reduction than the Republican plan. 

[[Page S 17257]]

  At the same time, it had a substantially different set of priorities 
than the Republican balanced budget plan. The Democratic balanced 
budget plan restored $100 billion of the $270 cut in Medicare.
  I know many on the other side of the aisle have said they are not 
cutting Medicare. I ask them this simple question: If they are not 
cutting Medicare, how is it that they have achieved $270 billion of 
savings from what current law provides in Medicare? How can it be, if 
they have not cut anything, that they have saved $270 billion over the 
next 7 years? Of course they have cut. They have cut in quality and 
service what our seniors will receive through that program.
  Some say, ``I hear the Republicans saying they are spending more 
money on Medicare.'' Yes, that is true. They are spending more money. 
Of course they are spending more money. There is 7 years of medical 
inflation that has to be covered. Medical inflation is growing at three 
times the rate of normal inflation.
  In addition, there are 5 million new people who are going to be 
eligible for Medicare during this 7-year period. So of course they have 
to spend more.
  But the fact is, they are not spending as much more as would be 
required in order to provide the same level of quality and services as 
the current program provides. That is why they have $270 billion of 
savings out of the Medicare Program. But those savings are going to 
mean less quality, less service to seniors than the services and 
quality of service they receive now.
  In addition, the draconian changes that the Republicans have proposed 
for Medicare are going to mean we are going to have rural hospitals all 
across America forced to close. In my own State, the hospital 
association tells me 26 of the 30 rural hospitals are going to negative 
margins on their Medicare-eligible patients. Of course, most of their 
patients are Medicare eligible. That means many of those hospitals will 
be forced to close. That is the harsh reality of what is being proposed 
here.
  Do we need to generate savings out of Medicare in order to balance 
the budget over 7 years? Absolutely. But $270 billion of reductions is 
too much. It is draconian. It is extreme. It will have severe 
consequences.
  The plan that 39 Democrats voted for restored $100 billion of the 
$270 billion of cuts in the Republican plan. In addition, we restored 
about $40 billion of the cuts to Medicaid. Let me just indicate, we now 
have a new analysis from Consumers Union that indicates we are going to 
see 12 million people lose their medical coverage because of the 
serious reductions to the Medicaid Program provided for in this 
Republican plan.
  Education? The plan that 39 Senate Democrats voted for did not cut 
education. We did not have a dime of cuts in education because we 
believe education is the future. If there is one place that should not 
be cut it is those funds that make it more possible for people to 
develop their full potential through education and all of the 
opportunities that education creates, not only for the individual but 
for all of the rest of us who benefit from what people are able to 
achieve who have gotten as much education as they possibly can.
  Nutrition and agriculture? We restored $24 billion in order to have 
less of a cut to food programs and to agriculture programs. Let me just 
say with respect to agriculture, the Republican program is to indicate 
they are going to kill all agriculture programs after 7 years. They 
have now come forward and admitted what their plan really is. We will 
not have an agriculture program after 7 years. They are destroying the 
foundation of the agriculture programs of this country by ending the 
authorization that exists in law that has been there since 1938.
  Let me just say, the Republican plan for agriculture is not a plan 
for American farmers. It is a plan for the French farmer. It is a plan 
for the German farmer. It is a plan for the farmers of every country 
with whom we compete, because that is who is going to benefit from the 
Republican farm plan.
  One of the ways we were able to have a balanced budget that 39 
Democrats voted for and to be able to restore some of the draconian 
spending cuts contained in the Republican plan, was to eliminate tax 
cuts. We did not have any tax cuts. Because under the Republican plan, 
disproportionately those tax reductions go to the wealthiest among us.
  I just do not think it makes much sense to say to somebody who is in 
the top 1 percent of income earners in this country, you get a $10,000 
tax reduction, but if you are somebody who is earning less than $30,000 
a year who qualifies for earned-income tax credit, you are going to get 
a tax increase.
  Mr. President, 7.7 million families in America under the Republican 
plan are going to get a tax increase. Those who are at the top of the 
income ladder, the top 1 percent on average are going to get a $10,000 
tax cut. I do not know how they justify it. It is not my idea of 
targeted tax relief. But that is in this plan.
  Finally, in the Fair Share plan that 39 Senate Democrats voted for, 
we asked the wealthiest among us to participate in this battle to 
reduce the budget deficit. We asked them to curtail the growth of the 
tax entitlements that they primarily benefit from. If we are going to 
reduce the growth of the spending entitlements, and we must, then why 
not reduce the growth of the tax entitlements, $4 trillion of tax 
entitlements? It is the biggest single pot of money in the whole 
Federal budget.

  This chart shows entitlement spending from 1996 to 2002. Tax 
entitlements, $4 trillion--much bigger than the next biggest 
entitlement, Social Security. That is nearly $3 trillion over the next 
7 years. Medicare is $2 trillion over the next 7 years, and Medicaid is 
about $1 trillion. But the biggest one of all is the tax entitlements, 
the tax preferences, the tax loopholes.
  We say if we are going to reduce the rate of growth of the spending 
entitlements, let us reduce the rate of growth of the tax entitlements 
as well. Let us reduce that growth to inflation plus 1 percent.
  Our friends on the other side say there is no tax entitlement, no tax 
preference, no tax loophole that we want to close. We want to keep them 
all. We think they are all valid. We think they are all essential.
  We, on our side of the aisle, do not.
  Mr. President, these are critical issues that will be decided for the 
first time tonight. But I think we should all remember, the President 
is going to veto this bill, as he should, and then the real debate is 
going to begin. Then the real discussion, the real negotiation will 
start.
  One of the key issues will be, should we really be providing a tax 
cut when we are adding $1.8 trillion to the debt under this Republican 
plan? That is what is going to happen. We have $5 trillion of debt now. 
Under this plan, we are going to add another $1.8 trillion, which means 
every penny of this tax cut is going to have to be borrowed money.
  Does that make sense to anybody in this country? We have to borrow 
money in order to give a tax cut? Give a tax cut when we are adding 
$1.8 trillion to the debt? I thought the idea was to eliminate the 
growth of the debt, to reduce the growth of the debt. Why do we add to 
it?
  Mr. President, I think one of the things we have to start focusing on 
is what is happening to the distribution of wealth in America, because 
what we have seen is a dramatic change. In 1969, the top 1 percent of 
households in America held about 20 percent of the wealth. In 1979, the 
top 1 percent had increased their share of the wealth of America to 30 
percent. In 1989, the top 1 percent of the income earners in this 
country held nearly 40 percent of the wealth of this country.
  The other side accuses those of us on this side of wanting to 
redistribute the wealth. Let me just say, our friends on the other side 
of the aisle are the champions at wealth redistribution. But their idea 
is to redistribute the wealth upwards, upwards in our society. The 
history of that kind of concentration of wealth is very clear. It leads 
to political instability and it leads to trouble. We should not allow 
that to occur.
  U.S. News, in this quote from David Gergen, says:

       U.S. News & World Report reported last week . . . that the 
     lowest 20 percent of the population would lose more income 
     under these spending cuts than the rest of the population 
     combined. At the other end, the highest 20 percent would gain 
     more from the tax cuts than everyone else combined.

  He goes on to say:


[[Page S 17258]]

       [N]o one disputes the basic contention that the burdens and 
     benefits are lopsided. In a nation divided dangerously into 
     haves and have-nots, this is neither wise nor justified.

  Mr. President, David Gergen has it right, but he is not alone in this 
observation.
  I will share with you the final part of my presentation, the 
observation of Kevin Phillips, Republican political analyst, who said:

       If the budget deficit were really a national crisis instead 
     of a pretext for fiscal favoritism and finagling, we'd be 
     talking about shared sacrifice, with business, all industry 
     and the rich, people who have the big money, making the 
     biggest sacrifice. Instead, it's the senior citizens, it's 
     the poor, students, and ordinary Americans who'll see 
     programs they depend on gutted while business, finance, 
     and the richest 1 or 2 percent, far from making 
     sacrifices, actually get new benefits, and tax reductions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that his time 
has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. President, if I might, I would like to pause for just a minute to 
comment on this historic moment and the opportunity to vote for the 
first balanced budget concept in over three decades and to outline the 
predicament, or the situation, that has prompted these actions on the 
part of the majority in the 104th Congress.
  The bipartisan Entitlement Commission reported to the Congress and 
the President earlier this year that, without change, without 
modification, the totality of all U.S. resources will be exhausted by 
but five programs. Those five programs are Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, Federal retirement, and the interest on our debt. And by the 
year 2006, which is not long--less than 10 years--there will not be 
enough resources to debate many of these programs we are responsible 
for in America. We will not be debating the School Lunch Program. There 
will not be one.
  Five programs take all U.S. revenues, and in but 10 years--Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal retirement, and just the interest 
on our debt--and there is nothing left to fulfill the responsibilities 
of this great democracy to its own citizens and to the world.
  The solution to avoid that predicament is to move to balanced 
budgets. All America knows this. It just seems that people in 
Washington are late arriving at the conclusion.
  These balanced budgets that have been fashioned by the Budget 
Committee and the Finance Committee are absolutely mandatory to avert 
the disaster that is but 10 years away. The balanced budget deals with 
all but one of these problems. It, obviously, by balancing itself, 
quits adding debt and, therefore, lowers the interest payments. It 
begins to restructure Medicaid and send it to the States for more 
efficient management. It takes Medicare, which is destined to go 
bankrupt in but 6 years according to the President's own trustees, and 
restructures it in a way to guarantee solvency for a quarter of a 
century.
  What a relief that must be to all the beneficiaries of Medicare to 
understand that these changes will give them more choices, but, more 
importantly, give them a program that is solvent for a quarter of a 
century.
  It begins to deal with the subject of Federal retirement. And Social 
Security is not dealt with directly, but I would say indirectly it is, 
because it has engaged the Nation in the discussion of entitlements and 
their solvency and their future.
  Mr. President, what are the benefits if the Nation seizes the 
responsibility of managing its financial affairs? They are just 
stunning. The average family in America will see the interest payment 
on its mortgage drop dramatically. It would save the average family 
which makes about $40,000 a year $1,000 a year on their mortgage. It 
would save the average family $180 a year on the car payment interest 
payments. It will save the average family another $200 a year because 
of all the other debt that they carry. If the average family has two 
children, it will have $1,000 removed of tax liability.
  The bottom line here, Mr. President, is that the average family in 
America will have $2,000 to $3,000 of new disposable income in their 
hands instead of Washington's so that they can make choices about 
education, housing, and the health of their own families.
  I have mentioned Ozzie and Harriet more than once here. When Ozzie 
was the quintessential family, he sent 2 cents of every dollar to 
Washington. If he were here today, he would be sending 24 cents of 
every dollar to Washington. We have marginalized the average family 
because of the tax pressures and tax burden. The most important thing 
we can do is lighten that financial burden on those families, give them 
options, and give them the opportunity to deal with the responsibility.

  As I have listened to the debate, my good friend, the Senator from 
Nebraska, seems to feel that it is best for Ozzie to send the money 
here, and for us to decide what is good or not for their family. Wrong. 
Wrong. They want the opportunity to make the decisions about what is 
best for their families.
  Under this proposal, the families of 51 million American children, or 
28 million tax-paying families, are eligible for the $500 per child tax 
cut. Under this proposal, 3\1/2\ million families will have over $2.2 
billion in tax relief. Millions of American families will be taken off 
the tax rolls altogether.
  What is the President's response about balancing the budget? First 
and foremost, he opposed the balanced budget amendment. Secondarily, he 
said he would balance the budget in 5 years when he ran for President. 
That is a long-forgotten promise. Then he said he would send us a 
balanced budget in 10 years. And by everybody's estimate, that budget 
never balances. And when it was put to a vote in this Senate, it failed 
100 to nothing. How much more discredited could a budget proposal be?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor with this conclusion. This whole 
battle is about balancing the budget. This new Congress wants to do it. 
The President does not. America should tell the President now is the 
time to balance our budget.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. PELL. Last week, the National Goals Panel issued an extensive 
report on the progress American schools are making towards meeting the 
national goals. That report was a mixed one. We have made gains in 
areas such as mathematics achievement and making sure that our children 
enter school ready to learn. In other areas, such as reading 
achievement and teacher preparation, we are only holding our own. And 
in some areas, most notably safe and drug free schools, our problems 
appear to be growing.
  In my opinion, there is a clear conclusion we can draw from this 
report. This is not the time to either relax or diminish the small, but 
critical Federal role in education. Quite to the contrary, it is time 
to strengthen our commitment if we are to sustain the gains we have 
made, move off of dead center in other areas, and reverse the decline 
in still others.
  Most clearly, this is not the time to have the largest education cut 
in our history. It is not the time to risk a 30-percent cut in Federal 
education spending over the next 7 years. It is not the time to freeze 
the title I program and halt progress in basic skills achievement. It 
is not the time to cut spending on education reform. And, it is 
definitely not the time to reduce our commitment to safe and drug free 
schools.
  With respect to higher education, I believe deeply that we should not 
put our student aid programs at risk. Yet, that is precisely what the 
Republican budget does. If we cut education by more than 30 percent 
over the next 7 years, it is clear that every education program will be 
in harm's way. We have already engaged in a hard-fought battle to 
protect students and their families from cuts in the guaranteed student 
loan program, and I am pleased that in large part, we have been 
successful.
  While I had reservations about the Direct Loan Program when it was 
originally proposed, I am encouraged by how well the program has 
operated 

[[Page S 17259]]
in its initial stages. Students are getting their loans more quickly 
and with less problems. The competition between direct lending and the 
regular guaranteed loan programs has also produced dramatic 
improvements in the private sector program. Because of this, I believe 
it unwise to move back and place a 10 percent cap on direct lending. 
This would mean that between two-thirds and three-fourths of current 
direct lending schools would be dropped from the program, and to my 
mind, that would be most unfortunate.
  I also fear that we will face difficult battles with respect to our 
other student aid programs, and that Pell grants, supplemental grants, 
Perkins loans, college work study, and the TRIO programs could well be 
placed on the chopping block.
  Mr. President, education is a capital investment in our future. The 
climb up the economic ladder for American after American is directly 
related to their level of educational achievement. Every study we know 
shows a correlation between an educational attainment and an increase 
in income. If we pull back on education, we pull back on the American 
people. That is not the direction in which we should be moving.
  I agree wholeheartedly with President Clinton when he says that, 
today, we face both a budget deficit and an education deficit, and that 
both must be addressed.
  I favor reducing the budget deficit. I do not favor doing it on the 
backs of senior citizens, the unfortunate in our society, our children 
who need a good, solid general education, or our students and families 
who are already hard-pressed to make ends meet in paying for a college 
education.
  In my view, one of the best ways we can reduce the budget deficit is 
through a strong and vibrant economy driven by a well-educated, well-
trained work force. It is time that we increased our investment in 
education. It is not a time for retreat.
  Mr. President, it is time to calm the shrill voices of partisanship 
that have echoed through our Chamber. It is time to move away from the 
abyss of brinkmanship. It is time for all parties to come together, and 
to fashion a budget that enjoys wide bipartisan support. For comity to 
be practiced. And most of all, it is time that we got on with governing 
in a way that the American people can respect.


                         student loan provision

  Mr. President, I want to call to my colleagues' attention and call 
into question an important student loan provision included in the 
budget reconciliation conference agreement reached by the majority 
without the involvement of the minority.
  This provision with which I am concerned requires State guaranty 
agencies to use 50 percent of their reserves to purchase defaulted 
loans. Once purchased, the agency has 180 days before it can submit 
claims for reimbursement. The idea is that this will allow additional 
time to bring defaulters into repayment, thus decreasing the total 
amount of claims for reimbursement.
  There are at least two problems with this provision. First, it 
appears to assume that these reserves are the property of the State 
guaranty agency and not the Federal Government. If that is the case, we 
may well be relinquishing any claim for almost $1 billion in 
outstanding and quite possibly excess reserves that are Federal 
property and could be returned to the Federal Government to produce 
savings in the guaranteed student loan program.
  If we assume they are not the property of the State guaranty agency, 
then we are simply permitting Federal funds to be used to purchase 
defaulted loans guaranteed by the Federal Government in the first 
place. If this is the case, we will be engaging in a shell game that 
produces illusory savings.
  Second, the provision allows defaulted loans that are purchased with 
these funds to be considered reserves. This diminishes the required 
reserve ratio, also reduced in this legislation, used to help determine 
whether or not an agency is strong and solvent. It would quite possibly 
allow an otherwise bankrupt agency to use defaulted loans as assets to 
meet the decreased reserve ratio. To my mind, this is not good public 
policy.
  Further, in my view, it is difficult, under any circumstance, to see 
how a defaulted loan can be construed as an asset. This is potentially 
bad paper. We may never be able to collect the debt, and yet under this 
provision, Federal law would decree that a defaulted loan, a debt, is 
an asset.
  Requiring agencies to purchase defaulted loans with reserves that may 
or may not be their property is a roll of the dice. They may well be 
bad investments with minimal chance of collection. To say that they 
should be considered assets is, to my mind, very unwise. And, to take 
the chance that they also take reserves out of the reach of the Federal 
Government is equally imprudent.
  Also, I am concerned that during the 180-day period that State 
guaranty agencies hold the defaulted loans, the Federal Government may 
well continue to pay special allowance and other interest payments on 
these loans. I wonder whether or not this produces an unwarranted 
windfall for these agencies by giving them income on a defaulted loan.
  Finally, I would point out that had we had the opportunity to be 
involved in the budget reconciliation negotiations between the House 
and Senate, this would have been pointed out at the staff level. 
Unfortunately, for the first time in seven reconciliation and budget 
reduction conferences involving the guaranteed student loan program, 
the minority was not permitted to come to the table and make its case. 
This is an unfortunate departure from the bipartisanship that has been 
the traditional practice in education, and in this instance, I am 
afraid it has resulted in a highly questionable provision.


    submitting changes to the budget resolution revenue allocations

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, upon the submission of a conference 
report on a reconciliation bill, section 205(b) of House Concurrent 
Resolution 67 requires the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to 
appropriately revise the budgetary allocations and aggregates to 
accommodate the revenue reductions in the reconciliation bill 
conference report.
  Pursuant to section 205(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 67, the 
1996 budget resolution, I hereby submit revisions to the first- and 
five-year revenue aggregates contained in House Concurrent Resolution 
67 for the purpose of consideration of H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1995, and ask unanimous consent that the revisions be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1996                1996-2000     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current revenue aggregates..    $1,042,500,000,000    $5,691,500,000,000
Revised revenue aggregates..     1,036,780,000,000     5,543,726,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed the conference report on 
H.R. 2491, and has certified that the enactment of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1995 would produce a small budget surplus in 2002.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe that the majority's desire to 
include tax breaks in this bill has caused two points of order to lie 
against this bill.
  It has long been my belief that the tax breaks have been the tail 
that has wagged this dog of a budget. They have driven the majority to 
make extreme cuts in Medicare and education.
  And their desire for tax breaks for the wealthy has also driven the 
majority to jump through some pretty high procedural hoops. I hope to 
demonstrate over the next few minutes that the majority has abused the 
budget reconciliation process and violated the conditions of the budget 
resolution to pave the way for these misguided tax breaks.
  The budget resolution that created this budget reconciliation bill 
provided that the majority could cut taxes if and only if two 
conditions were met: One, they had to balance the budget in 2002. And, 
two, the reconciliation legislation had to ``compl[y] with the sum of 
the reconciliation directives for the period of fiscal years 1996 
through 2002'' in the budget resolution. These two conditions are 
plainly spelled out in section 205 of the budget resolution. I ask 
unanimous consent that the full text of section 205 of the budget 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S 17260]]


     SEC. 205. BUDGET SURPLUS ALLOWANCE.

       (a) CBO Certification of Legislative Submissions.--
       (1) Submission of legislation.--Upon the submission of 
     legislative recommendations pursuant to section 105(a) and 
     prior to the submission of a conference report on legislation 
     reported pursuant to section 105, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives (as the case may be) shall submit such 
     recommendations to the Congressional Budget Office.
       (2) Basis of estimates.--For the purposes of preparing an 
     estimate pursuant to this subsection, the Congressional 
     Budget Office shall include the budgetary impact of all 
     legislation enacted to date, use the economic and technical 
     assumptions underlying this resolution, and assume compliance 
     with the total discretionary spending levels assumed in this 
     resolution unless superseded by law.
       (3) Estimate of legislation.--The Congressional Budget 
     Office shall provide an estimate to the Chairman of the 
     Budget Committee of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives (as the case may be) and certify whether the 
     legislative recommendations would balance the total budget by 
     fiscal year 2002.
       (4) Certification.--If the Congressional Budget Office 
     certifies that such legislative recommendations would balance 
     the total budget by fiscal year 2002, the Chairman shall 
     submit such certification in his respective House.
       (b) Procedure in the Senate.--
       (1) Adjustments.--For the purposes of points of order under 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, the appropriate budgetary 
     allocations and aggregates shall be revised to be consistent 
     with the instructions set forth in section 105(b) for 
     legislation that reduces revenues by providing family tax 
     relief and incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job 
     creation, and economic growth.
       (2) Revised aggregates.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to section 105(b) and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall submit 
     appropriately revised budgetary allocations and aggregates.
       (3) Effect of revised allocations and aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates submitted under paragraph (2) 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Contingencies.--This section shall not apply unless the 
     reconciliation legislation--
       (1) complies with the sum of the reconciliation directives 
     for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002 provided in 
     section 105(a); and
       (2) would balance the total budget for fiscal year 2002 and 
     the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

  Mr. EXON. Section 205 of the budget resolution gives the majority the 
authority to lower the revenue floor in the budget resolution. Without 
section 205, the majority would violate the revenue floor in the budget 
resolution by including tax cuts in this bill.
  But the facts are that the conference report before us today fails to 
meet the two conditions in section 205 for including tax cuts. The 
budget resolution directed committees to come up with $632 billion in 
deficit reduction over the next 7 years in order to be allowed to 
include tax cuts in this bill. The bill before us includes only $577 
billion in spending cuts, plus $3.7 billion in revenue increases in the 
jurisdiction of a committee with instructions to increase revenues, for 
a net of $581 billion in deficit reduction.
  That is $51 billion short of the amount committees were instructed to 
achieve by the budget resolution. The bill is thus $51 billion short of 
the amount necessary to allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to 
lower the budget resolution's revenue floor to allow for the tax 
breaks.
  As a consequence, the tax cuts cause this bill to violate the budget 
resolution's revenue floor.
  Therefore, Mr. President, a point of order should lie against this 
conference report because it violates section 311(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full test of the CBO 
cost estimate on this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 1995.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     reviewed the conference report on H.R. 2491, the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1995, and has projected the deficits that would 
     result if the bill is enacted. These projections use the 
     economic and technical assumptions underlying the budget 
     resolution for fiscal year 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67), assume the 
     level of discretionary spending indicated in the budget 
     resolution, and include changes in outlays and revenues 
     estimated to result from the economic impact of balancing the 
     budget by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by CBO in its April 
     1995 report, An Analysis of the President's Budgetary 
     Proposals for Fiscal Year 1996. On that basis, CBO projects 
     that enactment of the reconciliation legislation recommended 
     by the conferees would produce a small budget surplus in 
     2002. The estimated federal spending, revenues and deficits 
     that would occur if the proposal is enacted are shown in 
     Table 1. The resulting differences from CBO's April 1995 
     baseline are summarized in Table 2, which includes the 
     adjustments to the baseline assumed by the budget resolution. 
     The estimated savings from changes in direct spending and 
     revenues that would result from enactment of each title of 
     the bill are summarized in Table 3 and described in more 
     detail in an attachment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.

                              TABLE 1.--CONFERENCE OUTLAYS, REVENUES, AND DEFICITS                              
                                    [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlays: Discretionary.............        534        524        518        516        520        516        515
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory:                                                                                                      
    Medicare \1\...................        196        210        217        226        248        267        289
    Medicaid.......................         97        104        109        113        118        122        127
    Other..........................        506        529        555        586        618        642        676
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................        799        843        881        925        984      1,031      1,093
                                    ============================================================================
Net interest.......................        257        262        261        262        260        254        249
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total outlays................      1,590      1,629      1,660      1,703      1,764      1,801      1,857
                                    ============================================================================
Revenues...........................      1,412      1,440      1,514      1,585      1,665      1,756      1,861
Deficit............................        178        189        146        118        100         46         -4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Medicare benefit payments only. Excludes medicare premiums.                                                 
                                                                                                                
\2\ Notes.--The fiscal dividend expected to result from balancing the budget is reflected in these figures.     
  Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding.                                                            
                                                                                                                
\3\ Source.--Congressional Budget Office.                                                                       


                                            TABLE 2.--CONFERENCE BUDGETARY CHANGES FROM CBO'S APRIL BASELINE                                            
                                                        [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Total 1996-
                                                                   1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002        2002   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO April baseline deficit \1\................................        210        230        232        266        299        316        349            *
Baseline adjustments: \2\                                                                                                                               
     CPI rebenchmarking \3\...................................          0          0          0         -1         -3         -6         -9          -18
    Other adjustments \4\.....................................          1          1          1          2          2          1          1           10
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          1          1          1          1         -1         -4         -8           -9
                                                               =========================================================================================

[[Page S 17261]]
                                                                                                                                                        
Policy changes:                                                                                                                                         
    Outlays: Discretionary \5\                                                                                                                          
        Freeze \6\............................................         -8         -9        -12        -35        -55        -75        -96         -289
        Additional savings....................................        -10        -21        -27        -24        -20        -24        -25         -151
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal............................................        -18        -29        -39        -59        -75        -99       -121         -440
                                                               =========================================================================================
    Mandatory:                                                                                                                                          
        Medicare..............................................         -7        -14        -27        -42        -49        -60        -71         -270
        Medicaid..............................................         -2         -6        -13        -21        -30        -40        -50         -163
        Other.................................................         -8        -18        -20        -24        -25        -24        -25         -144
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal............................................        -17        -38        -60        -87       -104       -125       -146         -577
                                                               =========================================================================================
Net interest..................................................         -1         -4         -8        -15        -25        -39        -58         -150
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total outlays...........................................        -36        -71       -107       -161       -203       -263       -325       -1,167
                                                               =========================================================================================
Revenues \7\..................................................          6         36         34         35         36         38         30          215
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total policy changes....................................        -31        -35        -73       -126       -167       -225       -295         -952
                                                               =========================================================================================
Adjustment for fiscal dividend \8\............................         -3         -7        -14        -23        -32        -41        -50         -170
Total adjustments and policy changes..........................        -33        -41        -86       -148       -200       -271       -353       -1,131
Conference policy.............................................        178        189        146        118        100         46         -4            *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projections assume that discretionary spending is equal to the spending limits that are in effect through 1998 and will increase with inflation     
  after 1998.                                                                                                                                           
\2\ The budget resolution was based on CBO's April 1995 baseline projections of mandatory spending and revenues, except for a limited number of         
  adjustments.                                                                                                                                          
\3\ The budget resolution baseline assumed that the 1998 rebenchmarking of the CPI by the Bureau of Labor Statistics will result in 0.2 percentage point
  reduction in the CPI compared with CBO's December 1994 economic projections.                                                                          
\4\ The budget resolution baseline made adjustments related to revised accounting of direct student loan costs, expiration of excise taxes dedicated to 
  the Superfund trust fund as provided under current law, the effects of enacted legislation, and technical corrections.                                
\5\ Discretionary spending specified in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67).                                 
\6\ Savings from Freezing 1996-2002 appropriations at the nominal level appropriated for 1995.                                                          
\7\ Revenue decreases are shown with a positive sign because they increase the deficit.                                                                 
\8\ CBO has estimated that balancing the budget by 2002 would result in lower interest rates and slightly higher real growth that could lower federal   
  interest payments and increase revenues by $170 billion over the fiscal year 1996-2002 period. See Appendix B of CBO's April 1995 report, ``An        
  Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 1996.''                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
Notes.--*=not applicable; CPI=consumer price index.                                                                                                     
Source.--Congressional Budget Office.                                                                                                                   



                                                  TABLE 3.--RECONCILIATION CONFERENCE SAVINGS BY TITLE                                                  
                                                        [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002     1996-2002 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I--Agriculture: Outlays.......................................       -1.3       -1.6       -1.5       -1.5       -1.6       -2.5       -2.4        -12.3
II--Banking and Housing: Outlays..............................       -5.2       -0.1        0.2        0.1      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)         -4.9
III--Communication and spectrum allocation: Outlays...........       -0.2       -1.8       -2.7       -3.6       -3.1       -2.7       -1.4        -15.3
IV--Education: Outlays........................................       -1.0       -0.5       -0.5       -0.7       -0.8       -0.8       -0.8         -5.0
V--Energy and Natural Resources: Outlays......................       -0.6       -2.3       -0.4       -1.1       -0.7       -0.6       -0.5         -6.2
VI--Federal retirement:                                                                                                                                 
    Outlays...................................................       -0.5       -1.1       -1.0       -1.6       -1.1       -1.1       -1.1         -7.5
    Revenues \2\..............................................       -0.2       -0.4       -0.6       -0.6       -0.6       -0.6       -0.7         -3.7
    Deficit...................................................       -0.7       -1.5       -1.6       -2.2       -1.7       -1.7       -1.7        -11.1
VII--Medicaid: Outlays........................................       -2.2       -5.7      -13.4      -21.5      -30.0      -40.3      -50.4       -163.4
VIII--Medicare: Outlays.......................................       -6.8      -14.3      -27.2      -42.0      -49.0      -59.8      -70.9       -270.0
IX--Transportation: Outlays...................................       -0.1       -0.2       -0.1       -0.1       -0.1       -0.1       -0.1         -0.8
X--Veterans: Outlays..........................................       -0.3       -0.4       -0.5       -1.3       -1.4       -1.3       -1.5         -6.7
XI--Revenues:                                                                                                                                           
    Outlays...................................................        0.0        0.0        0.0      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)       -0.1         -0.1
    Revenues \2\..............................................        5.9       37.3       35.6       37.4       38.6       39.9       32.4        227.1
    Deficit...................................................        5.9       37.3       35.6       37.4       38.6       39.8       32.4        227.0
XII--Teaching hospitals, asset sales, and welfare:                                                                                                      
    Outlays...................................................        0.6      -10.3      -13.1      -14.1      -15.7      -15.4      -17.2        -85.1
    Revenues \2\..............................................       -0.1       -1.2       -1.3       -1.4       -1.5       -1.6       -1.8         -8.9
    Deficit...................................................        0.5      -11.5      -14.4      -15.4      -17.2      -17.0      -19.0        -94.0
Interactive effects: Outlays..................................        0.0        0.0        0.0      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)        0.1          0.1
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Outlays...........................................      -17.4      -38.1      -60.1      -87.2     -103.5     -124.6     -146.2       -577.2
      Total Revenues \1\......................................        5.7       35.7       33.7       35.5       36.5       37.6       29.9        214.5
      Total Deficit...........................................      -11.7       -2.4      -26.4      -51.8      -67.0      -87.0     -116.3      -362.6 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $50 million.                                                                                                                              
\2\ Revenue increases are shown with a negative sign because they reduce the deficit.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
Sources.--Congressional Budget Office; Joint Committee on Taxation.                                                                                     

                               Attachment


 direct spending and revenue effects by title of the conference report 
  on h.r. 2491, the balanced budget act of 1995, congressional budget 
                       office, november 16, 1995

                                                           ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE I: AGRICULTURE AND RELATED PROVISIONS                                                           
                                                                            [In millions of dollars, by fiscal year]                                                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                     1996-2002  
                                                                       1996            1997            1998            1990            2000            2001            2002            total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                   Changes in direct spending                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Freedom to Far contracts in lieu of deficiency payments:                                                                                                                                        
    Estimated budget authority..................................            -874            -804            -804            -937          -1,194          -1,998          -1,989          -8,600
    Estimated outlays...........................................            -874            -804            -804            -937          -1,194          -1,998          -1,989          -8,600
Cap crop price-support loan rates:                                                                                                                                                              
    Estimated budget authority..................................             -16             -85              35             -70             -49             -55             -38            -108
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -16             -85              35             -70             -49             -55             -38            -108
Cap 7-year cotton step-2 payments at $701 million:                                                                                                                                              
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............               1               2               2               2             -69            -116            -178
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............               1               2               2               2             -69            -116            -178
End cotton 8-month loan extension:                                                                                                                                                              
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............             -55              -5              -5              -5              -2               0             -72
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............             -55              -5              -5              -5              -2               0             -72

[[Page S 17262]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                
$40,000 payment limit per ``person'':                                                                                                                                                           
    Estimated budget authority..................................             -21             -41             -45             -43             -39             -32             -31            -252
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -21             -41             -45             -43             -39             -32             -31            -252
Reform peanut program:                                                                                                                                                                          
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............             -95             -69             -69             -67             -68             -66            -434
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............             -95             -69             -69             -67             -68             -66            -434
Reform sugar program (increased assessments):                                                                                                                                                   
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............              -8              -8              -8              -9              -9              -9             -51
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............              -8              -8              -8              -9              -9              -9             -51
End emergency feed assistance programs:                                                                                                                                                         
    Estimated budget authority..................................             -60             -80             -80             -80             -80             -80             -80            -540
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -60             -80             -80             -80             -80             -80             -80            -540
End honey program:                                                                                                                                                                              
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............              -1              -2  ..............  ..............              -3
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............              -1              -2  ..............  ..............              -3
End farmer-owned reserve:                                                                                                                                                                       
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............             -18             -18             -18             -18             -18             -18            -108
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............             -18             -18             -18             -18             -18             -18            -108
Livestock Environmental Assistance Program:                                                                                                                                                     
    Estimated budget authority..................................             100             100             100             100             100             100             100             700
    Estimated outlays...........................................              48              88              91              94              96              98              99             614
Limit CRP to 36.4 million acres:                                                                                                                                                                
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............             -41            -118            -109            -102            -100             -99            -569
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............             -41            -118            -109            -102            -100             -99            -569
Cap WRP acreage and limit easements:                                                                                                                                                            
    Estimated budget authority..................................             -24             -66             -66             -66             -66              54              54            -180
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -3             -47             -90             -94             -92             -74              13            -387
Reduce Market Promotion Program spending:                                                                                                                                                       
    Estimated budget authority..................................              -1              -8             -10             -10             -10             -10             -10             -59
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -1              -8             -10             -10             -10             -10             -10             -59
Cap Export Enhancement Program spending:                                                                                                                                                        
    Estimated budget authority..................................            -329            -532            -281            -130               0               0               0          -1,272
    Estimated outlays...........................................            -329            -532            -281            -130               0               0               0          -1,272
End mandatory crop insurance catastrophic coverage:                                                                                                                                             
    Estimated budget authority..................................             -27             -27             -28             -28             -29             -29             -29            -197
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -10             -27             -28             -28             -29             -29             -29            -180
Provide disaster assistance for seed crops:                                                                                                                                                     
    Estimated budget authority..................................               7               7               7               7               7               7               7              49
    Estimated outlays...........................................               3               7               7               7               7               7               7              45
Direct access to Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Fund:                                                                                                                                        
    Estimated budget authority..................................               8               9              10              10              13              17              21              88
    Estimated outlays...........................................               8               9              10              10              13              17              21              88
Increase CCC commodity loan interest rate:                                                                                                                                                      
    Estimated budget authority..................................             -20             -40             -40             -40             -40             -40             -40            -260
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -20             -40             -40             -40             -40             -40             -40            -260
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total changes in direct spending:                                                                                                                                                         
        Estimated budget authority..............................          -1,257          -1,613          -1,418          -1,495          -1,588          -2,332          -2,343         -12,046
        Estimated outlays.......................................          -1,275          -1,606          -1,451          -1,529          -1,618          -2,462          -2,385         -12,326
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                                         ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE II: BANKING, HOUSING AND RELATED PROGRAMS                                                         
                                                                            [In millions of dollars, by fiscal year]                                                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                     1996-2002  
                                                                       1996            1997            1998            1999            2000            2001            2002            total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                   Changes in direct spending                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Deposit insurance funds:                                                                                                                                                                        
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Estimated outlays...........................................          -5,000             400             800             800             700             700             700            -900
Limit staff of RTC oversight board:                                                                                                                                                             
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Estimated outlays...........................................           (\1\)  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           (\1\)
FHA single-family assignment program:                                                                                                                                                           
    Estimated budget authority..................................            -119            -216            -234            -268            -308            -317            -317          -1,779
    Estimated outlays...........................................            -119            -216            -234            -268            -308            -317            -317          -1,779
Assisted housing rent adjustments for operating costs:                                                                                                                                          
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -18             -66            -126            -177            -210            -229            -249          -1,075
One-percent reduction in assisted housing rent adjustments: \2\                                                                                                                                 
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -42            -170            -216            -211            -198            -182            -170          -1,189
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total estimated changes in direct spending:                                                                                                                                                     
    Estimated budget authority..................................            -119            -216            -234            -268            -308            -317            -317          -1,779
    Estimated outlays...........................................          -5,179             -52             224             144             -16             -28             -36          -4,943
                                                                                                                                                                                                
          Changes in spending subject to appropriations                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Rent adjustments for section 8 housing:                                                                                                                                                         
    Estimated authorization level...............................              30              50              85              90              95             120             130             600
    Estimated outlays...........................................               1              13              37              64              83             102             118            418 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                                                                                                         
\2\ If the VA/HUD appropriations bill is enacted before this provision, and if it includes a similar provision applying only to fiscal year 1996, the reconciliation provision would produce no 
  savings in 1996 and lower savings in subsequent years.                                                                                                                                        


                                                   ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE III: COMMUNICATIONS AND SPECTRUM ALLOCATION PROVISIONS                                                  
                                                                            [In millions of dollars, by fiscal year]                                                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                     1996-2002  
                                                                       1996            1997            1998            1999            2000            2001            2002            total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                   Changes in direct spending                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Spectrum auctions:                                                                                                                                                                              
    Estimated budget authority..................................            -150          -1,800          -2,650          -3,550          -3,100          -2,650          -1,400         -15,300
    Estimated outlays...........................................            -150          -1,800          -2,650          -3,550          -3,100          -2,650          -1,400         -15,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                                                                                                                

[[Page S 17263]]
                                               ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT TITLE IV, EDUCATION AND RELATED PROVISIONS                                               
                                                                            [In millions of dollars, by fiscal year]                                                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                     1996-2002  
                                                                       1996            1997            1998            1999            2000            2001            2002            total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                     Asset sale receipts \1\                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Sale of Connie Lee stock:                                                                                                                                                                       
    Estimated budget authority..................................              -7  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              -7
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -7  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              -7
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                   Changes in direct spending                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Changes in student loans:                                                                                                                                                                       
    Estimated budget authority..................................          -1,144            -429            -550            -763            -756            -791            -831          -5,264
    Estimated outlays...........................................            -955            -464            -496            -678            -754            -784            -817          -4,948
      Total: Mandatory spending (asset sales plus direct                                                                                                                                        
       spending changes):                                                                                                                                                                       
    Estimated budget authority..................................          -1,151            -429            -550            -763            -756            -791            -831          -5,271
    Estimated outlays...........................................            -962            -464            -496            -678            -754            -784            -817          -4,955
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the 1996 budget resolution, proceeds from asset sales are counted in budget totals for purposes of Congressional scoring. Under the Balanced Budget Act, however, proceeds from asset 
  sales are not counted in determining compliance with the discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-go requirement.                                                                          



                                                              ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE V: ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES                                                              
                                                                            [In millions of dollars, by fiscal year]                                                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                     1996-2002  
                                                                       1996            1997            1998            1999            2000            2001            2002            total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                     Asset sale receipts \1\                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                
U.S. Enrichment Corporation:                                                                                                                                                                    
    Estimated budget authority..................................            -500          -1,100             -21             -54             -55             -46             -47          -1,823
    Estimated outlays...........................................            -500          -1,100             -21             -54             -55             -46             -47          -1,823
Sale of DOE assets:                                                                                                                                                                             
    Estimated budget authority..................................             -20             -15             -15             -15             -15             -15             -15            -110
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -20             -15             -15             -15             -15             -15             -15            -110
Sale of Weeks Island oil:\2\                                                                                                                                                                    
    Estimated budget authority..................................            -100            -188            -182  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............            -470
    Estimated outlays...........................................            -100            -188            -182  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............            -470
California land sale:                                                                                                                                                                           
    Estimated budget authority..................................              -1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              -1
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              -1
Sale of helium reserves:                                                                                                                                                                        
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............              -3              -8              -9              -9              -9              -9             -47
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............              -3              -8              -9              -9              -9              -9             -47
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:                                                                                                                                                                
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............          -1,601              -1          -1,001              -1              -1              -1          -2,606
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............          -1,601              -1          -1,001              -1              -1              -1          -2,606
Collbran Project:                                                                                                                                                                               
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             -13  ..............  ..............             -13
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             -13  ..............  ..............             -13
Sly Park:                                                                                                                                                                                       
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............              -4  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              -4
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............              -4  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              -4
Sale of DOI assets:                                                                                                                                                                             
    Estimated budget authority..................................              -1              -3              -3  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              -7
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -1              -3              -3  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              -7
Alaska PMA sale:\3\ \4\                                                                                                                                                                         
    Estimated budget authority..................................             -77  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             -77
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -77  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             -77
Outer continental shelf:\4\                                                                                                                                                                     
    Estimated budget authority..................................             -15             -25             -20             -20             -20             -20             -20            -140
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -15             -25             -20             -20             -20             -20             -20            -140
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, asset sales:                                                                                                                                                                    
        Estimated budget authority..............................            -714          -2,939            -250          -1,099            -113             -91             -92          -5,298
        Estimated outlays.......................................            -714          -2,939            -250          -1,099            -113             -91             -92          -5,298
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                   Changes in direct spending                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                
NRC fees:                                                                                                                                                                                       
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............            -330            -330            -330            -330          -1,320
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............            -330            -330            -330            -330          -1,320
U.S. Enrichment Corporation:                                                                                                                                                                    
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               0
    Estimated outlays...........................................             306               8             -10             -88            -159             -80             -20              -3
Lease of excess SPR capacity:                                                                                                                                                                   
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............             -24             -37             -64             -49             -67            -241
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............  ..............             -24             -37             -64             -59             -71            -255
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:                                                                                                                                                                
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............             800               5             560               6               6               6           1,403
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............             800               1             502              12              43              28           1,386
Prepayment of construction charges:                                                                                                                                                             
    Estimated budget authority..................................            -166             -17               4              29              29              29              29             -63
    Estimated outlays...........................................            -166             -17               4              29              29              29              29             -63
Hetch Hetchy fees:                                                                                                                                                                              
    Estimated budget authority..................................              -2              -2              -2              -2              -2              -2              -2             -14
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -2              -2              -2              -2              -2              -2              -2             -14
Collbran Project:                                                                                                                                                                               
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               1               3               2               6
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               1               3               2               6
Sly Park:                                                                                                                                                                                       
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............           (\5\)           (\5\)           (\5\)           (\5\)           (\5\)               1
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............  ..............           (\5\)           (\5\)           (\5\)           (\5\)           (\5\)               1
Central Utah prepayment:                                                                                                                                                                        
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............             -67            -127               2               2             -31               2            -219
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............             -67            -127               2               2             -31               2            -219
Federal oil and gas royalties:                                                                                                                                                                  
    Estimated budget authority..................................              -6             -12              -8              -7              -7              -6              -5             -51
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -6             -12              -8              -7              -7              -6              -5             -51
Hardrock mining:                                                                                                                                                                                
    Estimated budget authority..................................               2               1               1             -40             -40             -40             -41            -157
    Estimated outlays...........................................               2               1               1             -40             -40             -40             -41            -157
Bonneville Power refinancing:                                                                                                                                                                   
    Estimated budget authority..................................             -16             -14             -15             -13             -12             -25             -25            -120
    Estimated outlays...........................................             -16             -14             -15             -13             -12             -25             -25            -120
Alaska PMA sale:\3\ \4\                                                                                                                                                                         
    Estimated budget authority..................................               4              11              11              11              11              11              11              70
    Estimated outlays...........................................               4              11              11              11              11              11              11              70
Outer continental shelf:\4\                                                                                                                                                                     
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               3               7              10
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               3               7              10
Exports of Alaskan oil:\4\                                                                                                                                                                      
    Estimated budget authority..................................              -5             -14             -10              -7              -6  ..............  ..............            -42 

[[Page S 17264]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -5             -14             -10              -7              -6  ..............  ..............             -42
Ski area permit charges:                                                                                                                                                                        
    Estimated budget authority..................................               e              -1              -1               e               e               e               e              -1
    Estimated outlays...........................................               e              -1              -1               e               e               e               e              -1
Park fees:                                                                                                                                                                                      
    Estimated budget authority..................................              -7             -11             -11              -8             -12              -7             -13             -69
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -7             -13             -14             -11             -14             -10             -14             -83
Concession reform:                                                                                                                                                                              
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............              -5             -11             -16             -22             -28             -82
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............  ..............              -5             -11             -16             -22             -28             -82
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal: Direct spending:                                                                                                                                                                
        Estimated budget authority..............................            -196             674            -182             167            -440            -460            -454            -889
        Estimated outlays.......................................             110             680            -199              -2            -595            -516            -417            -937
                                                                 ===============================================================================================================================
      Total: Mandatory spending (asset sales plus direct                                                                                                                                        
       spending changes):                                                                                                                                                                       
        Estimated budget authority..............................            -910          -2,265            -432            -932            -553            -551            -546          -6,187
        Estimated outlays.......................................            -604          -2,259            -449          -1,101            -708            -607            -509         -6,235 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the 1996 budget resolution, proceeds from asset sales are counted in budget totals for purposes of Congressional scoring. Under the Balanced Budget Act, however, proceeds from asset 
  sales are not counted in determining compliance with the discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-go requirement.                                                                          
\2\ This estimate for sale of oil from the Weeks Island facility reflects changes to current law; but if the appropriations bill for interior and Related Agencies is enacted prior to enactment
  of this title, the savings for this title would be reduced by $100 million.                                                                                                                   
\3\ The sale of the Alaska PMA is contingent upon provisions in Title XI providing tax-exempt financing for certain projects.                                                                   
\4\ Similar provisions regarding sale of the Alaska PMA, OCS leasing, and exports of Alaskan oil are also contained in S. 395, which was recently cleared by the Congress.                      
\5\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Note.--This title would also affect spending that is subject to appropriations action, but CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential changes in discretionary spending that might      
  result from enacting this title.                                                                                                                                                              



                                                       ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE VI: FEDERAL RETIREMENT AND RELATED PROVISIONS                                                       
                                                                            [In millions of dollars, by fiscal year]                                                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                     1996-2002  
                                                                       1996            1997            1998            1999            2000            2001            2002            total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                     Asset sale receipts \1\                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Sale of Governors Island NY:                                                                                                                                                                    
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............            -500  ..............  ..............  ..............            -500
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............            -500  ..............  ..............  ..............            -500
Sale of Union Station air rights:                                                                                                                                                               
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............             -40  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             -40
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............             -40  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             -40
Repeal of title V of McKinney Act:                                                                                                                                                              
    Estimated budget authority..................................              -3              -3              -3              -3              -3              -3              -3             -21
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -3              -3              -3              -3              -3              -3              -3             -21
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                 Changes in direct spending \2\                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Civilian retirement COLA delay:                                                                                                                                                                 
    Estimated budget authority..................................               0            -337            -353            -347            -362            -380            -396           -2175
    Estimated outlays...........................................               0            -337            -353            -347            -362            -380            -396           -2175
Agency contributions for civilian retirement:                                                                                                                                                   
    Estimated budget authority..................................            -513            -667            -642            -614            -560            -539            -513           -4046
    Estimated outlays...........................................            -513            -667            -642            -614            -560            -539            -513           -4046
Congressional retirement benefits:                                                                                                                                                              
    Estimated budget authority..................................              -*              -*              -1              -1              -2              -2              -3              -9
    Estimated outlays...........................................              -*              -*              -1              -1              -2              -2              -3              -9
USPS transitional appropriations:                                                                                                                                                               
    Estimated budget authority..................................               0              -9             -37             -37             -36             -36             -36            -191
    Estimated outlays...........................................               0              -9             -37             -37             -36             -36             -36            -191
PTO surcharge fees:                                                                                                                                                                             
    Estimated budget authority..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............            -119            -119            -119            -119            -476
    Estimated outlays...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............            -119            -119            -119            -119            -476
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total mandatory spending (asset sales plus direct                                                                                                                                         
       spending):                                                                                                                                                                               
        Estimated budget authority..............................            -516           -1056           -1036           -1621           -1082           -1079           -1070           -7458
        Estimated outlays.......................................            -516           -1056           -1036           -1621           -1082           -1079           -1070           -7458
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                            Revenues                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Employee contributions for civilian retirement:                                                                                                                                                 
    Estimated revenues..........................................             204             409             551             597             612             640             670            3681
                                                                                                                                                                                                
                Authorizations of appropriations                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Agency contributions for civilian retirement:                                                                                                                                                   
    Estimated authorization level...............................             529             688             662             632             577             555             529            4172
    Estimated outlays...........................................             513             667             642             614             560             539             513            4046
Repeal of title V of McKinney Act:                                                                                                                                                              
    Estimated authorization level...............................               0               3               3               3               3               3               3              18
    Estimated outlays...........................................               0               1               3               3               3               3               3              16
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total authorizations of appropriations:                                                                                                                                                   
        Estimated authorization level...........................             529             691             665             635             580             558             532            4190
        Estimated outlays.......................................             513             668             645             617             563             542             516            4062
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the 1996 budget resolution, proceeds from asset sales are counted in budget totals for purposes of Congressional scoring. Under the Balanced Budget Act, however, proceeds from asset 
  sales are not counted in determining compliance with the discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-go requirements.                                                                         
\2\ Civilian retirement includes the Civil Service Retirement System, the Federal Employees Retirement System, the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System, and the Foreign Service    
  Pension System.                                                                                                                                                                               
\3\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Note.--Components may not add to totals due to rounding.                                                                                                                                        


                                                                   TITLE VII--MEDICAID                                                                  
                                                        [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                7-year  
                                                             1996        1997        1998        1999        2000        2001        2002        total  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO Baseline............................................      99.292     110.021     122.060     134.830     148.116     162.631     177.805  ..........
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Proposed law:                                                                                                                                           
    Outlays from Title XIX..............................      24.624           0           0           0           0           0           0  ..........
    Section 2121(a)--Transitional Correction............           0       0.200           0           0           0           0           0  ..........
    Section 2121(b)--Pool Amounts.......................      71.762     103.234     107.908     112.644     117.360     122.284     127.418  ..........
    Section 2121(c)--Special Rule.......................       0.090       0.233       0.090           0           0           0           0  ..........
    Section 2121(f)--Supplemental Allotment.............       0.627       0.673       0.702       0.733       0.764           0           0  ..........
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Outlays...................................      97.103     104.340     108.700     113.377     118.124     122.284     127.418  ..........
                                                         ===============================================================================================
 
[[Page S 17265]]
                                                                                                                                                        
        Reductions in Outlays...........................      -2.189      -5.681     -13.360     -21.453     -29.992     -40.347     -50.387   -163.409 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note: Assumes enactment date of November 15, 1995.                                                                                                     



                                                                  TITLE VIII--MEDICARE                                                                  
                                                        [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             1996        1997        1998        1999        2000        2001        2002        Total  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                CHANGE IN DIRECT SPENDING                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
Subtitle A--MedicarePlus Program \1\....................        -0.1        -0.5        -1.2        -2.6        -5.0        -7.3       -10.2       -26.9
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Subtitle B--Preventing Fraud and Abuse:                                                                                                                 
    Payment Safeguards and enforcement..................         0.3        -0.2        -0.5        -0.8        -0.9        -0.7        -0.8        -3.5
    New and increased Civil Monetary Penalties..........        -0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.4
    Additional Exclusion Authorities....................        -0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.3
    Criminal Provisions.................................        -0.0         0.0         0.0         0.1         0.2         0.2         0.2         0.7
    Other Items.........................................        -0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.1
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Subtitle B............................         0.3        -0.2        -0.6        -0.8        -0.8        -0.7        -0.7        -3.5
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Subtitle C--Regulatory Relief:                                                                                                                          
    Physician Ownership referral........................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.1         0.1         0.3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Subtitle C............................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.1         0.1         0.3
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Subtitle D--Graduate Medical Education:                                                                                                                 
    Indirect Medical Education Payments.................        -0.4        -0.8        -0.8        -1.1        -1.3        -1.5        -1.7        -7.6
    Direct Medical Education............................         0.0        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.2        -0.3        -0.4        -1.4
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Subtitle D............................        -0.4        -0.9        -1.0        -1.2        -1.5        -1.9        -2.1        -9.0
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Subtitle E--Medicare Part A:                                                                                                                            
    Chapter 1--General provisions Relating to Part A                                                                                                    
    PPS MB-2.5 in FY 96, -2.0 thereafter................        -0.2        -1.1        -2.4        -3.8        -5.4        -7.2        -9.0       -29.1
    PPS Exempt Update Reduction.........................        -0.0        -0.1        -0.2        -0.3        -0.4        -0.5        -0.6        -2.0
    Targets for Rehabilitation and LTC Hospitals........        -0.0        -0.1        -0.2        -0.4        -0.5        -0.7        -0.7        -2.7
    Rebasing for Certain LTC Hospitals..................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0
    LTC Hospitals Within Other Hospitals................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.2
    Reduce nonPPS capital by 10%........................        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.2        -0.2        -0.2        -0.9
    Reduce DSH payments.................................        -0.1        -0.3        -0.6        -0.9        -1.1        -1.2        -1.2        -5.4
    Reduce PPS Capital by 15%...........................        -1.0        -1.2        -1.3        -1.3        -1.4        -1.4        -1.5        -9.0
    Rebase PPS Capital Payment Rates....................        -0.3        -0.4        -0.4        -0.4        -0.4        -0.4        -0.4        -2.7
    Reduce Payments for Hospital Bad Debt...............        -0.1        -0.1        -0.2        -0.2        -0.2        -0.2        -0.2        -1.1
    Preferential Update for Certain MDH Hospitals.......         0.0         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.6
Chapter 2--Skilled Nursing Facilities: Skilled Nursing                                                                                                  
 Facilities.............................................        -0.2        -0.6        -1.1        -1.6        -1.9        -2.2        -2.4       -10.0
Chapter 3--Other Provisions Related to Part A:                                                                                                          
    Hemophilia Pass-Through Extension...................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0
    Hospice.............................................        -0.0        -0.0        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.5
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal, Subtitle E................................        -2.0        -3.8        -6.2        -8.9       -11.4       -13.9       -16.2       -62.5
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Subtitle F--Medicare Part B:                                                                                                                            
    Part 1--Payment Reforms                                                                                                                             
    Reduce payments for physicians's services...........        -0.4        -1.3        -2.3        -3.2        -4.1        -5.1        -6.2       -22.6
    Eliminate formula driven overpayment................        -0.9        -1.2        -1.5        -2.0        -2.5        -3.3        -4.5       -15.9
    Reduce updates for durable medical equipment........        -0.1        -0.3        -0.4        -0.6        -0.7        -0.9        -1.1        -4.1
    Reduce updates for clinical labs....................        -0.1        -0.4        -0.7        -0.9        -1.1        -1.3        -1.6        -6.0
    Extend outpatient capital reduction.................         0.0         0.0         0.0        -0.1        -0.1        -0.2        -0.2        -0.6
    Extend outpatient payment reduction.................         0.0         0.0         0.0        -0.3        -0.3        -0.4        -0.4        -1.4
    Freeze payments for ASC services....................        -0.0        -0.1        -0.1        -0.2        -0.2        -0.3        -0.4        -1.3
    Anesthesia Payment Allocation.......................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0
    Separate physician fee schedule for Wisconsin.......         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0
    Limit payments for ambulance services...............        -0.0        -0.0        -0.1        -0.1        -0.1        -0.2        -0.3        -0.8
    Direct payment to PAs and NPs \2\...................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.1         0.1         0.1        -0.3
    Payments to primary care MDs in shortage areas \2\..         0.0         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.5
    Part 2--Part B Premium                                                                                                                              
    Increase Part B premium.............................        -3.3        -4.3        -4.1        -5.2        -7.9       -10.4       -13.5       -48.6
    Income-related reduction in medicare subsidy........         0.0        -0.4        -0.9        -1.3        -1.7        -2.0        -2.3        -8.5
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Subtitle F............................        -4.7        -7.7        -9.9       -13.7       -18.7       -24.0       -30.3      -109.1
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Subtitle G--Medicare Parts A and B:                                                                                                                     
    Payment for home health services....................         0.0        -1.3        -2.3        -2.7        -3.1        -3.6        -4.0       -17.0
    Medicare second payer improvements..................         0.0         0.0         0.0        -1.3        -1.5        -1.7        -1.9        -6.5
    Coverage of Oral Breast Cancer Drug.................         0.1         0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.0        -0.1
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Subtitle G............................         0.1        -1.3        -2.3        -4.1        -4.7        -5.3        -6.0       -23.5
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Subtitle H--Rural Areas:                                                                                                                                
    Medicare-Dependent payment Extension................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.2
    Critical Access Hospitals...........................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.1         0.3
    Establish REACH Program.............................         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.2
    Classification of Rural Referral Centers............         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.1
    Expand Access to Nurse Aide Training \3\............         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Subtitle H............................         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1         0.7
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Change in net Mandatory Medicare Outlays before Failsafe        -6.8       -14.3       -21.1       -31.2       -42.0       -52.8       -65.3      -233.5
Additional Outlay Reductions Required by Failsafe, Net                                                                                                  
 of Premiums............................................         0.0         0.0        -6.2       -10.8        -7.1        -7.0        -5.6       -36.6
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Medicare...................................        -6.8       -14.3       -27.2       -42.0       -49.0       -59.8       -70.9      -270.0
                                                         ===============================================================================================
MEMORANDUM: Monthly Part B premium (By calendar year):                                                                                                  
    Estimated premium under proposal....................      $53.70      $57.00      $59.30       64.10      $73.10      $80.10      $88.90  ..........
    Estimated premium under current law.................      $42.50      $48.20      $53.20      $55.00      $56.80      $58.60      $60.50  ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate includes medical savings accounts provision.                                                                                               
\2\ These items are included in Subtitle H (Rural Areas).                                                                                               
\3\ CBO estimates that this provision would cost less than $50 million over seven years.                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
Notes.--Details may not sum to totals because of rounding. The estimates assume an enactment date of November 15, 1995. The estimates do not incorporate
  changes in discretionary spending for administration.                                                                                                 


                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page S 17266]]
                                     ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE IX: TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED PROVISIONS                                     
                                                          [Millions of Dollars, by Fiscal Year]                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               1996-2002
                                                             1996        1997        1998        1999        2000        2001        2002        Total  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
Highway Minimum Allocation:                                                                                                                             
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................       -536   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       -536 
    Estimated Outlays...................................        -42        -220        -128         -59         -32         -18         -13        -512 
Vessel Tonnage Duties:                                                                                    ..........                                    
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................          -           -           -         -49         -49         -49         -49        -196 
    Estimated Outlays...................................          -           -           -         -49         -49         -49         -49        -196 
FEMA Fees: a                                                                                                                                           
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................        -12         -12         -12         -12         -12         -12         -12         -84 
    EStimated Outlays...................................        -12         -12         -12         -12         -12         -12         -12         -84 
Total: Mandatory Spending:                                                                                                                              
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................       -548         -12         -12         -61         -61         -61         -61        -816 
    Estimated Outlays...................................        -54        -232        -140        -120         -93         -79         -74        -792 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The table reflects changes to current law, if the VA/HUD appropriations bill is enacted before this provision and extends the collection of $12       
  million of fees for radiological emergency preparedness in 1996, this provision would not produce any savings in 1996.                                



