[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5168-S5176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent
resolution.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have had a good debate. I believe that
both the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from West Virginia are
prepared to yield back the remainder of the time, and that would allow
us to continue to go back to the Republican side for the next
amendment. I believe that amendment will be offered by the Senator from
Michigan.
As I understand it, it is on the same subject that we have discussed
quite thoroughly. Maybe we can cut back on the use of some of this
time. I would simply like to emphasize that while it may generally not
be understood in the Senate, it is not a disgrace to not use the whole
hour on each side on all of these amendments. It is perfectly
acceptable and it is certainly respectable to yield back time so that
we can move ahead on amendments.
Depending on what happens, as you know, we temporarily set aside, in
agreement with the chairman of the committee, so that we could move
ahead. We are not going to have any votes before 8 o'clock. I would
simply suggest that if the two managers of the
[[Page S5169]]
measure before us are ready to yield back this time and set the
amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia up for a vote when
agreed to by the managers of the bill, then we could move to the
amendment of the Senator from Michigan and start debating that.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back time?
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the majority is prepared to yield the
remainder of its time on the amendment of the Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to say one sentence and then
yield the remainder of my time.
The Senate GOP resolution and the Clinton budget both achieve the
same short-term solvency. Dr. June O'Neill has certified that the
Hospital trust fund will be solvent until the year 2005 under the
President's plan.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, now that all time has been yielded, I ask
unanimous consent to lay aside temporarily the Rockefeller amendment
and proceed with the next amendment that I understand under the
agreement would be the one to be offered by the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Amendment No. 3980
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time I would like to offer an
amendment for myself and Senator Domenici.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham), for himself and
Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 3980.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the Appropriate Place in the Bill insert the following:
SEC. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING CHANGES IN THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that, in achieving the
spending levels specified in this resolution--
(1) the public Trustees of medicare have concluded that
``the medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its
present form'';
(2) the President has said his goal is to keep the medicare
hospital insurance trust fund solvent for more than a decade,
but his budget transfers $55 billion of home health spending
from medicare part A to medicare part B;
(3) the transfer of home health spending threatens the
delivery of home health services to 3.5 million Medicare
beneficiaries;
(4) such a transfer increases the burden on general
revenues, including income taxes paid by working Americans,
by $55 billion;
(5) such a transfer artificially inflates the solvency of
the medicare hospital insurance trust fund, misleading the
Congress, medicare beneficiaries, and working taxpayers;
(6) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office has
certified that, without such a transfer, the President's
budget extends the solvency of the hospital insurance trust
fund for only one additional year; and
(7) without misleading transfers, the President's budget
therefore fails to achieve his own stated goal for the
medicare hospital insurance trust fund.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that, in achieving the spending levels specified in this
resolution, the Congress assumes that the Congress would--
(1) keep the medicare hospital insurance trust fund solvent
for more than a decade, as recommended by the President; and
(2) accept the President's proposed level of medicare part
B savings of $44.1 billion over the period 1997 through 2002;
but would
(3) reject the President's proposal to transfer home health
spending from one part of medicare to another, which
threatens the delivery of home health care services to 3.5
million Medicare beneficiaries, artificially inflates the
solvency of the medicare hospital insurance trust fund, and
increases the burden on general revenues, including income
taxes paid by working Americans, by $55 billion.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the amendment that I have sent to the
desk is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment regarding changes in the
Medicare Program. It is certainly in keeping with the sentiments which
have been expressed by both the Senator from Michigan as well as the
current Presiding Officer when he was here on the floor a few minutes
ago.
Just to go through the salient points of the amendment, the
amendment, in achieving the spending levels specified in this
resolution, says that the public trustees of Medicare have concluded
that the Medicare Program is currently unsustainable in its present
form;
Two, the President said that it is his goal to keep the Medicare
hospital trust fund solvent for more than a decade, but his budget
transfers $55 billion of home health care spending from part A to part
B Medicare;
Three, that the transfer of home health spending threatens the
delivery of home health care services to some 3.5 million Medicare
beneficiaries;
Four, that such a transfer increases the burden on general revenues
and income taxes paid by working Americans by $55 billion;
Five, that such a transfer artificially inflates the solvency of the
Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, misleading the Congress,
Medicare beneficiaries, and working taxpayers;
Six, that the Director of the Congressional Budget Office has
certified that without such a transfer, the President's budget extends
the solvency of the hospital insurance trust fund for only 1 additional
year;
And, seven, that without transfers, the President's budget,
therefore, fails to achieve his own stated goal for the Medicare
hospital insurance trust fund.
Therefore, it is our amendment's sense of the Congress that in
achieving the spending levels specified in this resolution, the
Congress assumes that the Congress would keep the Medicare hospital
trust fund solvent for more than a decade as recommended by the
President and accept the President's proposed level of Medicare part B
savings of $44.1 billion over the period 1997 through 2002 but would
reject the President's proposal to transfer home health spending from
one part of Medicare to the another, a transfer which would threaten
the delivery of home health care services to 3.5 million Medicare
beneficiaries.
Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment incorporates much
of what I have been talking about here tonight and much of what we
discussed during our deliberations in the Budget Committee. It is our
goal on the majority side to try to achieve the two objectives that
have been set forth by the President, at least his stated objectives:
One, to make sure with the part A transfer of funds that Medicare
remains solvent for a decade; and, two, achieve savings of
approximately $44 billion in the part B portion of Medicare.
We just do not think that is the way to do this or that it is an
appropriate way to accomplish this objective by transferring vital
services that have been covered by the trust fund into the part B
portion of Medicare, the area that is not covered by the trust fund. We
believe it is essential that the Congress be on record clearly as
stating that.
So, for those reasons, we offer this sense-of-the-Congress amendment
here tonight. We hope that our colleagues will support it. We feel, as
I have been talking for the last hour, and others, the Presiding
Officer as well, that we are headed, with respect to the part A trust
fund, in a direction of insolvency far sooner than anticipated, that,
in fact, with the trust fund now operating at a deficit for the first
time in history, we are waiting for the new projections, but the day of
reckoning is much closer at hand.
We do not think it is appropriate to stand by while the trust fund
moves quickly toward insolvency. We recognize the need to act now, and
act decisively. It is not inappropriate to act decisively by
restraining the growth in the ways we are recommending. We are doing
what is necessary to protect the fund from going bankrupt and making
sure that protection extends for a decade.
Similarly, we accept the President's proposal to try to reduce the
part B expenses in the growth of Medicare by $44 billion under this
budget. We think that is the most appropriate way to address the
Medicare problems at this time. We would strongly urge our colleagues
to reject the previous amendment at the proper time, when we come to
vote, and to instead support our sense-of-the-Congress resolution which
embodies much of what is in our budget as presented to the Senate here
this evening.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
[[Page S5170]]
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in responding, first of all, I say to
my friend from Michigan, this is a resolution of the Congress as
opposed to hard law. This is, I think, something by which the Senator
is trying to express his views.
Just a few moments ago I went through the policy aspects of why this
had all happened. As the Senator from Michigan indicated, before 1980
it was divided between part A and part B, and then I described the
conditions at that time. I described what the Congress did after that
to improve Medicare's home health care benefit--remove the 100-day
limit and the 3-day hospitalization requirement, and, as a result,
financing of all home health care services were shipped into part A.
Then I said, even though part A was never intended to pay for long-term
home health care benefits, and then I went on to say that the
President's proposal restores the financing of the home health care
benefit back to the Congress' original intent.
So much for the policy. I think, frankly, that it is all right to
talk about the politics of this issue.
Mr. President, we did not hear anything about this issue last year. I
guess that is because back then the Republicans were proposing it. In
fact, every single House Republican who voted for last year's
Republican budget voted in favor of a very similar transfer of funding
for home health care. I am talking about the politics because I am
trying to question the underlying meaning of this resolution.
So the Republicans now say that the home health care financing shift
is a shell game. But they have played the game themselves. I have been
talking about the House. The Senate Republicans also voted in favor of
shifting money between part B and part A to improve the solvency of the
hospital trust fund.