                                          ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE X: COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS                                         
                                                          [Millions of dollars, by fiscal year]                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               1996-2000
                                                             1996        1997        1998        1999        2000        2001        2002        Total  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
HeaLth Care Per Diems and Prescription Copayments:                                                                                                      
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................           0           0           0         -58         -62         -65         -70        -255
    Estimated Outlays...................................           0           0           0         -58         -62         -65         -70        -255
Medical Care Cost Recovery:                                                                                                                             
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................           0           0           0        -197        -208        -219        -231        -855
    Estimated Outlays...................................           0           0           0        -197        -208        -219        -231        -855
Verify Income for Pension Purposes:                                                                                                                     
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................           0           0           0         -10         -20         -30         -40        -100
    Estimated Outlays...................................           0           0           0         -10         -20         -30         -40        -100
Verify Income for Medical Care:                                                                                                                         
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................           0           0           0          -4          -8         -12         -16         -40
    Estimated Outlays...................................           0           0           0          -4          -8         -12         -16         -40
Pension Limitation--Nursing Home Vets:                                                                                                                  
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................           0           0           0        -198        -204        -211        -218        -831
    Estimated Outlays...................................           0           0           0        -197        -240        -173        -217        -827
Fees on Original Loans:                                                                                                                                 
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................           0           0           0        -100        -102        -102        -102        -406
    Estimated Outlays...................................           0           0           0        -100        -102        -102        -102        -406
Fees on Later Loans:                                                                                                                                    
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................           0           0           0         -43         -44         -44         -44        -175
    Estimated Outlays...................................           0           0           0         -43         -44         -44         -44        -175
Resale Losses:                                                                                                                                          
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................           0           0           0          -4          -4          -4          -4         -16
    Estimated Outlays...................................           0           0           0          -4          -4          -4          -4         -16
Increase Prescription Copayments to $4, Tighten                                                                                                         
 Collection Procedures. Exempt POW's from Copay:                                                                                                        
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................         -74         -98        -102        -108        -114        -120        -126        -742
    Estimated Outlays...................................         -74         -98        -102        -108        -114        -120        -126        -742
Round Down Comp COLAs:a                                                                                                                                 
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................         -19         -46         -66         -90        -115        -145        -169        -650
    Estimated Outlays...................................         -17         -43         -64         -88        -121        -133        -168        -634
Repeal Gardner Decision:                                                                                                                                
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................         -97        -222        -341        -467        -476        -469        -463      -2,535
    Estimated Outlays...................................         -89        -212        -331        -457        -512        -433        -464      -2,498
Enhanced Loan Asset Sale Authority:                                                                                                                     
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................          -5          -5          -5          -5          -5          -5          -5         -35
    Estimated Outlays...................................          -5          -5          -5          -5          -5          -5          -5         -35
Withholding of Payments and Benefits:                                                                                                                   
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................         -90           0           0           0           0           0           0         -90
    Estimated Outlays...................................         -90           0           0           0           0           0           0         -90
Total-DIrect Spending:                                                                                                                                  
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................        -285        -371        -514      -1,284      -1,362      -1,462      -1,488      -6,730
    Estimated Outlays...................................        -275        -358        -502      -1,271      -1,440      -1,340      -1,487     -6,673 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Similar provisions were included in H.R. 2394, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 1995. Congressional action on the bill was 
  completed on November 10, 1995. H.R. 2394 rounds down the COLA for 1996 only; the provisions in Title X would round down the COLAs through 2002, and  
  make other adjustments to COLAs for surviving spouses.                                                                                                


                                               ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE XI: REVENUE PROVISIONS                                              
                                                        [In millions of dollars, by fiscal year]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               1996-2002
                                                             1996        1997        1998        1999        2000        2001        2002        Total  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
Tax Information Sharing:                                                                                                                                
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........         -14         -28         -42         -56        -140
    Estimated Outlays...................................  ..........  ..........  ..........         -14         -28         -42         -56        -140
Total: Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                 
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................           0           0           0         -14         -28         -42         -56        -140
    Estimated Outlays...................................           0           0           0         -14         -28         -42         -56        -140
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                   CHANGES IN REVENUES                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
Family Tax Relief Act: Estimated Revenues...............      -4,740     -29,381     -23,846     -24,319     -25,087     -25,784     -26,268    -159,425
Savings and Retirement Incentives: Estimated Revenues...          67      -7,674     -12,049     -13,371     -13,762     -14,471      -6,315      -67575
Health Related Provisions: Estimated Revenues...........        -988        -834      -1,060      -1,337      -1,590      -1,879      -2,197      -9,885
Estate and Gift Provisions: Estimated Revenues..........           0        -867      -1,291      -1,753      -2,261      -2,808      -3,311     -12,291
Extension of Expiring Provisions: Estimated Revenues....      -2,000      -1,585        -491         -73         400         997       1,421      -1,331
Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 Provisions: Estimated Revenues          -6         -11         -12         -12         -12         -13         -13         -79
Casualty and Involuntary Conversion Provisions:                                                                                                         
 Estimated Revenues.....................................          -1          -9          -1           4          11          20          31          55
Exempt Organizations and Charitable Reforms Estimated                                                                                                   
 Revenues:..............................................           0          -2          -2          -2          -2          -2          -2         -12
Tax Reform and Other Provisions: Estimated Revenues.....       2,288       3,258       3,403       3,824       4,018       4,370       4,657      25,818
Tax Simplification: Estimated Revenues..................           0         -14         -58        -194        -487        -550        -632      -1,935
Miscellaneous Provisions: Estimated Revenues............         -28         -98        -160        -205         178         264         199         150
Generalized System of Preferences: Estimated Revenues...        -532         -82           0           0           0           0           0        -614
Increase in the Public Debt Limit: Estimated Revenues...           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0
Total: Revenues: Estimated Revenues.....................      -5,940     -37,299     -35,567     -37,438     -38,594     -39,856     -32,430    -227,124
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page S 17267]]
                             CONFERENCE AGREEMENT--ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF REVENUE RECONCILIATION AND TAX SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS OF H.R. 2491 (TITLE XI) \1\                             
                                                                        [Fiscal years 1996-2002, in millions of dollars]                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Provision                                     Effective                    1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002     1996-2000    1996-2002 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CONTRACT WITH AMERICA PROVISIONS                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                
I. Family tax relief provisions:                                                                                                                                                                
    1. $500 tax credit for children under age    10/1/95.................................     -4,449    -28,355    -22,529    -22,761    -22,996    -23,169    -23,343     -101,090     -147,602
     18--Senate amendment ($75,000/$110,000                                                                                                                                                     
     phaseout with no indexing).                                                                                                                                                                
    2. Reduce the marriage penalty.............  tyba 12/31/95...........................       -137       -474       -739       -952     -1,458     -1,970     -2,270       -3,760       -8,000
    3. $5,000 credit for adoption expenses--     tyba 12/31/95...........................        -28       -285       -302       -320       -336       -337       -337       -1,271       -1,945
     Senate amendment, but phase out beginning                                                                                                                                                  
     at $75,000 AGI; require finalized adoption                                                                                                                                                 
     only for foreign adoptions; special needs                                                                                                                                                  
     adoptions--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                     
    4. $1,000 deduction (with residency and      tyba 12/31/95...........................        -74       -115       -119       -124       -129       -134       -138         -561         -833
     support tests) for custodial care of                                                                                                                                                       
     certain elderly dependents in taxpayer's                                                                                                                                                   
     home.                                                                                                                                                                                      
II. Savings and investment provisions:                                                                                                                                                          
    1. Provisions relating to individual         tyba 12/31/95...........................       -221       -487       -100       -990     -1,817     -3,332     -4,807       -3,615      -11,755
     Retirement Arrangements--(a) deductible                                                                                                                                                    
     IRAs--Senate amendment, except increase                                                                                                                                                    
     phaseout range for joint filers in $2,500                                                                                                                                                  
     increments; Homemakers eligible for full                                                                                                                                                   
     IRA deduction--both House bill and Senate                                                                                                                                                  
     amendment; (b) back-end IRAa--House bill                                                                                                                                                   
     with coordination of contribution limits;                                                                                                                                                  
     (c) definition of special purpose                                                                                                                                                          
     withdrawals--Senate amendment; (d) penalty                                                                                                                                                 
     free withdrawals from deductible IRAs--                                                                                                                                                    
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                          
    2. Capital gains reforms: (a) individual                                                                                                                                                    
     capital gains--House bill; (b) small                                                                                                                                                       
     business stock--14% maximum rate for                                                                                                                                                       
     individuals, reduced corporate rate; (c)                                                                                                                                                   
     indexing of capital gains--House bill,                                                                                                                                                     
     with 6-year delay of effective date; (d)                                                                                                                                                   
     corporate capital gains--Senate amendment;                                                                                                                                                 
     and (e) capital loss deducation for sale                                                                                                                                                   
     of principal residence--House bill:                                                                                                                                                        
        a. Corporate...........................  tyea 12/31/94...........................     -1,009       -893       -912       -945       -971     -1,024     -1,129       -4,730       -6,883
        b. Individual..........................  tyea 12/31/94...........................      2,857     -2,677     -6,757     -7,546     -8,191     -7,990     -1,450      -22,314      -28,854
    3. Alternative minimum tax (AMT) Reform--    ppisa & tyba 12/31/95...................     -1,290     -3,149     -3,722     -3,248     -2,141     -1,487     -1,252      -13,550      -16,291
     Senate amendment, except conform                                                                                                                                                           
     depreciation lives and methods under AMT                                                                                                                                                   
     and, with respect to certain minimum tax                                                                                                                                                   
     credits, substitute 7 years for 5 years.                                                                                                                                                   
III. Health care provisions:                                                                                                                                                                    
    1. Treatment of long-term care insurance--   1/1/96..................................       -860       -556       -659       -751       -846       -951     -1,061       -3,672       -5,684
     House bill, but adopt Senate provision                                                                                                                                                     
     providing no cap on indemnity policies,                                                                                                                                                    
     permit penalty-free (not tax-free) 401(k)                                                                                                                                                  
     and IRA withdrawals, $175 per day cap on                                                                                                                                                   
     per diem benefits, and adopt Senate                                                                                                                                                        
     consumer protections.                                                                                                                                                                      
    2. Tax treatment of accelerated death        1/1/95..................................         -6        -67       -107       -166       -214       -265       -316         -560       -1,141
     benefits under life insurance contracts--                                                                                                                                                  
     House bill, but adopt Senate rule relating                                                                                                                                                 
     to NAIC guidelines.                                                                                                                                                                        
    3. Health insurance organizations eligible   tyea 10/13/95...........................         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -5           -8
     for benefits of section 833--Senate                                                                                                                                                        
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                 
    4. Increase tax-free death benefit limit on  ceia 12/31/95...........................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)
     burial insurance polices--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                
IV. Estate and gift tax provisions:                                                                                                                                                             
    1. Phase up unified credit to $750,000--     dda/gma 12/31/95........................  .........       -333       -663     -1,020     -1,401     -1,805     -2,154       -3,417       -7,376
     House bill with 6-year phase in with                                                                                                                                                       
     indexing thereafter; index $10,000 annual                                                                                                                                                  
     gift tax exclusion; $750,000 special use                                                                                                                                                   
     valuation; generation-skipping tax; and                                                                                                                                                    
     indexing of $1 million value of closely                                                                                                                                                    
     held businesses under section 6601j.                                                                                                                                                       
    2. Reduction in estate taxes for qualified   dda 12/31/95............................  .........       -490       -579       -680       -798       -934     -1,081       -2,547       -4,562
     businesses after unified credit increase--                                                                                                                                                 
     Senate amendment, but change thresholds to                                                                                                                                                 
     $1 million/$1.5 million and coordinate                                                                                                                                                     
     with section 2032A and section 6166.                                                                                                                                                       
    3. Provide a 40% exclusion from estate       dda 12/31/95............................  .........        -42        -47        -51        -60        -67        -74         -200         -340
     taxes for property donated subject to a                                                                                                                                                    
     conservation easement (within 25 miles of                                                                                                                                                  
     a metropolitan statistical area or a                                                                                                                                                       
     national park or wilderness area; or                                                                                                                                                       
     within 10 miles of an Urban National                                                                                                                                                       
     Forest).                                                                                                                                                                                   
    4. Clarify cash leases under section 2032A-- cla 12/31/95............................  .........         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2           -8          -12
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                          
V. Job creation and wage enhancement                                                                                                                                                            
 provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                    
    1. Leasehold improvements provision--House   llda 3/13/95............................        -34       -230        -17        -15        -12         -9         -6          -98         -114
     bill.                                                                                                                                                                                      
    2. Small business incentives--House bill,    pplsa 12/31/95..........................       -191       -379       -470       -553       -554       -550       -489       -2,147       -3,186
     but modify increase in expensing                                                                                                                                                           
     limitation for small businesses to $19,000                                                                                                                                                 
     for 1996, $20,000 for 1997, $21,000 for                                                                                                                                                    
     1998, $22,000 for 1999, $23,000 for 2000,                                                                                                                                                  
     $24,000 for 2001, and $25,000 for 2002 and                                                                                                                                                 
     thereafter.                                                                                                                                                                                
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal: Contract With America related  ........................................     -5,443    -38,325    -37,725    -40,125    -41,927    -44,027    -37,010     -163,545     -244,586
         provisions.                                                                                                                                                                            
VI. Expiring provisions:                                                                                                                                                                        
    1. Provisions extended through 12/31/96:                                                                                                                                                    
        a. Work opportunity tax credit--Senate   1/1/96..................................        -64       -107        -65        -25        -10         -2  .........         -271         -274
         amendment, with modifications \3\.                                                                                                                                                     
        b. Employer-provided educational         1/1/95..................................       -611       -288  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         -899         -899
         assistance; applies to undergraduate                                                                                                                                                   
         education only after 1995.                                                                                                                                                             
        c. R&E credit--House bill..............  7/1/95..................................     -1,322       -842       -387       -275       -165        -42  .........       -2,991       -3,033
        d. Orphan drug tax credit--Senate        1/1/95..................................        -35        -10         -2         -1         -1      (\2\)      (\2\)          -49          -50
         amendment.                                                                                                                                                                             
        e. Contribution of appreciated stock to  1/1/95..................................       -107        -18         -6  .........  .........  .........  .........         -130         -130
         private foundations.                                                                                                                                                                   
    2. Commercial aviation fuel: extend 4.3      10/1/95.................................       -417       -439         -6  .........  .........  .........  .........         -863         -863
     cents/gallon exemption through 9/30/97;                                                                                                                                                    
     but conditional on extension of Airport                                                                                                                                                    
     and Airway Trust Fund taxes.                                                                                                                                                               
    3. Extend all Airport and Airway Trust Fund  1/1/96..................................                                                                                                       
     excise taxes through 9/30/96--House bill                                                                                                                                                   
     \4\.                                                                                                                                                                                       
(8)No Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                            
    4. Extend IRS user fees through 9/30/02      10/1/00.................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         35         35  ...........           70
     \5\--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                     
    5. Sunset the low-income housing tax credit  DOE.....................................        -24        -29         64        333        674      1,046      1,431        1,018        3,494
     after 12/31/97; sunset national pool after                                                                                                                                                 
     12/31/95--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                      
    6. Superfund and oil spill liability taxes:                                                                                                                                                 
        a. Extend Superfund excise taxes         DOE.....................................        319         16  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          335          335
         through 9/30/96; receipts go to                                                                                                                                                        
         general revenues after 7/31/96.                                                                                                                                                        
        b. Extend Superfund AMt through 12/31/   DOE.....................................        290        193  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          483          483
         96 \6\.                                                                                                                                                                                
        c. Extend oil spill tax through 9/30/    1/1/96..................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         60         60  ...........          120
         02--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                  
    7. Extend excise tax refund authority for    DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
     alcohol fuels blenders--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                  
(8)Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                    
    8. Extend section 29 binding contract date   DOE.....................................  .........        -30        -81        -97        -93        -96       -101         -301         -499
     6 months from date of enactment and placed-                                                                                                                                                
     in-service date to 12/3/97 for biomass and                                                                                                                                                 
     coal.                                                                                                                                                                                      
    9. Exempt from diesel dyeing requirement     fcqa DOE................................      (\2\)         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -3           -4
     any States exempt from Clean Air Act                                                                                                                                                       
     dyeing requirement (permanent).                                                                                                                                                            
    10. Suspend tax on diesel fuel for           1/1/96..................................        -24        -27         -4         -4         -1  .........  .........          -60          -61
     recreational boats--Senate amendment                                                                                                                                                       
     (through 6/30/97).                                                                                                                                                                         
    11. Permanent extension of FUTA exemption    1/1/95..................................         -5         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3          -17          -23
     for alien agricultural workers \5\--House                                                                                                                                                  
     bill.                                                                                                                                                                                      
    12. Information Sharing Provision:           DOE.....................................  .........  .........  .........         14         28         42         56           42          140
     Extension of disclosure of return                                                                                                                                                          
     Information to Department of Veterans                                                                                                                                                      
     Affairs (outlay reduction) \5\--House                                                                                                                                                      
     bill, except extend through 9/30/02 only.                                                                                                                                                  
VII. Medical savings accounts:                                                                                                                                                                  
    1. Medical Savings Accounts--House bill,     tyba 12/31/95...........................       -122       -211       -258       -307       -362       -391       -421       -1,260       -2,072
     except follow the Senate amendment with                                                                                                                                                    
     respect to (a) maximum contribution limit                                                                                                                                                  
     ($2,000 single and $4,000 family); (b) tax-                                                                                                                                                
     free build up of earnings; (c) definition                                                                                                                                                  
     of qualified medical expenses; (d) post-                                                                                                                                                   
     death distribution rules; and (e)                                                                                                                                                          
     clarification relating to capitalization                                                                                                                                                   
     of policy acquisition costs.                                                                                                                                                               
VIII. Taxpayer bill of rights 2:                                                                                                                                                                
    1. Expansion of authority to abate interest  DOE.....................................      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)        (\8\)
    2. Extension of interest-free period for     6/30/96.................................         -2         -7         -8         -8         -8         -9         -9          -10          -51
     payment of tax--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                
    3. Joint return may be made after separate   tyba DOE................................      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)        (\8\)
     returns without full payment of tax.                                                                                                                                                       
    4. Increase levy exemption \9\.............  lia 12/31/95............................      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)       (\10\)
    5. Offers-in-compromise--Senate amendment..  DOE.....................................      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)        (\8\)
    6. Increased limit on attorney fees--House   DOE.....................................         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -5           -7
     bill.                                                                                                                                                                                      
    7. Award of litigation costs permitted in    pca DOE.................................      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)        (\8\)
     declaratory judgment proceedings.                                                                                                                                                          
    8. Increase in limit on recovery of civil    DOE.....................................         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3          -15          -21
     damages--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                       
    9. Enrolled agents included as third-party   sla DOE.................................      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)        (\8\)
     recordkeepers.                                                                                                                                                                             
    10. Annual reminders to taxpayers with       1/1/96..................................     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)       (\12\)       (\12\)
     delinquent accounts.                                                                                                                                                                       

[[Page S 17268]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                
IX. Casualty and involuntary conversion                                                                                                                                                         
 provision:                                                                                                                                                                                     
    1. Changes involuntary conversion rules for  DDA 12/31/94............................         -6        -14        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10          -50          -70
     Presidentially declared disaster areas--                                                                                                                                                   
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                          
X. Exempt and charitable organizations                                                                                                                                                          
 provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                    
    1. Provide tax-exempt status to common       tyea 12/31/95...........................         -4         -6         -6         -7         -7         -7         -8          -30          -45
     investment funds--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                        
    2. Exclusion from UBIT for certain           pra 12/31/95............................                                                                                                       
     corporate sponsorship payments--Senate                                                                                                                                                     
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                 
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
    3. Intermediate sanctions for certain tax-   9/14/95 1/1/96..........................          4          4          4          5          5          5          6           22           33
     exempt organizations--House bill, with                                                                                                                                                     
     technical modifications.                                                                                                                                                                   
XI. Corporate and other reforms:                                                                                                                                                                
    1. Reform the tax treatment of certain       da 5/3/95...............................        -83       -100        -17         84        209        343        437           93          873
     corporate stock reemptions--House bill.                                                                                                                                                    
    2. Require corporate tax shelter reporting;  alolRSg.................................     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)       (\13\)       (\13\)
     modify recipient notice to 90 days.                                                                                                                                                        
    3. Disallow interest deduction for           ipoaa 10/31/95..........................        220        579        883      1,369      1,749      1,856      1,895        4,800        8.551
     corporate-owned life insurnce policy                                                                                                                                                       
     loans--Senate amendment, but phase out                                                                                                                                                     
     disallowance (90% in 1996, 80% in 1997,                                                                                                                                                    
     and 70% in 1998; cap borrowing at 20,000                                                                                                                                                   
     lives); cap interest rate (with special                                                                                                                                                    
     rules for grandfathered plans); exception                                                                                                                                                  
     for key person policies with 10 lives;                                                                                                                                                     
     limit borrowing in 1996 to policies                                                                                                                                                        
     purchased in 1994 and 1995.                                                                                                                                                                
    4. Phase out preferential tax deferral for   (\15\)..................................         26         37         38         39         40         41         42          179          261
     certain large farm corporations required                                                                                                                                                   
     to use accrual accounting.                                                                                                                                                                 
    5. Phase-in repeal of section 936; Wage      tyba 12/3/95............................        255        605        552        596        498        516        746        2,506        3,766
     credit companies--6 years of present law                                                                                                                                                   
     and then House bill with modified base                                                                                                                                                     
     period; income companies--2 years of                                                                                                                                                       
     present law and then House bill with                                                                                                                                                       
     modified base period; QPSII--repealed 1/1/                                                                                                                                                 
     96.                                                                                                                                                                                        
    6. Corporate accounting--reform of income    ppisa 9/13/95...........................         32         69         29         13         14         16         19          157          192
     forecast method--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                         
    7. Permit transfers of excess pension        ta DOE..................................      1,439      1,375        958        554        195        151        -19        4,521        4,651
     assets--House bill but (a) require asset                                                                                                                                                   
     cushion equal to the greater of (i) 125%                                                                                                                                                   
     of termination liability (using PBGC                                                                                                                                                       
     assumptions) and (ii) the plan's accrued                                                                                                                                                   
     liability; (b) permit withdrawals only for                                                                                                                                                 
     ERISA-covered benefits; (c) prohibit                                                                                                                                                       
     transfers when company in bankruptcy; (d)                                                                                                                                                  
     no excise tax; (e) extend for 1 additional                                                                                                                                                 
     year; and (f) conform present-law section                                                                                                                                                  
     420 asset cushion.                                                                                                                                                                         
    8. Modify exclusion of damages received on   ama 12/31/95............................         34         51         55         59         61         64         68          260          392
     account of personal injury or sickness--                                                                                                                                                   
     Senate amendment, with technical                                                                                                                                                           
     clarifications.                                                                                                                                                                            
    9. Require tax reporting for payments to     pma 12/31/96............................  .........     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)       (\13\)       (\13\)
     attorneys; delay effective date for 1 year.                                                                                                                                                
    10. Expatriation tax provisions--House bill  2/6/95..................................         64         97        146        199        254        289        304          760        1,353
    11. Remove business exclusion for energy     ara 12/31/95............................         30         96        100        104        107        109        111          437          657
     subsidies provided by public utilties--                                                                                                                                                    
     House bill, but modify effective date.                                                                                                                                                     
    12. Modify basis adjustment rules under      ica 9/13/95.............................          2          4          6          9         14         20         29           35           84
     section 1033.                                                                                                                                                                              
    13. Modify the exception to the related      ica 9/13/95.............................          1          2          4          6          8         11         13           21           45
     party rule of section 1033 for individuals                                                                                                                                                 
     to only provide an exception for de                                                                                                                                                        
     minimis amounts ($100,000).                                                                                                                                                                
    14. Disallow rollover under section 1034 to  tyea 12/31/95...........................          1          3          4          5          6          8          9           19           35
     extent of previously claimed depreciation                                                                                                                                                  
     for home office or other depreciable use                                                                                                                                                   
     of residence.                                                                                                                                                                              
    15. Provide that rollover of gain on sale    sea 12/31/95............................     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)       (\16\)       (\16\)
     of a principal residence cannot be elected                                                                                                                                                 
     unless the replacement property purchased                                                                                                                                                  
     is located within the United States (limit                                                                                                                                                 
     to resident aliens who terminate residence                                                                                                                                                 
     within 2 years).                                                                                                                                                                           
    16. Repeal exemption for withholding on      1/1/96..................................         20          6          6          6          6          7          7           44           58
     gambling winnings from bingo and keno                                                                                                                                                      
     where proceeds exceed $5,000.                                                                                                                                                              
    17. Repeal tax credit for contributions to   DOE.....................................          1          1          2          2          2          2          2            8           12
     special Community Development Corporations.                                                                                                                                                
    18. Repeal advance refunds of diesel fuel    1/1/96..................................          8         19         19         19         19         19         19           84          122
     tax for diesel cars and light trucks.                                                                                                                                                      
    19. Apply failure to pay penalty to          DOE.....................................          1          3         29         30         32         33         35           95          163
     substitute returns.                                                                                                                                                                        
    20. Allow conversion of scholarship funding  DOE.....................................          3          4          6          8         10         10          9           31           48
     corporation to taxable corporation--House                                                                                                                                                  
     bill.                                                                                                                                                                                      
    21. Apply look-through rule for purposes of  gira 12/31/95...........................          7         23         24         27         30         32         34          111          177
     characterizing certain subpart F insurance                                                                                                                                                 
     income as UBIT--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                
    22. Repeal 50% Interest Income exclusion     ima 10/13/95............................         27         69        109        149        187        224        261          541        1,026
     for financial institution loans to ESOPs--                                                                                                                                                 
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                          
    23. Modify the ozone depleting chemicals     DOE.....................................      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)       (\10\)       (\17\)
     tax for imported recycled halons--Senate                                                                                                                                                   
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                 
    24. Modify two county tax-exempt bond rule   DOE.....................................     (\16\)          1          2          3          4          5          6           10           22
     for local furnishers of electricity or                                                                                                                                                     
     gas--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                     
    25. Provide tax-exempt bonds status for      bia DOE.................................      (\2\)         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -4           -8
     Alaska Power Administration sale--Senate                                                                                                                                                   
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                 
    26. Modify treatment of foreign trusts--     (\18\)..................................         93        162        171        180        188        197        206          794        1,197
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                          
    27. Provide for flow through treatment for   DOE.....................................         34         18         10          5          2  .........         -2           69           67
     Financial Asset Securitization Investment                                                                                                                                                  
     Trusts (FASITs)--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                         
    28. Tax-free treatment of contributions in   (\19\)..................................        -16        -26        -12          4         19         32         43          -31           43
     aid of construction for water utilities;                                                                                                                                                   
     change depreciation for water utilities--                                                                                                                                                  
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                          
    29. Provide 3-year amortization of           tyeo/a 1/1/95...........................        -11        -14         -8         -4  .........  .........  .........          -37          -37
     intrastate operating rights of truckers--                                                                                                                                                  
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                          
    30. A life insurance company may elect to    tyba 12/31/94...........................          1     (\16\)      (\2\)         -1      (\2\)     (\16\)     (\16\)       (\16\)            1
     treat 20% of capital losses as ordinary                                                                                                                                                    
     income, spread over 10 years; the taxpayer                                                                                                                                                 
     has the option to change the treatment of                                                                                                                                                  
     these losses in the future--Senate                                                                                                                                                         
     amendment, with modifications.                                                                                                                                                             
    31. Clarify that newspaper carriers and      spa 12/31/95............................                                                                                                       
     distributors are independent contractors--                                                                                                                                                 
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                          
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
    32. Allow for tax-free conversion of common  ta 12/31/95.............................         -4         -9         -8         -8         -8         -8         -8          -37          -52
     trust funds to mutual funds--Senate                                                                                                                                                        
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                 
    33. Eliminate interest allocation exception  tyba 12/31/95...........................         41         93        107        123        141        163        187          505          855
     for certain nonfinancial corporations--                                                                                                                                                    
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                          
    34. Modify depreciation for small motor      ppiso/a/b DOE...........................         -1         -4        -23        -26        -29        -16        -19          -83         -118
     fuel/convenience store outlets--Senate                                                                                                                                                     
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                 
    35. Repeal of section 593 with residential   tyba 12/31/95...........................         63         95        216        280        277        272        260          931        1,462
     loan test for 1996 and 1997.                                                                                                                                                               
    36. Phase out and extend luxury automobile   1/1/96..................................        -41        -97       -159       -204        179        265        200         -322          143
     excise tax through 12/31/02.                                                                                                                                                               
XII. Technical correction provision: Luxury      DOE.....................................         14  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........           14           14
 Excise Tax Indexing.                                                                                                                                                                           
XIII. Simplification provisions relating to                                                                                                                                                     
 individuals:                                                                                                                                                                                   
    1. Rollover of gain on sale of principal                                                                                                                                                    
     residence:                                                                                                                                                                                 
        a. Multiple sales within rollover        sa DOE..................................         -1         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -3           -9          -14
         period--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                    
        b. Rules in case of divorce--House bill  sa DOE..................................         -2         -2         -2         -2         -3         -3         -3          -11          -17
    2. One-time exclusion on the sale of a       sa 9/13/95..............................        -10        -19        -20        -21        -22        -23        -24          -92         -139
     principal residence by an individual who                                                                                                                                                   
     has attained age 55 (allow additional                                                                                                                                                      
     exclusion for married couples under                                                                                                                                                        
     certain conditions where one spouse has                                                                                                                                                    
     claimed an exclusion prior to their                                                                                                                                                        
     marriage)--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                     
    3. Treatment of certain reimbursed expenses  tyba 12/31/95...........................      (\2\)         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -5           -6
     of rural mail carriers--House bill.                                                                                                                                                        
    4. Travel expenses of Federal employee       tyba DOE................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)           -1           -1
     participating in a Federal criminal                                                                                                                                                        
     investigation--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                 
    5. Treatment of storage of product samples-- tyba 12/31/95...........................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)        (\2\)           -2
     House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                
XIV. Pension simplification provision:                                                                                                                                                          
    A. Simplified Distribution Rules:                                                                                                                                                           
        1. Sunset of 5-year income averaging     tyba 12/31/98...........................         24         74         63        109         80         42         17          350          409
         for lump-sum distributions--Senate                                                                                                                                                     
         amendment.                                                                                                                                                                             
        2. Repeal of $5,000 exclusion of         tyba 12/31/95...........................         16         16         49         52         54         55         55          217          328
         employees' death benefits.                                                                                                                                                             
        3. Simplified method for taxing annuity  asda 12/31/95...........................         10         28         28         28         29         29         29          123          182
         distributions under certain employer                                                                                                                                                   
         plans--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                               
        4. Minimum required distribution.......  yba 12/31/95............................         -1         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4          -17          -25
    B. Increased Access to Pension Plans--Tax-   yba 12/31/96............................  .........         -8        -22        -24        -25        -26        -28          -79         -133
     exempt organizations eligible under                                                                                                                                                        
     section 401(k)--Senate amendment, but                                                                                                                                                      
     permit all tax exempts and Indian tribes                                                                                                                                                   
     to have 401(k) plans.                                                                                                                                                                      
    C. Nondiscrimination Provisions:                                                                                                                                                            
        1. Simplified definition of highly       yba 12/31/95............................                                                                                                       
         compensated employees--House bill,                                                                                                                                                     
         with modifications.                                                                                                                                                                    
(8) Considered in Other Provisions                                                                                                                                                              
        2. Repeal of family aggregation rules..  yba 12/31/95............................                                                                                                       
(8) Considered in Other Provisions                                                                                                                                                              

[[Page S 17269]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                
        3. Modification of additional            yba 12/31/95............................                                                                                                       
         participation requirements.                                                                                                                                                            
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        4. Safe-harbor nondiscrimination rules   yba 12/31/98............................  .........  .........  .........        -42       -162       -167       -171         -294         -541
         for qualified cash or deferred                                                                                                                                                         
         arrangements and matching                                                                                                                                                              
         contributions \20\--Senate amendment,                                                                                                                                                  
         with modification.                                                                                                                                                                     
    D. Miscellaneous Pension Simplification:                                                                                                                                                    
        1. Treatment of leased employees--       yba 12/31/95............................                                                                                                       
         Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                      
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        2. Plans covering self-employed          yba 12/31/95............................                                                                                                       
         individuals.                                                                                                                                                                           
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        3. Elimination of special vesting rule   yba 12/31/95............................      (\2\)         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -4           -6
         for multiemployer plans.                                                                                                                                                               
        4. Distributions under rural             DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         cooperative plans--Senate amendment,                                                                                                                                                   
         with modifications.                                                                                                                                                                    
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        5. Treatment of governmental plans       tybo/a DOE..............................                                                                                                       
         under section 415--House bill, with                                                                                                                                                    
         Senate effective date.                                                                                                                                                                 
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        6. Uniform retirement age..............  1/1/96..................................                                                                                                       
(8) Considered in Other Provisions                                                                                                                                                              
        7. Contributions on behalf of disabled   yba 12/31/95............................                                                                                                       
         employees.                                                                                                                                                                             
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        8. Treatment of deferred compensation    tyba 12/31/95...........................      (\2\)         -1         -1         -1         -1         -2         -2           -4           -8
         plans of State and local governments                                                                                                                                                   
         and tax-exempt organizations--House                                                                                                                                                    
         bill, with modification.                                                                                                                                                               
        9. Require Individual ownership of       DOE.....................................         -6        -18        -21        -24        -25        -25        -26          -94         -145
         section 457 plan assets--House bill,                                                                                                                                                   
         with effective date change (i.e., to                                                                                                                                                   
         the end of the first legislative                                                                                                                                                       
         session after enactment).                                                                                                                                                              
        10. Correction of GATT interest and      eall GATT...............................         -4         -4         -4         -4  .........  .........  .........          -16          -16
         mortality rate provisions in the                                                                                                                                                       
         Retirement Protection Act--House bill,                                                                                                                                                 
         with modifications.                                                                                                                                                                    
        11. Multiple salary reduction            tyba 12/31/95...........................                                                                                                       
         agreements permitted under section                                                                                                                                                     
         403(b).                                                                                                                                                                                
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        12. Repeal of combined plan limit--      yba 12/31/98............................  .........  .........  .........        -70       -189       -195       -201         -259         -654
         House bill, with Senate effective date.                                                                                                                                                
        13. Modify notice required of right to   pyba 12/31/95...........................                                                                                                       
         qualified joint and survivor annuity--                                                                                                                                                 
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                            
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        14. 3-year waiver of excess              1/1/96..................................         38         40         43          3  .........  .........  .........          124          124
         distribution tax--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                    
        15. Definition of compensation for       yba 12/31/97............................  .........  .........         -1         -1         -2         -2         -2           -4           -8
         section 415 purposes--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                
        16. Increase section 4975 excise tax on  ptoo/a 1/1/96...........................          1          4          4          4          4          4          4           17           24
         prohibited transactions from 5% to                                                                                                                                                     
         10%--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                 
        17. Treatment of Indian tribal           pybb 1/1/95.............................                                                                                                       
         governments under section 403(b)--                                                                                                                                                     
         Senate amendment provision and permit                                                                                                                                                  
         rollover to 401(k).                                                                                                                                                                    
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        18. Application of elective deferral     tyba 12/31/95...........................                                                                                                       
         limit to section 403(b) plans--Senate                                                                                                                                                  
         amendment, with modifications.                                                                                                                                                         
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        19. Establish SIMPLE pension plan--      yba 12/31/95............................        -45        -69        -71        -74        -76        -79        -82         -335         -497
         Senate amendment, but repeal SEPs.                                                                                                                                                     
        20. Increase the self-employed health    tyba 12/31/97...........................  .........  .........        -36       -113       -168       -272       -399         -317         -988
         insurance deduction (35% in 1998 and                                                                                                                                                   
         1999; 40% in 2000 and 2001; and 50% in                                                                                                                                                 
         2002 and thereafter).                                                                                                                                                                  
XV. Partnership simplification provisions:                                                                                                                                                      
    1. Simplified reporting to partners--House   tyba 12/31/95...........................          5          6          6          7          7          7          7           31           45
     bill, but elective.                                                                                                                                                                        
    2. Returns required on magnetic media for    tyba 12/31/95...........................                                                                                                       
     partnerships with 100 partners or more--                                                                                                                                                   
     House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
XVI. Foreign tax simplification provisions:                                                                                                                                                     
    A. Modification of Passive Foreign           tyba 12/31/95...........................         -7        -18        -20        -21        -22        -24        -25          -88         -137
     Investment Company Provisions to Eliminate                                                                                                                                                 
     Overlap with Subpart F and to Allow Mark-                                                                                                                                                  
     to-Market Election--House bill.                                                                                                                                                            
    B. Modifications to Provisions Affecting                                                                                                                                                    
     Controlled Foreign Corporations:                                                                                                                                                           
        1. General provisions--House bill......  ........................................         -1         -2         -2         -3         -3         -3         -3          -11          -17
        2. Repeal of excess passive assets       tyba 9/30/95............................        -17        -26        -29        -35        -41        -45        -51         -148         -244
         provision (section 956A)--House bill.                                                                                                                                                  
XVII. Other income tax simplification                                                                                                                                                           
 provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                    
    A. Subchapter S Corporations:                                                                                                                                                               
        1. Increase number of eligible           tyba 12/31/95...........................         -7        -12        -14        -16        -20        -22        -25          -69         -116
         shareholders--House bill.                                                                                                                                                              
        2. Permit certain trusts to hold stock   tyba 12/31/95...........................         -1         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2           -9          -13
         in S corporations--House bill.                                                                                                                                                         
        3. Extend holding period for certain     tyba 12/31/95...........................       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)         (10)         (10)
         trusts--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                    
        4. Financial Institutions permitted to   tyba 12/31/95...........................        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)          (2)           -1
         hold safe-harbor debt--House bill.                                                                                                                                                     
        5. Authority to validate certain         tyba 12/31/95...........................        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)          (2)           -1
         invalid elections--House bill.                                                                                                                                                         
        6. Allow Interim losing of the books...  tyba 12/31/95...........................                                                                                                       
(8)Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                    
        7. Expand post-termination period and    tyba 12/31/95...........................        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)          (2)           -1
         amend subchapter S audit procedures--                                                                                                                                                  
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                            
        8. S corporations permitted to hold S    tyba 12/31/95...........................         -3         -7         -9        -11        -13        -15        -17          -43          -75
         or C subsidiaries--House bill.                                                                                                                                                         
        9. Treatment of distributions during     tyba 12/31/95...........................        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)          (2)           -1
         loss years--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                
        10. Treatment of S corporations as       tyba 12/31/95...........................       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)         (10)         (10)
         shareholders in C corporations--House                                                                                                                                                  
         bill.                                                                                                                                                                                  
        11. Elimination of certain earnings and  tyba 12/31/95...........................       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)         (10)         (10)
         profits of S corporations--House bill.                                                                                                                                                 
        12. Treatment of certain losses carried  tyba 12/31/95...........................       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)         (10)         (10)
         over under at-risk rules--House bill.                                                                                                                                                  
        13. Adjustments to basis of Inherited S  dda DOE.................................       (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)         (11)         (11)
         stock--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                     
        14. Treatment of certain real estate     tyba 12/31/95...........................        (2)         -1         -1         -2         -2         -2         -2           -6          -10
         held by an S corporation--House bill.                                                                                                                                                  
        15. Transition rule for elections after  tyba 12/31/95...........................       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)         (10)         (10)
         termination--House bill.                                                                                                                                                               
        16. Interaction of subchapter S          ........................................         -3        -10        -26        -32        -37        -38         39         -108         -185
         changes--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                   
    B. Regulated Investment Companies (RICs)--   tyea DOE................................         -9        -17        -20        -24        -28        -32        -35          -98         -164
     Repeal of 30% gross income limitation for                                                                                                                                                  
     RICs--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                          
    C. Accounting Provisions:                                                                                                                                                                   
        1. Modifications to look-back method     cc/tyea/E...............................         -2         -3         -3         -3         -4         -4         -4          -15          -23
         for long-term contracts--House bill.                                                                                                                                                   
        2. Allow traders to adopt mark-to-       DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         market accounting for securities--                                                                                                                                                     
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                            
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        3. Modification of Treasury ruling       tyba DOE................................         -4         -4         -5         -5         -5         -5         -5          -23          -33
         requirement for nuclear                                                                                                                                                                
         decommissioning funds--House bill.                                                                                                                                                     
        4. Provide that a taxpayer may elect to  pra/cdoa 12/31/92.......................          2         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -2           -4
         include in income crop insurance                                                                                                                                                       
         proceeds and disaster payments in the                                                                                                                                                  
         year of the disaster or in the                                                                                                                                                         
         following year--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                      
    D. Tax-Exempt Bond Provision--Repeal of      bla DOE.................................                                                                                                       
     debt service-based limitation on                                                                                                                                                           
     investment in certain non-purpose                                                                                                                                                          
     investments--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                   
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
    E. Insurance Provisions:                                                                                                                                                                    
        1. Treatment of certain insurance        tyba 12/31/95...........................          6         -4          5          4          4         12         -7           15           21
         contracts on retired lives.                                                                                                                                                            
        2. Treatment of modified guaranteed      tyba 12/31/95...........................         -1          2          4          1          2          1         -1            8            8
         contracts.                                                                                                                                                                             
    F. Other Provisions:                                                                                                                                                                        
        1. Closing of partnership taxable year   tyba 12/31/95...........................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)        (\2\)           -1
         with respect to deceased partner--                                                                                                                                                     
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                            
        2. Modifications to the FICA tip         eaii OBRA '93...........................                                                                                                       
         credit--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                    
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        3. Conform due date for first quarter    1/1/96..................................                                                                                                       
         estimated tax by private foundations--                                                                                                                                                 
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                            
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        4. Treatment of dues paid to             tyba 12/31/94...........................                                                                                                       
         agricultural or horticultural                                                                                                                                                          
         organizations.                                                                                                                                                                         
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        Student loan interest deduction ($2,500  polda 12/31/95..........................        -52       -152       -157       -162       -168       -174       -180         -691       -1,046
         above-the-line deduction; phaseout                                                                                                                                                     
         $45,000-$65,000 singles/$65,000-                                                                                                                                                       
         $85,000 joint).                                                                                                                                                                        
XVIII. Estate, gift, and trust tax provisions:                                                                                                                                                  
    A. Estate and Trust Income Tax Provisions:                                                                                                                                                  
        1. Certain revocable trusts treated as   DOE.....................................     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)       (\21\)       (\21\)
         part of estate--House bill.                                                                                                                                                            
        2. Distributions during first 65 days    DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         of taxable year of estate--House bill.                                                                                                                                                 
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        3. Separate share rules available to     DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         estates--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                   
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        4. Executor of estate and beneficiaries  DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         treated as related persons for                                                                                                                                                         
         disallowance of losses--House bill.                                                                                                                                                    
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        5. Limitation on taxable year of         DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         estate--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                    
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        6. Simplified taxation of earnings of    tyba DOE................................     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)       (\12\)            8
         pre-need funeral trusts--House bill,                                                                                                                                                   
         with $7,000 limit.                                                                                                                                                                     
    B. Estate and Gift Tax Provisions:                                                                                                                                                          
        1. Clarification of waiver of certain    DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         rights of recovery--House bill.                                                                                                                                                        
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        2. Adjustments for gifts within 3 years  DOE.....................................  .........         -6         -6         -7         -7         -7         -7          -26          -40
         of decedent's death--House bill.                                                                                                                                                       
        3. Clarification of qualified            DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         terminable interest rules--House bill.                                                                                                                                                 
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        4. Transitional rule under section       eali OBRA '90...........................                                                                                                       
         2056A--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                     
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        5. Opportunity to correct certain        DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         failures under section 2032A--House                                                                                                                                                    
         bill.                                                                                                                                                                                  
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        6. Gifts may not be revalued for estate  ga DOE..................................  .........        -15        -16        -16        -18        -21        -26          -65         -112
         tax purposes after expiration of                                                                                                                                                       
         statute of limitations--House bill.                                                                                                                                                    

[[Page S 17270]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                
        7. Clarifications relating to            DOE.....................................  .........         -2         -2         -2         -2         -3         -3           -8          -14
         disclaimers--House bill.                                                                                                                                                               
        8. Clarify relationship between          DOE.....................................  .........         -3         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4          -15          -23
         community property rights and                                                                                                                                                          
         retirement benefits--House bill.                                                                                                                                                       
        9. Treatment under qualified domestic    DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         trust rules of forms of ownership                                                                                                                                                      
         which are not trusts--House bill.                                                                                                                                                      
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
    C. Generation-Skipping Tax Provisions:                                                                                                                                                      
        1. Taxable termination not to include    DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
         direct skips--House bill.                                                                                                                                                              
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        2. Modification of generation-skipping   gsta 12/31/94...........................         -3         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4          -19          -27
         transfer tax for transfers to                                                                                                                                                          
         individuals with deceased parents--                                                                                                                                                    
         Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                      
XIX. Excise tax simplification provisions:                                                                                                                                                      
    A. Distilled Spirits, Wines, and Beer:                                                                                                                                                      
        1. Credit or refund for imported         fcq DOE+180 days........................                                                                                                       
         bottled distilled spirits returned to                                                                                                                                                  
         bonded premises--House bill.                                                                                                                                                           
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        2. Fermented material from any brewery   fcq DOE+180 days........................                                                                                                       
         may be received at a distilled spirits                                                                                                                                                 
         plant--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                     
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        3. Refund of tax on wine returned to     fcq DOE+180 days........................                                                                                                       
         bond not limited to unmerchantable                                                                                                                                                     
         wine--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                      
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        4. Beer may be withdrawn free of tax     fcq DOE+180 days........................                                                                                                       
         for destruction--House bill.                                                                                                                                                           
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
        5. Transfer to brewery of beer imported  fcq DOE+180 days........................                                                                                                       
         in bulk without payment of tax--House                                                                                                                                                  
         bill.                                                                                                                                                                                  
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
    B. Consolidate Imposition of Aviation        1/1/96..................................     (\16\)  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........       (\16\)       (\16\)
     Gasoline Excise Tax--House bill.                                                                                                                                                           
    C. Other Excise Tax Provision--Clarify       DOE.....................................                                                                                                       
     present law for retail truck excise tax                                                                                                                                                    
     (certain activities do not constitute                                                                                                                                                      
     remanufacture)--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                
(8) Negligible Revenue Effect                                                                                                                                                                   
XX. Administrative simplification provision:                                                                                                                                                    
    A. General Provision--Certain notices        1/1/96..................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)        (\2\)           -1
     disregarded under provision increasing                                                                                                                                                     
     interest rate on large corporate                                                                                                                                                           
     underpayments--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                 
XXI. Increase in public debt limit.............  ........................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  ...........  ...........
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total of revenue provisions..............  ........................................     -5,408    -37,217    -35,567    -37,438    -38,594    -39,856    -32,430     -154,155     -226,450
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total of outlay provisions...............  ........................................  .........  .........  .........         14         28         42         56           42          140
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Earned Income Credit provisions are included in Title XII of the conference agreement; the budget effects are shown in a separate table.                                                
\2\ Loss of less than $500,000.                                                                                                                                                                 
\3\ Credit rate at 35% on first $6,000 of income, eligible workers expanded to include welfare cash recipients and veteran foodstamp recipients; 500 hour work requirement.                     
\4\ Section 257(b)(2)(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, indicates that ``excise taxes dedicated to a trust 
  fund, if expiring, are assumed to be extended at current rates''. Since the revenues from these taxes are dedicated to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, an extension of the taxes is scored 
  as having no revenue effect.                                                                                                                                                                  
\5\ Estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).                                                                                                                                
\6\ Estimates presented after interaction with Alternative Minimum tax provisions and are shown net of offset with the corporate income tax.                                                    
\7\ Loss of less than $1 million.                                                                                                                                                               
\8\ Loss of less than $2 million.                                                                                                                                                               
\9\ Increase exemption for books and tools of trade to $1,250.                                                                                                                                  
\10\ Loss of less than $5 million.                                                                                                                                                              
\11\ Gain of less than $1 million.                                                                                                                                                              
\12\ Gain of less than $5 million.                                                                                                                                                              
\13\ Gain of less than $25 million.                                                                                                                                                             
\14\ Gain of less than $30 million.                                                                                                                                                             
\15\ No new suspense accounts could be established in taxable years ending after 9/13/95. The income in existing suspense accounts would be recognized in equal installments over a 20-years    
  period beginning with the first taxable year beginning after 9/13/95.                                                                                                                         
\16\ Gain of less than $500,000.                                                                                                                                                                
\17\ Loss of less than $10 million.                                                                                                                                                             
\18\ Various effective dates depending on provisions.                                                                                                                                           
\19\ Effective for amounts received after date of enactment and property placed in service after date of enactment with the exception of certain property subject to a binding contract on the  
  date of enactment.                                                                                                                                                                            
\20\ This provision considers interaction effects of SIMPLE retirement plan provisions.                                                                                                         
\21\ Loss of less than $25 million.                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Legend for ``Effective'' column: ama=awards made after; ara=amounts received after; asda=annuity starting date after; aloIRSg=after Issuance of Internal Revenue Service guidance; bia DOE=bonds
  issued after date of enactment; cc/tyea/E=contracts completed in taxable years ending after date of enactment; cela=contracts entered into after;cla=cash leases after; da=distributions      
  after; dda=decedents dying after; DDA=disasters declared after; dda DOE=decedents dying after date of enactment; dda/gma=decedents dying after and gifts made after; DOE=date of enactment;   
  eall GATT=effective as if included in GATT; eall OBRA'90=effective as if included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; eall OBRA'93=effective as if included in the Omnibus      
  Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; fcqa DOE=first calendar quarter after date of enactment; fcq DOE+180 days=beginning of first calendar quarter that starts at least 180 days after date of  
  enactment; ga DOE=gifts after date of enactment; gira=gross income received after; gsta=generation skipping transfers after; ica=involuntary conversion after; lpoaa=interest paid or accrued 
  after; lia=levies issued after; lida=leasehold improvements disposed of after; lma=loans made after; lyba=limitation years beginning after; pca DOE=proceeding commenced after date of        
  enactment; pma=payments made after; polda=payments on interest due after; ppisa=property placed in service after; pplso/a/b DOE=property placed in service on, after, or before date of       
  enactment; pra=payments received after; pra/cdoa=payments received after, for crop damage occurring after; ptoo/a=prohibited transactions occurring on or after; pyba=plan years beginning    
  after; pybb=plan years beginning before; sa=sales after; sea=sales and exchanges after; sla DOE=summonses issued after date of enactment; spa=services performed after; ta=transfers after; ta
  DOE=transfers after date of enactment; tyba=taxable years beginning after; tyba DOE=taxable years beginning after date of enactment; tybo/a DOE=taxable years beginning on or after date of   
  enactment; tyea=taxable years ending after;tyea DOE=taxable years ending after date of enactment; tyeo/a=taxable years ending on or after; yba=years beginning after.                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding.                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.                                                                                                                                                            



  ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT TO THE BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995--TITLE XII, TEACHING HOSPITALS AND GRADUATE 
                                              MEDICAL EDUCATION; ASSET SALES; WELFARE; AND OTHER PROVISIONS                                             
                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                7 year  
                                                      1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002        Total   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  ASSET SALES a                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
Subtitle F: National Defense Stockpile:                                                                                                                 
    Budget Authority............................          -21          -79          -79          -79          -80         -155         -156         -649
    Outlays.....................................          -21          -79          -79          -79          -80         -155         -156         -649
                                                                                                                                                        
                 DIRECT SPENDING                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
Subtitle A: Block Grants for Temporary                                                                                                                  
 Assistance for Needy Families:                                                                                                                         
    Budget Authority............................         -164       -1,223       -1,489       -1,826       -2,215       -2,117       -2,394      -11,428
    Outlays.....................................         -690         -993       -1,224       -1,521       -2,080       -2,062       -2,359      -10,929
Subtitle B: Supplemental Security Income:                                                                                                               
    Budget Authority............................          -51       -1,258       -1,896       -2,457       -3,029       -2,805       -3,290      -14,766
    Outlays.....................................           13       -1,168       -1,916       -2,398       -2,988       -2,784       -3,270      -14,511
Subtitle C: Child Support:                                                                                                                              
    Budget Authority............................          104          -36           75           51            4           43         -124          117
    Outlays.....................................          104          -36           75           51            4           43         -124          117
Subtitle D: Restricting Welfare and Public                                                                                                              
 Benefits for Legal Aliens:                                                                                                                             
    Budget Authority............................         -125       -2,800       -3,645       -3,615       -3,815       -3,345       -3,640      -20,985
    Outlays.....................................         -125       -2,800       -3,640       -3,610       -3,815       -3,340       -3,640      -20,970
Subtitle E: Teaching Hospitals and Graduate                                                                                                             
 Medical Education Trust Fund:                                                                                                                          
    Budget Authority............................            0        1,100        1,300        2,000        2,600        3,100        3,400       13,500
    Outlays.....................................            0        1,100        1,300        2,000        2,600        3,100        3,400       13,500
Subtitle G: Child Protection Block Grant                                                                                                                
 Programs and Foster Care and Adoption                                                                                                                  
 Assistance:                                                                                                                                            
    Budget Authority............................        1,399         -329         -373         -424         -470         -521         -559       -1,277
    Outlays.....................................        1,610         -176         -349         -403         -449         -493         -537         -797
Subtitle H: Child Care:                                                                                                                                 
    Budget Authority............................        1,026        1,240        1,320        1,400        1,500        1,625        1,745        9,856
    Outlays.....................................          909        1,219        1,312        1,392        1,490        1,613        1,733        9,668
Subtitle I: Child Care Nutrition Programs:                                                                                                              
    Budget Authority............................         -124         -634         -749         -843         -904       -1,004       -1,114       -5,372
    Outlays.....................................         -110         -583         -730         -828         -891         -990       -1,095       -5,207
Subtitle J: Food Stamps and Commodity                                                                                                                   
 Distribution:                                                                                                                                          
    Budget Authority............................         -918       -3,023       -3,739       -4,315       -4,860       -5,437       -6,060      -28,352
    Outlays.....................................         -918       -3,023       -3,739       -4,315       -4,860       -5,437       -6,060     -28,352 

[[Page S 17271]]
                                                                                                                                                        
Subtitle K: Miscellaneous:                                                                                                                              
    Budget Authority............................          -20         -580         -580         -585         -585         -585         -585       -3,520
    Outlays.....................................          -20         -524         -580         -585         -585         -585         -585       -3,464
Subtitle L: Reform of the Earned Income Credit:                                                                                                         
    Budget Authority............................         -163       -3,268       -3,513       -3,756       -4,045       -4,290       -4,459      -23,494
    Outlays.....................................         -163       -3,268       -3,513       -3,756       -4,045       -4,290       -4,459      -23,494
Subtitle M: Clinical Laboratories:                                                                                                                      
    Budget Authority............................         b      b      b      b      b      b      b      b
    Outlays.....................................         b      b      b      b      b      b      b      b
Subtotal, Direct Spending:                                                                                                                              
    Budget Authority............................          964      -10,811      -13,279      -14,370      -15,809      -15,336      -17,080      -85,721
    Outlays.....................................          610      -10,232       13,004      -13,973      -15,619      -15,225      -16,996      -84,439
Total Mandatory Spending (Asset Sales plus                                                                                                              
 Direct Spending):                                                                                                                                      
    Estimated Budget Authority..................          943      -10,890      -13,358      -14,449      -15,889      -15,491      -17,236      -86,370
    Estimated Outlays...........................          589      -10,311      -13,083      -14,052      -15,699      -15,380      -17,152      -85,088
                                                                                                                                                        
                    REVENUES                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Subtitle L: Reform of the Earned Income Credit:                                                                                                         
 Revenues.......................................           60        1,183        1,294        1,391        1,493        1,627        1,845        8,893
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Under the 1996 budget resolution, proceeds from asset sales are counted in the budget totals for purposes of Congressional scoring. Under the Balanced
  Budget Act, however, proceeds from asset sales are not counted in determining compliance with the discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-go      
  requirement.                                                                                                                                          
b CBO cannot estimate whether this proposal would, on balance, increase or decrease spending for Medicare.                                              


  Mr. EXON. Turning to the second point of order,
  If my colleagues consider the issue fairly, I believe they will agree 
that the tax title violates section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Budget Act. 
That subparagraph prohibits provisions that balloon the deficit in the 
out-years, unless the loss is offset by out-year savings from other 
provisions contained in the same title. I ask unanimous consent that 
the text and legislative history of section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Budget 
Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       (E) \1\ a provision shall be considered to be extraneous if 
     it increases, or would increase, net outlays,\2\ or if it 
     decreases, or would decrease, revenues during a fiscal year 
     after the fiscal years covered by such reconciliation bill or 
     reconciliation resolution,\3\ and such increases or decreases 
     are greater \4\ than outlay reductions or revenue increases 
     resulting from other provisions in such title \5\ in such 
     year; \6\


                               footnotes

     \1\ Section 205(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 added subparagraph 
     (E). Pub. L. No. 100-119, Sec. 205(b), 101 Stat. 754, 784-85 
     (1987).
     \2\ Section 3(1) defines ``outlays.''
     \3\ Section 310(b) defines ``reconciliation resolution.''
     \4\ The Congressional Budget Act makes no exception for 
     violations of negligible amounts.
     \5\ This basis of extraneousness depends on the balance of 
     the title in which the drafters locate a provision. 
     Consequently, attentive drafters can avoid this violation by 
     combining or rearranging the contents of titles so as to 
     ensure that no title worsens the deficit in any out-year.
     \6\ Section 205(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 added subparagraph 
     (E). Pub. L. No. 100-119, Sec. 205(b), 101 Stat. 754, 784-85 
     (1987). The joint statement of managers in the conference 
     report on that bill stated with regard to subparagraph (E):
     6. Extraneous Provisions in Reconciliation Legislation
     Current Law:
       Title XX of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-272), as amended by Section 7006 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-509), 
     established a temporary rule in the Senate--referred to as 
     the ``Byrd Rule''--to exclude extraneous matter from 
     reconciliation legislation. The rule specifies the types of 
     provisions considered to be extraneous, provides for a point 
     of order against the inclusion of extraneous matter in 
     reconciliation measures, and requires a three-fifths vote of 
     the Senate to waive or appeal the point of order. The rule 
     expires on January 2, 1988.
     Senate Amendment:
       The Senate amendment (Section 228) amends the Byrd Rule 
     (which applies only in the Senate) to include in the 
     definition of extraneous matter provisions which increase net 
     outlays or decrease revenues during a fiscal year beyond 
     those fiscal years covered by the reconciliation measure and 
     which result in a net increase in the deficit for that fiscal 
     year. The Senate amendment also extends the expiration date 
     of the Byrd Rule to September 30, 1992.
     Conference Agreement:
       The House recedes and concurs in the Senate amendment. This 
     rule applies only in the Senate.
       It is the intent of the conferees that expiration after the 
     reconciliation period of a revenue increase or extension 
     provided for in a reconciliation bill would not, of itself, 
     be considered a revenue decrease for purposes of this 
     provision. It could, however, contribute to a finding that a 
     spending increase or a positive revenue decrease in that 
     legislation violated this rule.

     H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 100-313, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 65 
     (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. 739, 765.

  Mr. EXON. And I say to my colleagues that the tax title in the 
reconciliation conference report creates enormous loses in the out-
years. Just look at the capital gains provisions, for example, which 
lose nearly $12 billion in 2002, over $13 billion in 2003, and nearly 
$16 billion in 2004. And these numbers are from the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, which understates the losses from capital gains relative to 
the estimates of the Treasury Department.
  In total, the tax breaks in this bill worsen the deficit by over $47 
billion in 2003, over $51 billion in 2004, and nearly $57 billion in 
2005. These tax cuts continue in the out-years to dig us into a deeper 
and deeper hole. Over 10 years, the Republican tax cuts worsen the 
deficit by nearly $382 billion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table prepared by the 
Joint Committee on Taxation displaying the 10-year effects of these tax 
breaks be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 CONFERENCE AGREEMENT--ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF REVENUE RECONCILIATION AND TAX SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS OF H.R. 2491 (TITLE XI) \1\                                                 
                                                                                            [Fiscal years 1996-2005, in millions of dollars]                                                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Provision                                 Effective                  1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005     1996-2000    1996-2002    1996-2005 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       CONTRACT WITH AMERICA PROVISIONS                                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
I. Family tax relief provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    1. $500 tax credit for children under age   10/1/95                                 -4,449    -28,355    -22,529    -22,761    -22,996    -23,169    -23,343    -20,519    -23,697    -23,875     -101,090     -147,602     -218,693
     18--Senate amendment ($75,000/$110,000                                                                                                                                                                                             
     phaseout with no indexing).                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    2. Reduce the marriage penalty............  tyba 12/31/95                             -137       -474       -739       -952     -1,458     -1,970     -2,270     -3,838     -5,074     -6,866       -3,760       -8,000      -23,778
    3. $5,000 credit for adoption expenses--    tyba 12/31/95                              -28       -285       -302       -320       -336       -337       -337       -337       -339       -339       -1,271       -1,945       -2,960
     Senate amendment, but phase out beginning                                                                                                                                                                                          
     at $75,000 AGI; require finalized                                                                                                                                                                                                  
     adoption only for foreign adoptions;                                                                                                                                                                                               
     special needs adoptions--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                               
    4. $1,000 deduction (with residency and     tyba 12/31/95                              -74       -115       -119       -124       -129       -134       -138       -142       -146       -151         -561         -833       -1,271
     support tests) for custodial care of                                                                                                                                                                                               
     certain elderly dependents in taxpayer's                                                                                                                                                                                           
     home.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

[[Page S 17272]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
II. Savings and investment provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    1. Provisions relating to individual        tyba 12/31/95                             -221       -487       -100       -990     -1,817     -3,332     -4,807     -5,770     -6,860      8,164       -3,615      -11,755      -32,549
     Retirement Arrangements--(a) deductible                                                                                                                                                                                            
     IRAs--Senate amendment, except increase                                                                                                                                                                                            
     phaseout range for joint filers in $2,500                                                                                                                                                                                          
     increments; Homemakers eligible for full                                                                                                                                                                                           
     IRA deduction--both House bill and Senate                                                                                                                                                                                          
     amendment; (b) back-end IRAa--House bill                                                                                                                                                                                           
     with coordination of contribution limits;                                                                                                                                                                                          
     (c) definition of special purpose                                                                                                                                                                                                  
     withdrawals--Senate amendment; (d)                                                                                                                                                                                                 
     penalty free withdrawals from deductible                                                                                                                                                                                           
     IRAs--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                            
    2. Capital gains reforms: (a) individual                                                                                                                                                                                            
     capital gains--House bill; (b) small                                                                                                                                                                                               
     business stock--14% maximum rate for                                                                                                                                                                                               
     individuals, reduced corporate rate; (c)                                                                                                                                                                                           
     indexing of capital gains--House bill,                                                                                                                                                                                             
     with 6-year delay of effective date; (d)                                                                                                                                                                                           
     corporate capital gains--Senate                                                                                                                                                                                                    
     amendment; and (e) capital loss                                                                                                                                                                                                    
     deducation for sale of principal                                                                                                                                                                                                   
     residence--House bill:                                                                                                                                                                                                             
        a. Corporate..........................  tyea 12/31/94                           -1,009       -893       -912       -945       -971     -1,024     -1,129     -1,188     -1,246     -1,307       -4,730       -6,883      -10,624
        b. Individual.........................  tyea 12/31/94                            2,857     -2,677     -6,757     -7,546     -8,191     -7,990     -1,450    -10,483    -12,166    -14,483      -22,314      -28,854      -65,986
    3. Alternative minimum tax (AMT) Reform--   ppisa & tyba 12/31/95                   -1,290     -3,149     -3,722     -3,248     -2,141     -1,487     -1,252     -1,015       -985     -1,000      -13,550      -16,291      -19,291
     Senate amendment, except conform                                                                                                                                                                                                   
     depreciation lives and methods under AMT                                                                                                                                                                                           
     and, with respect to certain minimum tax                                                                                                                                                                                           
     credits, substitute 7 years for 5 years.                                                                                                                                                                                           
III. Health care provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                            
    1. Treatment of long-term care insurance--  1/1/96                                    -860       -556       -659       -751       -846       -951     -1,061     -1,166     -1,289     -1,401       -3,672       -5,684       -9,540
     House bill, but adopt Senate provision                                                                                                                                                                                             
     providing no cap on indemnity policies,                                                                                                                                                                                            
     permit penalty-free (not tax-free) 401(k)                                                                                                                                                                                          
     and IRA withdrawals, $175 per day cap on                                                                                                                                                                                           
     per diem benefits, and adopt Senate                                                                                                                                                                                                
     consumer protections.                                                                                                                                                                                                              
    2. Tax treatment of accelerated death       1/1/96                                      -6        -67       -107       -166       -214       -265       -316       -376       -446       -481         -560       -1,141       -2,442
     benefits under life insurance contracts--                                                                                                                                                                                          
     House bill, but adopt Senate rule                                                                                                                                                                                                  
     relating to NAIC guidelines.                                                                                                                                                                                                       
    3. Health insurance organizations eligible  tyea 10/13/95                               -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -5           -8          -12
     for benefits of section 833--Senate                                                                                                                                                                                                
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
    4. Increase tax-free death benefit limit    ceia 12/31/95                            (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)        (\2\)
     on burial insurance polices--Senate                                                                                                                                                                                                
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
IV. Estate and gift tax provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                     
    1. Phase up unified credit to $750,000--    dda/gma 12/31/95                     .........       -333       -663     -1,020     -1,401     -1,805     -2,154     -2,379     -2,864     -3,136       -3,417       -7,376      -15,755
     House bill with 6-year phase in with                                                                                                                                                                                               
     indexing thereafter; index $10,000 annual                                                                                                                                                                                          
     gift tax exclusion; $750,000 special use                                                                                                                                                                                           
     valuation; generation-skipping tax; and                                                                                                                                                                                            
     indexing of $1 million value of closely                                                                                                                                                                                            
     held businesses under section 6601j.                                                                                                                                                                                               
    2. Reduction in estate taxes for qualified  dda 12/31/95                         .........       -490       -579       -680       -798       -934     -1,081     -1,295     -1,513     -1,766       -2,547       -4,562       -9,136
     businesses after unified credit increase--                                                                                                                                                                                         
     Senate amendment, but change thresholds                                                                                                                                                                                            
     to $1 million/$1.5 million and coordinate                                                                                                                                                                                          
     with section 2032A and section 6166.                                                                                                                                                                                               
    3. Provide a 40% exclusion from estate      dda 12/31/95                         .........        -42        -47        -51        -60        -67        -74        -81        -90        -99         -200         -340         -610
     taxes for property donated subject to a                                                                                                                                                                                            
     conservation easement (within 25 miles of                                                                                                                                                                                          
     a metropolitan statistical area or a                                                                                                                                                                                               
     national park or wilderness area; or                                                                                                                                                                                               
     within 10 miles of an Urban National                                                                                                                                                                                               
     Forest).                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
    4. Clarify cash leases under section        cla 12/31/95                         .........         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2           -8          -12          -18
     2032A--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
V. Job creation and wage enhancement                                                                                                                                                                                                    
 provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
    1. Leasehold improvements provision--House  llda 3/13/95                               -34       -230        -17        -15        -12         -9         -6         -3          -         -3          -98         -114         -114
     bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
    2. Small business incentives--House bill,   ppisa 12/31/95                            -191       -379       -470       -553       -554       -550       -489       -360       -240       -150       -2,147       -3,186       -3,936
     but modify increase in expensing                                                                                                                                                                                                   
     limitation for small businesses to                                                                                                                                                                                                 
     $19,000 for 1996, $20,000 for 1997,                                                                                                                                                                                                
     $21,000 for 1998, $22,000 for 1999,                                                                                                                                                                                                
     $23,000 for 2000, $24,000 for 2001, and                                                                                                                                                                                            
     $25,000 for 2002 and thereafter.                                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal: Contract With America         ...................................     -5,443    -38,325    -37,725    -40,125    -41,927    -44,027    -37,010    -51,955    -56,958    -63,218     -163,545     -244,586     -416,715
         related provisions.                                                                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                    ====================================================================================================================================================
VI. Expiring provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                                
    1. Provisions extended through 12/31/96:                                                                                                                                                                                            
        a. Work opportunity tax credit--Senate  1/1/96                                     -64       -107        -65        -25        -10         -2  .........  .........  .........  .........         -271         -274         -274
         amendment, with modifications \3\.                                                                                                                                                                                             

[[Page S 17273]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
        b. Employer-provided educational        1/1/95                                    -611       -288  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         -899         -899         -899
         assistance; applies to undergraduate                                                                                                                                                                                           
         education only after 1995.                                                                                                                                                                                                     
        c. R&E credit--House bill.............  7/1/95                                  -1,322       -842       -387       -275       -165        -42  .........  .........  .........  .........       -2,991       -3,033       -3,033
        d. Orphan drug tax credit--Senate       1/1/95                                     -35        -10         -2         -1         -1      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)          -49          -50          -51
         amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
        e. Contribution of appreciated stock    1/1/95                                    -107        -18         -6  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         -130         -130         -130
         to private foundations.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    2. Commercial aviation fuel: extend 4.3     10/1/95                                   -417       -439         -6  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         -863         -863         -863
     cents/gallon exemption through 9/30/97;                                                                                                                                                                                            
     but conditional on extension of Airport                                                                                                                                                                                            
     and Airway Trust Fund taxes.                                                                                                                                                                                                       
    3. Extend all Airport and Airway Trust      1/1/96                                                                                                                                                                                  
     Fund excise taxes through 9/30/96--House                                                                                                                                                                                           
     bill \4\.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
(12)No revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
    4. Extend IRS user fees through 9/30/02     10/1/00                              .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         35         35  .........  .........  .........  ...........           70           70
     \5\--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                             
    5. Sunset the low-income housing tax        DOE                                        -24        -29         64        333        674      1,046      1,431      1,822      2,218      2,617        1,018        3,494       10,152
     credit after 12/31/97; sunset national                                                                                                                                                                                             
     pool after 12/31/95--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                   
    6. Superfund and oil spill liability                                                                                                                                                                                                
     taxes:                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
        a. Extend Superfund excise taxes        DOE                                        319         16  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          335          335          335
         through 9/30/96; receipts go to                                                                                                                                                                                                
         general revenues after 7/31/96.                                                                                                                                                                                                
        b. Extend Superfund AMT through 12/31/  DOE                                        290        193  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          483          483          483
         96 \6\.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
        c. Extend oil spill tax through 9/30/   1/1/96                               .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         60         60  .........  .........  .........  ...........          120          120
         02--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    7. Extend excise tax refund authority for   DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
     alcohol fuels blenders--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                          
(12)Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                           
    8. Extend section 29 binding contract date  DOE                                  .........        -30        -81        -97        -93        -96       -101       -106       -111       -117         -301         -499         -833
     6 months from date of enactment and                                                                                                                                                                                                
     placed-in-service date to 12/3/97 for                                                                                                                                                                                              
     biomass and coal.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    9. Exempt from diesel dyeing requirement    fcqa DOE                                 (\2\)         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -3           -4           -6
     any States exempt from Clean Air Act                                                                                                                                                                                               
     dyeing requirement (permanent).                                                                                                                                                                                                    
    10. Suspend tax on diesel fuel for          1/1/96                                     -24        -27         -4         -4         -1  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          -60          -61          -61
     recreational boats--Senate amendment                                                                                                                                                                                               
     (through 6/30/97).                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
    11. Permanent extension of FUTA exemption   1/1/95                                      -5         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3          -17          -23          -32
     for alien agricultural workers \5\--House                                                                                                                                                                                          
     bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
    12. Information Sharing Provision:          DOE                                  .........  .........  .........         14         28         42         56  .........  .........  .........           42          140          140
     Extension of disclosure of return                                                                                                                                                                                                  
     Information to Department of Veterans                                                                                                                                                                                              
     Affairs (outlay reduction) \5\--House                                                                                                                                                                                              
     bill, except extend through 9/30/02 only.                                                                                                                                                                                          
VII. Medical savings accounts:                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    1. Medical Savings Accounts--House bill,    tyba 12/31/95                             -122       -211       -258       -307       -362       -391       -421       -451       -483       -515       -1,260       -2,072       -3,522
     except follow the Senate amendment with                                                                                                                                                                                            
     respect to (a) maximum contribution limit                                                                                                                                                                                          
     ($2,000 single and $4,000 family); (b)                                                                                                                                                                                             
     tax-free build up of earnings; (c)                                                                                                                                                                                                 
     definition of qualified medical expenses;                                                                                                                                                                                          
     (d) post-death distribution rules; and                                                                                                                                                                                             
     (e) clarification relating to                                                                                                                                                                                                      
     capitalization of policy acquisition                                                                                                                                                                                               
     costs.                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
VIII. Taxpayer bill of rights 2:                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    1. Expansion of authority to abate          DOE                                      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)        (\8\)        (\8\)
     interest.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    2. Extension of interest-free period for    6/30/96                                     -2         -7         -8         -8         -8         -9         -9         -9        -10        -10          -10          -51          -80
     payment of tax--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    3. Joint return may be made after separate  tyba DOE                                 (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)        (\8\)        (\8\)
     returns without full payment of tax.                                                                                                                                                                                               
    4. Increase levy exemption \9\............  lia 12/31/95                             (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)       (\10\)        (\8\)
    5. Offers-in-compromise--Senate amendment.  DOE                                      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)        (\8\)        (\8\)
    6. Increased limit on attorney fees--House  DOE                                         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -5           -7          -10
     bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
    7. Award of litigation costs permitted in   pca DOE                                  (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)        (\8\)        (\8\)
     declaratory judgment proceedings.                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    8. Increase in limit on recovery of civil   DOE                                         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3          -15          -21          -30
     damages--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                               
    9. Enrolled agents included as third-party  sla DOE                                  (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)        (\8\)        (\8\)        (\8\)
     recordkeepers.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
    10. Annual reminders to taxpayers with      1/1/96                                  (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)       (\12\)       (\12\)       (\12\)
     delinquent accounts.                                                                                                                                                                                                               
IX. Casualty and involuntary conversion                                                                                                                                                                                                 
 provision:                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
    1. Change involuntary conversion rules for  DDA 12/31/94                                -6        -14        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10          -50          -70         -100
     Presidentially declared disaster areas--                                                                                                                                                                                           
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
X. Exempt and charitable organizations                                                                                                                                                                                                  
 provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
    1. Provide tax-exempt status to common      tyea 12/31/95                               -4         -6         -6         -7         -7         -7         -8         -8         -8         -9          -30          -45          -70
     investment funds--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                
    2. Exclusion from UBIT for certain          pra 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                            
     corporate sponsorship payments--Senate                                                                                                                                                                                             
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    3. Intermediate sanctions for certain tax-  9/14/95 1/1/96                               4          4          4          5          5          5          6          6          6          7           22           33           52
     exempt organizations--House bill, with                                                                                                                                                                                             
     technical modifications.                                                                                                                                                                                                           

[[Page S 17274]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
XI. Corporate and other reforms:                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    1. Reform the tax treatment of certain      da 5/3/95                                  -83       -100        -17         84        209        343        437        475        514        582           93          873        2,444
     corporate stock reemptions--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                            
    2. Require corporate tax shelter            aiolRSg                                 (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)       (\13\)       (\13\)       (\14\)
     reporting; modify recipient notice to 90                                                                                                                                                                                           
     days.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
    3. Disallow interest deduction for          ipoaa 10/31/95                             220        579        883      1,369      1,749      1,856      1,895      1,901      1,924      1,940        4,800        8.551       14,316
     corporate-owned life insurnce policy                                                                                                                                                                                               
     loans--Senate amendment, but phase out                                                                                                                                                                                             
     disallowance (90% in 1996, 80% in 1997,                                                                                                                                                                                            
     and 70% in 1998; cap borrowing at 20,000                                                                                                                                                                                           
     lives); cap interest rate (with special                                                                                                                                                                                            
     rules for grandfathered plans); exception                                                                                                                                                                                          
     for key person policies with 10 lives;                                                                                                                                                                                             
     limit borrowing in 1996 to policies                                                                                                                                                                                                
     purchased in 1994 and 1995.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    4. Phase out preferential tax deferral for  (\15\)                                      26         37         38         39         40         41         42         43         44         44          179          261          392
     certain large farm corporations required                                                                                                                                                                                           
     to use accrual accounting.                                                                                                                                                                                                         
    5. Phase-in repeal of section 936; Wage     tyba 12/3/95                               255        605        552        596        498        516        746      1,116      1,390      1,681        2,506        3,766        7,953
     credit companies--6 years of present law                                                                                                                                                                                           
     and then House bill with modified base                                                                                                                                                                                             
     period; income companies--2 years of                                                                                                                                                                                               
     present law and then House bill with                                                                                                                                                                                               
     modified base period; QPSII--repealed 1/1/                                                                                                                                                                                         
     96.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
    6. Corporate accounting--reform of income   ppisa 9/13/95                               32         69         29         13         14         16         19         22         28         31          157          192          273
     forecast method--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                 
    7. Permit transfers of excess pension       ta DOE                                   1,439      1,375        958        554        195        151        -19        -13        -20        -27        4,521        4,651        4,591
     assets--House bill but (a) require asset                                                                                                                                                                                           
     cushion equal to the greater of (i) 125%                                                                                                                                                                                           
     of termination liability (using PBGC                                                                                                                                                                                               
     assumptions) and (ii) the plan's accrued                                                                                                                                                                                           
     liability; (b) permit withdrawals only                                                                                                                                                                                             
     for ERISA-covered benefits; (c) prohibit                                                                                                                                                                                           
     transfers when company in bankruptcy; (d)                                                                                                                                                                                          
     no excise tax; (e) extend for 1                                                                                                                                                                                                    
     additional year; and (f) conform present-                                                                                                                                                                                          
     law section 420 asset cushion.                                                                                                                                                                                                     
    8. Modify exclusion of damages received on  ama 12/31/95                                34         51         55         59         61         64         68         71         74         77          260          392          614
     account of personal injury or sickness--                                                                                                                                                                                           
     Senate amendment, with technical                                                                                                                                                                                                   
     clarifications.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
    9. Require tax reporting for payments to    pma 12/31/96                         .........     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)       (\13\)       (\13\)       (\14\)
     attorneys; delay effective date for 1                                                                                                                                                                                              
     year.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
    10. Expatriation tax provisions--House      2/6/95                                      64         97        146        199        254        289        304        319        335        351          760        1,353        2,358
     bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
    11. Remove business exclusion for energy    ara 12/31/95                                30         96        100        104        107        109        111        113        115        116          437          657        1,000
     subsidies provided by public utilties--                                                                                                                                                                                            
     House bill, but modify effective date.                                                                                                                                                                                             
    12. Modify basis adjustment rules under     ica 9/13/95                                  2          4          6          9         14         20         29         37         46         56           35           84          223
     section 1033.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
    13. Modify the exception to the related     ica 9/13/95                                  1          2          4          6          8         11         13         15         17         19           21           45           96
     party rule of section 1033 for                                                                                                                                                                                                     
     individuals to only provide an exception                                                                                                                                                                                           
     for de minimis amounts ($100,000).                                                                                                                                                                                                 
    14. Disallow rollover under section 1034    tyea 12/31/95                                1          3          4          5          6          8          9         10         11         13           19           35           69
     to extent of previously claimed                                                                                                                                                                                                    
     depreciation for home office or other                                                                                                                                                                                              
     depreciable use of residence.                                                                                                                                                                                                      
    15. Provide that rollover of gain on sale   sea 12/31/95                            (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)       (\16\)       (\16\)       (\16\)
     of a principal residence cannot be                                                                                                                                                                                                 
     elected unless the replacement property                                                                                                                                                                                            
     purchased is located within the United                                                                                                                                                                                             
     States (limit to resident aliens who                                                                                                                                                                                               
     terminate residence within 2 years).                                                                                                                                                                                               
    16. Repeal exemption for withholding on     1/1/96                                      20          6          6          6          6          7          7          7          7          8           44           58           80
     gambling winnings from bingo and keno                                                                                                                                                                                              
     where proceeds exceed $5,000.                                                                                                                                                                                                      
    17. Repeal tax credit for contributions to  DOE                                          1          1          2          2          2          2          2          2          2          2            8           12           18
     special Community Development                                                                                                                                                                                                      
     Corporations.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
    18. Repeal advance refunds of diesel fuel   1/1/96                                       8         19         19         19         19         19         19         19         19         19           84          122          179
     tax for diesel cars and light trucks.                                                                                                                                                                                              
    19. Apply failure to pay penalty to         DOE                                          1          3         29         30         32         33         35         37         38         40           95          163          278
     substitute returns.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
    20. Allow conversion of scholarship         DOE                                          3          4          6          8         10         10          9          7          6          5           31           48           67
     funding corporation to taxable                                                                                                                                                                                                     
     corporation--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
    21. Apply look-through rule for purposes    gira 12/31/95                                7         23         24         27         30         32         34         37         40         44          111          177          298
     of characterizing certain subpart F                                                                                                                                                                                                
     insurance income as UBIT--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                              
    22. Repeal 50% Interest Income exclusion    ima 10/13/95                                27         69        109        149        187        224        261        295        331        365          541        1,026        2,019
     for financial institution loans to ESOPs--                                                                                                                                                                                         
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    23. Modify the ozone depleting chemicals    DOE                                      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)      (\7\)       (\10\)       (\17\)        (\7\)
     tax for imported recycled halons--Senate                                                                                                                                                                                           
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

[[Page S 17275]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    24. Modify two county tax-exempt bond rule  DOE                                     (\16\)          1          2          3          4          5          6          8          9         10           10           22           49
     for local furnishers of electricity or                                                                                                                                                                                             
     gas--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                             
    25. Provide tax-exempt bonds status for     bia DOE                                  (\2\)         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -4           -8          -12
     Alaska Power Administration sale--Senate                                                                                                                                                                                           
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
    26. Modify treatment of foreign trusts--    (\18\)                                      93        162        171        180        188        197        206        214        223        245          794        1,197        1,879
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    27. Provide for flow through treatment for  DOE                                         34         18         10          5          2  .........         -2         -4         -6         -8           69           67           49
     Financial Asset Securitization Investment                                                                                                                                                                                          
     Trusts (FASITs)--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                 
    28. Tax-free treatment of contributions in  (\19\)                                     -16        -26        -12          4         19         32         43         51         61         71          -31           43          226
     aid of construction for water utilities;                                                                                                                                                                                           
     change depreciation for water utilities--                                                                                                                                                                                          
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    29. Provide 3-year amortization of          tyeo/a 1/1/95                              -11        -14         -8         -4  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          -37          -37          -37
     intrastate operating rights of truckers--                                                                                                                                                                                          
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    30. A life insurance company may elect to   tyba 12/31/94                                1     (\16\)      (\2\)         -1      (\2\)     (\16\)     (\16\)     (\16\)      (\2\)         -2       (\16\)            1           -2
     treat 20% of capital losses as ordinary                                                                                                                                                                                            
     income, spread over 10 years; the                                                                                                                                                                                                  
     taxpayer has the option to change the                                                                                                                                                                                              
     treatment of these losses in the future--                                                                                                                                                                                          
     Senate amendment, with modifications.                                                                                                                                                                                              
    31. Clarify that newspaper carriers and     spa 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                            
     distributors are independent contractors--                                                                                                                                                                                         
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    32. Allow for tax-free conversion of        ta 12/31/95                                 -4         -9         -8         -8         -8         -8         -8         -8         -9         -9          -37          -52          -78
     common trust funds to mutual funds--                                                                                                                                                                                               
     Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    33. Eliminate interest allocation           tyba 12/31/95                               41         93        107        123        141        163        187        201        215        228          505          855        1,499
     exception for certain nonfinancial                                                                                                                                                                                                 
     corporations--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                    
    34. Modify depreciation for small motor     ppiso/a/b DOE                               -1         -4        -23        -26        -29        -16        -19        -22        -24        -27          -83         -118         -191
     fuel/convenience store outlets--Senate                                                                                                                                                                                             
     amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
    35. Repeal of section 593 with residential  tyba 12/31/95                               63         95        216        280        277        272        260        250        243        236          931        1,462        2,192
     loan test for 1996 and 1997.                                                                                                                                                                                                       
    36. Phase out and extend luxury automobile  1/1/96                                     -41        -97       -159       -204        179        265        200         46  .........  .........         -322          143          188
     excise tax through 12/31/02.                                                                                                                                                                                                       
XII. Technical correction provision: Luxury     DOE                                         14  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........           14           14           14
 Excise Tax Indexing.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
XIII. Simplification provisions relating to                                                                                                                                                                                             
 individuals:                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
    1. Rollover of gain on sale of principal                                                                                                                                                                                            
     residence:                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
        a. Multiple sales within rollover       sa DOE                                      -1         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -3         -3         -3         -3           -9          -14          -23
         period--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                            
        b. Rules in case of divorce--House      sa DOE                                      -2         -2         -2         -2         -3         -3         -3         -4         -4         -4          -11          -17          -29
         bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    2. One-time exclusion on the sale of a      sa 9/13/95                                 -10        -19        -20        -21        -22        -23        -24        -25        -26        -27          -92         -139         -217
     principal residence by an individual who                                                                                                                                                                                           
     has attained age 55 (allow additional                                                                                                                                                                                              
     exclusion for married couples under                                                                                                                                                                                                
     certain conditions where one spouse has                                                                                                                                                                                            
     claimed an exclusion prior to their                                                                                                                                                                                                
     marriage)--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                             
    3. Treatment of certain reimbursed          tyba 12/31/95                            (\2\)         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -5           -6          -11
     expenses of rural mail carriers--House                                                                                                                                                                                             
     bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
    4. Travel expenses of Federal employee      tyea DOE                                 (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)           -1           -1           -2
     participating in a Federal criminal                                                                                                                                                                                                
     investigation--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                         
    5. Treatment of storage of product          tyba 12/31/95                            (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)        (\2\)           -2           -3
     samples--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                               
XIV. Pension simplification provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                 
    A. Simplified Distribution Rules:                                                                                                                                                                                                   
        1. Sunset of 5-year income averaging    tyba 12/31/98                               24         74         63        109         80         42         17         16  .........  .........          350          409          425
         for lump-sum distributions--Senate                                                                                                                                                                                             
         amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
        2. Repeal of $5,000 exclusion of        tyba 12/31/95                               16         46         49         52         54         55         55         56         57         57          217          328          498
         employees' death benefits.                                                                                                                                                                                                     
        3. Simplified method for taxing         asda 12/31/95                               10         28         28         28         29         29         29         30         30         31          123          182          273
         annuity distributions under certain                                                                                                                                                                                            
         employer plans--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                              
        4. Minimum required distribution......  yba 12/31/95                                -1         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4          -17          -25          -37
    B. Increased Access to Pension Plans--Tax-  yba 12/31/96                         .........         -8        -22        -24        -25        -26        -28        -29        -30        -31          -79         -133         -223
     exempt organizations eligible under                                                                                                                                                                                                
     section 401(k)--Senate amendment, but                                                                                                                                                                                              
     permit all tax exempts and Indian tribes                                                                                                                                                                                           
     to have 401(k) plans.                                                                                                                                                                                                              
    C. Nondiscrimination Provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                    
        1. Simplified definition of highly      yba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                            
         compensated employees--House bill,                                                                                                                                                                                             
         with modifications.                                                                                                                                                                                                            
(12) Considered in other provisions                                                                                                                                                                                                     
        2. Repeal of family aggregation rules.  yba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                            
(12) Considered in other provisions                                                                                                                                                                                                     
        3. Modification of additional           yba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                            
         participation requirements.                                                                                                                                                                                                    
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          

[[Page S 17276]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
        4. Safe-harbor nondiscrimination rules  yba 12/31/98                         .........  .........  .........        -42       -162       -167       -171       -176       -182       -187         -204         -541       -1,085
         for qualified cash or deferred                                                                                                                                                                                                 
         arrangements and matching                                                                                                                                                                                                      
         contributions [20]--Senate amendment,                                                                                                                                                                                          
         with modification.                                                                                                                                                                                                             
    D. Miscellaneous pension simplification:                                                                                                                                                                                            
        1. Treatment of leased employees--      yba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                            
         Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                              
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        2. Plans covering self-employed         yba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                            
         individuals.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        3. Elimination of special vesting rule  yba 12/31/95                             (\2\)         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -4           -6           -9
         for multiemployer plans.                                                                                                                                                                                                       
        4. Distributions under rural            DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         cooperative plans--Senate amendment,                                                                                                                                                                                           
         with modifications.                                                                                                                                                                                                            
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        5. Treatment of governmental plans      tybo/a DOE                                                                                                                                                                              
         under section 415--House bill, with                                                                                                                                                                                            
         Senate effective date.                                                                                                                                                                                                         
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        6. Uniform retirement age.............  1/1/96                                                                                                                                                                                  
(12) Considered in other provisions                                                                                                                                                                                                     
        7. Contributions on behalf of disabled  yba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                            
         employees.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        8. Treatment of deferred compensation   tyba 12/31/95                            (\2\)         -1         -1         -1         -1         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2           -4           -8          -14
         plans of State and local governments                                                                                                                                                                                           
         and tax-exempt organizations--House                                                                                                                                                                                            
         bill, with modification.                                                                                                                                                                                                       
        9. Require Individual ownership of      DOE                                         -6        -18        -21        -24        -25        -25        -26        -27        -28        -29          -94         -145         -229
         section 457 plan assets--House bill,                                                                                                                                                                                           
         with effective date change (i.e., to                                                                                                                                                                                           
         the end of the first legislative                                                                                                                                                                                               
         session after enactment).                                                                                                                                                                                                      
        10. Correction of GATT interest and     eall GATT                                   -4         -4         -4         -4  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          -16          -16          -16
         mortality rate provisions in the                                                                                                                                                                                               
         Retirement Protection Act--House                                                                                                                                                                                               
         bill, with modifications.                                                                                                                                                                                                      
        11. Multiple salary reduction           tyba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                           
         agreements permitted under section                                                                                                                                                                                             
         403(b).                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        12. Repeal of combined plan limit--     yba 12/31/98                         .........  .........  .........        -70       -189       -195       -201       -207       -213       -219         -259         -654       -1,293
         House bill, with Senate effective                                                                                                                                                                                              
         date.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        13. Modify notice required of right to  pyba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                           
         qualified joint and survivor annuity--                                                                                                                                                                                         
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        14. 3-year waiver of excess             1/1/96                                      38         40         43          3  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          124          124          124
         distribution tax--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                            
        15. Definition of compensation for      yba 12/31/97                         .........  .........         -1         -1         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -3           -4           -8          -15
         section 415 purposes--Senate                                                                                                                                                                                                   
         amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
        16. Increase section 4975 excise tax    ptoo/a 1/1/96                                1          4          4          4          4          4          4          4          4          4           17           24           36
         on prohibited transactions from 5% to                                                                                                                                                                                          
         10%--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                         
        17. Treatment of Indian tribal          pybb 1/1/95                                                                                                                                                                             
         governments under section 403(b)--                                                                                                                                                                                             
         Senate amendment provision and permit                                                                                                                                                                                          
         rollover to 401(k).                                                                                                                                                                                                            
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        18. Application of elective deferral    tyba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                           
         limit to section 403(b) plans--Senate                                                                                                                                                                                          
         amendment, with modifications.                                                                                                                                                                                                 
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        19. Establish SIMPLE pension plan--     yba 12/31/95                               -45        -69        -71        -74        -76        -79        -82        -85        -88        -91         -335         -497         -761
         Senate amendment, but repeal SEPs.                                                                                                                                                                                             
        20. Increase the self-employed health   tyba 12/31/97                        .........  .........        -36       -113       -168       -272       -399       -644       -694       -746         -317         -988       -3,072
         insurance deduction (35% in 1998 and                                                                                                                                                                                           
         1999; 40% in 2000 and 2001; and 50%                                                                                                                                                                                            
         in 2002 and thereafter).                                                                                                                                                                                                       
XV. Partnership simplification provisions:      ...................................                                                                                                                                                     
    1. Simplified reporting to partners--House  tyba 12/31/95                                5          6          6          7          7          7          7          8          8          8           31           45           69
     bill, but elective.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
    2. Returns required on magnetic media for   tyba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                           
     partnerships with 100 partners or more--                                                                                                                                                                                           
     House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
XVI. Foreign tax simplification provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                             
    A. Modification of passive foreign          tyba 12/31/95                               -7        -18        -20        -21        -22        -24        -25        -26        -27        -29          -88         -137         -219
     investment company provisions to                                                                                                                                                                                                   
     eliminate overlap with subpart F and to                                                                                                                                                                                            
     allow mark-to-market election--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                         
    B. Modifications to provisions affecting                                                                                                                                                                                            
     controlled foreign corporations:                                                                                                                                                                                                   
        1. General provisions--House bill.....  ...................................         -1         -2         -2         -3         -3         -3         -3         -4         -4         -4          -11          -17          -29
        2. Repeal of excess passive assets      tyba 9/30/95                               -17        -26        -29        -35        -41        -45        -51        -57        -64        -68         -148         -244         -433
         provision (section 956A)--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                          
XVII. Other income tax simplification                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
    A. Subchapter S corporations:                                                                                                                                                                                                       
        1. Increase number of eligible          tyba 12/31/95                               -7        -12        -14        -16        -20        -22        -25        -28        -31        -35          -69         -116         -210
         shareholders--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                      

[[Page S 17277]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
        2. Permit certain trusts to hold stock  tyba 12/31/95                               -1         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -3         -3           -9          -13          -21
         in S corporations--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                 
        3. Extend holding period for certain    tyba 12/31/95                             (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)         (10)         (10)       (\10\)
         trusts--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                            
        4. Financial Institutions permitted to  tyba 12/31/95                              (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)          (2)           -1           -1
         hold safe-harbor debt--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                             
        5. Authority to validate certain        tyba 12/31/95                              (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)          (2)           -1           -1
         invalid elections--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                 
        6. Allow Interim closing of the books.  tyba 12/31/95                                                                                                                                                                           
(12)Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                           
        7. Expand post-termination period and   tyba 12/31/95                              (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)          (2)           -1           -1
         amend subchapter S audit procedures--                                                                                                                                                                                          
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
        8. S corporations permitted to hold S   tyba 12/31/95                               -3         -7         -9        -11        -13        -15        -17        -20        -23        -26          -43          -75         -144
         or C subsidiaries--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                 
        9. Treatment of distributions during    tyba 12/31/95                              (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)        (2)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)          (2)           -1           -1
         loss years--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
        10. Treatment of S corporations as      tyba 12/31/95                             (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)         (10)         (10)       (\10\)
         shareholders in C corporations--House                                                                                                                                                                                          
         bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        11. Elimination of certain earnings     tyba 12/31/95                             (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)         (10)         (10)         (10)
         and profits of S corporations--House                                                                                                                                                                                           
         bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        12. Treatment of certain losses         tyba 12/31/95                             (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)         (10)         (10)         (10)
         carried over under at-risk rules--                                                                                                                                                                                             
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
        13. Adjustments to basis of Inherited   dda DOE                                   (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)       (11)         (11)         (11)         (11)
         S stock--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
        14. Treatment of certain real estate    tyba 12/31/95                              (2)         -1         -1         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2           -6          -10          -16
         held by an S corporation--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                          
        15. Transition rule for elections       tyba 12/31/95                             (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)       (10)         (10)         (10)         (10)
         after termination--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                 
        16. Interaction of subchapter S         ...................................         -3        -10        -26        -32        -37        -38         39        -40        -40        -40         -108         -185         -305
         changes--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
    B. Regulated Investment Companies (RICs)--  tyea DOE                                    -9        -17        -20        -24        -28        -32        -35        -38        -41        -44          -98         -164         -287
     Repeal of 30% gross income limitation for                                                                                                                                                                                          
     RICs--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    C. Accounting Provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                           
        1. Modifications to look-back method    cc/tyea/E                                   -2         -3         -3         -3         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4          -15          -23          -35
         for long-term contracts--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                           
        2. Allow traders to adopt mark-to-      DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         market accounting for securities--                                                                                                                                                                                             
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        3. Modification of Treasury ruling      tyba DOE                                    -4         -4         -5         -5         -5         -5         -5         -4         -5         -6          -23          -33          -49
         requirement for nuclear                                                                                                                                                                                                        
         decommissioning funds--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                             
        4. Provide that a taxpayer may elect    pra/cdoa 12/31/92                            2         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1         -1           -2           -4           -6
         to include in income crop insurance                                                                                                                                                                                            
         proceeds and disaster payments in the                                                                                                                                                                                          
         year of the disaster or in the                                                                                                                                                                                                 
         following year--Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                              
    D. Tax-Exempt Bond Provision--Repeal of     bla DOE                                                                                                                                                                                 
     debt service-based limitation on                                                                                                                                                                                                   
     investment in certain non-purpose                                                                                                                                                                                                  
     investments--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    E. Insurance Provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                            
        1. Treatment of certain insurance       tyba 12/31/95                                6         -4          5          4          4         12         -7        -16         -4         -1           15           21          -19
         contracts on retired lives.                                                                                                                                                                                                    
        2. Treatment of modified guaranteed     tyba 12/31/95                               -1          2          4          1          2          1         -1         -1         -1         -1            8            8           -7
         contracts.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
    F. Other Provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                                
        1. Closing of partnership taxable year  tyba 12/31/95                            (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)        (\2\)           -1           -1
         with respect to deceased partner--                                                                                                                                                                                             
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
        2. Modifications to the FICA tip        eaii OBRA '93                                                                                                                                                                           
         credit--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                            
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        3. Conform due date for first quarter   1/1/96                                                                                                                                                                                  
         estimated tax by private foundations--                                                                                                                                                                                         
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        4. Treatment of dues paid to            tyba 12/31/94                                                                                                                                                                           
         agricultural or horticultural                                                                                                                                                                                                  
         organizations.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        5. Student loan interest deduction      polda 12/31/95                             -52       -152       -157       -162       -168       -174       -180       -186       -193       -200         -691       -1,046       -1,624
         ($2,500 above-the-line deduction;                                                                                                                                                                                              
         phaseout $45,000-$65,000 singles/                                                                                                                                                                                              
         $65,000-$85,000 joint).                                                                                                                                                                                                        
XVIII. Estate, gift, and trust tax provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                          
    A. Estate and Trust Income Tax Provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                          
        1. Certain revocable trusts treated as  DOE                                     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)     (\10\)       (\21\)       (\21\)       (\21\)
         part of estate--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                    
        2. Distributions during first 65 days   DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         of taxable year of estate--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                         
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        3. Separate share rules available to    DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         estates--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        4. Executor of estate and               DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         beneficiaries treated as related                                                                                                                                                                                               
         persons for disallowance of losses--                                                                                                                                                                                           
         House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          