In fact, during markup in the Finance Committee, Senator Nickles
offered an amendment which the Republicans adopted that deposited part
B money into part A trust funds to improve the solvency of the part A
trust fund. The only policy behind Senator Nickles' proposal was to
provide political cover, if I may say so, in that they were trying to
hide that they were using Medicare money to pay for tax cuts for the
wealthy, but the public, as I indicated, saw through that aspect of it.
Mr. President, last year, the Republicans said that they wanted the
President to submit a budget that was certified by the CBO as being in
balance after 7 years. The President has done that. In addition, Dr.
June O'Neill, as I said a moment ago, has certified that the
President's plan extends solvency of the trust fund to the year 2005.
So there is no difference. It achieves the same level of solvency but
without the drastic hospital cuts that the Republicans are proposing.
I believe the President's policy has merit. So did the Republicans
last year. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Who yields time?
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be
necessary. I wish to make a few comments about the situation here at
hand.
I want to take people to Nebraska, which is a very typical State in
the Midwest part of our great country. It is very typical from the
standpoint of being a substantial rural State with lots of rural, small
communities and is also typical of the Great Plains States and some of
the other States of the Union.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of my colleague
from West Virginia. I am a cosponsor of that amendment. The Medicare
reductions in this budget are too large and are not required to balance
the budget and extend the life of the Medicare hospital insurance trust
fund through at least the year 2005. I am particularly concerned about
the deep and disproportionate cuts that will be borne by hospitals,
particularly rural hospitals. The Senate Budget Committee said its $170
billion in reductions and spending growth would include a $123 billion
reduction in Medicare part A. This will threaten the quality and the
financial viability of hospitals, particularly the rural and inner-city
hospitals. Previous Republican budgets slowed the rate of growth in
hospital payments, but under this year's plan the Congress may need to
adopt policies that would actually reduce payments, not simply reduce
the rate of increase in these payments. Under any definition, that
represents a true cut in spending. So we will not have to get into all
that argument that we continually get into about what is a cut.
What I am talking about is it appears to me from some of the other
information that I will furnish the Senate during these remarks that
what we are threatened with is a real cut. That means less dollars,
less dollars and cents than last year, and by any definition that is a
cut.
I recently received a letter from Harlan Heald that I will read.
Harlan Heald is an acquaintance of many, many years way back to the
time when I was Governor of Nebraska, and if there is a Mr. Rural
Hospital in Nebraska, it is Mr. Heald. Mr. Heald is President of the
Nebraska Association of Hospital and Health Systems. They are not a
political organization. They are an organization that devotes time,
talent and effort to represent the people who provide hospital services
in rural Nebraska primarily.
According to Mr. Heald's analysis, a reduction of $50 billion would
have a devastating impact on Nebraska hospitals. Mr. Heald writes, and
I quote:
Sixty-five rural hospitals would lose $69.1 million over 7
years and 12 large rural hospitals would lose $100 million.
Thirty out of Nebraska's 65 small rural hospitals would lose
money in providing care.
Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that the full text of Mr.
Heald's letter be placed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks,
after I read that letter, because there are so many interesting factual
and true statements in it, not from a political standpoint but from
what the Republican effort and the Republican bill will do to rural
Nebraska. If it is going to do something to rural Nebraska, it is going
to do it to rural North Dakota and rural South Dakota and rural Kansas,
and rural Oklahoma, and every rural State in the United States of
America.
These are the consequences of the $50 billion reduction over 7 years.
What would be the impact then of a $123 billion reduction over 6 years
that we are now faced with? A loss of this magnitude in a State where
Medicare patients account for 60 to 70 percent of hospital admissions
clearly threatens the health care system on which all of us depend.
Several hospitals in my State are teetering on the brink of insolvency
while we are here talking about the bankruptcy of Medicare.
This latest Republican proposal will very likely drive them over the
edge.
Mr. President, I wish to read from the letter that I have just
referenced. This letter is dated May 14, 1996, addressed to me.
Dear Senator Exon: I have reviewed a summary of the current
fiscal year 1997 House and Senate Budget Committee proposal
with respect to the Medicare Program. On behalf of the 94
acute care hospitals in Nebraska, I wish to call your
attention to a very serious potential problem.