[[Page S 17278]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
        5. Limitation on taxable year of        DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         estates--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        6. Simplified taxation of earnings of   tyba DOE                                (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\11\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)     (\12\)       (\12\)            8           12
         pre-need funeral trusts--House bill,                                                                                                                                                                                           
         with $7,000 limit.                                                                                                                                                                                                             
    B. Estate and gift tax provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                                  
        1. Clarification of waiver of certain   DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         rights of recovery--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        2. Adjustments for gifts within 3       DOE                                  .........         -6         -6         -7         -7         -7         -7         -7         -7         -7          -26          -40          -61
         years of decedent's death--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                         
        3. Clarification of qualified           DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         terminable interest rules--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                         
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        4. Transitional rule under section      eaii OBRA '90                                                                                                                                                                           
         2056A--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                             
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        5. Opportunity to correct certain       DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         failures under section 2032A--House                                                                                                                                                                                            
         bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        6. Gifts may not be revalued for        ga DOE                               .........        -15        -16        -16        -18        -21        -26        -32        -38        -45          -65         -112         -227
         estate tax purposes after expiration                                                                                                                                                                                           
         of statute of limitations--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                         
        7. Clarifications relating to           DOE                                  .........         -2         -2         -2         -2         -3         -3         -3         -3         -3           -8          -14          -23
         disclaimers--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                       
        8. Clarify relationship between         DOE                                  .........         -3         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -5         -5          -15          -23          -37
         community property rights and                                                                                                                                                                                                  
         retirement benefits--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                               
        9. Treatment under qualified domestic   DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         trust rules of forms of ownership                                                                                                                                                                                              
         which are not trusts--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                              
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    C. Generation-skipping tax provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                              
        1. Taxable termination not to include   DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
         direct skips--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                      
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        2. Modification of generation-skipping  gsta 12/31/94                               -3         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -4         -5          -19          -27          -40
         transfer tax for transfers to                                                                                                                                                                                                  
         individuals with deceased parents--                                                                                                                                                                                            
         Senate amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                              
XIX. Excise tax simplification provisions:                                                                                                                                                                                              
    A. Distilled spirits, wines, and beer:                                                                                                                                                                                              
        1. Credit or refund for imported        fcq DOE+180 days                                                                                                                                                                        
         bottled distilled spirits returned to                                                                                                                                                                                          
         bonded premises--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                   
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        2. Fermented material from any brewery  fcq DOE+180 days                                                                                                                                                                        
         may be received at a distilled                                                                                                                                                                                                 
         spirits plant--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                     
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        3. Refund of tax on wine returned to    fcq DOE+180 days                                                                                                                                                                        
         bond not limited to unmerchantable                                                                                                                                                                                             
         wine--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                              
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        4. Beer may be withdrawn free of tax    fcq DOE+180 days                                                                                                                                                                        
         for destruction--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                   
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
        5. Transfer to brewery of beer          fcq DOE+180 days                                                                                                                                                                        
         imported in bulk without payment of                                                                                                                                                                                            
         tax--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                               
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    B. Consolidate imposition of aviation       1/1/96                                  (\16\)  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........       (\16\)       (\16\)       (\16\)
     gasoline excise tax--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                   
    C. Other excise tax provision--Clarify      DOE                                                                                                                                                                                     
     present law for retail truck excise tax                                                                                                                                                                                            
     (certain activities do not constitute                                                                                                                                                                                              
     remanufacture)--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
(12) Negligible revenue effect                                                                                                                                                                                                          
XX. Administrative simplification provision:                                                                                                                                                                                            
    A. General provision--Certain notices       1/1/96                                   (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)        (\2\)           -1           -1
     disregarded under provision increasing                                                                                                                                                                                             
     interest rate on large corporate                                                                                                                                                                                                   
     underpayments--House bill.                                                                                                                                                                                                         
XXI. Increase in public debt limit............  ...................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total of revenue provisions.............  ...................................     -5,408    -37,217    -35,567    -37,438    -38,594    -39,856    -32,430    -47,042    -51,423    -56,939     -154,155     -226,450     -381,795
                                                                                    ====================================================================================================================================================
      Total of outlay provisions..............  ...................................  .........  .........  .........         14         28         42         56  .........  .........  .........           42          140          140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Earned Income Credit provisions are included in Title XII of the conference agreement; the budget effects are shown in a separate table.                                                                                        
\2\ Loss of less than $500,000.                                                                                                                                                                                                         
\3\ Credit rate at 35% on first $6,000 of income, eligible workers expanded to include welfare cash recipients and veteran foodstamp recipients; 500 hour work requirement.                                                             
\4\ Section 257(b)(2)(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, indicates that ``excise taxes dedicated to a trust fund, if expiring, are assumed to be    
  extended at current rates''. Since the revenues from these taxes are dedicated to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, an extension of the taxes is scored as having no revenue effect.                                                 
\5\ Estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).                                                                                                                                                                        
\6\ Estimates presented after interaction with Alternative Minimum tax provisions and are shown net of offset with the corporate income tax.                                                                                            
\7\ Loss of less than $1 million.                                                                                                                                                                                                       
\8\ Loss of less than $2 million.                                                                                                                                                                                                       
\9\ Increase exemption for books and tools of trade to $1,250.                                                                                                                                                                          
\10\ Loss of less than $5 million.                                                                                                                                                                                                      
\11\ Gain of less than $1 million.                                                                                                                                                                                                      
\12\ Gain of less than $5 million.                                                                                                                                                                                                      
\13\ Gain of less than $25 million.                                                                                                                                                                                                     
\14\ Gain of less than $30 million.                                                                                                                                                                                                     
\15\ No new suspense accounts could be established in taxable years ending after 9/13/95. The income in existing suspense accounts would be recognized in equal installments over a 20-year period beginning with the first taxable year
  beginning after 9/13/95.                                                                                                                                                                                                              
\16\ Gain of less than $500,000.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
\17\ Loss of less than $10 million.                                                                                                                                                                                                     
\18\ Various effective dates depending on provisions.                                                                                                                                                                                   
\19\ Effective for amounts received after date of enactment and property placed in service after date of enactment with the exception of certain property subject to a binding contract on the date of enactment.                       
\20\ This provision considers interaction effects of SIMPLE retirement plan provisions.                                                                                                                                                 
\21\ Loss of less than $25 million.                                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page S 17279]]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Legend for ``Effective'' column: ama=awards made after; ara=amounts received after; asda=annuity starting date after; aioIRSg=after Issuance of Internal Revenue Service guidance; bia DOE=bonds issued after date of enactment; cc/tyea/
  E=contracts completed in taxable years ending after date of enactment; celia=contracts entered into after; cla=cash leases after; da=distributions after; dda=decedents dying after; DDA=disasters declared after; dda DOE=decedents  
  dying after date of enactment; dda/gma=decedents dying after and gifts made after; DOE=date of enactment; eaii GATT=effective as if included in GATT; eaii OBRA'90=effective as if included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act  
  of 1990; eall OBRA'93=effective as if included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; fcqa DOE=first calendar quarter after date of enactment; fcq DOE+180 days=beginning of first calendar quarter that starts at least   
  180 days after date of enactment; ga DOE=gifts after date of enactment; gira=gross income received after; gsta=generation skipping transfers after; ica=involuntary conversion after; lpoaa=interest paid or accrued after; lia=levies
  issued after; lida=leasehold improvements disposed of after; lma=loans made after; lyba=limitation years beginning after; pca DOE=proceeding commenced after date of enactment; pma=payments made after; poida=payments on interest   
  due after; ppisa=property placed in service after; pplso/a/b DOE=property placed in service on, after, or before date of enactment; pra=payments received after; pra/cdoa=payments received after, for crop damage occurring after;   
  ptoo/a=prohibited transactions occurring on or after; pyba=plan years beginning after; pybb=plan years beginning before; sa=sales after; sea=sales and exchanges after; sia DOE=summonses issued after date of enactment; spa=services
  performed after; ta=transfers after; ta DOE=transfers after date of enactment; tyba=taxable years beginning after; tyba DOE=taxable years beginning after date of enactment; tybo/a DOE=taxable years beginning on or after date of   
  enactment; tyea=taxable years ending after;tyea DOE=taxable years ending after date of enactment; tyeo/a=taxable years ending on or after; yba=years beginning after.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding.                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                          CONFERENCE AGREEMENT--ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF EARNED INCOME CREDIT (``EIC'') PROVISIONS OF H.R. 2491 (TITLE XII)                                                          
                                                                                            [Fiscal years 1996-2002, in millions of dollars]                                                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Provision                                 Effective                  1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005     1996-2000    1996-2002    1996-2005 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  EIC Reforms                                                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
1. Modify AGI for the purpose of the EIC                                                                                                                                                                                                
 phaseout nontaxable social security benefits:                                                                                                                                                                                          
 nontaxable pension, IRA, and annuity                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 distributions; tax-exempt interest; and child                                                                                                                                                                                          
 support payments in excess of $6,000:                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    a. Revenue................................  tyba 12/31/95                               11        217        231        236        216        265        288        301        317        335          911        1,464        2,417
    b. Outlay reductions......................  tyba 12/31/95                               59      1,193      1,265      1,326      1,431      1,452      1,454      1,528      1,593      1,660        5,275        8,182       12,962
2. Modify AGI for the purpose of the EIC                                                                                                                                                                                                
 phaseout by adding back losses from Schedule                                                                                                                                                                                           
 C, Schedule D, Schedule E, Schedule F, and                                                                                                                                                                                             
 NOLs:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    a. Revenue................................  tyba 12/31/95                                1         26         30         33         35         40         48         53         58         64          124          212          388
    b. Outlay reductions......................  tyba 12/31/95                               10        207        219        231        237        243        246        247        255        263          904        1,393        2,159
3. Include net passive income in disqualified                                                                                                                                                                                           
 income:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
    a. Revenue................................  tyba 12/31/95                        .........  .........          1          2          2          2          2          2          2          2            5            9           14
    b. Outlay reductions......................  tyba 12/31/95                                1         11         11         14         17         18         20         20         21         22           54           91          154
4. Restrict EIC eligibility to taxpayers with                                                                                                                                                                                           
 qualifying children:                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
    a. Revenue................................  tyba 12/31/95                                4         89         93         97        100        107        112        117        123        129          383          601          970
    b. Outlay reductions......................  tyba 12/31/95                               27        535        557        583        610        631        658        686        715        745        2,313        3,602        5,747
5. Two-stage phaseout of the EIC. The second                                                                                                                                                                                            
 stage of the phaseout begins at $14,850 for                                                                                                                                                                                            
 households with one child and $17,750 for                                                                                                                                                                                              
 households with two or more children:                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    a. Revenue................................  tyba 12/31/95                               36        712        751        781        785        871        967      1.021      1,084      1,150        3,065        4,903        8,158
    b. Outlay reductions......................  tyba 12/31/95                               19        371        390        412        468        459        479        503        530        557        1,660        2,598        4,188
6. Set the maximum credit rate for taxpayers                                                                                                                                                                                            
 with multiple children at 36%:                                                                                                                                                                                                         
    a. Revenue................................  tyba 12/31/95                               13        259        258        365        343        406        433        508        540        574        1,239        2,078        3,701
    b. Outlay reductions......................  tyba 12/31/95                               82      1,641      1,723      1,697      1,812      1,836      1,882      1,901      1,966      2,033        6,955       10,673       16,572
7. Require Social Security numbers for primary                                                                                                                                                                                          
 and secondary taxpayers and treat omission of                                                                                                                                                                                          
 a correct Social Security number and                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 underpayment of SECA as a math error and                                                                                                                                                                                               
 other compliance proposals \1\:                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    a. Revenue................................  tyba 12/31/95                                1         29         31         31         32         32         32         21         21         22          124          188          251
    b. Outlay reductions......................  tyba 12/31/95                               11        224        233        237        243        246        252        270        277        284          948        1,446        2,277
8. Apply an enhancement factor to the earned                                                                                                                                                                                            
 income of households with two or more                                                                                                                                                                                                  
 qualifying children for the purpose of                                                                                                                                                                                                 
 calculating the EIC:                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
    a. Revenue................................  tyba 12/31/95                        .........         -1         -1         -1         -2         -1         -1         -2         -2         -2           -4           -6          -12
    b. Outlay reductions......................  tyba 12/31/95                              -57     -1,147     -1,188     -1,233     -1,281     -1,322     -1,329     -1,375     -1,417     -1,461       -4,907       -7,559      -11,812
                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total of EIC revenue \2\................  ...................................         60      1,183      1,294      1,391      1,493      1,627      1,845      1,985      2,158      2,346        5,421        8,894       15,383
                                                                                    ====================================================================================================================================================
      Total of EIC outlay reductions \2\......  ...................................        153      3,268      3,513      3,756      4,045      4,290      4,459      4,748      5,044      5,359       14,745       23,494       38,645
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes doubling of civil penalties for tax preparers.                                                                                                                                                                             
\2\ Due to interaction between the provisions, items do not sum to total package.                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Legend for ``Effective'' column: tyba = taxable years beginning after.                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding.                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.                                                                                                                                                                                                    

  Mr. EXON. The majority could have prevented this drain on the 
Treasury in the out-years by sunsetting the tax provisions. I read in 
the press that, at one time, they were actively considering such a 
notion. But they did not. The tax cuts continue to add to the debt year 
after year.
  It is this Senator's view that it is self-evident from the Joint Tax 
table that the tax title does indeed worsen the deficit in years beyond 
the 7 years covered by this reconciliation bill. It is thus this 
Senator's view that the violation of section 313(b)(1)(E) is plain.
  Some may argue that I am setting an impossible standard for ever 
enacting tax cuts. Quite to the contrary, my colleagues on the other 
side could have avoided this point of order in a number of ways. I am 
not here to give free parliamentary advice, but they could have 
sunsetted the tax breaks, as I noted earlier. They could have included 
the tax breaks in the same title as the Medicare spending cuts. Or, 
during consideration of the budget resolution reconciliation 
instructions, they could have specified that section 313(b)(1)(E) would 
not apply to the tax breaks. Any one of these three steps would have 
prevented a violation of the point of order. But they didn't do any of 
them.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I believe a point of order should lie 
against subtitles A through D of title XI of this conference report 
because they violate section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974.
  Mr. President, I understand that the parliamentarian has advised that 
he will not agree that these 2 points of order lie against the bill. 
Everyone should have known that the fix is in for these tax breaks. If 
there had been any doubt, that doubt has now been set aside. The 
majority has demonstrated that it will do whatever it needs to do--
including bend and stretch the rule--to protect its cherished tax 
breaks for the wealthy.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, thank you.
  Mr. President, this is a moment, frankly, for which I have been 
waiting since I made the decision to run for Congress in October 1981 
just over 14 years ago. I left a career in the financial market to 
become a member of Congress. I came here with the idea that we 
absolutely had to get control of the growth of Federal Government and 
its spending. So, to me, this is a historic moment. Now I want to 
respond to Senator Pell's comment a moment ago about the shrill 
partisanship --and I know that from time to 

[[Page S 17280]]
time there are some extreme expressions of feeling with respect to what 
we are doing--but I would just like to remind each of us in the Senate 
that the reason there may be shrillness in this debate, is because we 
are finally at the moment when we are debating what fundamentally 
divides us.
  Those on the left absolutely believe that the answers to America's 
problems come from more Government. And frankly, Republicans reject 
that. We think that America's future is based on the individual, that 
the our limitation is the one we place on our own imagination. And the 
Government, in fact, is a great player in that limitation. So the 
reason that we are having such a strong debate is because we are 
arguing over the principles that divide us. And, frankly, I am thankful 
that this moment finally has arrived.
  Maybe it is because my son called me the other night and told me that 
he just got engaged. Twenty-eight years old, and I could not be prouder 
of a son. But, I think about the future in which Connie will live, and 
I think about my daughter, who is in her thirties, with three 
grandsons--the cutest little guys in the world--I think about their 
futures. And so, I ask you to excuse me if I become passionate about 
what I have to say and the things I believe, because I honestly believe 
that the direction we have been headed will destroy this Nation. And 
that is why I feel so passionately about the items that we have been 
discussing.
  There is something fundamental that has happened over the last few 
days, though. And I think it is important for people to recognize it. 
For 3 years journalists, writers, and TV commentators have been trying 
to figure out just who is Bill Clinton. What does he stand for? When is 
he going to stand up and fight for what he believes in?
  And, I find it interesting that Bill Clinton has chosen this time and 
this issue to finally draw the line in the sand. You know what Bill 
Clinton is saying, ``I am opposed to balancing the budget in the next 7 
years.'' I am glad that he finally has made this statement and made 
this stand. Bill Clinton has now finally told the people in this 
country what he stands for, what he believes in. It is more Government, 
more taxes, and more Federal spending. He has drawn the line in the 
sand and he has told the people of this country, through his actions in 
the last few days, that he is in opposition to balancing the budget in 
the next 7 years.
  The second point I would like to raise has to do with a very 
fundamental part of what we are doing. And, yes, we are cutting the 
rate on capital gains. And you know why we are doing it? Because we 
believe that growth will take place as a result of this cut. And as a 
result of that growth, those little grandchildren that I talked about 
and my son are going to have a greater opportunity in the future, and 
with opportunity comes hope.
  That is what we are trying to do for the American people. That is why 
we are making this commitment. Do you know today that there is over 
$1.5 trillion locked up in the stock market because of high capital 
gains tax rates? It is time to unlock that capital. It is time to allow 
that capital to flow into the new technologies that will develop 
America's future.

  Oh, it is very popular to take the position of going after the 
wealthy. If you look at the record, you will find that when the wealthy 
invest America, everyone is better off.
  The other issue my friends on the other side of the aisle like to 
mention is Medicare. In fact, I heard one of the earlier speakers refer 
to the Medicare issue by saying the budget provision was going to rip 
the heart out of Medicare. Well, frankly, I am at a loss over how you 
can rip the heart out of Medicare while allowing it to grow from $4,800 
a year to $6,700 a year.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I yield at least 8 minutes--no more than 10 minutes--to my 
colleague from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and thank my friend from 
Nebraska.
  I spent most of today looking through the Republican package, 
specifically with respect to the so-called nursing home standards that 
have been included in this legislation before us tonight.
  Mr. President, I cannot say strongly enough how deeply offended I am 
by the extraordinary means that have been used to undermine the 
progress made in the most basic nursing home protections that have been 
won over the past 3 decades. I think that these Republican assaults on 
nursing home safeguards are no less than callous--I hate to say that--
and will open the door to a litany of further abuses that we have 
attempted to cure since the 1960's. The Republican leadership, through 
this attack, is saying basically ``too old, too sick, too bad'' to 
residents of nursing home facilities across our country.
  Mr. President, before I touch on some of the most glaring offenses of 
this package, I want to tell my colleagues that the law which this 
budget package is completely undermining, the 1987 nursing home quality 
standards law, was developed on a bipartisan basis, was agreed to by 
all interested groups, including the nursing home industry, nursing 
home advocates, care providers, unions, States, and finally, yes, the 
Congress of the United States. It followed literally years of 
discussions and came about because the record of the States in 
preventing nursing home abuse was appalling.
  In 1986 the report by the National Academy of Sciences, which was 
commissioned by the Congress, found shocking evidence of deficient care 
and inadequate enforcement. The study found that Government regulations 
of nursing homes, which was then conducted by the States, was totally 
unsatisfactory because it allowed too many marginal or substandard 
nursing homes to continue in operation.
  Mr. President, that was how it was during a time when lack of money 
was not all that much of a problem. Now, at this critical moment, as we 
prepare to severely reduce Medicaid funding to the States, the 
Republican budget also abdicates nearly all Federal responsibility to 
our most vulnerable citizens, the disabled and the infirm elderly in 
our nursing homes across our land.
  What we have before us, Mr. President, in this basic conference 
report that we will be voting on in a short time--this conference 
report includes what I declare as an abdication of our Federal role, an 
abdication of our responsibility to the 2 million nursing home 
residents in our country today.
  In this Republican budget we find that their version of what 
constitutes nursing home standards, in my opinion, is a warped version 
of the current law. Some very crafty legislative drafters have spent 
long hours in their attempts to totally and completely undercut the 
basic progress that we have made over the past years in protecting the 
nursing home residents from abuse.
  Let me try to explain exactly what this means:
  Where current law allows for Federal standards for nurse aide 
training, they are eliminated.
  Where current law allows for Federal guidance with respect to 
transfers and discharges, the Republican proposal eliminates all 
guidance in that area.
  Where current law, Mr. President, prohibits discrimination against 
Medicaid residents and prohibits facilities from charging residents, 
their families or friends to guarantee admission to the facility, those 
Federal protections by the Republicans are totally removed from this 
bill.
  Where current law requires Federal guidelines to qualify as a 
facility administrator, these guidelines are totally removed, Mr. 
President. They are now left to the States.
  Where current law requires that facilities meet Federal standards 
with respect to protecting residents' personal funds, these protections 
are totally stricken and left up to the States and to the nursing home 
owners.
  Where current law imposes requirements for sound administration of a 
facility, these guarantees are totally expunged from the record.
  To add insult to injury, in addition to abdicating so many Federal 
responsibilities to these vulnerable individuals and dumping these 
requirements on the States, the Republican plan now before us would 
also eliminate any required date by which the States must be sure to 
meet its responsibility that had formerly been handled by the Secretary 
of HHS. 

[[Page S 17281]]

  So we are now saying that States must meet these requirements 
whenever, but not at a specific time. This is unconscionable, Mr. 
President. How can we in less than a decade abandon these nursing home 
residents? How can we, by a vote of 51 to 48 in this body, say we want 
the strongest standards, and again just a few days ago by a vote of 95 
to 1 on Monday of this week, and now walk away from all of those 
standards and say we are abdicating our responsibilities? What in the 
world is going on?
  What we are about to do is basically to begin a program of 
warehousing the elderly population of our country. We have identified 
at least 11 basic nursing home standards that have been abolished under 
this plan. I know that there are many more.
  This plan allows homes to extort money in return for a guarantee of 
admission to a facility. Under present law, Mr. President, this is 
prohibited. Now we are abolishing that prohibition.
  The Republican plan allows facilities to commingle residents' 
individual savings accounts.
  It allows homes to keep the interest on resident savings accounts 
below $250.
  And it goes on and on and on. In fact, it kills Senator John 
Danforth's self-determination provision on living wills so that 
residents will have all of the information about making and what 
constitutes a valid living will.
  Mr. President, further, what other quality assurance protection does 
the budget package eliminate? It cuts down the fines from $10,000 to 
$5,000 per nursing home. The budget plan eliminates the uniform 
assessment tool which has been hailed universally by providers, States, 
surveyors, and residents alike, and by those people who service 
ombudsman nursing home patients and the residents.
  All of these changes are bad enough. This legislation allows private 
entities to certify that facilities have met the quality standards, 
further reducing accountability of the State and the facilities to meet 
the Federal guidelines of the Government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for one moment 
while the Chair gets order. Those Members and staff members in the back 
who are having conversations, please take your conversations to the 
Cloakroom.
  Mr. PRYOR. May I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 7 minutes, 36 seconds.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair for maintaining order.
  Mr. President, I do not have time to complete my statement. Let me 
just say that the National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform 
has written me today urging that we look very carefully at passing this 
legislation. The AARP, in their press release this afternoon, expressed 
their concern about the enforcement of nursing home quality standards 
and implies that they are further weakened in this particular 
conference report.
  The Nursing Home National Seniors Center, run by Toby Edelman, has 
done a memorandum that I am going to ask be printed in the Record, and 
other documents, Mr. President.
  I also have a letter from Service Employees. These four documents I 
ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  National Citizens' Coalition for


                                          Nursing Home Reform,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 1995.
     Hon. David Pryor,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pryor: The National Citizens' Coalition for 
     Nursing Home Reform (NCCNHR) has grave concerns about the 
     language regarding nursing home standards contained in the 
     report from the Conference Committee. We are extremely 
     disappointed by the disconcerting language accepted by the 
     Committee members. Although the Conference language resembles 
     the current Nursing Home Reform Act, it serves to 
     significantly weaken and undermine the current standards, to 
     the dangerous detriment of residents of nursing homes.
       Our preliminary review of the conference language has 
     identified the following areas of concern:
       Elimination of the requirement for facilities to provide 
     care and services to allow each resident to attain or 
     maintain his or her ``highest practicable level of physical, 
     mental, and psychosocial functioning.''
       Elimination of the right to quality care and quality of 
     life for each resident. Instead, the conference language 
     speaks to ``residents'' collectively.
       Elimination of the requirement of federal standards for 
     conducting a resident assessment using a national uniform 
     minimum data set.
       Loss of protections against discrimination based on source 
     of payment and duration of stay contracts upon admission.
       Elimination of federal standards for nurse aide training--
     including elimination of required 75 hours of training.
       Elimination of the requirement for facilities with 120+ 
     beds to employ a qualified social worker.
       Substantial watering down of transfer and discharge 
     protections.
       Significant weakening of survey and certification 
     requirements, including:
       A two-year survey cycle (changed from 9-15 months).
       Elimination of comprehensive training for state and federal 
     surveyors.
       Less frequent federal validation surveys--from yearly to 
     every 3 years.
       Public disclosure of survey results--``within a reasonable 
     time,'' instead of the current, within 14 days.
       Significant weakening of enforcement provisions, including:
       Elimination of language requiring application of remedies 
     in such a way as to minimize the time between the 
     identification of violations and the final imposition of 
     remedies.
       Elimination of language calling for incrementally more 
     severe fines for repeated or uncorrected deficiencies.
       Elimination of retroactive civil money penalties for past 
     noncompliance.
       Reduction of highest civil money penalty from $10,000 to 
     $5,000.
       Provision allowing for deemed status to accrediting 
     agencies.
       This weakening of the federal standards is unwarranted and 
     unconscionable. Based on a review of proposals submitted by 
     the American Health Care Association, it is clear that the 
     nursing home industry played a major role in the drafting of 
     these provisions--a fact that again highlights the leverage 
     this industry has at the state and national level.
       We strongly urge you, and your colleagues, to oppose this 
     language. It can only serve to destroy the progress brought 
     by the 1987 Nursing Home Reform Act--a law passed with 
     bipartisan support by a previous Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Elma L. Holder,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____


                  [From the AARP News, Nov. 16, 1995]

        AARP Statement on the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995

       The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) remains 
     very concerned about the magnitude of reductions to Medicare 
     and Medicaid contained in the conference report to the Budget 
     Reconciliation Act. While the report includes some further 
     improvements, Congress still has a long way to go.
       The Association is pleased that the Medicare Part-B 
     deductible remains at $100 a year, as in the House bill. But 
     the total cuts to Medicare and Medicaid over seven years are 
     still too much, too fast, and enforcement of nursing home 
     quality standards has been further weakened in the report.
       Four hundred billion dollars in cuts from these two major 
     health care programs that serve older and low-income 
     Americans do not meet the fairness test. Reductions in 
     Medicare called for in the conference report are much more 
     than is necessary to keep the program solvent into the next 
     decade.
       Millions of American families depend on Medicare and 
     Medicaid for their basic health care coverage, for protection 
     against the high cost of long-term care and for financial 
     security. These protections, for Americans of all ages, are 
     now at risk.
       Cutting $164 billion from Medicaid over the next seven 
     years is far more than the program can shoulder. Frail, older 
     Americans, most of whom are single, elderly women who have 
     worked hard all of their lives, and children from low-income 
     families would be the hardest hit by such drastic cuts.
       At this juncture in the budget debate, it's a shame that a 
     veto is necessary, but unfortunately, there is no other 
     alternative. AARP will continue to work with Congress and the 
     Administration to get fair legislation that ensures future 
     Medicare solvency and reduces the federal budget deficit.
                                                                    ____

     Memorandum.
     To: Interested people.
      From: Toby Eldeman.
     Re conference committee language on nursing home reform.
     Date: November 16, 1995.
       I've just gotten the conference committee language and have 
     gone very quickly through it to compare it with the current 
     law and with the proposals made by the American Health Care 
     Association.
       The language represents a dramatic step backwards in all 
     respects: the standards facilities would be required to meet, 
     the survey and certification process, and the enforcement 
     system. On my first quick reading, I think the most serious 
     problems are:
       1. Standards for facilities:
       A. Loss of the entitlement to high quality of care for each 
     individual resident; the language speaks of care to 
     ``residents.''
       B. Loss of language ``highest practicable physical, mental, 
     and psychosocial well-being'' as description of required 
     services.

[[Page S 17282]]

       C. Loss of protections against Medicaid discrimination in 
     admission.
       D. Loss of federal standards for nurse aid training, 
     transfer and discharge, resident assessment. States would 
     have sole authority to determine standards.
       E. Loss of Secretary's duty and responsibility for 
     standards, enforcement and federal money.
       F. Substantial watering down of protections in transfer and 
     discharge.
       G. Financial issues: loss of rules specifying what care and 
     services are covered by Medicaid and what care and services 
     are not; protection for Medicaid residents who pay the entire 
     Medicaid rate as their share of cost.
       2. Survey and certification
       A. Two year survey cycle.
       B. Loss of comprehensive training for surveyors by 
     Secretary.
       C. Reduced federal validation surveys; from annual to every 
     3 years.
       D. Public disclosure of survey results--from within 14 
     calendar days of providing to facility to ``within a 
     reasonable time.''
       3. Enforcement
       /A. Deemed status to accrediting agencies (very serious 
     issue).
       B. Loss of language for both states and Secretary requiring 
     enforcement systems that minimize the time between 
     identification of deficiencies and imposition of remedies; 
     more severe penalties for more serious or uncorrected 
     deficiencies.
       C. Loss of retroactive civil money penalties.
       D. Reduction of highest civil money penalty to $5000.
       It looks to me as if, generally, the conferees listened to 
     AHCA on the Requirements for facilities and to the Governors 
     on survey, certification, and enforcement.
       Section of bill--What the change is and why the change is a 
     problem. Whether AHCA proposed the change.
       2137(b)(1)(A)--Quality of life: adds the word 
     ``reasonably'' before promotes,'' thus qualifying the 
     requirement.--Yes
       2137(b)(2)--Scope of services and activities under plan of 
     care: deletes current language ``to attain and maintain the 
     highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-
     being'' after services and activities: the new language 
     requires facilities ``to provide services and activities in 
     accordance with a written plan of care.''--Yes
       2137(b)(3)(A)(ii)--Resident assessment: says the instrument 
     is specified by the state; deletes the requirement that the 
     assessment be based on minimum data set specified by the 
     Secretary.--No
       2137(b)(3)(E)--Resident assessment: requires facility to 
     notify state mental health authority or mental retardation or 
     developmental disability authority, as applicable, of change 
     in physical or mental condition of a resident who is mentally 
     ill or mentally retarded. New requirement.--No
       Deletes preadmission screening and annual resident review 
     (PASARR). We don't disagree with this deletion.--Yes
       2137(b)(4)(A)(i)--Provision of services and activities: 
     deletes ``to attain and maintain the highest practicable 
     physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being'' after 
     ``nursing and related services and specialized rehabilitative 
     services.''.--Yes
       2137(b)(4)(A)--Provision of services: changes language from 
     providing services to ``each resident'' to ``residents'' for 
     social services (2137(b)(4)(A)(ii)); pharmaceutical services 
     (2137(b)(4)(A)(iii)); dietary services (2137(b)(4)(A)(iv)); 
     activities (2137(b)(4)(A)(v)); dental services 
     (2137(b)(4)(A)(v)).--Yes
       2137(b)(4)(A)--Provision of services: deletes mental health 
     services for mentally ill and mentally retarded residents.--
     Yes
       2137(B)(5)(F)(iii)--Nurse aid training: Adds a new 
     exclusion from definition of nurse aide; excludes a person 
     ``who is trained, whether compensated or not, to perform a 
     task-specific function which assists residents in their daily 
     activities.'' The industry has wanted this language to hire 
     people to feed residents and do other tasks, but not to train 
     them as nurse aides.--Yes
       Excludes current language requiring facilities with more 
     than 120 beds from having at least one social worker with at 
     least a bachelor's degree in social work or similar 
     professional qualifications. 1396r(b)(7).--No
       2137(c)(1)(A)(v)--Residents rights: accommodation of needs; 
     adds language after the right to receive notice before room 
     or roommate is changed to say ``unless a delay in changing 
     the room or roommate while notice is given would endanger the 
     resident or others.'' The industry has not liked giving 
     notice.--Yes
       Excludes current language giving residents the right to 
     refuse certain transfers (transfers facilities make to get 
     coverage under a payment program). 1396r(c)(1)(A)(x).--Yes
       2137(c)(2)(B)(ii)(V)--Transfer and discharge: adds a new 
     reason not to have to give a 30 day notice: ``a case where 
     the provision of a 30-day notice would be impossible or 
     impracticable.'' This language essentially eliminate the 30-
     day notice requirement; facilities would always claim it was 
     impossible or impracticable to give 30 day notice.--Yes
       2137(c)(2)(B)(iv)--Transfer and discharge: adds a new 
     ``exception'' statement; ``This subparagraph shall not apply 
     to a voluntary transfer or discharge necessitated by a 
     medical emergency.'' Since there is no definition of 
     ``voluntary,'' we would see many transfers and discharges 
     called voluntary.--Yes
       2137(c)(2)(C)--Orientation for transfer and discharge: 
     changes the language to require just ``reasonable'' 
     preparation and orientation; and instead of requiring, as 
     current law does, that preparation and orientation ``ensure 
     safe and orderly transfer or discharge,'' the new language 
     requires only that preparation and orientation ``promote'' 
     safe and orderly transfer or discharge.--Yes
       2137(c)(2)(D)(iii)--Bed reserve: adds language to confirm 
     that a resident is not entitled to the next available bed if 
     it is a private room.--Yes
       Deletes current language requiring facilities to give 
     information to residents about advance directives. 
     1396r(c)(2)(E).--No
       2137(c)(3)(C)--Access and visitation rights: adds new 
     qualification to visits by saying there is immediate access 
     ``unless such access would endanger the health or safety of 
     the resident or others in the facility.'' Denying access to 
     family members who complain is common. This language would 
     strengthen facilities' ability to deny access to visitors. 
     Notice that the language does not include this qualification 
     for any other category of visitor.--Yes
       Deletes current language prohibiting discrimination in 
     admission. 1396r(c)(2)(5).--Yes
       2137(c)(5)(B)(i)--Protection of residents funds: raises the 
     amount that must be deposited in an interest bearing account 
     to $250. Note that the personal needs allowance is $35 per 
     month (although states may allow more).--Yes
       2137(c)(5)(B)(ii)--Protection of resident funds: deletes a 
     word from the current language, which I think is 
     ``separate.'' If that's the deletion, the language would no 
     longer require separate accountings of residents' funds.--Yes
       Deletes current language requiring facilities to notify 
     residents when their balances are $200 less than the amount 
     that would make them lose Medicaid eligibility.--No
       2137(c)(5)(B)(iii)--Protection of resident funds: 
     conveyance upon death: adds language ``All other personal 
     property, including medical records, shall be considered part 
     of the resident's estate and shall only be released to the 
     administrator of the estate.'' This language would appear to 
     allow facilities to keep residents' property and release it 
     only to the administrator of the estate. It would also enable 
     facilities to deny medical records to family members unless 
     they were appointed administrator.--Yes
       Deletes current language which defines as a Medicaid person 
     an individual whose share of cost equals the entire Medicaid 
     rate. These people currently are considered Medicaid 
     residents and cannot be charged more than the Medicaid rate. 
     1396r(c)(7)(B).--Yes
       2137(d)(1)(C)--Nursing facility administrator: adds 
     language to require administrators of all facilities, whether 
     freestanding or hospital-based, to meet the Secretary's 
     standards. The industry has been interested in making 
     hospital-based facilities meet nursing facility standards. 
     This is one way to make it difficult for hospital-based 
     facilities to be nursing facilities.--Yes
       2137(d)(4)(A)--Miscellaneous administrative issues: 
     compliance with federal, state, and local laws and 
     professional standards: applies this language to hospital-
     based facilities. Same reasoning as above.--Yes
       2137(e)(1)--State requirements; specification and review of 
     nurse aide training; deletes current requirements that state 
     nurse aide training program meet federal standards.--No
       2137(e)(3)--State requirements; state appeals process for 
     transfers and discharges; deletes current requirement that 
     states meet federal standards on appeals process.--No
       2137(e)(4)--State requirements; nursing facility 
     administrator standards; adds requirement that hospital-based 
     administrators meet administrator standards. Same reasoning 
     as other issues where hospital-based facilities must meet 
     same requirements as free-standing.--No
       2137(e)(5)--State requirements; specification of resident 
     assessment instrument; deletes current requirement that state 
     choose a resident assessment instrument designated by the 
     Secretary or approved by the Secretary as being consistent 
     with the minimum data set.--No
       2137(e)(7)--State requirements; keeps preadmission 
     screening but deletes annual resident review. AHCA wanted 
     PASARR deleted.
       2137(f)(l)--In current law, this establishes the 
     Secretary's duties. The new language makes this a state duty. 
     So current federal law which now says: ``It is the duty and 
     responsibility of the Secretary to assure that requirements 
     which govern the provision of care in nursing facilities . . 
     . and the enforcement of such requirements are adequate to 
     protect the health, safety, welfare, and rights of residents 
     and to promote the effective and efficient use of public 
     money.'' Is now changed to say ``It is the duty and 
     responsibility of a State with a MediGrant plan . . . .''
       2137(f)(2)--Requirements for nurse aid training and 
     competency evaluation programs: This is Section (f), but it 
     is only a state duty under the new language. Specific 
     language from current law is deleted, as requested as AHCA, 
     but I can't read the language on my copy tonight.
       Deletes federal requirements for transfer and discharge and 
     does not place the duty on states. 1396r(f)(3).
       2137(f)(3)--Qualifications of administrators: adds language 
     to require hospital-based administrators to meet federal 
     standards.--Yes
       Deletes current rules for Criteria for Administration, 
     which required the Secretary to establish rules for 
     administration in such areas as disaster preparedness, 
     direction of medical care by a physician, clinical records. 
     1396r(f)(5).--No

[[Page S 17283]]

       Deletes current rules for Criteria for Administration, 
     which required the Secretary to establish rules for 
     administration in such areas as disaster preparedness, 
     direction of medical care by a physician, clinical records. 
     1396r(f)(5).--No
       Deletes List of items and services furnished in nursing 
     facilities not chargeable to the personal funds of a 
     resident. 1396r(f)(7). This language required the Secretary 
     to establish by rules which items and services are covered by 
     Medicaid and which items and services could be charged to 
     residents. As 1396r(f)(7)(A) explicitly says, Congress first 
     told the Secretary to publish such rules in 1977 as part of 
     the Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments of 
     1977. HCFA finally published these rules in 1992 or so. I can 
     get the exact date.--No
       Deletes current language on PASARR. 1396r(f)(8).--Yes
       Deletes current requirement re federal criteria for monitor 
     state waivers of nurse staffing requirements. 1396r(f)(9).--
     No
       2137(g)(1)(A)--Survey and certification: deletes 
     prohibition against states determining compliance with state 
     facilities.--Yes
       Survey and certification: deletes requirement for 
     educational program for staff and residents and their 
     representatives. 1396r(g)(1)(B).--No
       2137(g)(2)(A)(iii)(I)--Annual surveys: extends the time to 
     24 months (from 12 months) unless the facility has been 
     subjected to an extended survey. In that case, 12 months.--No
       2137(g)(2)(A)(iii)(II)--Special surveys following change in 
     ownership, administration, management: changes time to 4 
     months (I can't read what the current time period is.)--Yes
       2137(g)(2)(C)(i)--Survey protocol: says protocol that the 
     Secretary has developed, tested, and validated ``as of the 
     date of the enactment of this title.'' Current law says as of 
     Jan. 1, 1990.--No
       2137(g)(2)(C)(ii)--Survey protocol: says surveyors must 
     meet minimum qualifications established by the State. Current 
     law says Secretary.--No
       Deletes current requirement that Secretary provides for 
     comprehensive training of state and federal surveyors. 
     1396r(g)(2)(E)(iii).--No
       2137(g)(3)(B)--Validation surveys: Requires Secretary to 
     conduct validation surveys at least every 3 years of 5% of 
     facilities in the state, but at least 5 per state. Current 
     law requires these numbers of validation surveys annually. 
     1396r(g)(3)(B).--No
       Deletes Reductions in Administrative Costs for Substandard 
     Performance, current language which allows the Secretary to 
     penalize states that fail to perform survey and certification 
     activities adequately. 1396r(g)(3)(C).--No
       Deletes current language that permits states to maintain 
     and utilize a specialized survey team. 1396r(g)(4) [This is 
     part of Investigation of Complaints and Monitoring Nursing 
     Facility Compliance]--No
       2137(g)(5)(A)--Disclosure of Results of Inspections and 
     Activities; Public Information: new language requires public 
     disclosure of survey information ``within a reasonable 
     time,'' current law says within 14 calendar days after such 
     information is provided to facility.--No
       2137(h)(1)--Enforcement: adds new (A) saying state must 
     require facility to correct deficiency.--No
       Deletes current language at end of 1396r(h)(1) authorizing 
     retroactive civil money penalties.--Yes
       Deletes current language about use of civil money penalties 
     that are collected to protect health or property of 
     residents. 1396r(h)(2)(A)(ii).--No
       Deletes current language at the end of 1396r(h)(2)(A) 
     saying that state criteria must minimize the time between 
     identification of deficiencies and imposition of remedies and 
     provide for incrementally more severe fines for repeated or 
     uncorrected deficiencies; and that states may provide for 
     other specified remedies, such as directed plans of 
     correction.--Yes
       Deletes current language about deadline and guidance on 
     enforcement. 1396r(h)(2)(B).
       2137(h)(2)(C)--Assuring prompt compliance: Changes 
     mandatory imposition of denial of payment if a facility fails 
     to come into compliance within 3 months; changes mandatory 
     into permissive--state ``may'' impose the remedy.--Yes
       Deletes language about funding for temporary management 
     other remedies. 1396r(h)(2)(E).--No
       Deletes Incentives for High Quality Care. 1396r(h)(2)(F).--
     No
       2137(h)(3)(B)--Secretarial authority: substantially 
     revised. New language requires Secretary to notify state of 
     deficiency it finds in a facility; must give state reasonable 
     period of time to take enforcement action. If state doesn't 
     act or if the deficiency remains uncorrected, the Secretary 
     can take enforcement action.--No
       Deletes language permitting Secretary to impose retroactive 
     civil money penalty. 1396r(h)(3).--Yes
       2137(h)(3)(C)--Civil money penalty: Reduces maximum penalty 
     to $5000 (from $10,000).--Yes
       Deletes language (as for the state) requiring criteria to 
     minimize the time between identifying deficiencies and 
     imposing sanctions, etc. 1396r(h)(4).--No
       2137(h)(4)--Special Rules Regarding Payments to Facilities; 
     Continuation of Payments Pending Remediation: revises the 
     language to permit payment to facilities for 6 months; no 
     requirement of states repaying Secretary if the facility does 
     not come into compliance.--No
       Deletes current language about immediate termination of 
     participation for facility where state or Secretary finds 
     noncompliance and immediate jeopardy, 1396r(h)(5); Special 
     Rules where State and Secretary do not agree on finding of 
     noncompliance, 1396r(h)(6); special rules for timing of 
     termination of participation where remedies overlap, 
     1396r(h)(7).
       New language about sharing of information between states 
     and Secretary. 2137(h)(6).
       New language, Construction, about Medicare Requirements. 
     2137(l)(1).
       New language, Construction, permitting accreditation at 
     option of state of Secretary. 2137(i)(2).
                                                                    ____

                                                 Service Employees


                            International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 1995.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 1.1 million members of the 
     Service Employees International Union, I urge you to vote 
     against the conference report on Budget Reconciliation. Among 
     the damaging provisions included in the bill are amendments 
     to the Nursing Home Reform Act which would cripple the Act, 
     endanger nursing homes residents, and impoverish their 
     families.
       The amendments in the Conference Report are merely another 
     tactic pursued by opponents of the nursing home reform act to 
     repeal those provisions. To place this effort in context, I 
     would remind you that as passed by the House and introduced 
     in the Senate, the reconciliation bills repealed the federal 
     standards. At introduction, the extreme proposals repealed 
     even protections against use of physical and chemical 
     restraints, spousal impoverishment, and training of nurse 
     aides. Only when the Senate voted to retain the Nursing Home 
     Reform Act, were the opponents of the protections for nursing 
     home residents turned aside in their effort to repeal the 
     standard.
       In their new tactic, opponents of federal nursing homes 
     standards are attempting to repeal the standards by enacting 
     gutting amendments. For example, on quality of care, where 
     the current statute states that ``a nursing facility must 
     provide services and activities to attain or maintain the 
     highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well 
     being of each resident in accordance with a written plan'', 
     the opponents have crafted an amendment in the conference 
     agreement that restates this provision to read ``a nursing 
     facility must provide services and activities in accordance 
     with a written plan''.
       On training, current statutes require that workers 
     providing nursing or nursing related services be trained and 
     receive in-service education. The opponents' amendment would 
     allow all nursing facilities, regardless of the number of 
     civil penalties, deficiency reports, and demonstrated 
     substandard care incidents at the facility, to perpetuate 
     those problems by running their own nurse aide training 
     programs. In addition, the opponents' amendment excludes from 
     the training requirement ``any individual who is trained, 
     whether compensated or not, to perform a task-specific 
     function which assists residents in their daily activities''. 
     The opponents' amendment does not set standards for the 
     training, does not require continuing education, and does not 
     even require that the ``task-specific function'' performed by 
     the individual be the task for which they receive the 
     undefined training.
       On spousal impoverishment, the opponents of federal 
     standards have scored one of their most tragic successes. 
     They have included a repeal of the provision that stated that 
     a ``nursing facility must not require a third party guarantee 
     of payment to the facility as a condition of admission (or 
     expedited admission) to, or continued stay in the facility''. 
     With this provision repealed, spouses and children can be 
     coerced by nursing homes to pay nursing home bills that 
     average $38,000 a year.
       Finally, were any facility to be so incompetent that it 
     manages to violate the few shreds of remaining federal 
     standards, they will be saved from their own incompetency by 
     toothless enforcement provisions. The opponents of federal 
     standards have included verbatim amendments drafted by the 
     American Health Care Association. The nursing home industry's 
     amendments, as would be expected, strike language that allows 
     a state to ``provide for a civil money penalty for the days 
     in which it finds that the facility was not in compliance 
     with such requirements,'' which ``shall provide for the 
     imposition of incrementally more severe fines for repeated or 
     uncorrected deficiences'' and on and on and on.
       We know from experience what happens when the Federal 
     government pulls out of nursing home regulation. Federal 
     regulation was minimal during the 1960s, `70s, and early 
     `80s, and the results were disastrous: Disabilities, 
     permanent injuries, and even premature death to nursing home 
     residents. The 1986 report of a national study commission 
     found that: ``In the past 15 years, many studies of nursing 
     home care have identified both grossly inadequate care and 
     abuse of residents.'' The Gingrich troops often talk as if 
     they are conducting an important experiment on the power of 
     free markets. When it comes to nursing homes, we've tried 
     this experiment before, and the tragic findings are burned in 
     our memory.
       The Federal government jumped into nursing home regulation 
     because of abuses in the 

[[Page S 17284]]
     industry. Incredibly, the Republicans propose to abandon oversight 
     activities at the same time that they begin squeezing nursing 
     home operators in a financial vise. About half of nursing 
     home revenues come from Medicaid, the program Speaker 
     Gingrich proposes to cut by over $160 billion. Nursing home 
     workers know well how corners are cut and how patient care 
     suffers when executives focus on cost reduction. Who will 
     protect patients and who will safeguard quality as nursing 
     home operators scramble to cope with massive revenue losses?
       Future trends will also transform the type of care 
     delivered by nursing homes. Nursing homes will be caring for 
     people with more serious medical needs. A common strategy to 
     control health care costs involves moving patients out of 
     hospitals and into nursing homes--during surgical recovery, 
     for instance. One reason that nursing homes have been trusted 
     with such work is the Federal training standards for nursing 
     staff. Our workers tell us that this training has 
     substantially improved nursing home operations. The training 
     requirements must not be junked at a time when the home 
     population is getting sicker and requires more sophisticated 
     care.
       Federal regulations are the lifeline protecting quality of 
     care for nursing home residents. Federal oversight helped 
     rescue us from a grim past. We must not ask nursing home 
     residents to give up that lifeline as we sail into a stormy 
     future.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  John J. Sweeney,
                                          International President.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, finally, I never thought I would see the 
day of such an attempted emasculation of nursing home standards which 
we fought so hard to protect. I never thought I would see it; never 
thought it would happen. I do not know why it is happening, but it is 
unbelievable that this Nation, the greatest Nation on the face of the 
Earth, with the full force and effect of the Republican-controlled 
Senate and the House, our Federal Government is about to wash its hands 
of the responsibility toward protecting 2 million seniors who today 
reside in American nursing homes.
  While we have the basic safeguards of 1987, we are today basically 
walking away from those safeguards and saying to that nursing home 
resident, ``We want no more to do with you. We are going to cut you 
adrift, and we are going to let you basically fend for yourself.''
  Over Thanksgiving, I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, or anyone who supports obliterating these standards, to go back 
to a nursing home in your State, to look those residents in the eye and 
to tell them how proud you are to have voted to compromise their safety 
and well-being and quality of life and walk away from the commitment 
that we have had for almost a decade to protect their livelihood.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator 
from Michigan.
  This afternoon late, a Mr. Don Shelby called our office. He was 
calling from the St. Vincent de Paul Hospice in Austin, TX. He told me 
that he had voted for me in the last election and that he would not be 
alive long enough to vote for me again, but he and the people in the 
hospice with him were so concerned about what is going on in Washington 
that they collected $8 in change to go to a pay phone and call my 
office.
  And the message was this: ``Stick to your guns. I will not be around, 
but I want to know when I die that my children are going to have a 
future.''
  I want to say to Mr. Shelby and the people who contributed the $8 to 
make that call, we will not let you down. We will not. We will stick to 
our guns. We will do what is right for this country, as hard as it may 
be. We will do the right thing.
  The people of this country have been promised for 25 years that the 
politicians in Washington would balance the budget. Twenty-five years, 
and we have failed every year. This is our opportunity. This is our 
chance.
  Always before people said, ``They'll never do it. The entitlements, 
it's too hard; they'll never do it.'' But we are doing it.
  I have heard speeches on this floor all afternoon. ``Those radical 
Republicans.'' Radical? Is it radical to keep a promise you made? Is it 
radical to run for an election in 1994 and promise the people that you 
will balance the budget, that you will make the tough choices, no 
matter the consequences and then keep that promise? I do not think so. 
It is unusual, because people have been promised so many times in the 
past and the promises have not been kept. It is unusual to keep a 
promise, but I do not think it is radical, and I do not think the 
American people do either.
  We are going to pass tonight the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It will 
be the first time that the politicians in this country in 25 years have 
kept their promise. The President keeps talking about a balanced 
budget, but he is doing what politicians have done for 25 years, and 
when it comes time to sign the dotted line, he is demurring, he is 
walking away from his promise that he made in the election of 1992 and 
he is saying, ``Oh, well, of course, I want a balanced budget, and I'm 
going to talk about it, but when it's presented to me, I'm not going to 
sign on.''
  The people are not stupid. They do understand a promise kept, and 
that is what is going to happen tonight. We are going to keep our 
promise to the homemakers of this country that they will have security 
and they will be able to contribute to IRA's just like those of us who 
work outside the home can do, so that the one-income-earner couple that 
sacrifices so that the homemaker can stay home and raise children will 
have the same retirement opportunities as if there had been two incomes 
earned for their families.
  We are going to have welfare reform, and we are going to say to the 
people who are out there working to make ends meet that it is worth it 
to work, because if able-bodied people can work but choose not to, they 
will not be on the welfare wagon more than 5 years in their lifetime. 
For the first time, we will put a lifetime limitation on able-bodied 
welfare recipients.
  And we are going to reform Medicaid. We are going to give it to the 
States where they can run it more efficiently. We are going to save 
Medicare. We are going to save Medicare for our elderly. We are going 
to increase spending in Medicare over 7 percent per year. And we are 
going to slow that rate of growth from 10 percent so that we can save 
the system--so that Mr. Shelby will know that it will be there for his 
children.
  Mr. President, we may make a few mistakes. This is a big bill. We may 
not do everything right. But there is one mistake that we cannot afford 
to make and that is to do nothing so that our children will inherit 
this debt of $5 trillion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Exon, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is interesting to note that since 
yesterday the name of this bill has changed. It is no longer the 
reconciliation bill. It is called something like the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1995. I am certain that the spin masters have said: All you good 
Republicans, do not refer to this as reconciliation because the 
American people do not like what they have heard.
  I think rather than change the name to the Balanced Budget Act of 
1995, a more appropriate name would be maybe something like the End of 
Rural Hospitals Act, or maybe you could come up with something like the 
Get Old People Act of 1995, or maybe Ruin the Environment Act of 1995, 
or maybe Destroy Education Act of 1995, or Punish the Veterans Act of 
1995, or maybe something even simpler like Save the Big Sugar Interests 
of the United States Act of 1995.
  Mr. President, it is not all or nothing. You see, on this side of the 
aisle, there are many people that believe in a balanced budget. In 
fact, most people do believe in a balanced budget amendment. The former 
chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member, the senior 
Senator from Nebraska, knows what balanced budgets are all about. He 
started talking about balanced budgets a long time ago when he 

[[Page S 17285]]
was Governor of the State of Nebraska. We have many people who believe 
in balanced budgets, but they believe in doing it in a fair way that 
does not hurt seniors, rural hospitals, the environment, damage 
education, or punish veterans.
  Mr. President, I think that we should recognize that the reason the 
name was changed overnight from ``reconciliation'' to the ``balanced 
budget act of 1995,'' I repeat, is because the American public does not 
like what they have heard in this reconciliation bill--this thousand-
page bill we received a few minutes ago.
  So this, Mr. President, is what the American people deserve, and that 
is a fair bill to balance the budget, which we want to do, also.
  Mr. President, on anything that I have said to this point, the 
Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, I am sure would disassociate 
himself with me. But what I am going to say now, he would associate 
himself with me, and he has given me permission to do so. We have a 
point of order that would lie against this bill, but we are not going 
to offer it. It is the Byrd rule point of order against the so-called 
trigger provisions contained in a section of the act dealing with the 
sugar program. It is on the basis--on many bases, but there is no 
change in outlays or revenues. We are not going to do that. But 
everyone should be aware that the Senator from Nevada and the Senator 
from New Hampshire are going to go after these sugar interests, which I 
believe, Mr. President, is one of the most damaging things that is in 
this piece of legislation.
  This legislation does nothing to help the family farmer. It hurts the 
family farmer. But what it does do is make a sweet deal for big sugar 
growers. As I said, this does not help the small family farmer. 
Seventeen cane growers get 58 percent of the benefits that come to all 
cane growers. One received more than $65 million--one person--in 1-
year; 33 growers received benefits of over a million dollars apiece a 
year; in Florida, the number one State in sugar production, two growers 
account for 75 percent of production.

  So the U.S. Senate and the Congress should be advised that the 
Senator from Nevada and the Senator from New Hampshire are going to 
make sure that the sugar program in the future is treated fairly, which 
it should be. The real losers in the Sugar Program that we have is the 
American consumer, who pays a huge amount for their sugar and they 
should not have to.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Michigan.
  This is probably a historical time for this body. The first time in 
many years that we have had the opportunity to balance the budget, to 
put us on the trail to do something responsible. I remember the 
speeches from the last 6 years and people saying, ``We believe in a 
balanced budget, but look at all the pain; maybe we can do it next 
year.'' Well, that next year has gone on for about 40 years and we kind 
of find ourselves in a pickle.
  I had a wonderful woman that used to work in our office. She has 
since transferred to Minneapolis with her husband, where he found a job 
opportunity, and they just had a brand-new baby. That is what this 
debate is all about. It is about this young one in this picture, 3-days 
old, born 10/7/95, 7\1/2\ pounds, 21\1/4\ inches long. That is what it 
is all about, folks. To do anything different jeopardizes the future of 
this young woman, this young lady right here in the picture. And it is 
because there are some of us who care to stand for maybe some very 
unpopular things right now, and take the responsibility, because we do 
care for this young woman. We want to hand her a nation that is strong 
economically and also strong politically.
  This debate has gone on a long time. Everybody says, ``Well, you have 
to quit wrangling up there on the Hill. We do not like to be 
furloughed.''
  I just got a letter from a young woman in Winston, MT. It says: 
``Stop the talking, do something different. I want to have a nice 
Thanksgiving and a Christmas.'' It is signed, ``Amanda Baum, Winston, 
Montana.''
  Well, Amanda, it is a two-way street. We offered a continuing 
resolution that would let your father go back to work as soon as 
possible. But, you know, there is a person on the other end of 
Pennsylvania avenue that said, no, I do not like that, so I am not 
going to sign it. So you are on furlough. But it takes two people. I 
say change the message and call the House at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
  In this Balanced Budget Act of 1995, there is a $500 per child tax 
credit. What does that mean to your individual States? I will tell you 
what it means in Montana. The total number of returns eligible for a 
tax credit will be around 66,000 people. There are only 800,000 people 
in my whole State, but 66,000 returns will qualify for this $500 per 
child tax credit. It will cover the amount of dependents of around 
98,000 people, and the value to the State of Montana is around $46 
million. That is money in families' pockets. That is money that can be 
put in a savings account to buy a home. It is money that can be put in 
a savings account that can pay for education for our young ones coming 
along, and for those folks who want the responsibility of managing 
their own money.
  So in this Balanced Budget Act, let us talk about some real things, 
like capital gains that help us all.
  No, we did not get all the AMT tax we wanted. Nonetheless, it does do 
something about depreciation--depreciation that creates jobs and 
expands job opportunities. That is what is in this package. That is 
what we need. We have to expand job opportunities.
  Economic development--my goodness, just the presence of the 
Government in your neighborhood is not economic development. We must 
produce real growth, either manufacturing or the development of natural 
resources that provides natural wealth. It just does not start here in 
Washington.
  I was taken aback a while ago when I saw the former Governor of 
Arkansas worrying about the nursing home regulations. What is the 
matter? Is this town the only one that has a conscience? He has no 
faith in the State governments to regulate their nursing homes to the 
benefit of our elderly?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BURNS. I am in complete support of this package. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. President, I am stunned that we still have to come to the floor 
to defend Medicare from the largest, most dangerous, most serious cut 
ever to surface since it was signed into law by President Johnson 
exactly 30 years ago.
  Yes, this nightmare is not a dream. The budget plan on the Senate 
floor this very minute aims its fire at Medicare for $270 billion in 
cuts over the 7 years. Guess what also survived the conference? A kitty 
of $245 billion of new tax breaks, new tax cuts, new tax relief that go 
to the wealthiest Americans and all kinds of corporations.
  That is right. To the 30 million senior citizens counting on 
Medicare, to the disabled citizens counting on Medicare, it is still 
the piggy bank for a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with 
Medicare and much more to do with tax breaks for the wealthy, tax 
increases for working families, cuts in education, and the other 
features of this budget plan now on the Senate for a final vote.
  You do not need a graduate degree in mathematics to do the basic 
arithmetic. Start with the proposition made by the Republican side of 
the aisle--that Medicare must be cut to save the program, preserve it, 
keep it solvent. But that is when you hit the brick wall. The trustees 
of the Medicare Part A Hospital Trust Fund say that $89 billion are 
needed to extend the Fund's solvency until the year 2006. Not $270 
billion, $89 billion. That is a difference of $181 billion.
  Why won't the Republicans listen to Medicare's trustees, and limit 
Medicare cuts to $89 billion so the program is solvent for 10 full 
years? Because they're listening to the tune whistled on the steps of 
the Capitol over a year ago, when the Contract for America was unfurled 
and $245 billion of tax breaks were promised.
  Of course, none will admit that Medicare is being raided to pay for 
tax breaks for the rich. Who in their right 

[[Page S 17286]]
mind would make that kind of confession?
  But we do not need a confession. The mountain of evidence is right 
here in this stack of paper that is the Republican budget plan called 
reconciliation. Medicare cuts of $270 billion or even more. Tax breaks 
of $245 billion. Case closed.
  This $270 billion sounds like a huge cut because it is a huge cut. 
You don't get $270 billion out of Medicare with a few nips here and a 
few tucks there. Squeezing that much money out of Medicare means 
increasing expenses for senior citizens, shrinking payments for 
hospitals and other providers, weakening Medicare's role in protecting 
against shoddy health care, and resorting to cheaper ways to pretend 
seniors will still get reliable health insurance. Make no mistake about 
it, $270 billion in Medicare cuts will hurt and will be noticed.

  In fact, let us take an up-close look at just how the Republicans 
came up with $270 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for tax breaks.
  But first, maybe I need to start by reminding some people around here 
just how important Medicare is to a vast portion of the American 
population. No wonder Americans are more likely to say about Congress 
they are scared to death than just angry.
  It is Medicare that the phrase, crown jewels, should be reserved for. 
The enactment of Medicare, as part of Social Security, was one of 
America's great triumphs. When the country said its older and disabled 
citizens would have health security for the first time in America's 
history, we took one of our greatest leaps as a nation. Before its 
enactment, less than half of this country's senior citizens had any 
kind of health insurance. An illness or accident or health problem 
would immediately crush someone in their 60's or 70's or 80's, or wipe 
out his or her children and grandchildren.
  That is why Medicare was created, fought over, and ultimately 
enacted. And it has worked. The 97 percent of America's seniors--30 
million people--now can wake up every morning, knowing Medicare is 
there. It has lifted seniors out of the poverty that the crushing costs 
of health care used to bear down on them. It has given them the peace 
of mind that they are not an overwhelming burden to their children and 
grandchildren. It has given them the dignity to live the later years 
without the terror of what will happen to them if they fall or need 
surgery.
  Mr. President, we are talking about 30 million senior citizens whose 
average income is less than $17,000. We are talking about 330,115 
senior citizens in West Virginia whose average income is around 
$10,000. We are talking about older Americans who already spend one-
fifth of these meager incomes on health care expenses that are not 
covered by Medicare--which include Medicare premiums and deductibles, 
prescription drugs, eyeglasses, certain tests, home care, and the list 
goes on.
  And we are not just talking about Medicare's meaning for senior 
citizens in West Virginia or Massachusetts or California. It is the 
same for seniors in Kansas, in Texas, name your State. We are talking 
about people with average incomes of $24,000 pay a fifth of their 
incomes on health care already, who are about the only Americans that 
have health care protection that cannot be taken away.

  Until today. Until we see this incredible budget plan that still 
takes $270 billion from Medicare, not to mention the $170 or $180 
billion from Medicare. Not to save Medicare, but to come up with $245 
billion in tax breaks for people with incomes far, far higher than 
$24,000 a year.
  Now it is time to talk about just exactly how this budget gets $270 
billion out of Medicare.
  It starts with a plan the whole country got a special education in 
this week--because it was even attached to the bill that is only 
supposed to ensure the Federal Government can operate.
  It starts with a plan the whole country got a special education in 
this week--because it was even attached to the bill that is only 
supposed to ensure the Federal Government can operate.
  I am talking about a Medicare premium increase. It may have been 
stripped from the continuing resolution, but it is back. This budget 
increases Part B premiums for seniors by $11 a month--adding up to an 
extra $1,240 for individual seniors over the next 7 years and an extra 
$2,480 per couple on Medicare. That is on top of everything else they 
are already spending on health care.
  There is plenty more.
  Remember the BELT idea when we had the Senate reconciliation bill on 
the floor a few weeks ago? It is gone in name, but not in spirit.
  Obviously, $270 billion in cuts means a lot less money for payments 
to doctors, hospitals, labs, and other health care services. But what 
happens if the targets in this budget are missed? Well, before, the 
BELT was whipped out, and it was actually called that in the Senate 
bill. Now it has been given a more subtle name, but it's still plenty 
lethal. It is called the lookback--this budget tells the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services that he or she will have to make last-minute, 
extra, surprise cuts in Medicare payments if for some reason all the 
cuts made before didn't go deep enough. This budget has to have this 
kind of last-minute Medicare guillotine built in. This budget has to 
get $270 billion out of Medicare, no matter what, or there won't be 
$245 billion to dole out in tax breaks.
  It goes on and on, Mr. President. Changes, cuts, setbacks, weakening 
of standards--it is all here to cut Medicare by $270 billion.
  In this budget, senior citizens are supposed to fend for themselves. 
Before this budget, they were protected from balance billing when they 
brought private insurance plans. But in this Republican budget, the 
price gouging can start again.
  Before this budget, there were Federal standards to make sure tests 
done in the labs located in the doctors' office were accurate and 
reliable. But in the Republican budget, the salespitches will start 
exploding. Medicare vouchers for managed care will be waved around, 
luring seniors into managed care and locking them in for 1 year. I can 
hear the telemarketers and advertisers writing the scripts, the 
jingles, and hiding the fine print--because here we come, Medical 
Savings Accounts. With this Republican budget, Medical Savings Accounts 
will be targeted, you can count on it, at the healthier seniors, 
driving up costs for everyone else and for the Medicare Program, and 
driving doctors away from accepting seniors.
  Mr. President, there are consequences to $270 billion of Medicare 
cuts. Ask the hospitals of your State. Listen to the senior citizens 
whose premiums and deductibles will go up.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter that denounces the Republican plan.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                 America's Hospitals and Health Systems

                                                November 17, 1995.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: The undersigned national, state 
     and metropolitan organizations, representing more than 5,000 
     hospitals and health systems nationwide, cannot support the 
     conference report on H.R. 2491, the budget reconciliation 
     bill. Our reason is straightforward: as it stands, this 
     legislation, viewed in its entirety, is not in the best 
     interest of patients, communities and the men and women who 
     care for them.
       Hospitals and health systems support the stated goals of 
     the conference report--a balanced budget, a strengthened 
     Medicare trust fund and restructured, more efficient Medicare 
     and Medicaid programs. In fact, we have offered several 
     concrete and reasonable alternatives to achieve these goals 
     without significantly reducing the quality or availability of 
     patient care. For the most part, these alternatives were 
     rejected.
       In this long budget debate, America's hospitals and health 
     systems have been guided by principles based on ensuring good 
     patient care now and in the future:
       The health care protection for our nation's most vulnerable 
     populations--the elderly, the poor, the disabled and millions 
     of children--is inadequate.
       The tools which could enable hospitals and health systems 
     to continue to provide high quality care to beneficiaries in 
     the new Medicare marketplace are insufficient. The necessary 
     tools were included in the House-passed Medicare Preservation 
     Act, but were significantly diluted during the conference 
     process.
       We have consistently stated that the budget reductions in 
     Medicaid and Medicare remain too deep and happen too fast. 
     Hospitals and health systems are willing to shoulder a fair 
     share of the reductions needed for a balanced budget. But the 
     reductions in the conference report will jeopardize the 
     ability of 

[[Page S 17287]]
     hospitals and health systems to deliver quality care, not just to those 
     who rely on Medicare and Medicaid, but to all Americans.
       Although we cannot support the conference report, we stand 
     ready to work with Congress and the Administration on a fair 
     approach to reducing spending, balancing the budget and 
     protecting the availability and quality of patient care.
           Sincerely,
                                      Signed by 84 hospital plans.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the 
legislation before us, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, because I think 
it reflects sound budget and policy priorities that will be of enormous 
benefit to this Nation through the next century.
  This is really what it is about, trying to lay out a roadmap that is 
going to provide change, provide flexibility, provide initiative, that 
can give us a strong program to carry us through the years and for the 
next generation to come and generations after that.
  There may be some concerns about this turn or that turn. It is an 
enormous package of very important initiatives. I have great 
confidence, Mr. President, that we can make it work, and it will 
require the best efforts of all on both sides of the aisle and working 
with our State legislatures and our communities to see it is 
accomplished.
  I would like to speak briefly about two parts of this package that I 
have been most directly involved in. One is student loans. This 
legislation includes $4.955 billion in savings in Federal student loan 
programs over the 7 years. Earlier today, the ranking member of the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee and colleague from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy, said these provisions would help banks and guaranty 
agencies at the expense of students.
  I just point out, indeed, that is not the case. Seventy percent of 
the savings are achieved by reducing subsidies to or imposing new fees 
on banks and guaranty agencies. None of the savings are achieved by 
increasing costs to students or their parents.
  It is very important that this is understood in the public where a 
message has been put out that is totally erroneous about the effects on 
students. The remaining 30 percent of savings are achieved by capping 
the direct loan program at 10 percent of loan volume. This would not 
change the level of the loan or the amount of the loan. A direct 
lending program may mean the students may get their loan money more 
quickly, but it does not have any effect on the amount or interest 
rates of those loans.
  In addition, the bill makes income-contingent repayment of student 
loans available to all students, not just those participating in the 
direct loan program. I remain concerned about the risk that the direct 
loan program poses to taxpayers. That is why I believe Congress is 
being fiscally responsible by demanding to see how it works before 
expanding it.
  I do not believe the Department of Education should become the third 
largest consumer lender in the country. That, indeed, is where it is 
headed if we go to a full, direct lending program on student loans, 
consequences which I think need to be carefully thought out and 
reviewed.
  Mr. President, I also wish to speak about the child care provisions 
in this bill. I am pleased that we have, I think, some very strong 
child care provisions. The bill combines $10 billion in mandatory 
spending and $7 billion in discretionary spending into a consolidated 
system for providing child care for children from low-income families, 
including those working their way off welfare.
  This is over 7 years. Again, I think when we recognize that 70 
percent of the mandatory funds are to be used for families making the 
transition from welfare to work and for those at risk of going on 
welfare, and a substantial portion of the remaining funds must be used 
to help low-income working families who are not and have not been on 
welfare to meet their child care needs as they are, indeed, struggling 
to stabilize themselves in the workplace.
  Equally important, the bill recognizes we cannot ask parents to leave 
children home alone as a condition of receiving welfare. Therefore, 
welfare families with a demonstrated need for child care may not be 
sanctioned for failing to meet work requirements in States that do not 
offer child care assistance.
  We need to break a cycle of dependency on welfare, but we need to do 
it by protecting children and having children have the stability of 
knowing they are cared for, are wanted and loved in an environment that 
will help them succeed. I believe we do that by strong child care 
provisions which really help families begin to move off the welfare 
rolls.
  I think there are some very positive provisions. I urge colleagues' 
support for this legislation and thank all those who played a major 
role in drafting and working on this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, first, I commend the distinguished 
Senator from Nebraska, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, for 
his very fine leadership throughout this budget debate. We are deeply 
appreciative to him for his extraordinary efforts.
  Mr. President, the basic fact is that drastic cuts are being made in 
Medicare, Medicaid, basic health programs, in nutrition programs to 
nourish our young people, school lunch, school breakfast, food stamps, 
in educational programs which make it possible for young people to go 
to college, and in environmental programs to protect clean air and 
clean water. These deep cuts are necessitated by the burning mania on 
the part of the Republicans, as part of the budget package, to give tax 
breaks to wealthy people. Make no mistake about it, that is the 
connection. If the tax breaks were not in this package, these drastic 
cuts would be ameliorated to a significant degree. Then you could argue 
about reducing the deficit and how you go about doing it in terms of 
spending cuts. But the problem is compounded in this package because 
there is a burning mania on the other side to give tax breaks to 
wealthy people.
  Kevin Phillips, 2 days ago, in an interview on the radio said:

       Under the camouflage of deficit reduction and cuts like 
     those in Medicare and Medicaid, the new budget includes 
     dozens of new and enlarged tax breaks, loopholes, and 
     corporate welfare programs. The tax cuts for ordinary 
     Americans are peanuts, but the special deals are big stuff.

  And he goes on to say:

       It is doubly impolitic to drive the budget deficit down to 
     zero by cutting medical, educational, and entitlement 
     programs while corporate and upper-bracket tax breaks 
     continue to soar.

  That is what is happening here. We are hearing talk about, ``Oh, we 
are going to protect the next generation and our children.'' What about 
the children today, who are going to be sent into the next generation 
stunted because the nutrition programs have been cut, the health 
programs have been cut, the education programs have been cut? What 
about young men and women who will not get the chance for a college 
education because of the cutbacks contained in this package, at the 
very same time that people at the upper-income brackets are getting 
large and significant tax breaks?
  There is obviously a hidden agenda contained in this budget package. 
The Speaker of the House let it out of the bag a few days ago when, 
speaking to a group, he said:

       Now let me talk about Medicare. We don't get rid of it in 
     round 1, because we don't think that would be politically 
     smart.
       We don't get rid of it in round 1, because we don't think 
     that would be politically smart.

  So, it is going to come in round 2 and in round 3. They assert they 
are protecting Medicare and right here is evidence that it is the 
beginning of the end of Medicare. We have Republican leaders who boast 
about the fact that they opposed Medicare when it was put into place, 
and then they try to make us believe they are out to protect Medicare. 
Medicare is being cut deeply, again to give these tax breaks.
  The fact of the matter is--and this is my judgment--part of this 
hidden agenda is a major shift of benefits, economic benefits in this 
country, from ordinary people, from middle-income people to the very 
wealthy. If you assert this the other side says, ``Oh, it is class 
warfare.'' The class warfare is being waged by those who are reaping 
the benefits disproportionately in this society. 

[[Page S 17288]]

  They say, ``Oh, don't do class warfare.'' In the meantime, the 
statistics show--and listen to these statistics----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the ranking member yield me 2 additional minutes?
  Mr. EXON. I yield my colleague 1 additional minute.
  Mr. SARBANES. Listen to these statistics.
  Federal Reserve figures from 1989, the most recently available, show 
that the richest 1 percent of American households, with net worth of at 
least $2.3 million each, have nearly 40 percent of the Nation's 
wealth--1 percent of American households, 40 percent of the Nation's 
wealth. The top 20 percent of American households worth $180,000 or 
more, have 80 percent of the country's wealth--80 percent.
  The income statistics are equally skewed. The lowest-earning 20 
percent of Americans earn 5.7 percent of the after-tax income. The top 
20 percent of American households have 55 percent of the after-tax 
income.
  The United States is now the most unequal industrialized country, in 
terms of income and wealth, and we are growing more unequal faster than 
the other industrialized countries. And this package is going to 
intensify that trend.
  Make no mistake about it, that is what this package will do. It is 
shifting benefits from lower-income and working people to the upper end 
of the scale.
  People on Medicare, earning $15,000 a year, are going to suffer in 
order to give a tax break to the very wealthy.
  I urge the rejection of this package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield myself such time as I need briefly, and then I 
will yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  As I said several times here today, apparently in some parts of this 
country people making less than $75,000 a year are ``the most wealthy 
Americans.'' In my State that is not the case. Mr. President, 65 
percent of the tax cuts contained in this package will go to people and 
families making less than $75,000 a year. Mr. President, 80 percent 
will go to people whose families make less than $100,000 a year. In 
Michigan, those people are not wealthy people. Maybe they are in other 
parts of America, but people making less than $75,000 are not wealthy 
people in my State.
  As to the so-called tax cuts for wealthy, I point out as I have 
already numerous times in relationship to this bill, there are $26 
billion in loophole closings contained in this legislation, closing 
loopholes on these so-called wealthiest Americans, individuals and 
corporations, which largely offsets whatever tax cuts might benefit 
people in those categories.
  Finally, with regard to students, we should point out to the students 
watching that, as Senator Kassebaum indicated earlier, regarding the 
student loan program insofar as it affects students, the volume of 
loans remain unabated, at levels that have always been out there, and 
there are no changes in the cost of loans to students. Moreover, there 
are further provisions in the bill that will actually provide students 
with student loans with the opportunity to deduct interest they pay on 
those loans. In fact, it places people in a stronger position.
  That said, Mr. President, at this time, I yield five minutes to the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise with great pride today in support of 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  I hear a lot of talk from the other side of the aisle about cuts. The 
major cuts are going to be in Washington's ability to take more of the 
taxpayers' money. The hidden agenda is a balanced budget and a brighter 
future. And, if there has been a growing gap of wealth, it has occurred 
under Democratic programs, and it is time to change that.
  This bill, more than anything else, is about promises--making 
promises, and keeping promises.
  The American people have every reason to be cynical about political 
promises.
  Yet something resonated with the voters when we went to the people 
last November and promised we would take this country in a better 
direction if they elected a new majority to Congress.
  We laid out a plan for the Nation's future unlike anything the people 
had been promised over the last 40 years.
  The legislation before us today is proof that there is a better way--
and the vision it reflects is based on two fundamental promises we made 
to the voters: First, we promised we would balance the budget in 7 
years. And second, we promised we would cut taxes for working-class 
families.
  Mr. President, the centerpiece of the legislation before us is our 
promise to balance the budget by the year 2002.
  If you want to know why 83 percent of the American public say 
balancing the budget should be the top priority of this Congress, these 
statistics speak volumes: Every year, the Federal Government is 
spending billions and billions more than it takes in. As a result of 
four decades of fiscal insanity, the national debt today stands at 
nearly $5 trillion. Every child born today in the United States of 
America comes into this world already saddled with more than $19,000 in 
debt.
  So the first, most important result of a balanced budget would be to 
free our children and grandchildren from the economic burden they will 
inherit from this generation--a burden they did not ask for, and 
certainly do not deserve.
  Ask an economist about the other benefits of a balanced budget, and 
they will reel off an impressive list of reasons why we ought to move 
forward.
  By the time 7 years have passed and the budget is brought into 
balance: GDP will grow by an additional $10.8 billion; interest rates 
will drop, and Americans will boost their spending power through an 
additional $32.1 billion in disposable income; the buyers of a $100,000 
home would save more than $10,000 over the life of a 30-year mortgage; 
an additional 104,000 family homes would be built and 600,000 more 
automobiles would be sold; and businesses would be empowered to create 
new and higher paying jobs--as many as an additional 6.1 million new 
jobs, by some estimates.
  Impressive statistics, but what does all this really mean on Main 
Street?
  Well, for an average American family with two kids, a mortgage 
payment, car and student loans, a dog and a cat and lot of monthly 
bills, a balanced Federal budget would put at least $1,800 a year back 
into the family bank account.
  That is a pretty good incentive for passing a balanced budget in 
1995: save money and get a tax break, because we have also promised to 
cut taxes for middle-class families--another promise we are keeping 
with this legislation.
  This Congress is no longer willing to let the Government gamble away 
the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars as if they belonged to Washington. 
In fact, we are going to keep those dollars out of the Government's 
hands in the first place.
  The centerpiece of our $245-billion tax relief package is the $500 
per-child tax credit, and I am proud that my colleagues stood with my 
good friend, Senator Abraham, and I to ensure that this desperately 
needed provision remains at the heart of our balanced budget plan.
  The tax credit alone will allow 28 million taxpaying households to 
keep $23 billion of their own money each year.
  In my home State of Minnesota, the tax credit would return $477 
million annually to families who work hard, pay their bills, and 
struggle every day to care for their children without relying on the 
Government.
  In addition, 3.5 million households nationwide will find that the 
$500 per-child tax credit has completely eliminated their tax 
liability.
  With our Balanced Budget Act, this Congress has kept the solemn 
promises we made to the American people. Yet without even waiting for 
the bill to arrive at his desk, President Clinton is promising to veto 
it and stop the balanced budget in its tracks.
  The President says he wants a balanced budget--wants it 
wholeheartedly, he claims. Balancing the budget was one of the central 
themes of his 1992 campaign, and I remember when he said: ``I'll tell 
you why you should vote for me. I know how to balance a budget. I've 
balanced 11 budgets as Governor of Arkansas. One of the 

[[Page S 17289]]
first things I'll do when I get to Washington is send Congress a 
balanced budget.''
  Of course, that turned out to be a pie-crust promise--easily made, 
easily broken.
  Since taking office nearly 3 years ago, Bill Clinton has never 
presented Congress with a budget that balances--or comes anywhere 
close, for that matter.
  In the last two plans he has dropped on the Capitol doorstep, the 
deficit hovers around $200 billion every year, far, far into the 
future.
  And we voted on both of those plans here on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. Both failed 99 to zero, and these are the plans that the 
President brags about.
  Mr. President, Congress is going to balance the budget because we 
promised the American people we would.
  We are going to cut taxes because we promised the American people we 
would.
  We are going to turn this Government around and start putting it to 
work on behalf of the taxpayers because we promised the American people 
we would.
  ``The Man from Hope'' is quickly earning the reputation around here 
as ``the Man from Hope Not.'' He says he wants a balanced budget, but 
he secretly hopes he'll never have to sign one.
  Mr. President, Bill Clinton cannot continue to say in public that he 
supports a balanced budget, tax cuts, and welfare reform, and then 
return to the private confines of the Oval Office to veto every piece 
of legislation that would bring the budget into balance, cut taxes, and 
reform welfare.
  My colleagues and I have great dreams for this Nation and its 
children, Mr. President, and the American people are counting on us to 
heed the words of the great Winston Churchill and ``never, never, never 
give up.''
  With a balanced budget at stake and the future of this Nation at 
stake along with it, this Congress has no intention of giving up and 
turning our backs on this moment in history.
  That is a promise.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.


                        ten thanksgiving stories

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, next Thursday, families from Forks, WA to 
Fort Lauderdale, FL will be coming together to enjoy each other's 
company and to celebrate a holiday unique to the history and heritage 
of our country.
  The tables will be heaped with food, prepared in many kitchens and 
brought together at the house of one family. For some families in our 
country, who do not necessarily have all that much to be thankful for, 
this may be the best meal of the year.
  If your family is at all like mine, there will be turkey and gravy 
and some kind of Jello salad. At dinner, there will be a card table for 
the little kids, and a couple of bigger kids who will not want to sit 
with them.
  After dinner, there will be games of Pinochle. There will be 
teenagers standing around, wishing something exciting would happen. 
There will be people in the living room, just starting to get sleepy. 
The television will be on, and the Detroit Lions will be losing again. 
And best of all, throughout the day, there will be many stories.
  The people in my life tell stories about many things. Stories about 
family members who could not come this year or family members who have 
died. Stories about war. Stories about work or friends or sports. 
Stories about a new birth, or an impending marriage. In most years, 
there is not much talk about government--unless something really bad is 
about to happen.
  I have a feeling I am going to hear a lot of talk about government 
this year. Right now, I can almost hear 10 stories that might be told 
around the tables at Thanksgiving this year, across this great land. 
Ten things people wish they did not have to talk about, but they will:
  First, there will be the story about Medicare. The elders always tell 
stories best, remember the bad times clearest, and complain about the 
Government loudest. Next Thursday, after grace has been said, an old 
man is going to pause, with the mashed potato spoon still in his hand, 
and say ``You hear what they're going to do to Medicare?''
  This story, like the rest, is a sad one. The man knows that the 
budget needs to be balanced for the generations he can see around the 
table. He has heard that there has been fraud and abuse in Medicare 
billing. He knows that he is going to have to sacrifice for the 
betterment of the country. He just is not going to understand why 
Congress is going to take more money out of his Social Security check 
to give a tax break to people who do not need it.
  Second, there will be the story about Medicaid. The family is 
together, but they have to arrange to visit grandma at the nursing 
home. The family will go visit, but they will now have to worry about 
whether Congress is going to allow States to gut nursing home standards 
that protect grandma's health, safety, and financial security.
  They will have to worry about whether grandma will be the lucky one 
to get Medicaid funding when their State has to choose between paying 
for pregnant women, children, the elderly, or the disabled, because 
Congress gave them less money to meet the growing needs they face.
  Third, there will be the story of the adult children in the family, 
who never before had to worry about being held responsible for the 
costs of grandma's nursing home care, but now will. They have worked 
hard to raise their own family, save money for their kid's education, 
and for their own retirement. Now they will have to deal with extra 
costs from every angle.
  If they are working but low income, they will not get the $500 per 
child tax credit that the Congress is touting, because they will not 
pay enough taxes to get the deduction. If they do not have children 
yet, they will face the fact that Congress will be taking away the 
earned income tax credit they have counted on.
  If they do have kids, and do get the tax credit, they are going to 
need the money. Because when grandma cannot stay in the nursing home 
because Congress cut Medicaid, the family is going to have to build a 
new room onto the house.
  Fourth, there will be the college-age students and their story. They 
want to prepare themselves for a world where they know they will have 
to be qualified to compete. They are willing to swallow their pride and 
ask their parents for help; they are willing to work; and they are 
willing to pay off loans after college. But none of that will matter.
  The Congress is going to take $5 billion out of their student loan 
programs, and give it to the banks. Congress is going to decimate the 
Direct Lending Program, which gives students their money more 
efficiently, and eliminates bureaucracy and the middle man. In addition 
the budget eliminates Perkins loan funding and drops 280,000 students 
from Pell grants.
  Fifth, there will be the story of the younger students, who need to 
have a relevant public education to get them ready to go on to college, 
into some other form of training, or directly into work. For these 
students, the Congress is going to cut almost $4 billion from 
discretionary but vital education programs, including title I basic 
skills instruction for 500,000 additional students, State student 
incentive grants, school reform, Head Start, and AmeriCorps.
  Sixth, there will be one of the most tragic stories of all--the story 
of what will happen to all the children in the great country of ours. 
Services to help children, from Medicaid to pay their medical bills, to 
school lunch and day-care nutrition programs, to childhood 
immunizations are all going under the ax in what the majority party is 
painting as some kind of epic and heroic moment in American history.
  These cuts will certainly be historic. This is probably the first 
time in history that the American Government declared war on its own 
children, when it knew better. If the Congress wants to balance the 
budget, American families are all for it. But Americans are pretty 
steadfast when their own family is threatened, and this is a battle 
that the majority party in Congress should lose.
  Seventh, there will be the story of the welfare mom. This member of 
the 

[[Page S 17290]]
family may not be sitting at your table this year, but she comes to 
many homes for Thanksgiving, and her sisters may one day come to your 
table or mine. Her story is one of tragedy piled on top of tragedy.
  Maybe she came from an abusive marriage, where she took beating after 
beating, and only got out after her abuser started hitting her kids. 
She probably did not have the benefit of education and training. She 
most likely had all kinds of things stacked against her. Invest in her 
life now, with child care and training, and she'll be a tax-paying 
citizen for years to come.
  But this Congress is going to cut child care, nutrition services, and 
kick this woman off public assistance as fast as possible, without the 
support that would allow her to join the work force. She does not have 
much to be thankful for with the passage of this budget.
  Eighth, there will be a story about the environment. A 12-year-old 
may ask why the Government wants to sell her heritage to big companies. 
She wonders about the polar bears and caribou that now live in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  She asks whether the Native people she has read about, or whether her 
family, if she happens to be a member of Gwich'n tribe, will be able to 
continue to live where they have lived for 20,000 years--on the lands 
they love, subsisting on a now-abundant supply of wildlife. She sighs 
and asks her elders not to sell America's lands, our national forests, 
our national refugees, our national treasures--her heritage.
  Ninth, there will be the story of the family farm. The wheat farmer 
from eastern Washington, who has seen congressional Republicans adopt a 
Freedom to Farm Proposal that couldn't even be approved by the House or 
the Senate. The wheat farmer, who has seen the safety net for farmers 
eliminated, the safety net that has existed for almost 60 years.
  Farmers do not need this safety net when prices are good, but when 
prices are bad, these farmers, who supply the staple foods of our 
society, need our support. They deserve our support. The family farmer, 
who works to grow the food that provides the bounty for Thanksgiving 
dinners for families across our Nation--this farmer is forgotten in the 
Republican budget.
  Tenth, the last story, will be a story of real thanks. After all 
these other stories, after the eyes roll skyward, after the anger, 
after the frustration, they will all join hands and give thanks. The 
members of this family will thank their God that they are all together 
for the holiday. They will be thankful for the good food and warmth of 
family, but mostly, they will be very thankful that the Members of 
Congress are also home with their families, and not doing more damage 
from the floors of the House and Senate.
  Mr. President, I continue to worry about the priorities in this 
budget. We all know this budget will be vetoed; for that I am thankful. 
When it is returned, I intend to work very hard with my colleagues to 
ensure we will then pass a budget that is good for our children, our 
families, and our future.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1995.
  The American people have been watching the debate over the continuing 
resolution this week, and based on the calls that have come into my 
office, they recognize that this debate is about one thing: whether or 
not we will have a balanced budget.
  After President Clinton was elected, he used his promise to balance 
the budget as an excuse to raise taxes. Today, all Americans have 
higher taxes, but they still do not have a balance budget.
  Contrary to what he says, the President has never proposed a balanced 
budget of his own. His latest plan, which he says will balance the 
budget in 9 or 10 years, would actually result in deficits of more than 
$200 billion as far as the eye can see--including a deficit of $209 
billion in 2005, the year President Clinton claims he would eliminate 
the deficit.
  The President's budget is so phony that no Democrat in Congress would 
even introduce it for a vote in the House or Senate. When a Republican 
Senator introduced it, it was defeated 96-0.
  While Clinton talks about a balanced budget, Republicans have done 
the heavy lifting, and made the hard decisions necessary to get it 
done. Our plan is certified by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, which President Clinton himself has said is the sole authority 
on budget authenticity.
  With the continuing resolution passed yesterday and the plan before 
the Senate today, Republicans continue to show their unwavering 
commitment to a balanced budget. The President as a candidate promised 
to balance the budget in 5 years. All we are asking for is 7 years. 
Republicans honestly believed, and some of us are holding out hope, 
that President Clinton will show some leadership and help us balance 
the budget.
  He has promised to balance the budget in 5 years, then 10 years, then 
9 years, then 8 years, and as recently as October 19, the President 
said that he thought we could reach a balanced budget in 7 years. But 
he rejected yesterday's continuing resolution, and he will likely veto 
this bill. The President is not committed to balancing the budget. He 
is committed to increasing spending and an ever growing Federal 
Government.
  The plan before us today fulfills our promises to the American 
people. It will:
  Balance the budget in 7 years,
  End welfare as we know it,
  Save and strengthen Medicare, and,
  Reduce taxes in a way that provides relief to families with children, 
stimulates growth, and generates jobs.
  The bottom line is this: the future of our Nation depends upon 
whether we have the courage to balance the budget.
  Our current path--if we do nothing--leads to:
  Uncontrolled federal spending and borrowing, and skyrocketing annual 
deficits--$200 to $300 billion by the year 2000, and higher deficits 
thereafter.
  In fact the deficit increases $335,000 every minute--which means that 
it has increased roughly $1 million in just the amount of time that I 
have been speaking on the Senate floor.
  Another $1.2 trillion added to our national debt between now and the 
year 2000--which will bring the total surging past $6.7 trillion by the 
turn of the century;
  A Medicare program that goes broke; a Medicaid program that doubles 
in size;
  An enormous and unsustainable tax burden on young workers who will be 
forced to pay 82-percent of their wages in taxes to support prolific 
federal spending; and
  The first generation of Americans in our Nation's history to have 
fewer opportunities than their parents.
  And yet, if we do balance the budget, if we are able to impose fiscal 
discipline on the massive federal bureaucracy, the benefits are very 
real, and the possibilities are endless for our prosperity as a Nation.
  According to the Joint Economic Committee, a family with a $75,000 
car loan and an $11,000 student loan could save $1,771 a year if 
interest rates drop another percentage point under the Republican plan, 
and $2,828 a year if interest rates return to the levels of the 1950s.
  According to the economic forecasting firm of DRI McGraw-Hill, if we 
balance the budget by the year 2002, the gross domestic product will be 
$170 billion higher than without a balanced budget. That represents a 
2.5 percent increase in productivity for businesses, and about $1,000 
per household higher standard of living for families.
  And even Wall Street is responding positively to the current 
situation, closing at a record 4969, while the 30 year Treasury bill 
rate fell to 6.23%. If Congress fails to pass a balanced budget plan, 
then the American people should be scared, because the markets will 
lose faith in the U.S. government.
  All this is possible by only slowing the growth of federal spending. 
Under the Republican plan, spending on Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, 
food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, student loans, you name it, 
will continue to grow, only at a slower rate.
  As James Glassman said in a recent editorial in the Washington Post:

       If Congress' budget becomes law, the social compact will 
     actually be strengthened. Not 

[[Page S 17291]]
     only will the government keep its commitments to the elderly and the 
     poor on health care, it will also meet an even more important 
     obligation to the public that is abrogated 30 years ago--to 
     spend no more than it takes in.

  The Republican plan is a credible, reasonable and truly historic plan 
to reverse the excessive spending of the past, while continuing to 
provide a sturdy safety net for the poorest Americans. The plan will 
save and strengthen Medicare, transform the Medicaid and Welfare 
programs and produce unprecedented economic growth for generations to 
come. I strongly support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 and urge its 
passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. On behalf of the Democratic manager, I yield myself 4 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the budget reconciliation 
bill before the Senate. I do not oppose the Republican budget because 
it is projected to balance the unified budget by 2002, because I 
believe we can and should balance the budget over that time period. I 
oppose this budget because I believe it is the wrong way to reconcile 
spending and revenues.
  Instead of a bipartisan consensus, it reflects a too narrow, 
ideological agenda that does not represent the best long-term interests 
of the country. And I know that the leadership on both sides of the 
aisle, at least in this body, can and would like to do better.
  I have no doubt that my good friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, 
if not constrained by some Members of his own party, mostly in the 
other body, would develop a more responsible, more bipartisan budget. 
As a Democrat who supported both the original Senate budget resolution 
last May and the continuing resolution last night that committed us to 
a balanced budget by 2002, using CBO numbers, which we may revisit 
shortly, I have always been ready to work with Presidents of both 
parties and in Congresses having both Democratic and Republican 
majorities on a bipartisan basis to solve the long-term fiscal 
challenges facing our Nation.
  Unfortunately, this year's budget process has evidenced more partisan 
politics and political expediency than fiscal responsibility. As my 
colleagues will recall, the original Senate budget resolution required 
us to enact legislation projected to actually balance the budget before 
we could proceed to consideration of a tax cut.
  When the resolution came back from the conference with the House, 
however, tax cuts had been added up front, and the deep spending 
reductions had been moved into the next century. The message that this 
budget reconciliation bill sends by maintaining this approach is that 
we should begin handing out new benefits today and count on future 
Congresses and future Presidents to make the most difficult choices to 
actually reach a balanced budget. It only increases the likelihood that 
the budget will become even more unbalanced, hardly a legacy we want to 
leave to our children and our grandchildren. That will not do anything 
to reassure the international financial markets, much less address the 
increasing cynicism our citizens feel toward our Government and its 
elected officials.

  In order to pay for a huge tax break, half of which would go to those 
making $100,000 a year, programs affecting health care for the elderly, 
the disabled and the poor, programs affecting the environment and 
education, programs affecting some of our most vulnerable citizens who 
will be cut more drastically than would otherwise be necessary is not 
fair.
  My message to my colleagues and the President today is that there is 
a better way to balance the budget, a way which I believe can be 
supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, as well as the 
President and the American people. That way is to postpone a large tax 
cut until we achieve balance and spread the burden of deficit reduction 
more fairly and evenly across the Federal budget. Only if we 
demonstrate to the American people that a plan is fair and equitable 
will we be able to maintain the road to balance.
  As the Virginia voters showed just 10 days ago, those who toil at the 
ideological extremes proceed at their own peril. It is true that the 
vast majority of the American people want to balance the Federal 
budget, as I do. But the events of the last few months reflect the fact 
that they want to do it in a way that reflects a broad consensus. Mr. 
President, I stand ready to work with both Republicans and Democrats to 
find that consensus.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I probably will not take that much time. But, Mr. President, I have 
been sitting here and listening and watching. And it has been really 
enlightening to me to see what is going on and how the debate has been 
going.
  When I go back to Oklahoma and we have townhall meetings and I talk 
to people back there, the ones I have been chastised about for 
referring to as the ``real people of America,'' they ask the question 
over and over again, ``Senator, why don't you just do it? All this talk 
about balancing the budget. Why don't you just do it? We have to do it. 
We have to live with a balanced budget. Why not do it?'' Because every 
big spender around, every liberal in Congress says he or she wants to 
balance the budget, and yet when it comes down to getting the 
opportunity to actually do it, we do not do it.
  I hope those people who ask that question at the townhall meetings 
are watching carefully tonight, because now you know why it is so 
difficult to do something that seems so easy back home.
  The second thing is listening to some of these speeches--I do not 
mean this in a demeaning way or insulting way to anyone, but I really 
feel that so many people right now are trying to hold onto the past 
with white knuckles. Those individuals who rejoiced back in the 1960's 
when Government took greater control of our lives cannot believe that 
times are changing and that the people are no longer going to tolerate 
that.
  If you stop and analyze the elections of 1994, it is an overwhelming 
revolution at the polls.
  And who was defeated? All you have to do is get the ratings. You 
know, people know who the big spenders are and who they are not. The 
National Taxpayers Union, many others, have ratings. Those individuals 
who lost at the polls in 1994 were the ones who were the big spenders.
  This revolution started, really, back in 1980 with the election of 
Ronald Reagan. Of course, he did not have the support of Congress, so 
he could not get the things done he wanted to. I will always remember 
looking at television on the Wednesday morning after the election, that 
landslide election when Ronald Reagan won in 1980, and it was the 
defeated person who had run against him. He was on the ``Today Show,'' 
and he made a statement I will always remember. He said, this is a 
quote, ``I cannot believe the people of America have so overwhelmingly 
repudiated classic liberalism.''
  And that is exactly what happened. But the problem is we never were 
able to carry out those programs, because we had a hostile and a 
liberal Congress.
  That is changed now. That is all changed. For all those of you are 
who sitting around here wringing your hands saying all these bad things 
are going to happen, all these people are going to be cut when, in 
fact, they are not going to be cut, all these horrible things we have 
been listening to tonight, just stop and think of it in this context:
  In 1993, we passed--at that time, President Clinton had control of 
both the House and the Senate--and we passed the largest single tax 
increase in the history of public finance in America or anyplace in the 
world. Those are not the words of conservative Republican Jim Inhofe; 
those are the words of the Democrat leader of the Senate Finance 
Committee, the chairman at that time.
  So I suggest that if anyone was opposed to that great tax increase 
that 

[[Page S 17292]]
even now President Bill Clinton says was too great of a tax increase, 
if you are opposed to it, then you should be for these tax reductions 
now. For all practical purposes, all we are doing is repealing part of 
the damage we did to the American people in 1993.
  So I wind up--my colleague, who I respect so much, from Minnesota, 
Senator Grams, made a talk and he ended up quoting Winston Churchill, 
and I think I will do the same. I can tell you folks on the other side 
of the aisle that the people of America know better. They do not want 
the patterns of the past. They realize we have to do something. Winston 
Churchill said: ``Truth is incontrovertible, panic may resent it, 
ignorance may deride it, malice may destroy it, but there it is.'' And 
that is what we are going to learn tonight. I yield the floor.


                    the need for privacy protection

  Mr. LEAHY. In the few hours I have had to review the Republicans' 
conference report on budget reconciliation, I have come upon another 
major change in law that is being enacted without study, review or open 
debate that can adversely affect the health care privacy of all of us.
  For the past several years I have been working on legislation to 
improve piracy protection for health care information. This session 
Senator Bennett and I have joined with a number of our colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle to sponsor the Medical Record Confidentiality 
Act, S. 1360. Just this week Senator Kassebaum chaired a hearing on the 
bill before the Labor and Human Resources Committee. That hearing 
brought home the fears that many have of the computerization of our 
medical files. That development is already underway and is part of our 
motivation for seeking to enact strong and effective privacy 
protection.
  Upon seeing the conference report, I find that the Republican-
dominated conference has added to the bill provisions that require the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to adopt standards and data 
elements to make information related to health care ``available to be 
exchanged electronically.'' This new section requiring the development 
and use of data networks is buried in section 8001 of title VIII of the 
budget reconciliation bill and proposes a new section 1858 to the 
Social Security Act.
  I object to the inclusion of these provisions at this time in this 
manner in this bill on which debate is so drastically restricted and to 
which amendments are not in order. I do so because the provisions fail 
to provide strong and effective privacy protections.
  Our colleagues from Missouri and Connecticut have introduced the 
Health Information Modernization and Security Act, S. 897, that seeks 
to legislate in this area of standardization of electronic data 
elements. When Senator Lieberman introduced that bill he acknowledge 
the need to establish standards not just for accomplishing electronic 
transactions, but also for the security and privacy of the medical 
information. Similarly Senator Bond, the other original sponsor, noted 
in his introductory remarks that ``most importantly, legislation is 
needed to protect the privacy and confidentiality of patient data.'' 
Their pending Senate bill references the need for privacy standards for 
health information to be established by regulation, and lists four 
principles to govern such standards.
  The conference report includes no privacy protection. Privacy is 
never mentioned in the entire new proposed section. Business interests 
are protected. Trade secrets are expressly protected. The security, 
integrity, and confidentiality of the data is protected. But personal 
privacy is not. Indeed, although the section contains a definition for 
purposes of the section of ``individually identifiable MedicarePlus and 
medicare enrollment information,'' it is never employed in the section.
  What is needed before we proceed to computerize personal health care 
information is the enactment of strong and effective privacy 
protections. That is what the Medical Records Confidentiality Act, S. 
1360, is intended to provide--strong and effective protections with 
strong criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions against those who 
violate our medical privacy.
  The privacy interests of the American people are being disserved. 
Those participating in Medicare are entitled to have their privacy 
protected, as are we all. I urge my colleagues from both parties and 
both Houses to join with me and reject this effort to proceed without 
the necessary protections for individual privacy. This is the wrong way 
to proceed.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1995. Just as many thought they would never see the Berlin Wall 
fall, this is a day that I never thought I would see--the U.S. Congress 
passing a balanced budget that uses realistic economic assumptions, not 
rosy scenarios.
  Over a year ago, Republicans campaigned to balance the budget and cut 
taxes. The American people have become justifiably cynical about 
politicians making promises to get elected. Well, this budget can be 
summed up in one phrase: promise made, promise kept.
  The Balanced Budget Act keeps our commitment to the American people; 
we do balance the budget. And only after the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office certified that the Republican plan achieves a balanced 
budget did we turn to providing working families tax relief.
  And let's be clear, in 1996, 88 percent of the tax cuts will go to 
families earning under $100,000, 72 percent to families earning under 
$75,000.
  These tax cuts are targeted to help families with a $500 per child 
tax credit, a tax credit to help families meet the costs of adoption 
and relief from the marriage penalty.
  These tax cuts will also help family farms and small businesses by 
reducing the estate tax and lowering capital gains.
  Republicans promised tax relief for working families and we have 
delivered.
  Mr. President, while Republicans have kept their promises to the 
voters, President Clinton seems to want to forget the promises he made. 
His alternative is to ``just say no.'' He stated that he would balance 
the budget in 5 years, then he said 7 years, then 10 years. He has done 
more flips and flops than a flapjack.
  Now President Clinton is going to veto the continuing resolution that 
simply states that the Congress and the President should agree to reach 
a balanced budget in 7 years based on realistic economic assumptions. 
It doesn't say how that should be reached, just that a balanced budget 
should be the goal.
  I should note that several Democrats in both the House and the Senate 
voted for this commonsense continuing resolution calling for a balanced 
budget in 7 years. They are sincere in wanting a balanced budget. My 
hope is that more conscientious Democrats will join this bipartisan 
effort for a balanced budget.
  However, my concern is that still too many of my colleagues are like 
the old man who says: ``How do I know what I think, until I've heard 
what I've said.'' Likewise, many in Congress don't know how to vote 
until they hear from the White House. I encourage my colleagues to 
put the people of this country first, before the shortsighted partisan 
politics practiced by the White House.