While it appears that the overall Medicare budget
reductions of $158 billion are roughly the same as those in
the last Republican proposal in January, the budget
committees have significantly altered the allocation of
reductions within the program, reducing part A spending by
$123 billion versus the $77.5 billion proposed in January.
We have been told on numerous occasions that the reductions
are not cuts--
This is not in the letter. I just want to add here, how many times
have we heard that here? Back to the letter.
but are reductions in the rate of spending over a 6-year
period. The current budget resolution includes lower budget
reductions in part B of Medicare, while the reductions in
part A have been significantly increased since the January
proposal. The larger Medicare Part A reductions in the
current proposal means hospitals will experience actual
reductions in payments--not merely a reduction in the rate
of payment increase.
We are talking about real cuts here. I am away from the letter. We
are talking about real cuts here, when every time we talk about cuts,
people stand up and say, Oh, only in Washington, DC, is an increase a
cut. I have always said we must legislate to real needs, what the costs
are going to be.
Another editorial comment before I go on with reading this letter
from an expert on the subject in Nebraska, and that, Mr. President, is
simply this: I
[[Page S5171]]
am convinced that the reductions in the amount for real needs that the
Republicans have been espousing are below the projected costs and rises
in health care over the next 6 years.
Putting that another way, what I am saying is that the Republicans
have been saying, ``Oh, well, this is not a cut, this is just a slowing
down of the growth.'' Time and time again that has been used on the
floor of the U.S. Senate. Mr. Heald brings us back to reality by saying
what I indicated when I first started talking on this subject, that
these cuts are not simply a reduction in the growth. They are cuts,
dollars and cents, below what hospitals have received before. Back to
the letter:
Although I have not received enough detail to permit me to
make an analysis of the impact of the proposed reduction in
Medicaid Part A spending, I do have information from an
earlier proposal last fall that looked at Part A reductions
of about $50 billion out of the total reductions over a
seven-year period. Although it is a ``crude'' approximation,
the impact on Nebraska hospitals looks like this:
Sixty-five small rural hospitals would lose an aggregate of
$69.1 million during the seven-year period of 1996 to 2002.
Twelve large rural hospitals would lose a total of $100.4
million, and 11 metropolitan (Lincoln and Omaha) hospitals
would lose $337.4 million, during the seven-year period.
Note--In 1994, 30 hospitals out of Nebraska's 65 small rural
hospitals lost money providing care.
Let me repeat that:
In 1994, 30 hospitals out of Nebraska's 65 small rural
hospitals lost money providing care.
Again, this is based on a Part A reduction of about $50
billion over a 7-year period. I hate to think what these
numbers might resemble under the current proposal with
Medicare Part A targeted for a $123 billion hit.
Reimbursement reductions of this magnitude in a state with
a disproportionate share of the elderly population, a state
in which Medicare patients account for 60 to 70 percent of
hospital admissions, clearly threatens the health care system
upon which all of us depend.
Medicare needs to be fixed. There is an opportunity for
Congress to change Medicare, but the change must be driven by
sound health care policy, not budgetary or political
imperatives. The proposed Medicare reductions would crush
Nebraska hospitals.
As always, Nebraska hospitals look to your leadership.
Mr. President, I also would like to read a letter from the following
groups: The American Association of Eye and Ear Hospitals, the American
Hospital Association, the American Osteopathic Healthcare Association,
the Association of American Medical Colleges, Catholic Health
Association, Federation of American Health Systems, InterHealth,
National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of
Public Hospitals and Health Systems, and Premier. This letter is dated
May 10, and it is addressed by those organizations I just read, to the
Honorable William Roth, chairman, Committee on Finance.
Dear Chairman Roth: The undersigned organizations
representing hospitals and health care systems have reviewed
the Fiscal Year 1997 House and Senate Budget Committee
proposal, particularly with respect to Medicare and Medicaid
programs.
While it appears that the overall Medicare budget
reductions of $167 billion are roughly the same as those in
the Republican offer in January, the Budget Committees have
significantly changed the allocation of reductions within the
program.