  Mr. President, the American people are beginning to realize the White 
House is engaging in gamesmanship instead of statesmanship. The great 
Republican President, Abraham Lincoln was certainly right, ``You can't 
fool all the people all the time.'' This administration is going to 
learn this lesson the hard way.
  My mail is now running four-to-one in favor of Republicans standing 
firm to their commitments for a balanced budget and tax relief for 
working families. The phone calls are overwhelmingly in favor of the 
Republicans effort to preserve Medicare and reform the current 
disastrous Great Society Welfare programs--both part of this Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995.
  In talking to my colleagues they are finding the same reaction. The 
American people are listening and considering what is being done here 
in Washington. And they are supporting Republican efforts to keep the 
promises made to the voters last fall.
  And why is public opinion shifting? The sad truth is becoming clear 
to Americans--President Clinton has no interest in balancing the 
budget. President Clinton's top interest is appeasing the special 
interests that still control the Democratic Party.
  And what do these special interests want? They want to spend more, 
more, 

[[Page S 17293]]
and more of the taxpayers' money. The special interests don't want a 
balanced budget and tax cuts for working families, that would mean less 
money for them to spend.
  It seems the White House is completely captive to the special 
interests. They still believe that big government should dictate how to 
spend the taxpayers' money instead of families making the decisions. I 
thought President Clinton said he got the message from the November 
elections. Unfortunately, it appears he was listening to the special 
interests instead of the public interest.
  Mr. President, this is a momentous vote. This is a vote for a real 
future for our children and grandchildren. For a stronger more 
productive economy. It is a vote to preserve Medicare and reform 
welfare.
  I urge all my colleagues to stop listening to pollsters and the 
special interests who are running the White House and instead of 
listening to the American people who want us to keep our promises, to 
not break faith, and to pass the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  Mr. President, I now want to briefly highlight a few specific 
provisions that I am particularly pleased are incorporated in the 1995 
Balanced Budget Act.
  First, is the new student loan interest deduction. I have long fought 
for the appropriate national investment in education. Once again the 
United States is investing in the minds of its people in addition to 
the fixed assets of its businesses.
  Mr. President, we also promised more choices in health care for 
Medicare beneficiaries. The Medicare reforms contained in this bill are 
going to make that possible. It is also going to be good for my State 
of Iowa.
  Medicare is now going to reimburse for health care services much more 
fairly in Iowa than has been the case in the past. We have greatly 
increased the Medicare per capita payments that will be made in Iowa in 
the coming years.
  This action is going to give our Medicare beneficiaries in Iowa more 
health care choices than is presently the case. We have also narrowed 
the variation in Medicare's reimbursement from one area of the country 
to another, so that there will be greater equity in the use of our 
hard-earned tax and premium dollars.
  I also want to point out that we have secured a number of very 
important health provisions which are going to help preserve the rural 
health infrastructure in Iowa:
  The bill includes legislation I introduced earlier this year to 
restart the Medicare Dependent Hospital Program. This is going to 
provide greater financial support for at least 29 small rural hospitals 
around Iowa.
  In addition, this bill includes my legislation to reform the Medicare 
reimbursement for physician assistants and nurse practitioners which 
will also help improve access to primary care services in rural Iowa.
  These are just a few examples of the many good provisions in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995, and underscore the importance of passing 
this historic legislation.


                     regarding environmental issues

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill now before us 
contains a number of provisions that are poor policy, that are unfair 
to those least able to defend themselves and that consider only short-
term gain and not long-term loss. This is very clear from reading the 
Energy and Natural Resources provisions. As a member of that committee 
I can tell you that this reconciliation bill contains many provisions 
that are just plain poor energy policy, poor environmental policy, and 
cynical politicking.
  Opening the Arctic Refuge to drillings is one such provision. The 
Arctic Refuge is one of the last pristine wilderness areas left in 
America. It contains the Nation's most significant polar bear denning 
habitat on land, and supports 300,000 snow geese, migratory birds from 
six continents--some of those birds even make it to my State of 
Minnesota--and a concentrated porcupine caribou calving ground.
  Despite our uncertainty about the effects oil drilling would have on 
the animals, there are those who continue to push for oil drilling 
without an updated environmental impact statement [EIS] as required by 
current law. An EIS has not been done since 1987 and even that one was 
not sufficient back then. We just don't know what drilling would to the 
Arctic Refuge, and barreling ahead with drilling is just poor 
environmental policy.
  Further, the Gwich'in people have relied on those porcupine caribou 
for thousands of years to provide their food and meet their spiritual 
needs. I have heard them speak very eloquently and directly about what 
oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge would do to their way of life. People 
like the Gwich'in want to save the environment. But they are not the 
big oil companies. They do not have the money. They do not have the 
lobbyists, and they do not have the lawyers here every day. In today's 
Washington environment, that seems to mean that their concerns are less 
important than the concerns of big industry.
  Even if whatever amount of revenue gained were somehow worth 
destroying this unique land and the lives of the Gwich'in, there are a 
number of questions regarding whether the Arctic Refuge has oil, how 
much it has and what the cost would be to retrieve it. Estimates are 
broad and disagreements are rampant. Even I, a nonscientist, know one 
thing for certain: there is no way to tell how much revenue can be 
gained from drilling in the Arctic Refuge. New information, however, 
suggests previous figures overestimated possible revenue.
  A second example of poor policy and a huge giveaway to oil and gas 
companies is the royalty holiday for oil and gas drilling in the Outer 
Continental Shelf. Oil and gas companies lease drilling rights in the 
Gulf of Mexico from the Federal Government. Companies pay for the 
leases and must also pay royalties on their production because the oil 
and gas is a public resource. The reconciliation bill contains a 
provision that would give companies a holiday from paying those 
royalties. Because the leases will be considered more valuable by 
companies if they don't have to pay royalties on the production, the 
CBO says that the Government will be able to sell the leases at a 
higher price and thus the royalty holiday will make money.

  That is all smoke and mirrors. Friends of the oil and gas industry in 
Congress have taken advantage of the fact that the budget process looks 
only at whether provisions make money in the first 7 years. The royalty 
holiday is expected to save the Federal Government $130 million in the 
first 7 years. This short-term savings allows us to say that we have 
taken a step toward balancing the budget.
  But when the short-term election year politicking ends, the other 
shoe will drop and it will drop hard. In the long-term, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this royalty holiday will 
cost $550 million in lost receipts over 25 years. Thus, while the 
royalty holiday means short-term gain, it also means long-term pain.
  The royalty holiday is a clear example of corporate welfare at the 
expense of the Federal budget. In these times of belt-tightening and 
difficult choices about priorities, we can and must do better.
  Some have said that the royalty holiday is needed to help persuade an 
ailing industry to take part in a risky venture. However, an article in 
the October 24, 1995, Wall Street Journal reports that oil companies, 
``* * * registered robust third-quarter earnings,'' and ``* * * 
reported a surprising gush of profits.'' Further, an October 30 
Business Week article states that new technologies, ``* * * cut the 
cost of deep-sea production.''
  I cannot stand by and watch the destruction of safety nets that 
protect our elderly, our children, and our most needy while at the same 
time providing a huge giveaway for an industry that just doesn't need 
it. The provisions I have mentioned are but two examples of the 
incredibly irresponsible environmental policy in this reconciliation 
bill.
  Our natural resources are among the most important things we can 
leave to these future generations. Our children and our grandchildren 
deserve more than what this bad energy policy, bad environmental 
policy, and shortsighted politicking would leave them. I will continue 
to speak for all Minnesotans, for their sense of fairness and equity 
and for their love and concern for the environment. I urge my 
colleagues to join me.

[[Page S 17294]]

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to commend the hard work of all my 
colleagues in producing this legislation. Although there are parts that 
do concern me, in general I strongly support this bill and the goal of 
balancing the budget in 7 years.
  As one of the Senate Commerce Committee members who drafted title IV 
of the Senate bill and served as a conferee for this section of this 
legislation, I want to clarify for the Record what I believe is 
intended by this bill regarding spectrum auctions.
  Under the bill, the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] is 
mandated to identify and make available for public auction 100 Mhz of 
spectrum. I believe that auctioning this and other spectrum is the 
fairest, most equitable manner in which to allocate spectrum. I would 
hope that the Commission would understand this fact and become spectrum 
auction proponents. The auctioning of spectrum in an orderly manner--
done so that the public interest is served both by maximizing revenue 
to the Treasury and ensuring that services that use the spectrum 
continue in a manner that benefits the public--should be a goal of all 
FCC proceedings regarding the spectrum.
  The bill before the Senate contains several criteria that the FCC 
should use in selecting which blocks of spectrum to auction. I want to 
emphasize for the Record that the inclusion of any particular criteria 
for the FCC to consider should not be viewed as limiting the 
Commission's authority to make a determination under its overall public 
interest standard of what existing spectrum uses may need to be 
continued, or from considering in making its decision the impact on any 
existing users of having to move to other frequencies or from 
requiring, as a condition of any move, that the costs of relocation be 
paid by new users.
  Most importantly, I urge the Commission to examine all the spectrum 
referenced in this act and make determinations as to its allocation 
that are fair, equitable, and that do not unduly hurt or burden any one 
group or industry.
  Mr. President, I hope this clarification helps guide the FCC as it 
moves toward auctions as mandated by this bill.


              Tax Cuts in Reconciliation Conference Report

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the 
conference agreement on the reconciliation package, and to take 
particular exception to the tax cuts in that package.
  Mr. President, there is a great deal to dislike in the agreement, 
especially with respect to Medicare and Medicaid.
  The majority of the debate surrounding the reconciliation has 
concerned these two programs, and the cuts to those programs certainly 
merit the attention they have received.
  Much has been said already about the Medicare and Medicaid cuts: cuts 
that put the most vulnerable in our society at risk; cuts that are 
unnecessary to balance the Federal budget deficit.
  But there is little doubt that these cuts were made as a direct 
result of the need to fund the $245 billion tax cut.
  Mr. President, the advocates of the reconciliation measure call the 
tax cut the crown jewel of the Contract With America.
  Indeed, it is the $245 billion tax cut that drives the entire 
reconciliation package.
  The assurances of health care coverage for the low-income, frail 
elderly, disabled, pregnant women, and children--both now and in the 
future--has been mortgaged to pay for tax cuts.
  Mr. President, though I am persuaded that the nearly half a trillion 
dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid have been made in order to 
fund the tax cut, some of our colleagues may take issue with that 
characterization.
  They maintain that there are other reasons to take nearly half a 
trillion dollars out of our health care system.
  And, some who make that argument may even believe it.
  But, Mr. President, for those who do believe that argument, there is 
still no defense for the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that are 
included in the reconciliation agreement.
  Indeed, if one believes that these massive cuts are necessary in 
order to achieve a balanced budget, then there is no justification for 
supporting the $245 billion tax cut that risks achieving that balance.
  Mr. President, I have argued on a number of occasions that the budget 
plan outlined in the reconciliation measure is unsustainable.
  In part, this comes from the refusal to deal honestly with the 
American people, arguing, for example, that the $270 billion in cuts to 
Medicare are necessary to keep the Medicare trust fund solvent.
  Of course, that is nonsense.
  But the architects of this tax cut felt it necessary to spin this 
story in order to produce the cuts needed to fund the tax cut.
  Regrettably, the failure to be straight with the American people does 
more than undercut this extreme proposal.
  This deception will make it much more difficult for those of us who 
are willing to support some reasonable reforms to make our case to the 
Nation that we need to make changes to Medicare not only to keep the 
program solvent, but also as a matter of deficit reduction.
  Mr. President, beyond the issue of deceiving the public, this budget 
plan is also unsustainable because its priorities are unbalanced.
  A budget plan that increases Defense spending, allows special 
interest loopholes to continue to grow unchecked, cuts taxes by $245 
billion, and does all of that while gutting our health care protections 
is a budget plan that does not reflect anything close to the mainstream 
view of the Nation.
  The priorities reflected in this budget are extremist, and the Nation 
simply will not support their ongoing implementation over the next 
several years.
  This plan will not survive its full 7-year lifetime.
  And I suspect, Mr. President, that it is not intended to survive 
those 7 years.
  The biggest cuts come in the latter years, sufficiently far off to 
allow panicked State governments to lobby for the overturn of the 
brutal cuts that are scheduled to descend in 2002--25 percent of the 
total cuts in the Senate passed bill occur in that year alone, 46 
percent in the last 2 years.
  Mr. President, some who support this measure may believe in the brave 
new world it conceives.
  But there are others who support this measure who do not hold that 
view.
  They understand that this budget is unsustainable over the full 7 
years.
  They may even hope that someone or something will rescue us from that 
last years of this budget.
  But if their goal is not the dawning of a new order, what is their 
purpose in supporting this measure?
  Mr. President, their goal is not a balanced budget.
  Their goal is a fiscally irresponsible tax cut.
  How else can this bill be explained?
  How else can one explain a $245 billion tax cut in a bill that 
provides for annual deficits that add $700 billion to our Federal debt?
  If balancing the budget were their highest priority, there would not 
be a $245 billion tax cut in the reconciliation package.
  Mr. President, supporters of the reconciliation measure had the 
opportunity to demonstrate that balancing the Federal books was a 
higher priority than providing a $245 billion tax cut.
  The senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] and I offered an 
amendment to the reconciliation bill during our limited debate that did 
nothing but strike the tax cut, lowering the bill's cumulative deficits 
by $245 billion.
  Mr. President, the change to the bill by that amendment alone would 
have balanced the Federal books in 2001, a year before the underlying 
measure.
  Only two of the Members who supported the reconciliation package also 
supported that amendment.
  Balanced budget, Mr. President?
  If supporters of the reconciliation measure really wanted to balance 
the budget, they would have supported that amendment.
  Their failure to do so is clear evidence that the $245 billion tax 
cut, not a balanced budget, is their highest priority.
  If the $245 billion tax cut were not the priority of the 
reconciliation bill, we would not see the $450 billion cuts to Medicare 
and Medicaid.
  If the $245 billion tax cut were not the priority of the 
reconciliation bill, we would not have seen the tortured, 

[[Page S 17295]]
and even dangerous precedents set on this floor during the 
reconciliation debate through rulings from the Chair on what can only 
be called highly questionable parliamentary interpretations of budget 
points of order with respect to Social Security.
  Senate rules prevent a fuller discussion of those events.
  It is enough to say that the question need never have come up.
  We need never have risked damage to the integrity of our rules had 
there been a willingness to pare back this unjustifiable tax cut to 95 
percent of its proposed level.
  The $12 billion raid on the Social Security trust fund, and the 
carefully scripted parliamentary exchange used to subvert our budget 
rules, was made necessary because of an unwillingness to lower the tax 
cut by so little as 5 percent.
  Mr. President, I understand that the conference committee found a 
different source of funding, making the raid on the Social Security 
Trust Fund unnecessary.
  But the damage is done.
  In an effort to protect the tax cut at all costs, a critical budget 
rule has been weakened.
  Though the $12 billion may have been restored to the trust fund, the 
integrity of the Senate's budget rules has been compromised.
  This is not the first assault on our budget rules in the name of 
cutting taxes.
  I am reminded in particular of the so-called dynamic scoring debate, 
a backdoor attempt to circumvent our budget procedures--again, done in 
the name of cutting taxes.
  Mr. President, in the name of cutting taxes, the extremists will 
deceive the public, compromise our budget rules, slash health care 
protections for the most vulnerable in society, and forsake efforts to 
balance the Federal budget.
  Mr. President, this budget is extreme.
  And the driving force behind its excess is the $245 billion tax cut--
a tax cut that apparently is timed to be mailed out only days before 
the 1996 elections.
  Those who want to understand this reconciliation package need look no 
further than the tax cuts.
  All other provisions flow from the assumed tax cuts.
  All the actions surrounding the measure flow from the assumed tax 
cuts.
  As I have noted, some who support this budget may actually endorse 
the measure's extremism.
  Others support it in spite of its extremism.
  But make no mistake.
  Those who endorse the extreme provisions in reconciliation and those 
who back the measure in spite of them, support the bill primarily as a 
vehicle to cut $245 billion in taxes.
  The fiscally irresponsible tax cut is the essence of this measure and 
it infects the entire package.
  I urge the President to veto this measure, so we can begin putting 
together a budget plan that will balance our Federal books by 2002 or 
sooner.
  A budget plan that will have enough public support to ensure that it 
will be sustained for the full duration.
  A budget plan that includes cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, but a plan 
that cuts smart, not one that cuts mean.
  A budget plan that distributes the burden of reducing the deficit 
fairly.
  One that includes the defense budget as well as our health care 
budget.
  One that includes one of the most rapidly growing areas of our 
Federal budget--tax expenditures.
  A budget plan that does not include the fiscally reckless $245 
billion tax cut that jeopardizes our most important economic goal, a 
balanced Federal budget.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                chapter 4--federal oil and gas royalties

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Federal oil and gas royalty chapter 
in the Balanced Budget Act is the only legislative initiative taken in 
the last 13 years to cost-effectively increase the Nation's third 
largest source of revenue--mineral royalties from Federal lands, more 
specifically, oil and gas royalties. This legislation would establish a 
comprehensive statutory plan to increase the collection of royalty 
receipts due the United States. These mineral receipts will help reduce 
our budget deficit. Without this legislation, an ineffective and costly 
royalty collection system will continue, perpetuating long delays and 
uncollected royalties.
  Let me make absolutely clear, Mr. President, that this legislation 
does not apply to Indian lands. It applies only to royalties from oil 
and gas production on Federal lands.
  This is historic legislation, Mr. President, in that it would empower 
States to perform oil and gas royalty management functions, such as 
auditing and collecting, that are essential to bringing additional 
receipts to the Treasury and the States within a 6-year limitation 
period established by this legislation. By expanding the States' role 
in performing Federal oil and gas royalty management functions 
consistent with Federal law and regulation, States are provided a great 
economic incentive that also benefits the Federal Treasury. The more 
aggressive States are in performing delegated functions, the greater 
their share of net receipts under the Mineral Leasing Act. That act 
requires 50 percent of all royalties from Federal onshore oil and gas 
production to be shared with producing States.
  Chapter 4 establishes a framework for the Federal oil and gas royalty 
collection program that will bring in an additional $51 million in 
revenues to the U.S. Treasury and provide an additional $33 million to 
the States over 7 years. These additional receipts result primarily 
from: First, Requiring the Secretary of the Interior and delegated 
States to timely collect all claims within 6 years rather than allow 
the claims to become stale and uncollectible; second, requiring early 
resolution and collection of disputed claims before their value 
diminishes; third, requiring Federal and State resources to be used in 
a manner that maximizes receipts through more aggressive collection 
activities; and fourth, increasing production on Federal lands by 
creating economic and regulatory incentives. Without the statutory 
framework of this legislation, the Nation's third largest revenue 
source--the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service is the 
third largest source of revenue behind the IRS and Customs Service--
will continue to be subject to greatly delayed collections and the risk 
of reduced receipts due to noncollection over time.
  To achieve the goal of maximizing collections through more timely and 
aggressive collection efforts, this legislation would do the following 
specific things. It would require the Secretary, delegated States, and 
lessees to take action respecting an obligation within 6 years from the 
date that obligation became due. The provisions require that judicial 
proceedings or demands--for example, orders to pay--be commenced or 
issued within 6 years of the date when the obligation became due or be 
barred. Use of legal authority other than that provided in this 
section--for example, the Debt Collection Act--is not precluded so long 
as judicial proceedings or demands are commenced or issued within the 
6-year period. It is not intended that such other legal authority be 
used as a substitute for, or to circumvent, emasculate or otherwise 
frustrate, the 6-year limitation period. Lessees would be required to 
maintain their records during the 6-year period in order to verify 
production volumes.
  The legislation would expedite the administrative appeals process at 
the Interior Department by establishing a 30-month limitation on 
appeals. Presently, over $450 million in disputed claims languish in a 
bureaucratic appeals process and continue to lose value. By speeding up 
the appeals process, the Secretary would increase the value of these 
obligations and collections to the Treasury.
  The legislation also would level the playing field for royalty payors 
by authorizing the payment of interest on overpayments. Present law 
requires lessees to pay interest on late payments and underpayments as 
a disincentive for being tardy or underpaying royalties, but does not 
compensate lessees who overpay royalties and who lose the time value of 
that money through some legitimate error. This legislation would 
provide for payment of interest on overpayments without regard to the 
amount of the overpayment.
  And finally, Mr. President, the legislation would authorize the 
Secretary to allow prepayment of royalties and 

[[Page S 17296]]
to provide other regulatory relief for marginal properties, and require 
that adjustments or requests for refunds for underpayments or 
overpayments be pursued within a 5-year window coinciding with the 6-
year limitation period.
  Mr. President, CBO estimates that chapter 4 provisions will procure 
savings of $6 million in fiscal year 1996, $40 million in 5 years, $51 
million in 7 years, and $66 million in 10 years. We believe this 
legislation will do more than simply bring receipts to the Government 
earlier than they would arrive under the present system, Mr. President. 
We believe a more efficient, effective, and aggressive program, 
combined with some of the economic incentives and regulatory relief, 
will bring new savings to the Treasury and the States. Because of these 
savings, the provisions in chapter 4 are an important part of the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995.


                              Section 1107

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with Senator 
Lugar, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition and Forestry, regarding section 1107 of the bill.
  Mr. LUGAR. I would be pleased to engage the Senator from Idaho in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. CRAIG. Is it your understanding that section 1107 of the bill 
reforms the Federal Sugar Program by imposing a forfeiture penalty 
which effectively reduces the loan level for sugar by 1 cent per pound, 
eliminating domestic sugar allotments that control supply, 
conditionally authorizing the use of recourse sugar program loans, and 
increasing the contributions of sugar producers toward deficit 
reduction by increasing the assessments on sugar marketings by 25 
percent?
  Mr. LUGAR. The gentleman is correct, the reforms in section 1107 will 
result in more competitive sugar prices, enhanced Government revenues, 
and the potential for increased sugar imports.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, as a conferee for the Senate on section 1107 
of the bill, it is my understanding that the conferees have agreed to 
include language in subsection (d) of section 1107 that will reform the 
Sugar Program by authorizing, for the first time, the Secretary of 
Agriculture to administer the program through the use of recourse 
loans, subject to specific conditions. If implemented, the use of 
recourse loans is a major reform from the nonrecourse loans that have 
been used to support the prices of all basic farm program commodities 
in this century. The conferees authorized the use of recourse loans for 
the Sugar Program only subject to specific conditions outlined in 
section 1107(d) of the bill. Is this your understanding as well?
  Mr. LUGAR. The gentleman is correct. Section 1107 conditionally 
authorizes the Secretary to depart from current practice and use 
recourse loans to administer the Sugar Program. Section 1107(d)(2) 
conditions the use of recourse loans on the requirement that the 
Secretary provide nonrecourse loans in the event that the tariff rate 
quota for imports of sugar into the United States is established at, or 
increased to, a level in excess of 1.5 million short tons of sugar in 
any year. It is the clear intent of the conferees that if the 
subsection (d) conditional authorization for the use of recourse loans 
to administer the Sugar Program, or the restrictive conditions on the 
use of such authority in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (d), is 
removed from the bill, the Secretary of Agriculture shall continue to 
administer the Sugar Program through the use of nonrecourse loans 
authorized under subsections (a) and (b).


         medicaid payments to indian health service facilities

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to discuss several 
important Medicaid provisions in the Balanced Budget Act that will have 
an impact on my home State of South Dakota.
  The Medicaid reform proposal, as contained within the Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act, would maintain current law that requires the States 
to pass through to Indian Health Service facilities funding from the 
State's federal Migrant allotment. For a State such as South Dakota--
with 37 percent of its Medicaid beneficiaries being Native Americans--
this creates a highly problematic situation. Let me explain. Presently, 
the IHS budget is funded at an amount less than actual need. To deal 
with this shortfall, Federal funds have been made available through 
State Medicaid programs. As my colleagues know, the proposed Medicaid 
reform provisions would cap Federal Medicaid funds to the States. As a 
result, States with IHS and significant Native American populations 
facilities would be forced to use limited Federal funds to supplement 
the intentional shortfalls in the IHS budget, which could limit 
Medicaid service availability to Medicaid eligible Native and non-
Native Americans. To compensate, States may need to limit payments to 
IHS facilities to conserve Federal dollars, or utilize limited State 
resources to make up shortfalls for non-Indian people. In short, the 
Medicaid reform proposal would unfairly single out those States--37 in 
all--with a significant Indian population.
  The majority leader has requested from me and the Governor of my 
State suggestions as to how we may rectify this situation. I believe 
three possible solutions exist: First, the creation of a separate 
tribal allocation equal to \1/2\ of 1 percent of the budget for the new 
Medicaid Program that would assure reimbursement for services to Native 
Americans through their Indian health programs. This allocation could 
be provided either through a direct billing mechanism between the 
tribes and the Federal Government, or through the current pass-through 
structure. Second, a repeal of the current Federal statute that 
requires States to serve as a pass through for IHS Medicaid funds. This 
would release States of what I believe to be an improper involvement in 
the special relationship that exists between the Federal Government, 
the Indian Health Service and Native American citizens. This repeal 
would require the establishment of a direct billing mechanism to 
satisfy existing requirements of 100 percent Federal reimbursement; or 
third, to satisfy those States desirous of maintaining current law, a 
structure that would allow States the option to either continue serving 
as a pass through, or to insist on a direct Federal-tribal 
relationship.
  Mr. President, at issue is the increased flexibility we promised our 
Nation's Governors in return for their acceptance of a revised Medicaid 
funding formula. Obviously, maintenance of the current system would 
severely hamper the flexibility of States with significant Native 
American populations. Two factors are involved: A capped Medicaid 
grant, and a 100-percent Federal reimbursement requirement for Medicaid 
eligible Native Americans. Without additional Federal funds under the 
current system, or a direct Federal-tribal billing system, the result 
will be added pressure on States to use its own funds to maintain 
services for Medicaid eligible non-Indians. The majority leader has 
indicated his interest and support for finding an appropriate solution. 
Unfortunately, this issue was left unresolved prior to the completion 
of conference. On behalf of the numerous Senators and Governors who 
have contacted the majority leader on this issue, it is my hope we will 
find a fair solution once the President vetoes this legislation.

  Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Alaska on the floor. I 
know my colleague shares my concerns regarding the current Medicaid 
reform proposals and would yield to him to make any comments on this 
subject.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank my friend from South Dakota. Mr. President, I 
share Senator Pressler's concerns regarding funding for Medicaid 
services provided to Indians and to Native Alaskans. In Alaska, 
approximately 35 to 40 percent of Medicaid recipients are Native 
Alaskans.
  In the past, the Federal Government has paid 100 percent of the costs 
of Medicaid services delivered to Alaska Natives in Indian Health 
Service facilities. The State of Alaska acted only as a conduit for 
these funds. I understand that the proposed MediGrant Program would 
continue to require that health services provided to eligible Alaska 
Natives in IHS facilities as well as tribally owned or operated 
facilities be paid 100 percent by the Federal Government. In light of 
funding shortfalls for the Indian Health Service, IHS facilities in 
Alaska depend on these third-party payments from the Medicaid Program 
to meet their expenses.
  However, under a capped MediGrant Program, Alaska may be faced with a 


[[Page S 17297]]
Hobson's Choice of either cutting back on payments to Native facilities 
or being forced to cut back on payments for services to poor non-Native 
Alaskans. This could easily lead to racial tensions in Alaska which we 
all work very hard to avoid.
  I would like to add my voice to that of my colleague from South 
Dakota in urging your continued cooperation in finding an equitable 
solution to this problem.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader 
on the floor and I would like to yield to him to make a brief statement 
regarding Medicaid payments made to Native American health programs 
serving Medicaid eligible native Americans.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I recognize the importance of this issue to 
South Dakota, Alaska, and other States with significant native American 
populations. I have had a number of recent conversations with my 
colleagues from South Dakota and Alaska. I also heard from the Governor 
of South Dakota. They have made me aware of the impact this issue may 
have upon their States. The Senators from South Dakota and Alaska have 
my assurance that I will continue working with them to find a solution 
to this complex issue.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and my 
friend from Alaska. I appreciate the majority leader's consideration of 
our request and look forward to working with him on this matter of 
great importance to South Dakota, Alaska, and all other States with 
significant native American populations.


          Dairy Provisions in Reconciliation Reveal Hypocrisy

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, during this budget debate, it became 
quite clear that Republican's rhetoric about less Government, less 
regulation, less spending, and the end of business as usual, cannot 
stem their rush to pass this particular budget package, regardless of 
the contents of the package. The hypocrisy of that rhetoric was 
revealed during these debates, when Republicans began abandoning not 
only their own rhetoric, but also members of their own party in an 
effort to pass a budget.
  Mr. President, I am talking about the sequence of events that have 
occurred both in this Chamber and the House of Representatives on dairy 
policy. Actions of the Republican leadership are more significant for 
what they didn't do than for what they did do on dairy policy. What 
does this budget reconciliation bill before us do on dairy policy? 
Nothing, Mr. President, absolutely nothing. No savings, no reform, and 
clearly no courage to make the tough calls.
  This is inexcusable during a year in which this budget bill 
represents the vehicle for major reform of all agricultural programs. 
Dairy policy, and specifically, the Federal milk marketing order system 
is badly in need of reform. Federal milk marketing orders are an 
antiquated, overly regulatory system of setting milk prices throughout 
the country and determining where, when, and how milk should be 
shipped. The system sets minimum milk prices artificially high in many 
parts of the country at a significant cost to both taxpayers and 
consumers, and to the extreme disadvantage of dairy farmers in 
Wisconsin and throughout the Upper Midwest, where fluid milk prices are 
the lowest by law. The system has distorted the market resulting in 
perverse economic incentives for overproduction in a sector for which 
the slightest oversupply can send farm-level prices plummeting.
  This budget bill presented an ideal and unique opportunity to both 
reform Federal milk marketing orders, reduce regulation and save 
millions in taxpayer dollars. Eliminating Federal orders while leaving 
a basic support system in place would have saved $669 million over 5 
years, which is only about $100 million shy of the conference committee 
target for dairy. Instead of taking the route of terminating this 
system and letting the market work, the Republicans dropped the $800 
million in savings the conference committee was to achieve from dairy.
  But, Mr. President, nothing was done, no changes were made. We are 
left with the status quo--the status quo that the leaders of the so-
called revolution had made a commitment to end. ``We are going to end 
business as usual''--that is what the Republicans told the American 
people.
  Well, it is business as usual, Mr. President.
  That was pretty clear when the Senate took up dairy late last month. 
The Senate version of reconciliation not only did nothing to eliminate 
the inequities and regulatory burdens of Federal milk marketing orders, 
but actually provided for more Government regulation, more market 
distortion and more regional inequities. During floor action, Senators 
approved legislation imposing a hidden tax on dairy farmers throughout 
the Nation for the benefit of a few west coast States--known as class 
IV pooling. The Senate also approved the northeast dairy compact which 
was astonishing in this political climate. Some of the very Members of 
this body who have been decrying the consumer costs and excessive 
Government intervention imposed by the sugar and peanut programs, not 
only voted to impose a milk tax on New England consumers but also to 
allow six States to set minimum milk prices well above that allowed 
under current law.
  The House, after seeking some reform compromise on Federal orders, 
ultimately voted to eliminate them. That was certainly the wiser of the 
two courses, and an approach, which I ultimately endorsed following the 
Senate's ill-conceived actions. The Upper Midwest is harmed so badly by 
Federal orders, that in the absence of reform, they prefer a completely 
unregulated market to an overregulated one.
  Despite the efforts of those of us from the Upper Midwest to reform 
Federal orders and despite the months of effort by Congressman 
Gunderson, a Republican and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Dairy 
Policy, to terminate the program when reform efforts failed, the 
Republican majority took a walk on dairy policy. Congressman Gunderson 
worked hard to set dairy policy right. Unfortunately, in the end when 
it counted, Speaker Gingrich decided that political expediency was more 
important than supporting his chairman's package. The Republicans have 
abrogated their responsibilities on a tough issue.
  House Speaker Newt Gingrich indicated that reform of Federal Orders 
would be high on the Republican agenda following Thanksgiving. However, 
given that Speaker Gingrich was willing to forgo $800 million in budget 
savings in order to avoid a fight in his own party on dairy policy, I 
am highly skeptical that his commitment to reform is terribly strong.
  Mr. President, I have always said there are three avenues to 
restoring fairness to Wisconsin farmers: judicially--by bringing legal 
actions against the Department of Agriculture; legislatively--which now 
seems unrealistic; and administratively--through the Secretary of 
Agriculture's vast rulemaking authority.
  Several months ago, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman accepted my 
invitation to participate in a barn meeting with dairy farmers in 
Greenleaf, WI. Having spent an hour and a half listening to dairy 
farmers, Secretary Glickman conceded that indeed Federal orders 
discriminate against the Upper Midwest to the benefit of dairy farmers 
in other parts of the country and that fluid milk prices set too high 
in some regions encouraged overproduction.
  While I have long been skeptical of the ability of the Department of 
Agriculture to do the right thing with respect to orders, I think the 
dairy farmers of Wisconsin have in Dan Glickman a Secretary who has at 
least been willing to admit our farmers have been justified in their 
cries of ``foul.'' Previous Secretaries have failed in their duties in 
that respect.
  So, today I am calling on Dan Glickman to do what Congress apparently 
cannot--make the changes to this antiquated program that the farmers of 
Wisconsin so deserve. I hope, and feel confident, that Dan Glickman has 
the courage that the Republican leadership lacks on this matter.
  I would put my colleagues on notice, however, that I am not willing 
to give up the fight in this Chamber. This battle for fairness is not 
over. And, Mr. President, if Members are not willing to compromise to 
achieve reform, I will seek the termination of Federal milk marketing 
orders.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is now or never time in the economic 
history 

[[Page S 17298]]
of our country. At the end of this year, our national debt will exceed 
$5 trillion. We are adding to the debt at the astonishing rate of 
$9,600 per second. As I speak, every man, woman, and child in America 
is more than $18,000 in debt. There is little doubt that a crisis is at 
hand. The only question remaining is: Will the Congress and the 
President of the United States step up to the plate and solve the 
problem?
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 before the Senate today is the 
congressional answer to our crushing debt problem. It may not be the 
final answer, it may not be the perfect answer, but it is the only 
answer put forth thus far. President Clinton has never submitted a 
balanced budget to Congress, and has made it clear that he never will. 
In fact, as the ongoing Government shutdown shows, the President would 
rather close the Federal Government than agree to balance the budget. 
Clearly, President Clinton does not have his priorities straight.
  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, however, 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.
  Mr. President, if there was an easy solution to our fiscal problems, 
you can rest assured that Congress would have found it long 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 because it 
gets the job done. There are no smoke and mirrors, just a solid 
balanced budget using solid economic assumptions. I would like to 
commend Senator Domenici for his leadership and hard work on this bill.
  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.
  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 of approximately 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.
  Mr. President, the Senate bill also provides significant tax relief 
to American families. I know that many of my colleagues have expressed 
disdain at the idea of cutting taxes. Apparently, 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 would respectfully disagree. The only way to limit the 
size and scope of the Federal Government is to limit its source of 
energy. The Federal Government is fueled by taxes. Simply put, the more 
Uncle Sam collects in taxes, the more Uncle Sam will spend. In 1993, 
President Clinton raised taxes on the American people by $250 billion. 
He wanted to expand the Government. In 1995, the Republican Congress 
proposes to reduce taxes by $245 billion. We want to shrink the 
Government.
  Mr. President, 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! It is a difficult 
question to answer. There is no danger in 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 have waited 10 years for the opportunity to vote for a balanced 
budget. The time for waiting is over and the time for acting is now. 
This budget is bold; it is real, and it stands alone as the only 
solution to our Nation's fiscal problems. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, and I urge the President to 
sign the bill into law.


             ``midnight in america'' and budget priorities

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to call the attention of my 
colleagues to an excellent recent opinion column by Jamie Stiehm 
distributed by New America News Service/New York Times Special 
Features. The column, entitled ``Midnight in America,'' describes the 
Senate passage of the Budget Reconciliation bill last month, and is 
especially timely now as the Senate continues to debate the Republican 
budget plan. As the column makes clear, the true debate is about 
fundamental American priorities and the kind of country America will be 
in the years ahead. I believe Ms. Stiehm's column will be of interest 
to all of us in Congress, and I ask unanimous consent that it may be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                        ``Midnight in America''

                           (By Jamie Stiehm)

  [From the New America News Service/New York Times Special Features]

       Now that the O.J. Simpson trial and the World Series are 
     over, maybe America can pay attention to another show--and 
     what a show it is on the floors of the House and the Senate.
       Not all revolutions have to happen in the streets. Nor do 
     all revolutionaries look like Lenin. The one we're having 
     right now is something we can see on C-SPAN and arose largely 
     as a result of apathy, not action, on the part of the 
     American electorate, most of whom forgot to vote last fall.
       So what we have here is a character named Newt changing the 
     course of a perfectly nice country, while most of its 
     citizens weren't even watching.
       Make no mistake, this is no budget business as usual. The 
     manner, means and contents of the enormous budget bill passed 
     by Congress--just as the clock struck midnight on the Senate 
     side--are like nothing its members have seen, done or dreamt 
     before.
       First, the idea of allowing 30 seconds of debate on both 
     sides of some amendments might seem strange in the greatest 
     deliberative body in the world. But the Senate needed no more 
     time than that to pass amendments like the one allowing 19 
     million acres of Alaskan wilderness to be opened to oil 
     drilling. Don't ask what that has to do with a balanced 
     budget, because I don't know. What I do know is that the 
     Senate rejected the same idea of drilling in the Arctic 
     preserve after a long floor fight a few years ago--just one 
     way the times have changed.
       Another is the sheer refusal to deal across the aisle. 
     Traditionally, politics is about the art of the possible, the 
     search for a compromise that makes the greatest number of 
     people happy. But not this time. The only bargaining and 
     concessions made were between Republicans themselves, with 
     moderate Republicans able to make a small difference to the 
     final outcome. For example, they persuaded Majority Leader 
     Bob Dole (R-Kan.) not to knock out all federal nursing home 
     standards. Again, don't ask me what that particular issue has 
     to do with a balanced budget.
       As far as Republicans were concerned, though, Democrats 
     were just making so much noise about tax cuts and Medicare 
     cuts. The two figures are suspiciously similar, with 
     Republicans proposing to cut taxes by $245 billion and 
     Medicare by $270 billion over the next seven years. That's 
     what Democratic senators such as Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) 
     were roaring about all week, the unseemliness of changing the 
     tax code at the expense of health care for senior citizens. 
     Not to mention the fact tax cut helps the rich and hurts the 
     poor. Those earning under $30,000 will actually pay higher 
     taxes under the new budget plan brought to us.
       Makes a whole heap of sense, doesn't it? Especially when 
     the latest poll reveals that most voters, including 
     registered Republicans, don't even want that tax cut.
       Finally, please don't ask me why the Pentagon didn't lose a 
     penny under this budget--in fact, it got a few billion 
     dollars more than it asked for, though there are no wars, 
     cold or hot, in sight.
       Yet plainly embedded between the lines and numbers of this 
     latest Capitol Hill budget are values that go 
     counterclockwise to American history. Throughout most of this 
     century, since the Progressive Era and the New Deal, the 
     direction of social legislation 

[[Page S 17299]]
     has been to make the federal government a friend, not an enemy, for 
     most American citizens and families. Social Security and the 
     G.I. bill are the classic examples of this trend, of course, 
     but there are countless others, such as the 1964 Civil Rights 
     Act.
       But now the new thing is ``devolution,'' a word heard 
     almost every day on the Hill. That translates to sending 
     money, power and responsibility from the federal government 
     to the states to take care of public assistance for the aged, 
     sick and poor. The ways and means to this end is through 
     another new buzz word, ``block grants.''
       Since when have states suddenly become beacons of wisdom 
     and enlightenment in political dialogue? The last time states 
     were regarded with such reverence by politicians in Congress 
     was right before the Civil War. But believe me, I'd rather 
     have the federal government watching over social welfare and 
     equal justice than any one of the 50 states. That, if nothing 
     else, is a painful lesson from our history.
       There was a good reason why the Founding Fathers decided we 
     are the United States, not simply the States. America stands 
     for something more than the sum of its parts.
       ``The people have bread, but they want circuses,'' said a 
     wise member of the Senate as he walked onto the floor to 
     vote.
       Change channels, America. Watch Newt Gingrich try to lead 
     the latest American revolution--or should I say devolution--
     and see if that's the country you want to wake up to the 
     morning after midnight.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there are a number of compelling economic 
reasons to support a balanced budget: Lower interest rates: Higher 
economic growth. Others have drawn those implications in detail.
  But these economic facts do not fully explain the urgency of this 
issue in the minds of many Americans. There is a moral aspect to this 
debate, and a moral imperative we must understand. Many of us are 
convinced that endless deficits are not only unwise, but unprincipled. 
They are not just a drag on our economy, they are a burden on our 
national conscience.
  Thomas Jefferson defined this moral aspect, arguing that:

       The question of whether one generation has the right to 
     bend another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such 
     consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles 
     of Government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to 
     saddle posterity with our debts, and be morally bound to pay 
     them ourselves.

  We are debating one of the fundamental principles of government, and 
one of the basic moral commitments between generations. It has always 
been one of the highest moral traditions for parents to sacrifice for 
the sake of their children. It is the depth of selfishness to call on 
children to sacrifice for the sake of their parents. Mr. President, if 
we continue on the current path, we will violate this trust between 
generations, and earn the contempt of the future.
  Every child born in America now inherits nearly $19,000 in public 
debt. This is the destructive legacy of a Government without courage. 
While decades of deficit spending has caused a budgetary crisis, it has 
done more than that--it has betrayed a moral responsibility because 
when Americans view our actions, they see past the numbers to a set of 
principles. They see more than a matter of right and left, they see a 
matter of right and wrong.
  Make no mistake, this Balanced Budge Act makes good economic sense. 
But it also makes us consistent with our highest ideals.
  That is the moral imperative of this economic debate--the reality 
beyond the bottom line. But there is, as always, a political imperative 
that pushes in the opposite direction.
  Deficit spending has always made political sense. It allows 
government to please people in the present by placing burdens on the 
future. The future, significantly, has no vote in the next election.
  Both the President and Congress have built their power on the ability 
to buy constituent support with cash funded from debt. Republicans and 
some Democrats in Congress prepared to part with that destructive 
power. The President, it seems obvious, is less willing to surrender 
it--even in this budget crisis, even when the views of most Americans 
are clear, even when so much is at stake.
  These two imperatives--the moral imperative and the political 
imperative--are struggling against each other at this moment. Never in 
my career has the choice been more stark or more important.
  On one side are false numbers and false promises. The President says 
he favors a balanced budget, but he is willing to shut down the 
Government rather than commit to hard deadlines and hard numbers. His 
commitment during the campaign was a balanced budget in 5 years. Now he 
refuses to accept 7. And, in reality, because he will not use reliable 
budget numbers, he rejects any balanced budget at all.
  With this balanced budget act, we have called the President's bluff. 
At one point he said he could only accept Congressional Budget Office 
numbers. His exact quote? ``Let's at least argue about the same set of 
numbers so the American people will think we're shooting straight with 
them.'' That is precisely the Republican point: All our talk of a 
balanced budget is meaningless if we are simply twisting numbers, not 
making cuts. This is the exceptional achievement of the Balanced Budget 
Act--it is based on facts, not on hope.
  The President has already admitted that a balanced budget is possible 
in 7 years. His exact quote? ``There's a way for me to meet the stated 
objectives, which is a balanced budget in 7 years, with a family tax . 
. .'' But now--faced with a bill that meets this goal--he says that 7 
years is too soon.
  This is the same old political imperative at work--preserve the 
ability to buy votes by robbing the future, promise benefits to every 
special interest in the country, the most special of all interest, the 
children, with no thought for the next generation. That political 
imperative has won every budget debate since the late 1960's. But this 
Republican budget finally has the courage to confront the political 
imperative--the courage to say that our generation has a moral duty to 
the next.
  The Balanced Budget Act is a practical, serious, responsible 
expression of that moral imperative. It allows us to care for the needs 
of our own society, without adding to the burdens of the future. Even 
the Washington Post has observed, ``It's gusty and in some respects 
inventive--and it addresses a genuine problem that is only going to get 
worse.''
  Mr. President, this is a historic piece of legislation--and not just 
for economic reasons. It allows us in the Congress to leave some legacy 
to the future other than monumental debt--a legacy of moral courage and 
responsibility. We have waited a long time to make a vote like this--a 
vote to keep our word and keep faith with the next generation.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record a list of Byrd rule violations contained in the 
reconciliation conference report.
  This list has been prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate 
Budget Committee.
  It is my opinion that each of these provisions violates section 313 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS, RECONCILIATION 1995                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtitle and section                 Subject             Budget Act violation           Explanation     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Title I--Agriculture                                                                                    
                                                                                                                
Section 1109(a)(2).................  Strikes sections listed  313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
                                      as ``omitted law'' in                                                     
                                      the code. Purely                                                          
                                      housekeeping in nature.                                                   
Section 1109(b)(2).................  Strikes Agricultural     313(b)(1)(D)..............  Outlay changes are    
                                      Act of 1949.                                         merely incidental.   
                                                                                                                
  Title IV--Education and Related                                                                               
             Provisions                                                                                         
                                                                                                                
Subtitle A.........................  Higher Education.......  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Only recovery of      
                                                                                           reserves scores.     
Sec. 4004..........................  Amendments Affecting     ..........................  The cost estimate     
(e)................................   Guaranty Agencies.                                   includes a line      
                                     Reserve Fund Reforms...                               showing this         
                                                                                           provision as having  
                                                                                           no budgetary effect. 
(1)................................  Strengthening and                                                          
                                      Stabilizing Guaranty                                                      
                                      Agencies.                                                                 

[[Page S 17300]]
                                                                                                                
Subtitle A.........................  Higher Education.......  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Only recovery of      
Sec. 4004..........................  Amendments Affecting                                  reserves scores. The 
(g)................................   Guaranty Agencies.                                   cost estimate        
                                     Reserve Ratios.........                               includes a line      
                                                                                           showing this         
                                                                                           provision as having  
                                                                                           no budgetary effect. 
Subtitle B.........................  Provisions Relating to   313(b)(1)(D)..............  The waiver would      
                                      ERISA '74.                                           slightly speed       
                                                                                           distribution.        
Sec. 4101..........................  Waiver of Minimum                                    The JCT estimates     
                                      Period for Joint and                                 ``negligible effect  
                                      Survivor Annuity                                     revenue effects,''   
                                      Explanation Before                                   therefore the        
                                      Annuity Starting Date.                               budgetary effect of  
                                                                                           this provision is    
                                                                                           merely incidental.   
                                                                                                                
    Title V--Subtitle C: Natural                                                                                
             Resources                                                                                          
                                                                                                                
Subchapter A--California Directed                                                                               
 Land Sale:                                                                                                     
    5301...........................  Conveyance of Property.  313(b)(1)(D)..............  Merely incidental,    
                                                                                           budget savings       
                                                                                           incidental to broader
                                                                                           policy of            
                                                                                           transferring Federal 
                                                                                           land (Ward Valley) to
                                                                                           the State of         
                                                                                           California for the   
                                                                                           purpose of developing
                                                                                           a low-level          
                                                                                           radioactive waste    
                                                                                           site.                
Subchapter B--Helium Reserves:                                                                                  
    5317...........................  Land Conveyance in       313(b)(1)(A)(D)...........  Non-budgetary and     
                                      Potter County, TX.                                   merely incidental,   
                                                                                           requires the         
                                                                                           Secretary of the     
                                                                                           Interior to transfer 
                                                                                           land to a girl scout 
                                                                                           group for $1.        
Chapter 2--ANWR:                                                                                                
    5333(c)........................  Compatibility..........  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Non-budgetary.        
    5333(h)........................  Conveyance.............  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Non-budgetary,        
                                                                                           authorizes the       
                                                                                           Secretary to convey  
                                                                                           land to the Kaktovik 
                                                                                           Inupiat Corporation. 
    5338(19).......................  Employment and           313(b)(1)(A)..............  Non-budgetary,        
                                      Contracting.                                         requires best effort 
                                                                                           to assure that the   
                                                                                           lessee provides a    
                                                                                           fair share of        
                                                                                           employment for Alaska
                                                                                           Natives.             
    5341...........................  Expedited Judicial       313(b)(1)(A)..............  Non-budgetary, limits 
                                      Review.                                              time period for      
                                                                                           filing compliant     
                                                                                           seeking judicial     
                                                                                           review, and exempts  
                                                                                           actions of Secretary 
                                                                                           to judicial review in
                                                                                           any civil or criminal
                                                                                           proceeding for       
                                                                                           enforcement.         
    5342...........................  Rights-Of-Way Across     313(b)(1)(A)..............  Non-budgetary,        
                                      the Coastal Plain.                                   overrides existing   
                                                                                           law (ANILCA's title  
                                                                                           X1) which delineates 
                                                                                           procedures for       
                                                                                           transportation rights
                                                                                           of way within the    
                                                                                           Alaska refuges,      
                                                                                           including ANWR.      
Chapter 5--Mining:                                                                                              
    5378...........................  Eligible Area..........  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Non-budgetary, sets up
                                                                                           eligibility criteria 
                                                                                           for reclamation      
                                                                                           activities funded by 
                                                                                           the States.          
Chapter 7, Subchapter A--Bonneville                                                                             
 Power Administration Refinancing:                                                                              
    5409...........................  Contract Provisions....  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Non-budgetary,        
                                                                                           requires the BPA to  
                                                                                           offer its customers  
                                                                                           contractual          
                                                                                           commitments that will
                                                                                           not assess any       
                                                                                           additional charges in
                                                                                           the future, beyond   
                                                                                           the changes included 
                                                                                           in this section.     
Chapter 12--Concession Reform:                                                                                  
    5464(b)(6).....................  Hiring Preference......  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Non-budgetary, intent 
                                                                                           of section is to     
                                                                                           require a hiring     
                                                                                           preference for       
                                                                                           residents of the     
                                                                                           State of Alaska with 
                                                                                           respect to concession
                                                                                           operations in that   
                                                                                           state.               
    5467...........................  Rates and Charges to     313(b)(1)(A)..............  Non-budgetary,        
                                      the Public.                                          authorizes the       
                                                                                           concessioner to set  
                                                                                           rates charged for    
                                                                                           service to the       
                                                                                           public, unless there 
                                                                                           is no nearby         
                                                                                           competition.         
    5472(b)(5).....................  Preferential Right of    313(b)(1)(A)..............  Non-budgetary, allows 
                                      Renewal for Existing                                 incumbent            
                                      Concessionaries.                                     Concessionaries to   
                                                                                           receive a 5 percent  
                                                                                           bonus in the         
                                                                                           reissuance of a      
                                                                                           previous concession  
                                                                                           authorization which  
                                                                                           expires over the next
                                                                                           5 years.             
                                                                                                                
  Title VI--Federal Retirement and                                                                              
         Related Provisions                                                                                     
                                                                                                                
6023...............................  Availability of Surplus  313(b)(1)(D)..............  Extraneous; savings   
                                      Property for Homeless                                merely incidental to 
                                      Assistance.                                          policy change.       
                                                                                           Repeals Title V of   
                                                                                           the McKinney Homeless
                                                                                           Act.                 
                                                                                                                
        Title VII--Medicaid                                                                                     
                                                                                                                
The following Sections refer to                                                                                 
 amendments to the Social Security                                                                              
 Act as amended by Section 7001 of                                                                              
 the bill:                                                                                                      
    ``2100''.......................  Purpose................  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                                                                           budgetary impact.    
    ``2105(a)(4)''.................  Advisory Committees....  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                                                                           budgetary impact.    
                                                                                           States are required  
                                                                                           to provide for       
                                                                                           consultation with one
                                                                                           or more advisory     
                                                                                           committees           
                                                                                           established and      
                                                                                           maintained by the    
                                                                                           State.               
    ``2112(f)''....................  Exceptions to Minimum    313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Set-Asides.                                          budgetary impact.    
                                                                                           Provides for States  
                                                                                           to opt out of set-   
                                                                                           aside requirements.  
    ``2114''.......................  Description of Process   313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      for Developing                                       budgetary impact. Not
                                      Capitation Payment                                   required for other   
                                      Rates.                                               services provided    
                                                                                           under the plan.      
    ``2135(g)''....................  Estate Recoveries,       313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Liens Permitted.                                     budgetary impact.    
                                                                                           Reverses current law 
                                                                                           by allowing States to
                                                                                           recovery resources   
                                                                                           from an individual or
                                                                                           an individual's      
                                                                                           estate for any amount
                                                                                           paid as medical      
                                                                                           assistance.          
    ``2137''.......................  Quality Assurance        313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Requirements for                                     budgetary impact.    
                                      Nursing Facilities.                                                       
    ``2154(e)(1)'' ``Only the        Judicial Review........  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
     Secretary . . . under this                                                            budgetary impact.    
     subsection.''.                                                                        Prohibits cause of   
                                                                                           action against a     
                                                                                           State for failure to 
                                                                                           comply within the law
                                                                                           or its plan. Only the
                                                                                           Secretary may compel 
                                                                                           a State to comply    
                                                                                           with this Title.     
    ``2171(a)(8)'' from ``only if    Prescription drugs.....  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
     such drugs . . .'' to end.                                                            budgetary impact.    
                                                                                           Provides only drugs  
                                                                                           not used or assisted 
                                                                                           suicide.             
    ``2171(a)(19)'' from ``only if   Abortion...............  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
     necessary . . .'' to end.                                                             budgetary impact.    
                                                                                           Provides for abortion
                                                                                           services only in the 
                                                                                           case involving rape, 
                                                                                           incest, and when the 
                                                                                           life of the mother is
                                                                                           jeopardized.         
    Sec. 13301.....................  Exemption of Physician   313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
                                      Office Laboratories.                                                      
    Sec. 1853(f) of the Social       Application of           313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
     Security Act as added by         Antitrust Rule of                                                         
     Section 8001 of the bill.        Reason to Provider-                                                       
                                      Sponsored                                                                 
                                      Organizations.                                                            
    Sec. 1856(a)(6) of the Social    Establishment of         313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
     Security Act as added by         Standards; relation to                                                    
     Section 8001 of the bill.        State Laws.                                                               
    Sec. 1858(d) (1) and (2) of the  Adoption of Standards    313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
     Social Security Act as added     for Data Elements.                                                        
     by Section 8001 of the bill.                                                                               
    Sec. 1882(d)(3)(i), (iii),       Duplication and          313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
     (iv), (v), (vi) of the Social    Coordination of                                                           
     Security Act as added by         Medicare-Related Plans.                                                   
     Section 8002(a)(1) of the bill                                                                             
     and Section 1882(d)(3) (B),                                                                                
     (C), and (D) of the Social                                                                                 
     Security Act as added by                                                                                   
     Section 8002(a)(2) of the bill                                                                             
     and Section 1882(u)(1) of the                                                                              
     Social Security Act as added                                                                               
     by Section 8002(b) of this                                                                                 
     bill.                                                                                                      
    Sec. 8021......................  Medicare Payment Review  313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
                                      Commission.                                                               
    Sec. 8116......................  Additional Exception to  313(b)(1)(D)..............  Merely incidental     
                                      anti-Kickback                                        budget impact.       
                                      Penalties for                                                             
                                      Discounting Managed                                                       
                                      Care Arangements.                                                         
    Sec. 8132......................  Clarificaton of Level    313(b)(1)(D)..............  Merely incidental     
                                      of Intent Required for                               budget impact.       
                                      Imposition of                                                             
                                      Sanctions.                                                                
    Sec. 8151......................  State Health Care Fraud  313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
                                      Control Units.                                                            
    Sec. 8201......................  Repeal of Physician      313(b)(1)(D)..............  Merely incidental     
                                      Ownership Referral                                   budget impact.       
                                      Prohibitions Based on                                                     
                                      Compensation                                                              
                                      Arrangements.                                                             
    Sec. 8416......................  Medical Review Process.  313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
    Sec. 8417......................  Report by Medicare       313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
                                      Payment.                                                                  
    Sec. 1839(e)(1)(C)(ii) of the    Lock Box Provision.....  313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
     Social Security Act as added                                                                               
     in Section 8511 of this bill.                                                                              
    Sec. 1839(h)(6)(A) of the        Lock-Box Provision.....  313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
     Social Security Act as added                                                                               
     in Section 8512 of this bill.                                                                              
    Sec. 1894(g) of the Social       Report by Medicare       313(b)(1)(A)..............  No budget impact.     
     Security Act as added in         Payment Commission.                                                       
     Section 8601 of this bill.                                                                                 
     Title X--Veterans Affairs                                                                                  
                                                                                                                
Subtitle B. Sec. 10021--Exemption                                                                               
 for former POWs:                                                                                               
    (a)(3)(C)......................  Exempts former POWs      313(b)(1)(A)..............  This provision will   
                                      from paying                                          not generate changes 
                                      prescription copays.                                 in revenues or       
                                                                                           outlays. If anything,
                                                                                           it would decrease    
                                                                                           revenue to the       
                                                                                           Government.          
                                                                                                                
 Title XI--Ways and Means--Finance                                                                              
                                                                                                                
Retirement savings incentives:                                                                                  
    Section 11018(d)...............  SIMPLE savings plans.    313(b)(1)(a)..............  No budgetary impact.  
                                      Part (d) exempts plans                                                    
                                      from ERISA standards.                                                     
Health care provisions:                                                                                         
    Section 11053..................  Preemption of state      313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental. Not
                                      insurance regulation.                                a necessary term or  
                                                                                           condition.           
Expiring provisions:                                                                                            
    Section 11141..................  Extension of ethanol     313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      blender refunds.                                     Joint Tax scores     
                                                                                           negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              

[[Page S 17301]]
                                                                                                                
    Section 11131(b)...............  Extension of hazardous   313(b)(1)(a)..............  No budgetary impact.  
                                      superfund taxes. Part                                                     
                                      b directs the revenues                                                    
                                      to the general fund                                                       
                                      after August 1, 1996.                                                     
Exempt and charitable                                                                                           
 organizations:                                                                                                 
    Section 11217..................  Exclusion from           313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      unrelated business                                   Joint Tax scores     
                                      taxable income certain                               negligible revenue   
                                      sponsorship payments.                                effect.              
    Section 11278..................  Treatment of certain     313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      dues paid to                                         Joint Tax scores     
                                      agricultural                                         negligible revenue   
                                      organizations.                                       effect.              
Corporate and other reforms:                                                                                    
    Section 11380..................  Clarification that       313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      newspaper distributors                               Joint Tax scores     
                                      are independent                                      negligible revenue   
                                      contractors.                                         effect.              
Pension simplification provisions:                                                                              
    Section 11442..................  Modification of          313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      additional                                           Joint Tax scores     
                                      participation                                        negligible revenue   
                                      requirements.                                        effect.              
    Section 11464..................  Treatment of leased      313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      employees.                                           Joint Tax scores     
                                                                                           negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11451..................  Plans covering self      313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      employed individuals.                                Joint Tax scores     
                                                                                           negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11453..................  Distributions under      313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      rural cooperative                                    Joint Tax scores     
                                      plans.                                               negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11454..................  Treatment of government  313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      plans under Section                                  Joint Tax scores     
                                      415.                                                 negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11456..................  Contributions on behalf  313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      of disabled employees.                               Joint Tax scores     
                                                                                           negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11460..................  Modifications to         313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      Section 403(b).                                      Joint Tax scores     
                                                                                           negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11461..................  Modify notice required   313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      of right to qualified                                Joint Tax scores     
                                      joint and survivor                                   negligible revenue   
                                      annuity.                                             effect.              
Partnership simplification                                                                                      
 provisions:                                                                                                    
    Section 11472..................  Returns required on      313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      magnetic media for                                   Joint Tax scores     
                                      partnerships with 100                                negligible revenue   
                                      partners.                                            effect.              
Other tax simplification                                                                                        
 provisions:                                                                                                    
    Section 11506..................  Subchapter S--Allow      313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      interim closing of the                               Joint Tax scores     
                                      books.                                               negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11552..................  Regulated Investment     313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      Companies--allow                                     Joint Tax scores     
                                      traders to adopt mark-                               negligible revenue   
                                      to-market accounting                                 effect.              
                                      for securities.                                                           
    Section 11561..................  Tax Exempt Bond          313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      Provision--Repeal of                                 Joint Tax scores     
                                      debt service-based                                   negligible revenue   
                                      limitation of                                        effect.              
                                      investment in certain                                                     
                                      non-purpose                                                               
                                      investments.                                                              
    Section 11582..................  Modifications to FICA    313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      tip credit.                                          Joint Tax scores     
                                                                                           negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11583..................  Conform due date for     313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      first quarter                                        Joint Tax scores     
                                      estimated tax by                                     negligible revenue   
                                      private foundations.                                 effect.              
Estate, gift, and trust tax                                                                                     
 provisions:                                                                                                    
    Section 11602..................  Distributions during     313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      first 65 days of                                     Joint Tax scores     
                                      taxable year of estate.                              negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11603..................  Separate share rules     313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      available to estates.                                Joint Tax scores     
                                                                                           negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11604..................  Executor of estate and   313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      beneficiaries treated                                Joint Tax scores     
                                      as related persons for                               negligible revenue   
                                      disallowance of losses.                              effect.              
    Section 11605..................  Limitation on taxable    313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      year of estates.                                     Joint Tax scores     
                                                                                           negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11611..................  Clarification of waiver  313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      of certain rights of                                 Joint Tax scores     
                                      recovery.                                            negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11613..................  Clarification of         313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      qualified terminable                                 Joint Tax scores     
                                      interest rules.                                      negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11614..................  Transitional rule under  313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      section 2056A.                                       Joint Tax scores     
                                                                                           negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11615..................  Opportunity to correct   313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      certain failures under                               Joint Tax scores     
                                      section 2032A.                                       negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11619..................  Treatment under          313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      qualified domestic                                   Joint Tax scores     
                                      trusts rules of forms                                negligible revenue   
                                      of ownership which are                               effect.              
                                      not trusts.                                                               
    Section 11631..................  Taxable termination not  313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      to include direct                                    Joint Tax scores     
                                      skips.                                               negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
Excise tax simplification                                                                                       
 provisions                                                                                                     
Distilled spirits, wines and beer:                                                                              
    Section 11641..................  Credit or refund for     313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      imported bottled                                     Joint Tax scores     
                                      distilled spirits                                    negligible revenue   
                                      returned to distilled                                effect.              
                                      spirits plant.                                                            
    Section 11652..................  Fermented material from  313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      any may be received at                               Joint Tax scores     
                                      a distilled spirits                                  negligible revenue   
                                      plant.                                               effect.              
    Section 11643..................  Refund of tax on wine    313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      returned to bond not                                 Joint Tax scores     
                                      limited to                                           negligible revenue   
                                      unmerchantable wine.                                 effect.              
    Section 11644..................  Beer may be withdrawn    313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      free of tax for                                      Joint Tax scores     
                                      destruction.                                         negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
    Section 11645..................  Transfer to brewery of   313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      beer imported in bulk                                Joint Tax scores     
                                      without payment of tax.                              negligible revenue   
                                                                                           effect.              
Other excise tax provisions:                                                                                    
    Section 11661..................  Other Excise Tax         313(b)(1)(d)..............  Merely incidental.    
                                      Provision--clarify                                   Joint Tax scores     
                                      present law for retail                               negligible revenue   
                                      truck excise tax.                                    effect.              
                                                                                                                
Title XII--Teaching Hospitals, GME,                                                                             
   Asset Sales, Welfare and Other                                                                               
                                                                                                                
The following sections refer to                                                                                 
 amendments to the Social Security                                                                              
 Act as added by Section 12101 of                                                                               
 the bill:                                                                                                      
    ``402(c)(1)''..................  Condition of Grant.....  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                                                                           budgetary impact.    
                                                                                           Five-year limit on   
                                                                                           assistance.          
    ``403(c)''.....................  Authority to Use         313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Portion of Grant for                                 budgetary impact.    
                                      Other Purposes.                                                           
    ``405''........................  Fed. Loans for State     313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Welfare Programs.                                    budgetary impact.    
    ``406(c)(3)''..................  Limit on Vocational Ed   313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Activities Counted as                                budgetary impact.    
                                      Work.                                                                     
    ``407(a)(5)''..................  No assistance for        313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      teenage parents who do                               budgetary impact.    
                                      not attend high school                                                    
                                      or equivalent program.                                                    
    ``407(a)(6)''..................  No assistance for        313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      teenage parents no                                   budgetary impact.    
                                      living in adult-                                                          
                                      supervised setting.                                                       
    ``408(a)(7)(C)(i)-(ii)''.......  Scoring of State         313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Performance.                                         budgetary impact.    
    ``412(d)''.....................  Annual Ranking of        313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      States and Review of                                 budgetary impact.    
                                      Most and Least                                                            
                                      Successful Work                                                           
                                      Programs.                                                                 
    ``412(e)''.....................  Annual Ranking of        313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      States and Review of                                 budgetary impact.    
                                      Issues Relating to Out-                                                   
                                      of-wedlock births.                                                        
    12102..........................  Report on Data           313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Processing.                                          budgetary impact.    
The following sections amend Title                                                                              
 IV of the Social Security Act in                                                                               
 Section 12302 of the bill:                                                                                     
    ``457(a)(4)''..................  Study and Report.......  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                                                                           budgetary impact.    
    ``436''........................  Data Collection,         313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Reporting.                                           budgetary impact.    
    12802(a).......................  Authorization of         313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Appropriations.                                      budgetary impact.    
                                                                                           Authorizes           
                                                                                           discretionary        
                                                                                           spending.            
    12804(2):                                                                                                   
        (D)........................  Consumer Education       313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Information.                                         budgetary impact.    
        (E)........................  Compliance with State    313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Licensing Requirements.                              budgetary impact.    
                                                                                           This section deletes 
                                                                                           all health and safety
                                                                                           standards from       
                                                                                           current law          
    12907(e)(3)....................  Provision of Data to     313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Family or Group Day                                  budgetary impact.    
                                      Care Home Sponsoring                                                      
                                      Organizations.                                                            
    12907(l).......................  Study of Impact of       313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Amendments on Program                                budgetary impact.    
                                      Participation and                                                         
                                      Family Day Care                                                           
                                      Licensing.                                                                
    12908..........................  Pilot Projects.........  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                                                                           budgetary impact.    
    12926(b).......................  NET Authorization of     313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Appropriations.                                      budgetary impact.    
    13011..........................  Definition of            313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Certification Period.                                budgetary impact.    
    13012..........................  Definition of Coupon...  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                                                                           budgetary impact.    
    13017..........................  State Option for         313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Eligibility.                                         budgetary impact.    
    13026..........................  Caretaker Exemption....  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                                                                           budgetary impact.    
    13027..........................  Employment and Training  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                                                                           budgetary impact.    
    13040..........................  Condition Precedent for  313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Approval of Retail                                   budgetary impact.    
                                      Food Stores and                                                           
                                      Wholesale Food                                                            
                                      Concerns.                                                                 
    13041..........................  Authority to Establish   313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Authorization Periods.                               budgetary impact.    
    13042..........................  Information for          313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Verifying Eligibility                                budgetary impact.    
                                      for Authorization.                                                        
    13043..........................  Waiting Period for       313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Stores That Fail to                                  budgetary impact.    
                                      Meet Authorization                                                        
                                      Criteria.                                                                 
    13944..........................  Expedited Coupon         313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Service.                                             budgetary impact.    
    13045..........................  Withdrawing Fair         313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Hearing Requests.                                    budgetary impact.    
    13049..........................  Authority to Suspend     313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Stores Violating                                     budgetary impact.    
                                      Program Requirements                                                      
                                      Pending Administrative                                                    
                                      and Judicial Review.                                                      
    13052..........................  Authorization of Pilot   313(b)(1)(A)..............  Extraneous; no        
                                      Projects.                                            budgetary impact.    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                            

[[Page S 17302]]

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I did not want to speak directly to 
previous remarks made by my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Bob 
Kerrey. I want to highlight them because of the very constructive 
things that he has said--even, unfortunately, in opposition.
  Unlike Senator Kerrey, I am very willing and eager to vote for the 
balanced budget plan before us as it currently stands. This plan 
represents the result of months of work and negotiation. It is not 
necessarily the plan that I would have designed working alone, but we 
do not have the luxury of working alone. This is the plan before us 
that has the support of a majority of both Houses of Congress, it's an 
honest plan, it will do the job, and it is right now our only realistic 
hope of getting the job done, and reducing the debt burden that is 
being piled high on the backs of our kids.
  I do want the Senate to mark what Senator Kerrey has said, because as 
always, he diagnoses accurately much of what ails us, in the fiscal 
sense. And I am fully sympathetic with many of the choices he would 
make to bring our fiscal house back into order. That is why I am 
pleased to work with him on drafting legislation that will help save 
our country from insolvency in the long run. He and I see eye to eye on 
this.
  I do fervently wish that it were possible to make all the reforms 
suggested by Senator Kerrey in the context of this budget plan. But the 
existing rules do not work in our favor. For example, the Byrd rule 
forbids any changes in Social Security, even good and necessary ones. I 
fully agree with Senator Kerrey that a five-tenths-of-1-percent 
correction in the CPI is necessary and appropriate. to my mind, it is a 
``no brainer''--a simple ``technical correction.'' It makes no sense to 
perpetuate an error which we all know exists. The Senator from Nebraska 
is so absolutely right about that.
  But my attempts to include the CPI correction were frustrated by the 
fact that it would affect Social Security, and thus violate the Byrd 
rule. I do not like it, I think we should change it, but that's the way 
it is. We should, in my view, change the rules to permit such reforms 
in the future. But for now, we have to work within the rules as they 
are.
  Similarly, we ought to address the problem of population aging. We 
ought to make further shifts upward in eligibility ages for Social 
Security and Medicare, and for all programs which give benefits to the 
elderly. But under our current rules, long-term reforms that only 
produce savings outside the 7-year ``budget window'' are considered 
extraneous. I do not like it, I think it's wrong, but those are the 
limitations in the current budget process.
  I mention these things not so simply express disappointment and to 
``howl into the wind'' in the manner of King Lear, but to point out to 
my colleagues that this is something we can and should change--in the 
future. Senator Kerrey and I have a bill to require 30-year budgeting, 
estimates of the 30-year effects of legislative changes. In my view, we 
have to be able to plan further down the road when we are dealing with 
retirement programs, ``safety-net'' rules that might affect how people 
plan for their own time in retirement. In order to be fair, changes 
must be announced well in advance. The fact that we only deal with the 
short-term truly handicaps us as we attempt to make policy that is fair 
and reasoned.
  I do hope my colleagues will listen closely to Senator Kerrey and to 
me as we discuss the need for ``30-year budgeting.'' Because, the rules 
under which we operate very much determine the results. I believe that 
this budget is perhaps the best attainable given the existing budgetary 
rules. But I also believe that we must consider changing the rules to 
force us to look further down the road--and to examine Social Security 
solvency, and to stop fooling our countrymen and women.
  This budget before us is hardly ``harsh'' or ``severe.'' This is a 
sparrow belch in a typhoon. If we cannot get this done, we will never 
do anything.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is an historic day. For the first 
time in 26 years, the American public will witness the adoption of the 
first real balanced budget.
  And we are going to pass this legislation despite the fact that the 
President of the United States has done nothing, I repeat, nothing, to 
make this task bipartisan. In fact, he has fanned the flames of fear-
mongering simply to gain what he sees as a political advantage.
  Just look at his actions and the actions of his Secretary of Treasury 
in the past 10 days. He indicated that he would not sign a continuing 
resolution to reopen the Government because it would have committed him 
to balancing the budget in 7 years.
  And Treasury Secretary Rubin last week spooked the global markets by 
scaring investors into believing that the United States was facing an 
imminent default on our debt. There was no default; in fact there was 
no chance of a default, and Secretary Rubin knew that.
  Yet he deceived the American people into believing default would 
happen if the Republicans did not accept the President's demand that we 
not go forward with our 7-year balanced budget plan. His actions are 
reprehensible.
  Emboldened by polls that show many Americans blame Republicans for 
the Government shutdown, the President would rather maximize political 
advantage than exercise fiscal leadership. The President mimics 
leadership by standing up to the Republicans and refusing to seek a 
balanced budget in 7 years.
  That is not leadership.
  In fact, it is quite the opposite.
  When viewed through the lens of history, the President's behavior 
will be viewed for what it is.
  A waffle.
  A retreat.
  A repudiation of the promise of a balanced budget.
  What we are offering the President is the first serious effort in two 
and a half decades to put our fiscal house in order.
  And the President is slamming the door in our face.
  It is that simple.
  We are on a pathway to reduce the growth in Federal spending by a 
trillion dollars--to accomplish what the American people asked us to 
do.
  We are doing it without smoke and mirrors.
  We are doing it with the CBO budget estimates that the President 
himself asked that we use.
  We are delivering on a promise made to voters. The President promised 
a balanced budget in 5 years; but that's just one of so many campaign 
promises the President abandoned when he walked in the White House.
  But in keeping our promise, we are attacking the cancer of cynicism 
that undermines the confidence that Americans have in their leadership, 
and their Government.
  We are so close to achieving our objectives.
  Sadly, the President would rather be an instrument of the status quo 
than a positive force for change.
  The President would rather flame the fears of older Americans with 
frightening tales of impending woe than lead us along the path to 
fiscal sanity for the sake of our children.
  In what I believe is a political miscalculation, the President is 
deluded by a short term poll that will mean nothing when we are held 
accountable to the people for the end result of our efforts today.
  Most Americans do not believe we will keep our promise and balance 
the budget in 7 years.
  The President apparently wants to prove them right and thus deepen 
the cynicism that embitters Americans toward their government.
  And that, Mr. President, endangers far more than our fiscal 
stability.
   Mr. President, ever since the Republicans unveiled their balanced 
budget legislative plan during this Spring, the President has been out 
campaigning against the plan, instilling fear into our most fragile 
citizens--the elderly.
  Over and over and over again, there's one message the President has 
been drumming into the American people. And that message is that we are 
cutting Medicare.
   Mr. President, nothing could be further from the truth. And I think 
it's time for the President to stop his demagogic language about 
Medicare.
  Over the next 7 years Medicare spending will increase from $178 
billion to $294 billion--a 65-percent increase, Mr. President. That is 
NOT a cut.

[[Page S 17303]]

  Put another way, spending for each beneficiary will increase from 
$4,800 this year to $7,100 in 2002.
   Mr. President, let members end the scare tactics on Medicare. Let us 
face the fact that if we do nothing, if we maintain this endless 
borrowing spree, we will bankrupt our children and grandchildren and 
ensure that Medicare will go broke in 7 years.
  I call upon my colleagues and the President.
  Let us surprise America today.
  Let us prove that we can balance the budget in 7 years, save 
Medicare, and begin to lift this crippling debt from the shoulders of 
our children and grandchildren.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, Tonight we are choosing between two 
paths for our country. We are defining what kind of country we want to 
be, and how we are going to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
  The bill before us offers one type of choice. This bill offers us a 
future where we say: No to opportunity in the United States of America. 
No to economic security for our seniors. No to educational 
opportunities for young people. No to an opportunity structure for 
working families.
  Mr. President, I reject that choice. I want a future where we give 
help to those who practice self help. I want a future in which senior 
citizens can have economic security and peace of mind in their 
retirement years. I want a future where young people can get an 
education that leads to a job and real economic opportunity. I want a 
future where we give a helping hand to working Americans who are doing 
their best to provide for their families.
  Let me tell you why I oppose this bill. Yes, I support a balanced 
budget. But to achieve that we have to put politics and partisanship 
aside, and work together to find what I will call the sensible center. 
And this bill does not allow for that.
  This legislation attacks economic security for senior citizens 
through cuts in their health care. We need to make Medicare solvent. 
But this bill would cut Medicare by $270 billion over the next 7 years. 
Only $90 billion is needed to preserve the solvency of the Medicare 
system.
  What are the rest of the cuts for? They are to pay for tax breaks for 
the wealthiest of Americans. I reject that.
  I say let us do what we need to do to make Medicare solvent. But let 
us put tax cuts on hold for a year. We have made so many reductions in 
federal programs this year. Let us take the time to evaluate the impact 
of those changes. Let us see where we are in 1 year. Then we can take a 
look at whether we can afford to provide tax cuts. And if in a year we 
do decide we can provide tax cuts, let's provide them for America's 
working families. Not for the truly wealthy.
  I oppose this legislation because it denies educational opportunity 
to young people and an opportunity structure to working families. I 
believe we must keep the doors of opportunity open--not slam them shut.
  Education is the key to a better life. The federal student loan 
program has opened the door of opportunity to millions of Americans. 
Education must be a national priority. It is with me. Unfortunately, it 
is not a priority in this legislation. Under this legislation, the 
student loan program will be cut by $5 billion. This is unacceptable to 
me.
  I oppose this legislation because it increases taxes on working 
families. By cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit, the bill denies help 
to those who practice self help. It seems to me that if we are serious 
about moving people from public assistance to private employment, the 
first step is to make work pay. The EITC makes work pay. It ensures 
that work is more beneficial for a family than welfare. I will not 
support this bills cuts in the EITC program, which amounts to tax 
increases for working families.
  Mr. President, make no mistake. We must balance the budget. But we 
must do it based on principles that preserve economic security for 
senior citizens, that provide opportunity for young people, and that 
ensure opportunity for working families.
  I cannot and will not support any legislation that abandons these 
principles. Therefore, I will vote against this legislation.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the moral imperative for balancing the 
budget is to stop Congress from passing on a mountain of debt to future 
generations. Thomas Jefferson reminded us that a generation that spends 
money while taxing another ``squanders futurity on a massive scale.''
  Persistent budget deficits reduce the pool of savings necessary for 
critical investments in new research, plants and equipment. Virtually 
every economist agrees that without these investments, standards of 
living cannot rise. Our collective sin has been the amoral indifference 
with which we have demanded that our children pay for our 
extravagances, while robbing them of their ability to provide for their 
own subsistence. This is tantamount to fiscal child abuse, a crime for 
which there has been no punishment and, perversely, one for which 
politicians have long been rewarded.
  Our constituents, in 1994, urged us to stop the pain. Republicans 
proposed to do precisely that. Despite the defeat earlier this year of 
a constitutional amendment that would have mandated a balanced budget, 
my Republican colleagues have passed the first plan in 26 years that 
produces bottom line equilibrium within a seven-year time frame.
  I take no issue with the need for deep spending reductions, but I am 
skeptical that we can achieve our goal while cutting taxes 
simultaneously. It strikes me that this approach rivals driving with 
one foot on the gas pedal while the other is on the brake.
  The Federal Government currently expends far more money than it 
collects, so that a tax cut can be paid for only by borrowing 
additional money. Paying for tax cuts with borrowed money is 
contradictory and self-defeating.
  Balancing the budget is itself an effective tax cut. Interest on the 
national debt costs the average household over $800 a year. Balancing 
the budget more quickly and forgoing a tax cut paid for with borrowed 
money would ease the burden of these hidden taxes. Balancing the budget 
more quickly would also lower interest costs for mortgages and student 
loans--saving families thousands of dollars.
  I cannot support this conference report because, like the budget plan 
considered by the Senate on October 27, it proposes to borrow $245 
billion to pay for a tax cut that we cannot now afford. I strongly 
support balancing the budget in seven years and realize that this 
cannot be achieved without undertaking some difficult spending cuts. It 
is my hope that Congress and the President can work together on a 
bipartisan balanced budget plan.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, when nearly 500 college and university 
presidents speak on an issue, Congress should stop and listen. 
Yesterday, 472 presidents contacted President Clinton and the 
congressional leadership to urge that competition be maintained in the 
student loan programs. We should listen.
  Colleges should be able to choose whether to participate in the 
direct student loan program or the guarantee program. The bill we are 
considering this evening does the opposite, forcing 1250 colleges out 
of the direct loan program, and preventing hundreds of others who want 
in from getting in.
  As my colleagues will see from the list of presidents signing the 
letter, free choice is not only the desire of colleges in the direct 
loan program, but many in the guarantee program as well.
  It is unfortunate that this issue has become so partisan that some of 
my colleagues have turned against principles of competition, market 
forces, and the elimination of red tape, and turned toward granting 
monopolies and entitlements for bankers and middlemen--at the expense 
of students, colleges, and taxpayers.
  The letter from the college and university presidents speaks for 
itself, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would also like to respond to a statement 
made earlier by my colleague from Kansas, who chairs the Labor and 
Human Resources Committee. She made the statement that the bill we are 
considering today makes income-contingent repayment available to all 
students.

[[Page S 17304]]

  My colleague is mistaken. The bill gives this option to banks, not to 
students. Section 4003(d) of the bill states clearly that this option 
is offered ``at the discretion of the lender.'' In fact, few banks are 
likely to use this discretion because of the difficulty of confirming 
borrowers' incomes accurately. They also will no longer face the 
competition from direct lending, which has caused lenders to be more 
flexible in offering repayment options to borrowers. The reconciliation 
bill not only eliminates schools from direct lending, it also also 
places several new obstacles in the way of these borrowers who, under 
current law, can get into direct lending in order to get access to 
income-contingent repayment.
  For these reasons, it is likely that fewer borrowers will have access 
to this important repayment option, rather than more borrowers.
  Mr. President, for these and many other reasons, I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the conference report.

                               Exhibit 1


                                American Council on Education,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 1995.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President: In the coming weeks, you and the 
     Congress will decide the fate of one of the most innovative 
     federal student aid programs: the Federal Direct Student Loan 
     Program. We are very concerned about efforts in Congress to 
     limit direct lending, which currently provides about 40 
     percent of all student loans. We oppose any provision that 
     would arbitrarily limit the ability of schools to participate 
     in direct lending, as we would oppose any effort to force 
     schools into direct lending against their wishes. We ask that 
     in your deliberations with the Congress about the future of 
     federal student loans, you retain institutional choice with 
     regard to the participation of colleges and universities in 
     either the direct student loan or the guaranteed student loan 
     (Federal Family Educational Loan) program.
       We write as presidents and chancellors of colleges and 
     universities that are currently participating, or plan to 
     participate, in direct lending, as well as those that intend 
     to continue their participation in the guaranteed student 
     loan program. Maintaining the availability of both direct and 
     guaranteed loans is a sound policy that should be preserved, 
     because schools' ability to join either of the two programs 
     has improved the student loan process for all students and 
     schools, regardless of whether or not they participate in 
     direct lending.
       Those of us who represent colleges and universities already 
     in direct lending can attest to the improvements it has 
     brought about for our institutions. We can report first-hand 
     on the benefits of direct lending for our students: the 
     simplicity of application, the speed of delivery of funds, 
     the disappearance of lines of students waiting to endorse 
     their checks at registration time, the precipitous drop in 
     the number of emergency loans issued to students waiting to 
     hear about their loans from banks and guarantors, and fewer 
     visits to financial aid offices. Students often borrow less 
     under direct lending because they know they can adjust their 
     loan amounts without repeating the entire application 
     process, and therefore only borrow what they believe they 
     need, not the maximum for which they are eligible. Students 
     will also reap the benefits of the income-contingent 
     repayment option, which is only possible through direct 
     leading. At the institutional level, direct lending has 
     eliminated redundant paperwork, reduced staff time allocated 
     to dealing with thousands of lenders and dozens of guarantors 
     and other intermediaries, and vastly improved our overall aid 
     delivery processes because it seamlessly integrates with 
     other federal aid programs.
       Those of us who represent institutions that are satisfied 
     with the guaranteed student loan program also support the 
     continued availability of the direct loan program to 
     institutions. The competition created by direct lending has 
     induced banks and guarantors to improve the efficiency of 
     their delivery process, and has, for the first time, provided 
     the student loan industry with market-based incentives to 
     provide better service. The guaranteed student loan system 
     has improved more since the phase-in of direct lending two 
     years ago than it did over the more than two decades of its 
     existence prior to 1993. These improvements were brought 
     about by the fact that schools can now select the student 
     loan program that provides them with the best service. 
     Capping or otherwise limiting the direct loan program would 
     undermine the market-based incentives that have so 
     dramatically improved the guaranteed student loan system. The 
     student loan system needs more competition, not less.
       The current direct lending legislation was enacted as a 
     bipartisan compromise a mere two years ago. Some 1,400 
     schools, relying in good faith upon what was presented to 
     them as a major federal initiative, have invested substantial 
     institutional resources to implement a program that they 
     believed would better meet the needs of their students. These 
     same schools, and several hundred others that have been 
     planning to join the program in its third year, now confront 
     the prospect of massive disruptions to their financial aid 
     operations and their institutional planning. If direct 
     lending is capped, many of these schools would be required to 
     commit new institutional resources to pay for yet another 
     overhaul of their loan delivery system.
       Schools now have the option of participating in direct 
     lending or the guaranteed student loan program based on their 
     assessment of which program works best for their students. 
     This has provided a strong incentive to both the Department 
     of Education and to the student loan industry to improve the 
     quality of their service to borrowers and schools. This is 
     precisely the outcome that the bipartisan architects of 
     current direct lending law intended in reforming the student 
     loan system two years ago. We urge you to allow the forces of 
     competition to continue to determine what percentage of the 
     student loan market each program captures by retaining the 
     current direct lending law.
           Sincerely,
       Submitted on behalf of the following colleges and 
     universities:


                                alabama

       Alabama Agricultural & Mechanical University, Virginia A. 
     Caples, Interim President.
       Alabama State University, William H. Harris, President.
       Auburn University, William V. Muse, President.
       Auburn University at Montgomery, Guin Nance, President.
       Jacksonville State University, Harold J. McGee, President.
       Jefferson State Community College, Judy M. Merritt, 
     President.
       Stillman College, Cordell Wynn, President.
       Tuskegee University, Benjamin Payton, President.
       University of North Alabama, Robert L. Potts, President.
       Wallace Community College-Selma, Julius R. Brown, 
     President.


                                arizona

       Arizona State University, Lattie F. Coor, President.
       Chandler Gilbert Community College Center, Margaret P. 
     Hogan, Acting President.
       Devry Institute of Technology-Phoenix, James A. Dugan, 
     President.
       Paradise Valley Community College, Raul Cardenas, 
     President.


                                arkansas

       Hendrix College, Ann H. Die, President.
       Philander Smith College, Myer L. Titus, President.
       Red River Technical College, Johnny Rapert, President.
       University of Central Arkansas, Winfred L. Thompson, 
     President.
       Williams Baptist College, Jerol Swaim, President.


                               california

       California Academy of Merchandising, Art, & Design, Gary D. 
     Kerber, President.
       California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, Bob H. 
     Suzuki, President.
       California State University, Bakersfield, Tomas A. 
     Arciniega, President.
       California State University, Chico, Manuel A. Esteban, 
     President.
       California State University, Fresno, John D. Welty, 
     President.
       California State University, Fullerton, Milton A. Gordon, 
     President.
       California State University, Sacramento, Donald Gerth, 
     President.
       California State University, Stanislaus, Marvalene Hughes, 
     President.
       Coast Community College District, William M. Vega, 
     Chancellor.
       College of Alamenda, George Herring, President.
       Contra Costa College, D. Candy Rose, President.
       Cypress College, Christine Johnson, President.
       Fresno City College, Brice W. Harris, President.
       Fullerton College, Vera M. Martinez, President.
       Los Angeles City College, Jose Robledo, President.
       Los Angeles Mission College, William E. Norlund, President.
       Merced College, E. Jan Moser, Superintendent and President.
       Napa Valley College, Diane E. Carey, Superintendent and 
     President.
       National University, Jerry C. Lee, President.
       Pasadena City College, Jack Scott, President.
       San Diego City College, Larry J. Brown, Acting President.
       San Francisco State University, Robert Corrigan, President.
       Santa Barbara City College, Peter MacDougall, President.
       Santa Clara University, Rev. Paul Locatelli, S.J., 
     President.
       Sonoma State University, Ruben Arminana, President.
       Southwestern College, Joseph M. Conte, Superintendent and 
     President.
       University of California, Berkeley, Chang-Lin Tien, 
     Chancellor.
       University of California, Davis, Larry N. Vanderhoef, 
     Chancellor.
       University of California, Irvine, Laurel L. Wilkening, 
     Chancellor.
       University of California, Los Angeles, Winston C. Body, 
     Vice Chancellor.
       University of California, Riverside, Raymond L. Orbach, 
     Chancellor.

[[Page S 17305]]

       University of California, San Francisco, Joseph B. Martin, 
     Chancellor.
       University of California, Santa Barbara, Henry T. Yang, 
     Chancellor.
       University of California, Santa Cruz, Karl S. Pister, 
     Chancellor.
       University of San Francisco, Rev. John Schlegel, S.J., 
     President.
       West Hills Community College, Frank P. Gornick, President.
       West Los Angeles College, Evelyn Wong, President.


                                colorado

       Colorado State University, Albert C. Yates, President.
       Community College of Denver, Byron McClenney, President.
       Iliff School of Theology, Donald E. Messer, President.
       Regis University, Rev. Michael J. Sheeran, S.J., President.
       University of Colorado at Boulder, Roderic B. Park, 
     Chancellor.


                              connecticut

       Central Connecticut State University, Merle W. Harris, 
     Interim President.
       Western Connecticut State University, James R. Roach, 
     President.


                                delaware

       Delaware State University, William B. DeLauder, President.
       Delaware Technical & Community College System, Orlando 
     George, Jr., President.
       University of Delaware, David Roselle, President.


                          district of columbia

       American University, Benjamin Ladner, President.
       Catholic University of America, Brother Patrick Ellis, FSC, 
     President.
       University of The District of Columbia, Tilden Lemelle, 
     President.


                                florida

       Barry University, Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, O.P., 
     President.
       Bethune-Cookman College, Oswald P. Bronson, Sr., President.
       Central Florida Community College, William Campion, 
     President.
       Edward Waters College, Jesse Burns, President.
       Keiser College of Technology, Arthur Keiser, President.
       Palm Beach Atlantic College, Paul Corts, President.
       Rollins College, Rita Bornstein, President.
       Santa Fe Community College, Lawrence Tyree, President.
       Southern College, Daniel F. Moore, President.
       University of Florida, John V. Lombardi, President.
       University of South Florida, Betty Castor, President.
       University of West Florida, Morris L. Marx, President.


                                Georgia

       Atlanta Christian College, R. Edwin Groover, President.
       Bauder College, Gary Kerber, President.
       Clark Atlanta University, Thomas W. Cole, Jr., President.
       DeKalb College, Jacquelyn M. Belcher, President.
       Devry Institute of Technology, Ronald Bush, President.
       Fort Valley State College, Oscar L. Prater, President.
       Georgia College, Edwin Speir, President.
       Georgia Southern University, Nicholas Henry, President.
       Interdenominational Technological Center, James Costen, 
     President.
       Mercer University Main, R. Kirby Godsey, President.
       Morris Brown College, Samuel D. Jolly, Jr., President.
       Savannah State College, John T. Wolfe, Jr., President.
       Southern College of Technology, Stephen R. Cheshier, 
     President.
       Spelman College, Johnnetta B. Cole, President.
       Valdosta State College, Hugh C. Bailey, President.
       Wesleyan College, Robert Ackerman, President.


                                 hawaii

       University of Hawaii at Hilo, Kenneth L. Perrin, 
     Chancellor.
       University of Hawaii Kauai Community College, David Iha, 
     Provost.


                                 Idaho

       Boise State University, Charles P. Ruch, President.
       College of Southern Idaho, Gerald R. Meyerhoeffer, 
     President.
       University of Idaho, Thomas O. Bell, Interim President.


                                Illinois

       Bradley University, John R. Brazil, President.
       College of St. Francis, James Doppke, President.
       Columbia College, John B. Duff, President.
       DeVry Institute of Technology-Chicago, E. Arthur Stunard, 
     President.
       DeVry Institute of Technology-Addison, Jerry R. Dill, 
     President.
       Eastern Illinois University, David Jorns, President.
       Greenville College, Robert E. Smith, President.
       Highland Community College, Ruth Mercedes Smith, President.
       Illinois Central College, Thomas K. Thomas, President.
       Illinois Valley Community College, Alfred Wisgoski, 
     President.
       Lincoln College, Jack D. Nutt, President.
       Loyola University Chicago, Rev. John J. Piderit, S.J., 
     President.
       Morrison Institute of Technology, Richard C. Parkinson, 
     President.
       Northwestern Business College, Lawrence Schumacher, 
     President.
       Parkland College, Zelma M. Harris, President.
       Southern Illinois University, Ted Sanders, Chancellor.
       Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Nancy Belck, 
     President.
       St Joseph College of Nursing, Virginia Keck, President.
       University of Chicago, Hugo F. Sonnenschein, President.
       University of Illinois, James J. Stukel, President.
       University of Illinois at Springfield, Naomi B. Lynn, 
     Chancellor.
       University of Illinois at Chicago, David C. Broski, interim 
     Chancellor.
       Wilbur Wright College, Raymond Le Fevour, President.
       William Rainey Harper College, Paul N. Thompson, President.


                                indiana

       Ball State University, John E. Worthen, President.
       Commonwealth Business College, Steven C. Smith, President.
       Earlham College, Richard J. Wood, President.
       Goshen College, Victor Stolozfus, President.
       Indiana University at Bloomington, Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis, 
     Vice President and Chancellor.
       Indiana University at South Bend, Lester C. Lamon, Acting 
     Chancellor.
       Indiana University System, Myles Brand, President.
       Manchester College, Parker G. Marden, President.
       Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Samuel F. Hulbert, 
     President.
       Saint Francis College, Sister M. Elise Kriss, OSF, 
     President.
       Saint Meinrad College, Rev. Eugene Hensell, O.S.B., 
     President-Rector.
       Valparaiso University, Alan Harre, President.


                                  iowa

       Graceland College, William Higdon, President.
       Iowa State University, Martin C. Jischke, President.
       Luther College, David J. Roslien, Interim President.
       Marshalltown Community College, William M. Simpson, Dean of 
     the Dean.
       Mount Mercy College, Thomas Feld, President.
       North Iowa Area Community College, David L. Buettner, 
     President.
       Northeast Iowa Community College, Don Roby, President.
       University of Iowa, Peter Nathan, Acting President.
       University of Northern Iowa, Robert D. Koob, President.


                                 kansas

       Cloud County Community College, James D. Ihrig, President.
       Highland Community College, Elizabeth E. Stevens, 
     President.
       Kansas Wesleyan University, Marshall P. Stanton, President.
       McPherson College, Paul W. Hoffman, President.
       Southwestern College, Carl Martin, President.
       University of Kansas, Edward Meyen, Executive Vice 
     Chancellor.


                                kentucky

       Kentucky State University, Mary L. Smith, President.
       Morehead State University, Ronald Eaglin, President.
       Sullivan College, A.R. Sullivan, President.
       University of Kentucky, Charles Wethington, Jr., President.
       Western Kentucky University, Thomas Meredith, President.


                               louisiana

       Elaine P. Nunez Community College, Carol S. Hopson, 
     President.
       Southern University and A & M College, Marvin Yates, 
     Chancellor.
       Xavier University of Louisiana, Norma C. Francis, 
     President.


                                 maine

       Bates College, Donald W. Harward, President.
       Colby College, William Cotter, President.
       Thomas College, George R. Spann, President.
       University of Maine System, Robert L. Woodbury, Chancellor.
       University of Maine Presque Isle, W. Michael Easton, 
     President.
       University of Southern Maine, Richard L. Pattenaude, 
     President.


                                maryland

       Bowie State University, Nathaniel Pollard Jr., President.
       Coppin State College, Calvin Burnett, President.
       Frostburg State College, Catherine R. Gira, President.
       Garrett Community College, Stephen Herman, President.
       Hood College, Shirley, D. Peterson, President.
       Johns Hopkins University, Daniel Nathans, President.
       Loyola College in Maryland, Rev. Harold Ridley, S.J., 
     President.

[[Page S 17306]]

       Salisbury State College, William Bellavance, President.
       Towson State University, Hoke L. Smith, President.
       University of Maryland System, Don Langenberg, Chancellor.
       University of Maryland Eastern Shore, William P. Hytche, 
     President.
       University of Maryland University College, T. Benjamin 
     Massey, President.


                             massachusetts

       Amherst College, Tom Gerety, President.
       Berklee College of Music, Lee Eliot Berk, President.
       Boston University, John R. Silber, President.
       Brandeis University, Jehuda Reinharz, President.
       Bridgewater State College, Adrian Tinsley, President.
       College of the Holy Cross, Rev. Gerard Reedy, S.J., 
     President.
       Emerson College, Jacqueline Liebergott, President.
       Fitchburg State College, Michael Riccards, President.
       Franklin Institute of Boston, Richard D'Onofrio, President.
       Harvard University, Neil, Rudenstine, President.
       Holyoke Community College, David M. Bartley, President.
       Massachusetts College of Art, William O'Neil, President.
       Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Charles M. Vest, 
     President.
       Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Peter M. Mitchell, 
     President.
       Mount Ida College, Bryan Carlson, President.
       Mt. Holyoke College, Peter Berek, President.
       New England College of Optometry, Larry R. Clausen, 
     President.
       North Adams State College, Thomas Aceto, President.
       Quinsigamond Community College, Sandra L. Kurtinitis, 
     President.
       Smith College, Ruth J. Simmons, President.
       Stonehill College, Rev. Bartley MacPhaidin, C.S.C., 
     President.
       Tufts University, John DiBiaggio, President.
       University of Massachusetts Lowell, William T. Hogan, 
     Chancellor.
       University of Massachusetts System, Sherry H. Penny, 
     President.
       Westfield State College, Ronald L. Applbaum, President.
       Wheaton College, Dale Rogers Marshall, President.
       Williams College, Harry C. Payne, President.


                                michigan

       Alma College, Alan Stone, President.
       Alpena Community College, Donald L. Newport, President.
       Andrews University, Niels-Erik Andreasen, President.
       Baker College of Auburn Hills, Sandra Kay Krug, President.
       Baker College of Jackson, Jack Bunce, President.
       Baker College of Mount Clemens, Rodolfo Morales, Jr., 
     President.
       Baker College of Muskegon, Rick E. Amidon, President.
       Baker College of Owosso, Denise A. Bannon, President.
       Baker College of Port Huron, Donald Torline, President.
       Baker College System, Edward Kurtz, President.
       Calvin College, Gaylen J. Byker, President.
       Central Michigan University, Leonard Plachta, President.
       Ferris State University, William A. Sederburg, President.
       Grand Valley State University, Arend D. Lubbers, President.
       Henry Ford Community College, Andrew A. Mazzara, President.
       Hope College, John H. Jacobson, President.
       Kalamazoo College, Lawrence D. Bryan, President.
       Kellogg Community College, Paul R. Ohm, President.
       Lake Superior State University, Robert Arbuckle, President.
       Lansing Community College, Abel B. Sykes, President.
       Lawrence Institute of Technology, Charles M. Chambers, 
     President.
       Michigan State University, M. Peter McPherson, President.
       Michigan Technological University, Curtis J. Tompkins, 
     President.
       Northen Michigan University, William E. Vandament, 
     President.
       Oakland University, Gary D. Russi, Interim President.
       University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, James Duderstadt, 
     President.
       University of Michigan-Dearborn, James C. Renick, 
     Chancellor.
       University of Michigan-Flint, Charles Nelms, Chancellor.
       Wayne State University, David Adamany, President.
       Western Michigan University, Diether H. Haenicke, 
     President.


                               minnesota

       Bemidji State University, James Bensen, President.
       Gustavus Adolphus College, Axel D. Steuer, President.
       Hamline University, Larry G. Osnes, President.
       Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System, Judith S. 
     Eaton, Chancellor.
       Rasmussen College-St. Cloud, Kathleen Rau Szczech, 
     President.
       University of Minnesota-Crookston, Donald Sargeant, 
     Chancellor.
       University of Minnesota-Duluth, Kathryn A. Martin, 
     Chancellor.
       University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Nils Hasselmo, 
     President.


                              mississippi

       Alcorn State University, Clinton Bristow, Jr., President.
       Delta State University, Kent Wyatt, President.
       Mary Homes College, Sammie Potts, President.
       Mississippi University for Women, Clyda S. Rent, President.
       Mississippi Valley State University, William W. Sutton, 
     President.
       Tougaloo College, Joe A. Lee, President.


                                missouri

       Central Missouri State University, Ed Elliott, President.
       Culver-Stockton College, Edwin B. Strong, Jr., President.
       Deaconess College of Nursing, Elizabeth Krekorian, 
     President.
       Lincoln University, Wendell G. Rayburn, Sr., President.
       Maryville University of Saint Louis, Keith Lovin, 
     President.
       Missouri Southern State College, Julio Leon, President.
       Northwest Missouri State University, Dean L. Hubbard, 
     President.
       Rockhurst College, Rev. Thomas J. Savage, S.J., President.
       Saint Louis University, Rev. Lawrence Biondi, S.J., 
     President.
       St. Louis Community College, Gwendolyn W. Stephenson, 
     President.
       University of Missouri-Columbia, Charles Kiesler, 
     Chancellor.
       Vatterott College, John C. Vatterott, President.
       William Jewell College, W. Christian Sizemore, President.


                                montana

       Carroll College, Matthew J. Quinn, President.
       Montana State University, Michael Malone, President.
       University of Montana, George A. Dennison, President.


                                nebraska

       Chadron State College, Samuel H. Rankin, President.
       Dana College, Myrvin F. Christopherson, President.
       Midland Lutheran College, Carl Hansen, President.
       University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Joan R. Leitzel, Interim 
     Chancellor.


                                 nevada

       University of Nevada Las Vegas, Carol C. Harter, President.


                             new hampshire

       Daniel Webster College, Hannah McCarthy, President.
       McIntosh College, Robert DeColfmacker, President.


                               new jersey

       Berkeley College of Business Garret Mount, Kevin L. Luing, 
     President.
       Burlington County College, Robert C. Messina, Jr., 
     President.
       Camden County College, Phyllis Della Vecchia, President.
       Jersey City State College, Carlos Hernandez, President.
       Monmouth University, Rebecca Stafford, President.
       New Jersey Institute of Technology, Saul Fenster, 
     President.
       Ramapo College of New Jersey, Robert Scott, President.
       Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Vera King Farris, 
     President.
       Rowan College of New Jersey, Herman D. James, President.
       Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, Francis Lawrence, 
     President.
       Saint Peter's College, Rev. James N. Loughran, S.J., 
     President.
       Seton Hall University, Rev. Thomas R. Peterson, O.P., 
     Chancellor.
       Trenton State College, Harold W. Eickhoff, President.
       William Paterson College of New Jersey, Arnold Speert, 
     President.


                               new mexico

       New Mexico Junior College, Charles D. Hays, President.
       University of New Mexico, Richard Peck, President.



                                new york

       Bank Street College of Education, Augusta Kappner, 
     President.
       Berkeley College, Rose Mary Healy, President.
       Berkeley College of New York City, Robert J. Hurd, 
     President.
       Clarkson University, Dennis G. Brown, President.
       College of New Rochelle, Sister Dorothy Ann Kelly, O.S.U., 
     President.
       Cornell University, Hunter R. Rawlings III, President.
       City University of New York, W. Ann Reynolds, Chancellor.
       CUNY Borough of Manhattan Community College, Antonio Perez, 
     President.
       CUNY Brooklyn College, Vernon Lattin, President.
       CUNY City College, Yolanda T. Moses, President.

[[Page S 17307]]

       CUNY College of Staten Island, Marlene Springer, President.
       CUNY Graduate School & University Center, Frances Degen 
     Horowitz, President.
       CUNY Herbert H. Lehman College, Ricardo Fernandez, 
     President.
       CUNY Medgar Evers College, Edison Jackson, President.
       CUNY New York City Technical College, Charles W. Merideth, 
     President.
       CUNY Queens College, Allen Lee Sessoms, President.
       CUNY York College, Thomas K. Minter, President.
       Dowling College, Victor P. Meskill, President.
       Fordham University, Rev. Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., President.
       LeMoyne College, Rev. Robert A. Mitchell, S.J., President.
       Long Island University, David Steinberg, President.
       Marymount College, Sister Brigid Driscoll, R.S.H.M., 
     President.
       New York College of Podiatric Medicine, Louis L. Levine, 
     President.
       Onondaga Community College, Bruce H. Leslie, President.
       Pace University New York Campus, Patricia O' Donnell Ewers, 
     President.
       Pace University Pleasantville-Briarcliff Campus, Patricia 
     O'Donnell Ewers, President.
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, R. Byron Pipes, 
     President.
       Roberts Wesleyan College, William C. Crothers, President.
       Rochester Institute of Technology, Albert J. Simone, 
     President.
       Schenectady County Community College, Gabriel Basil, 
     President.
       St. Lawrence University, Patti McGill Peterson, President.
       SUNY at Binghamton, Lois B. DeFleur, President.
       SUNY at Buffalo, William R. Greiner, President.
       SUNY College at Brockport, John Van de Wetering, President.
       SUNY College at Cortland, Judson H. Taylor, President.
       SUNY College at Plattsburgh, Horace Judson, President.
       SUNY College at Potsdam, William C. Merwin, President.
       SUNY College of Agriculture & Technology at Morrisville, 
     Frederick W. Woodward, President.
       SUNY College of Technology at Canton, Joseph L. Kennedy, 
     President.
       SUNY Herkimer County Community College, Ronald F. Williams, 
     President.
       SUNY Hudson Valley Community College, Joseph Balmer, 
     President.
       SUNY Institute of Technology At Utica Rome, Peter J. Cayan, 
     President.
       SUNY Institute of Technology At Delhi, Mary Ellen Duncan, 
     President.
       SUNY Monroe Community College, Peter A. Spina, President.
       Teachers College, Columbia University, Arthur Levine, 
     President.
       University of Rochester, Thomas H. Jackson, President.