The letter goes on and essentially makes the same exact points made
by the letter that I read, by Harlan Heald.
So the professionals know what is going on. We know what is going on
here. I must continue to make the point that Nebraska is not unique in
this. But if you have a hospital, because of the aging population in
rural areas of America in toto, where 60 to 70 percent, and some places
higher, have their beds dedicated to people who are eligible and
receive Medicare, and for many of them that is the only health care
system available to them, and you compare that with a hospital, for
example in Lincoln or Omaha or other more metropolitan areas that have
their patients coming in only about 20 to 25 percent seniors, you
quickly understand that what we are doing here is socking it right
between the eyes of the rural hospitals in the United States of
America.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent both of the letters I have
referenced be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Nebraska Association of
Hospitals and Health Systems,
May 14, 1996.
Hon. J. James Exon,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Exon: I have reviewed a summary of the current
Fiscal Year 1997 (FY '97) House and Senate Budget Committee
proposal with respect to the Medicare program. On behalf of
the 94 acute care hospitals in Nebraska, I wish to call your
attention to a serious potential problem.
While it appears that the overall Medicare budget
reductions of $158 billion are roughly the same as those in
the last Republican proposal in January, the Budget
Committees have significantly altered the allocation of
reductions within the program, reducing Medicare Part A
spending by $123 billion vs. $77.5 billion proposed in
January.
We have been told on numerous occasions that the reductions
are not cuts, but are reductions in the rate of spending over
the six-year period. The current budget resolution includes
lower budget reductions in Part B of Medicare, while the
reductions in Part A have been significantly increased since
the January proposal. The larger Medicare Part A reductions
in the current proposal mean hospitals will experience actual
reductions in payments--not merely a reduction in the rate of
payment increase.
Although I have not received enough detail to permit me to
make an analysis of the impact of the proposed reduction in
Medicare Part A spending, I do have information from an
earlier proposal last fall that looked at Part A reductions
of about $50 billion out of total reductions over a seven-
year period. Although it is a ``crude'' approximation, the
impact on Nebraska hospitals looked like this:
``Sixty-five small rural hospitals would lose an aggregate
of $69.1 million during the seven-year period of 1996 to
2002. Twelve large rural hospitals would lose a total of
$100.4 million, and 11 metropolitan (Lincoln and Omaha)
hospitals would lose $337.4 million during the seven-year
period. Note--In 1994, 30 hospitals out of Nebraska's 65
small rural hospitals lost money providing care.''
Again, this is based upon a Part A reduction of about $50
billion over a seven-year period. I hate to think what these
numbers might resemble under the current proposal with
Medicare Part A targeted for a $123 billion hit.
Reimbursement reductions of this magnitude in a state with
a disproportionate share of the elderly population, a state
in which Medicare patients account for 60 to 70 percent of
hospital admissions, clearly threatens the health care system
upon which all of us depend.
Medicare needs to be fixed. There is an opportunity for
Congress to change Medicare, but the change must be driven by
sound health care policy, not budgetary or political
imperatives. The proposed Medicare reductions would crush
Nebraska hospitals.
As always, Nebraska's hospitals look to your leadership.
Sincerely,
Harlan M. Heald,
President.
____
May 10, 1996.
Hon. William Roth, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Roth: The undersigned organizations
representing hospitals and health systems have reviewed the
Fiscal Year 1997 (FY 97) House and Senate Budget Committee
proposal, particularly with respect to the Medicare and
Medicaid programs.
While it appears that the overall Medicare budget
reductions of $167 billion are roughly the same as those in
the last Republican offer in January, the Budget Committees
have significantly changed the allocation of reductions
within the program. While it is difficult to assess the
overall impact of the budget resolution in the absence of
greater detail, now larger Medicare Part A reductions mean
hospitals are likely to experience actual reductions in
payment rates under the committees' proposal.
The budget resolution now includes lower budget reductions
in Part B of Medicare, while the reductions in Part A have
increased by approximately $25 billion since the January
offer. While the FY 97 budget resolution offers a milder
overall approach to deficit reduction compared to last year's
resolution, its impact on hospitals appears worse. To achieve
reductions of this magnitude, Congress may need to adopt
policies resulting in payment rates per beneficiary that
would be frozen or actually reduced.