                             north carolina

       Applachian State University, Francis T. Borkowski, 
     Chancellor.
       Belmont Abbey College, Robert A. Preston, President.
       Fayetteville State University, Donna J. Benson, Interim 
     Chancellor.
       Elizabeth City State University, M.L. Burnim, Interim 
     Chancellor.
       Livingstone College, Roy D. Hudson, Interim President.
       North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University, 
     Edward Fort, Chancellor.
       North Carolina School of The Arts, Alexander Ewing, 
     Chancellor.
       Saint Augustine's College, Bernard W. Franklin, President.
       University of North Carolina at Asheville, Patsy B. Reed, 
     Chancellor.
       University of North Carolina Charlotte, James H. Woodward, 
     Chancellor.
       Western Carolina University, John W. Bardo, Chancellor.
       Winston-Salem State University, Gerald McCants, Interim 
     Chancellor.


                                  ohio

       Ashland University, G. William Benz, President.
       Bowling Green State University, Sidney A. Ribeau, 
     President.
       Case Western Reserve University, Agnar Pytte, President.
       Cleveland Institute of Music, David Cerone, President.
       College of Wooster, R. Stanton Hales, President.
       Cuyahoga Community College, Jerry Sue Thornton, President.
       Denison University, Michelle Myers, President.
       Devry Institute of Technology, Galen H. Graham, Acting 
     President.
       Hiram College, G. Benjamin Oliver, President.
       Kent State University, Carol Cartwright, President.
       Miami University, Paul G. Risser, President.
       Ohio University, Robert Glidden, President.
       Ohio Wesleyan University, Thomas B. Courtice, President.
       Southeastern Business College, Robert Shirey, President.
       Southern State Community College, Lawrence N. Dukes, 
     President.
       University of Findlay, Kenneth E. Zirkle, President.
       University of Rio Grande, Barry M. Dorsey, President.
       University of Toledo, Frank E. Horton, President.
       Xavier University of Ohio, Rev. James E. Hoff, S.J., 
     President.


                                oklahoma

       Langston University, Ernest L. Holloway, President.
       Oklahoma State University, Harry Birdwell, Vice President, 
     Business & External Relations.
       St. Gregory's College, Frank Pfaff, President.


                                 oregon

       Eastern Oregon State College, David Gilbert, President.
       George Fox College, Edward Stevens, President.
       Portland Community College, Daniel F. Moriarty, President.
       Southern Oregon State College, Stephen J. Reno, President.
       University of Oregon, Dave Frohnmayer, President.
       Western Oregon State College, Betty J. Youngblood, 
     President.


                              pennsylvania

       Beaver College, Bette E. Landman, President.
       Carnegie Mellon University, Robert Mehrabian, President.
       Cheyney University of Pennslyvania, Donald L. Mullen, 
     President.
       CHI Institute, Joseph F. Colyar, President.
       Franklin and Marshall College, Richard Kneedler, President.
       ICM School of Business, Gary Kerber, President.
       Lebanon Valley College, John Synodinos, President.
       Lehigh Carbon Community College, James R. Davis, President.
       Lincoln University, Niara Sudarkasa, President.
       Northampton Community College, Robert Kopecek, President.
       Philadelphia College of Pharmacy & Science, Philip Gerbino, 
     President.
       Robert Morris College, Edward A. Nicholson, President.


                              puerto rico

       Inter American University of Puerto Rico, Jose R. Gonzalez, 
     President.
       Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, Rev. Tosello 
     Giangiacomo, C.S.Sp., President.
       University of Puerto Rico Humacao, Roberto Marrero-
     Corletto, Chancellor.
       University of Puerto Rico System, Norman Maldonado, 
     President.
       University of The Sacred Heart, Jose Jaime Rivera, 
     President.


                              rhode island

       Brown University, Vartan Gregorian, President.
       Community College of Rhode Island, Edward J. Liston, 
     President.
       Rhode Island School of Design, Roger Mandle, President.
       University of Rhode Island, Bob Roth, Special Assistant to 
     the President.


                             south carolina

       Benedict College, David H. Swinton, President.
       Claflin College, Henry Tisdale, President.
       College of Charleston, Alexander M. Sanders, Jr., 
     President.
       Greenville Technical College, Thomas E. Barton, President.
       Morris College, Luns C. Richardson, President.
       South Carolina State University, Leroy Davis, Interim 
     President.
       The Citadel, Claudius Watts, President.
       Trident Technical College, Mary Thornley, President.
       Winthrop University, Anthony J. DiGiorgio, President.


                              south dakota

       National College, Jerry L. Gallentine, President.


                               tennessee

       Crichton College, Larry R. Brooks, President.
       Fisk University, Henry Ponder, President.
       LeMoyne-Owen College, Earl Vinson, Senior Vice President.
       Middle Tennessee State University, James Walker, President.
       Motlow State Community College, A. Frank Glass, President.
       Tennessee State University, James A. Hefner, President.
       Tennessee Technological University, Angelo A. Volpe, 
     President.
       The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Frederick W. 
     Obear, Chancellor.


                                 texas

       Austin College, Oscar Page, President.
       Brookhaven College, Walter G. Bumphus, President.
       Del Mar College, Terry L. Dicianna, President.
       Devry Institute of Technology, Francis V. Cannon, 
     President.
       East Texas State University, Jerry P. Morris, President.
       Houston Baptist University, E.D. Hodo, President.
       Palo Alto College, Joel E. Vela, President.
       Prairie View A & M University, Charles Hines, President.
       Richland College, Stephen K. Mittelstet, President.
       Southwest Texas State University, Jerome H. Supple, 
     President. 

[[Page S 17308]]

       Tarrant County Junior College District, C. A. Roberson, 
     Chancellor.
       University of North Texas, Alfred F. Hurley, Chancellor.
       University of North Texas Health Science Center, Alfred F. 
     Hurley, Chancellor.
       University of Texas at Dallas, Franklyn G. Jenifer, 
     President.


                                vermont

       Castleton State College, Martha K. Farmer, President.
       Community College of Vermont, Barbara Murphy, Interim 
     President.
       Johnson State College, Robert Hahn, President.
       Lyndon State College, Peggy Williams, President.
       Middlebury College, John M. McCardell, Jr., President.
       University of Vermont, Thomas P. Salmon, President.
       Vermont State College System, Charles I. Bunting, 
     Chancellor.
       Vermont Technical College, Robert Clarke, President.


                                virginia

       Central Virginia Community College, Belle S. Wheelan, 
     President.
       Hampton University, William R. Harvey, President.
       Hollins College, Jane Margaret O'Brien, President.
       Norfolk State University, Harrison B. Wilson, President.
       Northern Virginia Community College, Richard Ernst, 
     President.
       Old Dominion University, Jo Ann Gora, Acting President.
       Virginia Commonwealth University, Eugene P. Trani, 
     President.
       Virginia State University, Eddie N. Moore, President.
       Wytheville Community College, William Snyder, President.


                               washington

       Central Washington University, Ivory V. Nelson, President.
       City University, Michael Pastore, President.
       Spokane Community College, James H. Williams, President.
       University of Washington, Richard L. McCormick, President.
       Washington State University, Samuel H. Smith, President.
       Western Washington University, Karen W. Morse, President.


                             west virginia

       Alderson Broaddus College, Stephen E. Markwood, President.
       Bluefield State College, Robert E. Moore, President.
       Fairmont State College, Robert J. Dillman, President.
       Marshall University, J. Wade Gilley, President.
       State College System of West Virginia, Clifford M. Trump, 
     Chancellor.
       West Liberty State College, Donald C. Darnton, Interim 
     President.
       West Virginia State College, Hazo W. Carter, Jr., 
     President.
       West Virginia University, David C. Hardesty, Jr., 
     President.
       Wheeling Jesuit College, Rev. Thomas Acker, S.J., 
     President.


                               wisconsin

       Lakeland College, David Black, President.
       Lawrence University, Richard Warch, President.
       Marquette University, Rev. Albert DiUlio, S.J., President.
       Northland College, Robert Rue Parsonage, President.
       Ripon College, Paul B. Ranslow, President.
       St. Norbert College, Thomas A. Manion, President.
       University of Wisconsin System, Katharine Lyall, President.
       University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Larry Schnack, 
     Chancellor.
       University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Judith L, Kuipers, 
     Chancellor.
       University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, John H. Schroeder, 
     Chancellor.
       University of Wisconsin-Stout, Charles W. Sorenson, 
     Chancellor.
       University of Wisconsin-Superior, Jan G. Womack, 
     Chancellor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 extends 
the FCC's auction authority for the first time to any situation in 
which the FCC must choose between mutually exclusive applications--
including applications for broadcast facilities. For this reason, Mr. 
President, I want to take just a moment to explain the actions and 
intentions of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I 
want all my colleagues to understand the auction authority extends only 
to mutually exclusive applications for new facilities not already 
pending at the FCC.
  Applications for renewal, modification, or upgrade of existing 
facilities are not covered under this provision. Similarly, the 
committee does not intend--in cases in which an application has already 
been accepted by the FCC--that auctions be used to resolve that 
proceeding. I understand that, as the result of a court decision, the 
FCC has not technically accepted certain applications.
  The committee's intention is that if any application in a proceeding 
has been accepted, the proceeding will be resolved under the provisions 
of existing law.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, when the roll is called on this budget 
reconciliation conference report, I will be voting yes. But not for 
this bill.
  Instead, I will be voting yes for our seniors--yes for our students--
and yes for the middle class.
  And I will be voting no on the conference report.
  I will be voting no on massive Medicare cuts to finance tax breaks 
for the wealthy.
  I will be voting no on huge tax breaks for the rich and the special 
interests.
  I will be voting no on devastating cuts in nursing home care for 
seniors and the disabled.
  I will be voting no on increased taxes for working people.
  I will be voting no on ending the safety net for children.
  I will be voting no on the basic thrust of this legislation--that we 
must balance the budget on the backs of working families and senior 
citizens, while handing out billions in tax breaks for the rich and 
powerful.
  This bill represents the extremes of the Republican membership.
  Mr. President, when you get right down to it, this bill forces all of 
us to answer a simple question: ``Whose side are you on?''
  Are you on the side of middle-class Americans? Are you on the side of 
our senior citizens, of middle-class families struggling to send their 
children to college, and of lower income working families?
  Or are you on the side of the wealthy and the special interests?
  The Republican reconciliation bill is paydirt for the rich and the 
special interests and senior citizens and working class families get 
stuck footing the bills.
  This is an outrage--and we Democrats are going to fight it as a basic 
matter of principle.
  We saw what happened with the continuing resolution when the public 
caught on to the scheme. Under the spotlight, the Republicans blinked, 
they retreated, they ran. They wanted to escape the public wrath and 
quickly abandoned their deep principles for political cover.
  This bill makes the biggest cuts in the history of Medicare.
  And the Republicans build their case around a false premise.
  They argue that in order to save Medicare, we must destroy its 
fundamental mission. This is simply not true.
  And they ought to be honest with the American people about the two 
major Republican falsehoods.
  The first false statement that the Republicans make is that we need 
$270 billion to save Medicare. This is simply untrue.
  The Republicans are using this $270 billion to finance their $245 
billion in tax breaks for the rich folk.
  It is no coincidence that the Medicare cuts are $270 billion and the 
tax breaks for the wealthy total $245 billion.
  These figures are remarkably similar because one is being used to 
finance the other. They are taking from our senior citizens who paid 
the bills, signed the contract, and weathered the storms. And they're 
giving it back to the wealthy and the special interests.
  The second Republican falsehood is that we need to cut $270 billion 
to make Medicare solvent. Not true. The chief HHS Medicare actuary has 
stated that we only need $89 billion in savings to make Medicare 
solvent until the end of 2006.
  Mr. President, let me just give you some examples of what kind of tax 
breaks these Medicare cuts are paying for:
  Under this bill, approximately 2,000 large corporations will get a 
tax break of $2 million each because of changes in the alternative 
minimum tax. This is outrageous.
  In addition, this bill contains hundreds of millions of dollars in 
giveaways to oil companies.
  Finally, the capital gains tax cut included in this bill is a tax 
break for the super rich. Anyone can claim this tax break. Even 
millionaires and billionaires can get this tax break.
  Mr. President, I tried to draw a line on the tax breaks and put the 
money 

[[Page S 17309]]
back into Medicare and Medicaid. I offered an amendment to the 
reconciliation bill that would have precluded the tax breaks from going 
to those who make over $1 million per year. That's the top one-tenth of 
one percent of all taxpayers.
  I thought this amendment would pass unanimously. I thought that we 
all could agree that millionaires and billionaires do not need a tax 
break when we are cutting Medicare--especially when 75 percent of all 
Medicare recipients earn under $25,000 per year.
  But no--52 of the 53 Republican Senators voted against my amendment. 
In essence, they voted to cut Medicare to provide tax breaks for 
millionaires and billionaires.
  Mr. President, Medicare is not just a health insurance program. 
Medicare is a commitment that we have made to our citizens. It is a 
promise--for those who work hard their entire lives--that your medical 
needs will be taken care of when you retire.
  But this Republican budget uses the Medicare Program as a slush fund 
for the tax breaks for the wealthy.
  I urge my colleagues to say no to Medicare cuts to pay for tax breaks 
for the rich.
  Let's reject the Republican budget reconciliation bill--let's start 
over.
  We can put together a compromise bill that moves toward a balanced 
budget but does not destroy our Medicare Program. But this is not such 
a bill.
  Unfortunately, this is a bill that sticks it to ordinary Americans, 
and lavishes huge breaks for the rich and the special interests. I 
think that's wrong.
  I say: It's time, for once, to put the middle class first and defeat 
this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, I 
would like to discuss with the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, Mr. Murkowski, the provisions of the Budget 
Reconciliation Conference Report that relate to the sale of oil from 
the Weeks Island Strategic Petroleum Reserve storage facility. This 
facility is located in Louisiana.
  I say to Chairman Murkowski, a provision of the conference report 
requires the sale by the Department of Energy of oil from the Weeks 
Island facility. It is my understanding that the Weeks Island facility 
has suffered irreparable damage from one and perhaps two fractures, and 
that oil within this facility is in danger of leaking into Louisiana's 
underground aquifer. It is also my understanding that as a result of 
these fractures, the oil contained in Weeks Islands must be removed and 
the facility decomissioned. Is that correct?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas is correct. The 
leaks she refers to require the oil contained in the Weeks Island 
facility to be removed, and the facility to be decommissioned. There is 
no choice, and the Department of Energy already has that process 
underway. It is only with the greatest hesitancy that we are requiring 
the sale of any oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. As the 
Senator from Texas knows, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is essential 
for the protection of our energy security in the event of oil supply 
interruption, such as the ones we suffered through in 1973 and 1979. 
That is why the conference report contains provisions which provide 
funding for the replacement of this oil in the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chairman for that response. I would also 
like to know if the conference report contains any language to assure 
domestic oil producers, particularly independents located in the State 
of Texas, that the sale of this oil will not be done by the Department 
of Energy in such a manner as to disrupt the oil market or to adversely 
affect oil prices?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the answer to the Senator's question is 
yes. When the oil is sold from the Weeks Island facility, which is 
located in Louisiana, the Department of Energy is directed to so do in 
a manner that does not disrupt the marketplace or have any noticeable 
impact on prices. Perhaps the best thing to do is to quote from the 
statutory language contained in conference report: ``The Secretary 
shall, to the greatest extent practical, sell oil from the reserve in a 
manner that minimizes the impact of such sales upon supply levels and 
market forces.''.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murkowski.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have been listening with a great deal of 
interest to the speakers on both sides of the aisle as the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995 has been discussed. Although the President has 
indicated that he will veto this conference report when he receives it, 
I am proud to support this document which follows through on our 
commitment to balance the Nation's budget by the year 2002, protect 
Social Security, and save Medicare from threatened bankruptcy. America 
has not had a balanced budget in over a quarter century.
  While we are apparently debating a bill that has no future, there 
will be successor after successor with the same basic goals until we 
win. Yes, this will get a veto from the President, but at the same 
time, it will signal the beginning of a final dialog with the 
administration on a final Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  America's financial markets have reflected the approval of the 
Republican efforts during the past week. The phone calls and fax 
messages from my constituents statewide have overwhelmingly supported 
the position taken by Republicans and reflected in this package. As I 
indicated when the Senate considered this bill, this is not just a 
budget for another year. This is not a package of routine legislative 
changes. This is a historic commitment to America that deficit spending 
is about to come to an end, no later than the year 2002, and it has 
been brought about during the first year of the Republican majority in 
the Congress.
  The net result of a balanced budget will be lower interest rates for 
years to come, and as many as 6 million new jobs. The reforms in this 
bill will give the States more control over critical entitlement 
programs. I strongly support these initiatives which will let the 
States decide how best to serve their own citizens. What is best for my 
State of Virginia is not necessarily the same as what is best for 
another State, and this balanced budget act will move power and money 
out of Washington, back to State governments and local communities 
where it belongs.
  When this balanced budget act is finally signed into law, and it will 
be, we will have identified the path, but each year we will have to 
make spending decisions that will keep us on the road that is being 
defined here today. If emergencies occur, we will have to offset their 
costs with spending reductions. Those budget decisions will be as 
difficult in the year 2000 as they are this year, but this conference 
report is a commitment by the Republicans, and eventually, by the 
entire Congress, that we will stay the course.
  This is a momentous vote, and I urge my colleagues to roll up your 
sleeves, get ready for hard work, and pass this balanced budget act. 
The Republican train is here, and it is time to get aboard for a trip 
to fiscal responsibility. We have made the commitment to America and we 
will carry through on it.


                         nursing home standards

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the need to strengthen 
our commitment to strong nursing home standards in the budget 
reconciliation bill before us. The conference report on the budget bill 
has come a long way toward restoring current Federal nursing home 
standards and strong Federal and State enforcement of protections for 
nursing home residents. It represents a considerable improvement over 
the House bill that retreated from Federal standards and enforcement 
and reflects much of the Senate position on nursing home standards, but 
we are not there yet.
  Many patient advocacy groups and colleagues from the other side of 
the aisle have come forward to assail the nursing home provisions 
included in this bill, but I would ask them to pause for a moment to 
recognize that significant headway we have made in the debate over 
Federal nursing home standards. The debate is no longer over the need 
for national standards and Federal oversight of nursing homes, but over 
what national standards are necessary to be maintained. I remain 
cautious of several of the changes made in conference agreement which 
could undermine the improvements nursing home residents and their 
families have witnessed since the enactment of the 

[[Page S 17310]]
OBRA 87 regulations, but I recognize the substantial progress that has 
been made.

  Specifically, I am concerned about provisions of the bill allowing 
nursing homes to be accredited by private sector organizations as a way 
of meeting State certification requirements. In the past, private 
accreditation has been perceived as a loophole for facilities to avoid 
oversight, In order for accreditation to be acceptable, we must be sure 
that the Federal and State governments retain full authority to monitor 
facilities and that standards and residents' rights are not 
compromised.
  I also have reservations about several changes that have been made to 
current law. For example the bill eliminates current regulations that 
restrict a nursing home from placing extra requirements on Medicaid 
patients as a condition of admission, such as denying a Medicaid bed 
unless a gift, payment, or donation is given to the facility. Without 
the current admission policy limitations, patients and their family 
members will no longer be protected against discrimination based on 
source of payment and duration of stay contracts.
  It also removes the requirement that facilities provide care and 
services to allow each resident to attain or maintain his or her 
highest practicable level of physical mental, and psychosocial 
functioning. While this standard may sound a bit abstract, it was a key 
phrase negotiated in the OBRA 87 requirements to encourage nursing 
facilities to provide the best possible to nursing home residents.
  It reduces the frequency of required inspections of nursing homes 
from every year to every 2 years unless the facility has been found to 
have substandard care; eliminates the requirement for comprehensive 
training for State and Federal surveyors; removes requirement that 
resident assessments be conducted using a national uniform data set in 
order to monitor patient outcomes and consistency in patient care; 
relaxes protections against unfair transfers and discharge of nursing 
home residents; reduces some minimum training and staffing requirements 
for nursing homes--including elimination of 75 hours of training for 
nurse aides and the requirement that facilities with more than 120 beds 
employ a qualified social worker.
  Also, it reduces the frequency of mandated Federal validation surveys 
on 5 per cent every year to 5 per cent every 3 years; removes 
requirement directing surveyors to reduce the time between 
identification of standards violations and the final imposition of 
remedies; eliminates language calling for incrementally more severe 
fines for repeated or uncorrected deficiencies; reduces maximum civil 
monetary penalty imposed on nursing homes that are out of compliance 
from $10,000 to $5,000; and eliminates language requiring retroactive 
civil monetary penalties for past noncompliance.
  The conference agreement on nursing home protections has come a long 
way toward restoring the goal of full protections for millions of 
nursing home residents nationwide, but certain critical issues remain 
unresolved. I will continue to evaluate the changes proposed by the 
conferees and will work with the leadership and consumer groups to 
guarantee adequate protection for elderly and disabled nursing home 
residents.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995, which, for the first time in many years, proposes a 
budget that controls entitlement spending, restrains the growth of 
Government, and eliminates annual deficits.
  For years I have made speeches in this great Chamber, and cast my 
vote in support of a balanced budget. I have introduced balanced budget 
amendments in numerous sessions of Congress, including the 104th 
Congress. On July 12, 1982, a balanced budget amendment was brought to 
the floor. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was pleased to 
sponsor and guide that important measure to passage. On August 4, 1982, 
69 Senators voted in favor of the resolution. While a majority 
supported it in the House, if failed to receive the necessary two-
thirds vote. In March 1986, the Senate voted on another balanced budget 
amendment. It was unfortunate that the resolution failed by one vote. 
Earlier this year, the balanced budget amendment again failed by one 
vote. However, I am confident that we will yet pass the balanced budget 
amendment during the 104th Congress.
  With or without a constitutional amendment, this balanced budget act 
proves that the Congress can enact a budget which protects the health 
and safety of our Nation, provides quality Government services, and 
eliminates harmful deficits.
  This is a refreshing contrast to the unbalanced budgets proposed by 
the President. His budgets contain no plan to balance the budget, 
significantly increase the national debt, fail to restrain growth in 
nondefense Government spending, and propose dangerous reductions in 
national defense spending. Mr. President, such budgets are not 
acceptable alternatives.
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1996 reverses direction on those policies 
which are stifling our economy and burdening all Americans with an 
overwhelming national debt. It puts the Nation on track to reduce 
Government spending, eliminate annual deficits, and permits us to begin 
to reduce the national debt, which is now nearly $5 trillion.
  First, this bill controls the growth rate of Government spending. 
Federal spending continues to increase over the 7-year budget period, 
from $1.5 trillion in 1995 to nearly $1.9 trillion in fiscal year 2002. 
However, this spending growth is at a slower, more affordable rate, and 
below the growth rate of Federal revenues. By 2002, revenues will 
exceed spending.
  One would think, listening to this debate, that this budget 
drastically reduces or eliminates all Federal programs. For example, it 
has been argued by some that proposed reductions would destroy Medicare 
and Medicaid. This simply is not the case. Both programs grow at 
healthy annual rates. Without the proposed reforms, these programs 
would grow at unsustainable rates, resulting in dangerous consequences, 
even threatening the solvency of the Medicare part A trust fund.
  Second, Mr. President, the balanced budget act reduces and eventually 
eliminates annual deficits, which is the amount Government outlays 
exceed Government revenues. Without this bill, annual deficits will 
continue to increase, exceeding $200 billion per year. By enacting this 
measure, annual deficits will begin a downward path and will be 
eliminated within the 7-year budget period. The Congressional Budget 
Office estimates a surplus by 2002, allowing us to begin reducing the 
national debt.
  The results of this deficit reduction, Mr. President, have been 
estimated to stimulate economic growth, reduce interest rates, increase 
employment opportunities, and result in a higher standard of living for 
all Americans.
  Mr. President, in addition to controlling Government spending, this 
balanced budget act addresses Government revenues. Under this bill, 
Government revenues will continue to increase. However, in contrast to 
the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act which enacted the largest tax 
increase in history, the balanced budget act will let American families 
keep more of what they earn.
  Let me emphasize, Mr. President, this bill provides tax relief for 
the middle class. Over four-fifths of the tax reductions of this 
proposal will go to those making under $100,000; nearly two-thirds go 
to those making under $75,000. Furthermore, after considering all the 
reforms of the earned income tax credit, the marriage penalty, and the 
child tax credit, working families with children will see their taxes 
decrease next year.
  The centerpiece of the revenue provision is the family tax credit, 
offering a $500 per child tax credit, for children under the age of 18. 
This credit is phased out for individuals with adjusted gross income 
over $75,000, or for married couples with an income over $110,000. In 
my State of South Carolina, this means that over 400,000 tax returns 
will be eligible to claim this credit, at a value of over $320 million. 
This is money directly in the hands of parents to spend for their 
priorities--child care, housing, and education--not sent to Washington 
to fund its bloated bureaucracy.
  Other provisions provide direct relief to America's families, 
including a $5000 adoption tax credit; marriage penalty 

[[Page S 17311]]
relief; and a credit for student loan interest.
  The bill also contains revenue provisions which will increase savings 
and investment. The expansion of the individual retirement account will 
permit more Americans to save more money for their retirement years. 
The capital gains reduction will unlock existing capital assets, 
allowing capital to be reinvested. This will result in more jobs, 
higher wages, more benefits, and a more vibrant economy.
  Let me address the argument that the capital gains tax cut will go 
primarily to the rich. A study by the U.S. Treasury showed that nearly 
one-half of all capital gains were realized by taxpayers with wage and 
salary income of less than $50,000. Three-fourths of all returns with 
capital gains in 1995 are estimated to be reported by taxpayers with 
wage and salary income of $50,000 or less. Mr. President, let me 
reemphasize this point--capital gains tax relief will benefit all 
Americans.
  Mr. President, there are many other important and favorable 
provisions in the balanced budget act. The act reforms welfare by 
emphasizing work and responsibility. It preserves, protects and 
improves Medicare. It protects veterans' benefits and safeguards 
affordable education.
  Mr. President, I support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. I vote 
``yes'' for reducing the deficit; I vote ``yes'' for controlling the 
growth of Government spending; I vote ``yes'' for our families by 
reducing their tax burden; I vote ``yes'' for restoring the economic 
future of our Nation. Therefore, I will vote ``yes'' for this bill and 
encourage my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. The Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources met and exceeded its targets for the conference. I want to 
express my appreciation to Chairman Young of the House Resources 
Committee and to Chairman Bliley of the House Commerce Committee for 
their cooperation, and the hard work of their staff, that enabled us to 
conclude our negotiations quickly and in an amicable fashion.
  When the President submitted his budget earlier this year, he 
proposed to sell the Power Marketing Administrations, except for 
Bonneville, to the present customers at the discounted value of the 
repayment obligations. That proposal was not particularly well thought 
out as our hearings in committee demonstrated. Nonetheless, the revenue 
assumptions underlying that sale became part of the target and 
instructions given to our committee. While the members of our committee 
recognize that serious attention needs to be given to the future of the 
PMA's, especially in light of declining budgets for the agencies that 
currently manage the generating and marketing of power from Federal 
facilities, we also are in agreement that responsible solutions are 
simply not possible within the time frame of Reconciliation. The 
committee was faced with a Herculean task of finding other options to 
achieve the savings scored to our committee. The magnitude of the task 
is best illustrated by a comment from one of the staff on the Budget 
Committee that if they had known of other options, we would have been 
scored with them as well.
  As I stated, the committee has met and exceeded its instructions. I 
want to express my appreciation to our ranking Minority Member, Senator 
Johnston, for his cooperation and the assistance from his staff in 
helping us. Our committee has always prided itself on its bipartisan 
professional approach to legislation, and that is demonstrated in our 
product.
  The conference agreement includes the sale of certain lands in 
California contained in the House measure as well as the sale of the 
helium reserves contained in both the Senate and the House.
  The agreement also contains the leasing authority for the Coastal 
Plain in Alaska that was contained in both the Senate and House 
versions and which was a specific assumption in our instructions. The 
conferees made several minor changes to make the program work more 
efficiently and resolved uncertainties in allotments due Alaskan 
natives within the Coastal Plain. I know that some opponents of the 
program have suggested that the Federal Government will never see the 
revenues estimated from leasing on the Coastal Plain due to the 
provision in the Mineral Leasing Act made by the Alaska Statehood Act 
that provides 90 percent of all revenues to the State. The statement of 
managers is explicit on this subject. We are not in any manner altering 
the provisions in the Alaska Statehood Act nor the Mineral Leasing Act. 
Those provisions continue to apply in Alaska outside the Coastal Plain. 
When Congress set aside the Coastal Plain, it reserved to itself the 
decision on whether the area should be opened to leasing or not, and if 
so, under what terms and conditions.
  The decision has been that the area should be leased, but that it 
should be leased under very specific conditions tailored to the unique 
characteristics of the Coastal Plain. Suggestions that development will 
have adverse environmental effects are wrong and the result of either 
misinformation, misunderstanding, or deliberate mischaracterization. 
Our committee has spent several years crafting very specific language 
to ensure that development will occur in an environmentally sensitive 
manner, and that language is incorporated in the conference agreement. 
In developing a separate leasing program for the Coastal Plain, the 
committee decided to adopt a 50-50 revenue sharing formula. The 
conference language is absolutely clear that the program set forth is 
the sole authority for the leasing program, not the Mineral Leasing 
Act.
  I will have more to say about this leasing program, but for the 
moment I simply want to say that I sincerely hope that the President 
would stop listening to the ideological fanatics that prowl the White 
House and the Federal agencies and examine the realities of this 
leasing program. This Nation is once again over 50 percent dependent on 
foreign oil supplies. That doesn't seem to bother the President, but it 
should. The President should reexamine his position on this issue. His 
opposition is wrong from the standpoint of our energy security, it is 
wrong from the standpoint of the economy, it is wrong from the 
standpoint of the environment, it is wrong from a budget standpoint, it 
is wrong from the standpoint of domestic employment, it is wrong from 
the standpoint of our responsibilities for Native Alaskans--his 
opposition is simply wrong.
  The conference agreement also includes various reclamation and water 
provisions. The agreement retains the Senate language repealing a 
prohibition in current law that prevents irrigation districts from 
prepaying their outstanding debt. The legislation also provides for the 
transfer of the Collbran Project in Colorado, and Senator Campbell 
deserves the credit for working out the problems with that provision. 
The agreement also includes a modification to the Raker Act that would 
increase the payment by San Francisco for the use of a portion of 
Yosemite National Park from $30,000 to $2 million. The charge has not 
been changed in over half a century. The House had set the charge at $8 
million while the Senate had adopted a formula used by FERC with a 
floor of $597,000. The Agreement also includes two provisions of the 
House version--the transfer of Sly Park and authorization for 
prepayment of Central Utah Project debt--with minor modifications.

  After considerable discussion with the House, we also were able to 
come to agreement on amendments dealing with Federal oil and gas 
royalties and hardrock mining. The reforms will increase Federal 
receipts and provide a fair and workable system that will increase 
collections from oil and gas operations and completely reform the 
federal hardrock mining program. I fully understand that the provisions 
dealing with hardrock mining will not satisfy those whose prime 
motivation is the elimination of any domestic mining industry, but that 
was not our objective. The provisions of the Conference Agreement 
recognize private property rights, provide for fair market value with a 
reverter for patents, and impose a royalty on future production.
  The conference agreement includes the Senate provisions dealing with 
privatization of Department of the Interior aircraft services, with 
certain modifications as well as the sale of the Alaska Power 
Administration, refinancing of the Bonneville Power Administration, 
export of Alaska oil, and 

[[Page S 17312]]
OCS deepwater royalty relief, all of which were included in the 
conference agreement on S. 295 which both the Senate and House have 
approved and the President supports.
  After considerable work, the conferees were able to agree on 
provisions dealing with ski area permits, National Park Service 
concessions, and recreation fees at areas administered by the National 
Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service. We 
were able to retain the Senate provision that would return 80 percent 
of all new receipts to the collecting agency for direct use for visitor 
services and facilities.
  The conferees also agreed to the language that markedly improves the 
climate for the privatization of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. We 
also included language providing for the disposal of surplus property 
by the Department of Energy and for the lease of excess storage 
capacity within the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. As a result of 
problems at the Weeks Island site, the reserves need to be drawn down 
and relocated. The conferees agreed that 32 million barrels of the 
reserve should be sold, but that 50 percent of the revenues from the 
lease of excess capacity should be made available for additional 
purchases to complete the reserve beginning in 2002.
  Mr. President, none of this could have been accomplished without long 
hours and hard work by the professional staff of the committee. I want 
to express my appreciation to them. Howard Useem worked on the Alaska 
Power Administration sale and the Bonneville refinancing as well as the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve language. Brian Malnak worked on the 
Interior asset sales, Mike Poling worked on the oil and gas royalty and 
OCS provisions, and Jim O'Toole worked on the National Park Service 
fees and concessions language. Jonathan Schneeweiss made major 
contributions in trying to keep our provisions straight, and I want to 
especially express my gratitude to the support staff, Camille Heninger, 
Betty Nevitt, Jo Meuse, Kelly Fischer, Judy Brown, Julia Gustafson, and 
Gerry Gentry--who really did all the work.
  I also want to thank the minority staff who demonstrated the high 
level of professional commitment that has always characterized our 
staff. During the last reconciliation measure, they sought to involve 
us and we tried to be helpful. We are grateful for their assistance 
this time around. Ben Cooper, Tom Williams, David Brooks, Shirley Neff, 
Bob Simon and Cliff Sikora all made important contributions. I 
especially want to thank Sam Fowler for his assistance and ready 
recourse to humour during tense moments. In addition to his overall 
responsibilities for the entire package, his work on the U.S. 
Enrichment Corporation was invaluable.
  Although all the staff performed well, some made extraordinary 
contributions. I want to acknowledge Karen Hunsicker, who shepherded 
the conference wit the House Commerce committee to an early and 
successful conclusion, especially on the U.S. Enrichment Corporation 
and DOE asset sales. David Garman did outstanding work on the US 
Enrichment Corporation and Andrew Lundquist has labored long and hard 
on both the Alaska export provisions and the leasing program for the 
Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge. Michael Flannigan made the hardrock 
mining negotiations as exciting as possible and kept a degree of 
uncertainty up to the very last moment. Kayci Cook, the Committee's 
Bevinetto Fellow, demonstrated competence, patience, and professional 
judgment in working on concessions and park fees.
  Finally, I want to express my appreciation to the senior staff of the 
Committee--Gregg Renkes, our Staff Director, Gary Ellsworth, our Chief 
Counsel, and Jim Beirne, our Senior Counsel. Not only have they handled 
individual portions of the package with their usual professional 
expertise, but they have also had the pleasure of dealing with the 
Budget Committee, the Congressional Budget Office, the Parliamentarian, 
Legislative Counsel, and their House counterparts, as well as various 
Senators and staff. They handled the floor procedures, and made certain 
that all the members of the committee were covered, and are responsible 
for the successful completion of the conference.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, yesterday, on his birthday, a young member 
of my staff went to the dentist for a root canal. He understood that 
long-term health and comfort was more than worth the short-term 
discomfort.
  Ironically, the same day, I received a fax from a concerned taxpayer 
who pointed out that a dentist's ``polling numbers'' aren't too good 
while the cavity is being drilled. But once the cavity is filled, ``the 
horrible toothache is gone forever--and the patient is grateful.''
  For many of us in Congress, for Government employees, for many 
Idahoans, and for many folks watching us around the Nation, the current 
budget impasse may be producing a feeling like that of hearing the 
dentist's drill.
  So, it's important for us to remember why we're here, what's at stake 
here, and why we are fighting so hard to pass a balanced budget.
  $200 billion annual deficits, a $5 trillion debt, are more than a 
toothache--they are a cancer on the economy and threaten the living 
standards and economic security of every American.
  This would be the first balanced budget since 1969 and only the 
second since 1960. It's sobering to remember that a majority of 
Americans living today have seen the Government balance its books 
either once or never.
  Back at the beginning of this year, we got 66 of the 67 votes we 
needed to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. The 
critics, the defenders of the status quo cried out, ``Where's your 
plan?'' Well, at least for those of us on this side of the aisle, 
here's our plan.
  With passage today of the Balanced Budget Act, the first Republican 
Congress in 40 years is on the verge of passing a detailed plan to 
balance the Federal budget by the year 2002--for the first time since 
1969 and only the second time since 1960. In fact, a majority of all 
Americans living today have seen the Government balance its books only 
once or never. However, the President has threatened a veto and the 
debate has been heated and, often, confusing or misleading. The 
following information should help folks construct the true picture of 
the current debate and what's at stake.
  Democrats say Republicans in Congress want to slash spending. But 
total spending under the Balanced Budget Plan will go from $1.5 
trillion in 1995 to almost $1.9 trillion in 2002--a 22 percent 
increase.
  Under the status quo, spending would go to $2.1 trillion in 2002--
almost a 40 percent increase.
  The Democrats say the Republican budget is all pain, no gain. But 
real people will enjoy real benefits from balancing the budget by 2002 
under the Republican plan. Because of lower interest rates, a typical 
family would save $2,388 a year on a $75,000 mortgage; $1,026 over the 
life of a 4-year, $15,000 car loan; and $1,891 over the life of a 10-
year, $11,000 student loan.
  Balancing the budget means more investment, more economic growth, and 
2.5 million new jobs by 2002. By 2020, this growth means our children 
would have a 7 percent to 36 percent higher standard of living.
  In contrast: The Concord Coalition estimates that Federal debts and 
deficits already have lowered the average family's income by $15,000 a 
year. The President's 1995 budget estimated that future generations 
face a lifetime tax rate of 82 percent at all levels, under current 
trends in the public debt. The status quo is the least tolerable 
course.
  President Clinton says he has submitted a balanced budget. Not 
according to the nonpartisan, objective Congressional Budget Office, 
which said the ``10-year balanced budget plan'' he offered this summer 
actually would produce $200 billion deficits a year throughout the next 
decade. By his own admission, the budget the President first proposed 
in February would have produced similar $200 billion deficits. In both 
cases, he used unrealistic economic assumptions.

  Democrats say the Congressional budget plan will drastically reduce 
Medicare protection for the elderly. But, if we do nothing, Medicare 
will run a deficit in the coming year for the first time ever, and its 
trust funds will be completely drained of their accumulated reserve by 
2002. The official Medicare Trustees--including three of President 
Clinton's own Cabinet Secretaries--have said so.

[[Page S 17313]]

  The balanced budget plan will extend the financial solvency of 
Medicare at least until 2009, protecting seniors. Budget savings would 
come from increasing consumer choice and making the system more 
efficient. Even after savings, Medicare spending per beneficiary would 
increase from $4,800 in 1995 to $6,700 in 2002--a 40-percent increase.
  Democrats say Republicans want to cut Medicare to pay for tax cuts. 
But, the same magnitude of reforms are necessary to save and preserve 
Medicare, no matter what happens with the rest of the budget. The 
Balanced Budget Act includes a lockbox provision making it illegal to 
use Medicare funds for other purposes.
  Democrats say the Republican plan won't really balance the budget--it 
will look like it by raiding the Social Security trust funds. But, the 
balanced budget plan will balance the unified budget (including Social 
Security surpluses in the total) by 2002. It will balance the budget 
without counting Social Security by 2005. The Government will remain 
under a legal obligation to pay out to Social Security beneficiaries 
every dollar ever deposited into the Social Security trust funds, with 
interest.
  The growing national debt is the real threat to Social Security and 
every other important Government program. We already are paying $300 
billion in interest every year on that debt--about one-fifth of it 
going to foreigners--which crowds out other budget priorities.
  Democrats say the Congressional budget is full of tax cuts for the 
rich. But, every time someone suggests cutting taxes for everyone, 
liberal demagogues make it sound like the rich are getting a special 
deal. It just ain't so in the balanced budget plan.
  Almost three-quarters of the tax package in the budget goes for 
family tax relief, including a $500 per-child credit, adoption credit, 
marriage penalty relief, a deduction for custodial care for the 
elderly, and a student loan interest deduction. Savings and investment 
incentives will boost the entire economy, create jobs, and guarantee 
that small businesses and family farms won't have to be sold at the 
owner's death just to pay taxes. Closing corporate loopholes will raise 
$18 billion in revenues over the next 7 years.
  Democrats say the Republican budget raises taxes on lower-income 
people. This accusation is a misrepresentation about the Earned Income 
Tax Credit [EITC]. The EITC is the fastest-growing item in the budget. 
It is part tax credit and part spending program for lower-income 
workers. In his 1993 budget, President Clinton drastically expanded 
who's eligible and the amount of benefits.
  The Balanced Budget Act would preserve currently-scheduled EITC 
increases for needy families with children. Coordinating the EITC with 
the $500 per-child credit will still give EITC families earning more 
than $18,000 a net tax cut. Other reforms target fraud, which would 
cost $37 billion over the next 5 years under current law. The only 
actual benefit reductions would affect childless taxpayers (who, before 
1993, were never eligible for the EITC), illegal aliens, tax cheats, 
and affluent taxpayers (who never should have received EITC benefits).
  Democrats say Republicans want to cut benefits to the poor and needy. 
But Medicaid (health care insurance for the needy) spending in the 
Balanced Budget Act would go from $89 billion in 1995 to $127 billion 
in 2002--a 43-percent increase.
  Mr. President, here is some rhetoric versus the truth.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, what an extraordinary and remarkable day. 
We are all somewhat weary--and, yes, greatly frustrated--from events of 
the past few days. But we should not let our fatigue--or our 
frustration from dealing with politicos at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue--diminish the importance of the moment.
  At the close of this debate, we will be privileged to vote on a 
budget which--get this, for the very first time in my 17 years here--
actually balances the budget on a date certain. No more smoke and 
mirrors! No tricks. No more accept short term expedients now--with the 
understanding that necessary trimming will follow later. We have 
finally learned better; finally, we do understand. And, finally, we are 
actually going to do it! We are going to balance this budget! A good 
day!
  Everyone in this chamber knows my views on the subject of a balanced 
budget. Everyone knows that I passionately believe that the one way--
the only way--to get to a balanced budget is to gain control over this 
so-called entitlement spending. That's a belief borne of very careful 
study--study which Senator Bob Kerry and I undertook in service on the 
Entitlement Reform Commission.
  But the view that we must gain control over entitlement spending in 
order to balance the budget is not merely a belief. At this point, I 
think all Senators might agree that, as a matter of absolute fact, 
entitlement spending reform is the only way we can get from here to 
there. The fact that all now seem to agree on that point--and on the 
point that we must stop borrowing indefinitely from future 
generations--shows how far we, and the American people, have come in 
just a few years. I wish this consensus might have arrived sooner, but 
I'm surely pleased it is here now.
  In light of the relative consensus on the ``big picture,'' and in 
view of the limited time available for us to debate this historic 
Balanced Budget Act, I will not talk long on the overarching issues. 
But I will say this: we are taking an action today which comes closer 
than anything we could ever do--short of voting on a war resolution--to 
determining the day-to-day quality of life of future generations of 
Americans. This is not hyperbole or overstatement. This is not hype or 
hoorah! Without the action we take today, our grandchildren, and their 
children, face a future of bankruptcy, hyperinflation, and financial 
and fiscal chaos. By taking some relatively painless steps today--and, 
please, let's be honest on this point: the savings we will approve 
today are relatively painless when you consider the magnitude of the 
deficit and debt confronting us--we deflect away that otherwise 
certain, and bleak, future.
  The savings measures we will approved today are relatively painless--
so much so that it is amazing, and so regrettable, that we have waited 
so long to act. To illustrate, let me outline for you what the 
Committee on Veterans Affairs--the Committee I am honored to Chair--has 
approved. I think you will agree that the route to a balanced budget 
that the Veterans Committee was able to reach imposes no great hardship 
on the Nation's veterans.
  Title X of the bill--entitled ``Veterans and Related Provisions''--
defines what veterans must contribute to help us achieve a balanced 
budget. The measures we have approved can be viewed in three clusters:
  First, we would reenact a number of money saving provisions that have 
previously been approved in prior Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Acts--
  We would continue, for example, to require that some, but only some, 
veterans pay small per diems for hospital and outpatient care, and 
small added co-payments for prescription medications dispensed for the 
treatment of non-service-connected disabilities; veterans with profound 
service-connected disabilities, and low income veterans, would continue 
to be exempted.
  We would continue, with respect to VA-treated veterans who have 
health insurance, to authorize VA to collect fees from those insurance 
carriers for non-service-connected treatment.
  We would continue to allow VA to ``verify,'' through access to IRS 
and Social Security records, the incomes of veterans who apply for 
means-tested VA benefits.
  We would continue to limit means-tested VA payments to veterans who 
are in Medicaid-financed nursing home care while still assuring 
completely that the real benefit paid to, and retained by, the veteran 
is not diminished.
  We would continue to require that veterans who receive the benefits 
of VA mortgage loan guarantees pay reasonable fees.
  Finally, we would continue to allow VA to take reasonable steps to 
minimize its losses when the home loans it guarantees go into default.
  These provisions, as a group, would allow VA to save $2.799 billion 
over the next 7 years. 2.799 billion bucks simply from extending the 
effect of provisions that have previously been enacted. 

[[Page S 17314]]
These provisions, I daresay, would not harm veterans.
  I can say, Mr. President, that no veteran would be harmed by these 
measures based on our experience on the Veterans Committee. For what is 
left unsaid in the context of continuing previously-approved OBRA 
provisions is as important as what is said. The OBRA provisions that we 
would extend today are ones which experience has already shown are 
relatively painless to the Nation's veterans and which have, therefore, 
achieved good bipartisan consensus within the Veterans Committee. They 
are even accepted by the Nations's veterans service organizations--
organizations that are not always easily pleased, I would remind! 
Provisions in prior Budget Reconciliation Acts that were more 
controversial--for example, a provision setting a ceiling on benefits 
paid to an incompetent veteran who has no dependents and whose assets 
exceed $25,000--are not in the package before the Senate today.
  Second, this package of veterans-related measures would adopt two new 
provisions that are relatively non-controversial, but which are highly 
significant in terms of the savings to be gained.
  Title X would reimpose a common sense legal standard for compensation 
to VA patients who are injured in VA hospitals. What standard would we 
impose? The very same standard which applies, insofar as we have been 
able to determine, at every other hospital in America. We would require 
that a patient show that any harm that was visited upon him or her in a 
VA hospital was the result of VA fault. Recovery would be allowed only 
if that fault could be shown.

  In addition, we would require VA to ``round down'' the compensation 
and survivors' benefits which are adjusted annually to account for 
increases in the cost of living. What do I mean by this? Traditionally, 
when VA recomputed benefits amounts--which are paid in whole dollar 
amounts--it rounded up when the recomputed benefit equaled a fractional 
dollar amount of 50 cents or more, and it ``rounded down'' when that 
amount was 49 cents or less. The bill before the Senate today would 
require that VA ``round down'' in all cases.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  I approved of these provisions--championed by my friend, Senator Jay 
Rockefeller, the committee's ranking member--when they were before the 
committee. They were then--and they are now--wholly reasonable 
mechanisms for saving almost $1 billion over a 7-year period. Indeed, 
in my view, they are preferable to the alternative measures adopted by 
the House.
  But they simply were not acceptable to the chairman of the House 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, Congressman Bob Stump, or to the ranking 
member of that committee, Congressman G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, for 
whom the Montgomery GI bill is named. My respect, admiration, and 
regard for Sonny Montgomery--who will retire after the 104th Congress 
and who will be deeply missed by all--impelled me to recommend that the 
Senate conferees recede to the House view on this matter if we could 
``make up the difference'' in other ways. We did.
  In place of the Montgomery GI bill provisions, the conferees accepted 
two House-approved provisions which, collectively, will save almost the 
full necessary $1 billion. First, we would raise the prescription

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. President, those who hear these comments may infer that I am not 
fully pleased with each and every aspect of the veterans' provisions in 
this bill. If they infer that, they will be correct. I particularly 
regret the provision relating to survivors' COLAs--though I do not 
think it is patently unfair. It is regrettable, but not unfair. As we 
all know, however, rarely is a given piece of legislation pleasing in 
all respects.
  This legislation is, however, almost without precedent in its 
importance. And it is not--it is not--unfair to the Nation's veterans, 
or to their widows, orphans or families. No--veterans, their widows, 
and their families will benefit, as will all Americans, from deficit 
control--and from the jobs, low interest rates, low inflation, and 
future prosperity which hinge on deficit control.
  We are doing no less today than trying to save this great country as 
we know it. We veterans fought for that very cause. I know all veterans 
will join now--as we all did when we were called to arms--in defense of 
the Nation, and to assure peace, prosperity, and stability for our 
children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the time I have been afforded to address 
these critical issues, and I yield back the balance of my time.


          VETERANS' RECONCILIATION: MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I oppose the provisions of title 10 
of the conference report--relating to veterans' programs--because they 
are a bad deal for veterans. These provisions were crafted behind 
closed doors. They must be brought out into the light of day so that 
the public can understand just how bad they are.
  First, the overall amount saved is too high. The two Veterans' 
Affairs chairmen accepted, with no action by either body, an increase 
of $300 million over the seven years in the overall savings that the 
Veterans' Affairs Committees generated, from $6.4 billion to $6.7 
billion. There is no reason that our Committees should have done this. 
This increase translates directly into more cuts in veterans' benefits. 
I regret very much that there was a willingness to make veterans do 
more than their fair share.
  The provisions provide less than a full cost-of-living adjustment to 
certain widows of veterans who died in service or later from conditions 
related to their service. This diminished COLA is directly contrary to 
a promise made by the Congress in 1992 when the survivors benefit 
program was revised, and should not be agreed to. I oppose it strongly. 
It is wrongheaded and mean spirited. There were other ways to find the 
savings required.
  The package includes a 100-percent increase in the amount poor 
veterans are charged for a 30-day supply of prescription drugs, raising 
the amount to $4 from the current $2. Our Committee avoided increasing 
this copayment. The House Committee had voted a $1 increase, to $3. The 
increase in the bill is an even greater increase than originally passed 
the House. It is being included in this package because of the 
Chairmen's agreement to accept a higher overall savings target for our 
Committees than is set forth in the Budget Resolution.
  The bill expressly repeals the Secretary's existing authority to 
waive veterans' indebtedness in connection with receiving prescription 
drugs. Under current law, the Secretary can waive this and other 
indebtedness. However, in an action designed to generate even more 
savings from poor veterans, the waiver authority as to veterans who 
have received prescription drugs will be repealed. Frankly, I am not at 
all sure what is intended by this change but if I understand it, the 
only way to enforce the no-waiver authority will be to refuse to 
provide prescriptions to veterans who previously received medications 
but were unable to pay for them. That strikes me as a particularly 
unfortunate change in law and policy.
  The final compromise includes a provision that would repeal a 
protection in current law for veterans who are found by VA to owe money 
in connection with a home loan default, even a default that occurs 
years after the veteran has sold the home to a buyer who then defaults 
on the loan, a not uncommon event. Under current law, a veteran who is 
found by VA to owe money in connection with a loan default is protected 
from having his or her income tax offset or federal pay garnished until 
VA gets a court decision affirming the indebtedness. The final 
compromise will include a House-passed provision that substitutes 
simple notice to the veteran for this protection.
  Mr. President, I must note my deep disappointment that the House 
refused to consider any changes in Montgomery GI bill issues as part of 
our effort to find the mandated savings. The Senate package achieved 
savings in two ways from the MGIB--by providing for a one-half COLA 
over the seven years and by increasing the contribution that 
servicemembers make who do not opt out of the MGIB. The House's refusal 
to achieve savings from healthy, employed recruits and students, at the 
expense of widows of veterans who died 

[[Page S 17315]]
from service-related causes, and of veterans needing prescription 
drugs, is simply not acceptable to me. I do not understand their 
priorities.
  Finally, Mr. President, as I noted at the outset, this compromise was 
crafted behind closed doors. I was denied any opportunity to 
participate in the conference. I asked for a public meeting of the sub-
conference on a number of occasions in order to give us the opportunity 
to discuss the differences between the House and Senate provisions in a 
public forum. The only response I received was an invitation to a 
private meeting in Senator Simpson's office after the final agreement 
had been reached. That's just not good enough. The American people 
deserve better. America's veterans deserve better. We should conduct 
our business in the open, not behind closed doors. This package was 
developed with no input whatsoever from Senate Democrats. That is not 
how our Committee has functioned in the past. I regret that we are now 
taking that approach.
  Mr. President, this package is a bad deal for veterans. It cuts too 
deeply and in wrong areas. As the Ranking Democrat on the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I see my role as looking out for our Nation's 
veterans, as making certain that our promises made to those who gave of 
themselves in our common defense are kept. This package does not do 
that. That is why I must oppose it.

                          ____________________