We also have serious concerns about the Budget Committees'
Medicaid reductions. We would like to take this opportunity
to reiterate our support for maintaining the entitlement
nature of the Medicaid program to ensure that those who have
coverage today will continue to have coverage tomorrow.
Furthermore, we support maintaining current law provider
assessment restrictions and Boren amendment payment
safeguards. While the overall reductions are somewhat lower
than the January offer, if combined with corresponding state
reductions through lower state matching requirements or new
provider assessments, these reductions could be quite
significant for providers.
Hospitals and health systems support the need to adopt a
reasonable deficit reduction package, and believe that
changes in Medicare are needed to keep the Part A trust fund
solvent. Many of us have supported various proposals that
achieve a balanced budget with reductions in Medicare and
Medicaid.
[[Page S5172]]
However, we are gravely concerned about the level of
reductions proposed by the Budget Committees in these
programs.
We strongly urge you to reconsider both the overall level
of Medicare and Medicaid reductions included in the budget
resolution and, in your capacity as chairman of the
authorizing committee, adjust the allocation between Parts A
and B proposed by the Budget Committees.
American Association of Eye and Ear Hospitals, American
Hospital Association, American Osteopathic Healthcare
Association, Association of American Medical Colleges,
Catholic Health Association, Federation of American
Health Systems, InterHealth, National Association of
Children's Hospitals, National Association of Public
Hospitals and Health Systems, Premier.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I understand at this time we are trying to
reach a unanimous consent agreement to have a vote at 8:30. Is that the
Senator's understanding?
Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes.
Mr. EXON. Go ahead.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur
on or in relation to the Rockefeller amendment, to be followed by a
vote on or in relation to the Abraham amendment, beginning at 8:30 p.m.
this evening, with the first vote being the standard 15-minute vote,
the following vote being limited to 10 minutes in length.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I do not want to object
because the Senator knows I have been waiting for quite a while. I
would like to ask if we could have debate on the Boxer Medicaid
amendment immediately following the vote, so we can get that done.
There are Senators who wish to speak to it. I will be glad to agree to
a reasonable time agreement.
But it is very important to this Senator because this is the time I
can debate. I want to make sure I can get it done tonight.
Mr. EXON. Let me respond to the Senator from my perspective, and I
cannot speak for the majority. We are now considering the Abraham
amendment. We will vote on that. If this unanimous consent request is
agreed to--and if I agree to it, I must say--immediately following
that, we would be up for consideration of an amendment from the
Democratic side. I have indicated to my friend from California that she
would be first up with her amendment.
So I will simply say, after the vote, you would, as far as I am
concerned, be recognized to offer your amendment. If it is possible--
obviously it is not between now and the scheduled vote at 8:30--I would
certainly recommend to Chairman Domenici that we proceed with the order
which would allow you to follow the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I am sure that then there would be a Democratic
amendment; is that part of the agreement, immediately following the
vote on the Abraham amendment?
Mr. ABRAHAM. We have not agreed to that at this point. Let me just
state for the benefit of all our colleagues, it is also my
understanding there is an interest on both sides to proceed at some
point to a vote on the President's budget tonight. I think, as I
understand, the Senator from California would like to have debate on
her amendment tonight, not necessarily a final vote tonight.
So I think we can work out something else: A vote on the President's
budget can take place in a way that would allow those Members who have
other obligations to fulfill them this evening and still accommodate
your desire to have the debate, for the next amendment to be yours. But
I do not think we have worked those two parts out. I think on your side
there is an interest in making both of those things happen. I guess we
just have not proceeded to the point of having that agreement worked
out. This is as far as we were able to, basically, negotiate.
Mrs. BOXER. If my friend will yield, I am reassured by the
conversation of the two managers. I feel comfortable that sometime this
evening--and I am willing to stay here as late as necessary--I will
have an opportunity to do that. With that verbal assurance, I withdraw
my objection.
Mr. EXON. I say to my friend from California, there has been one or
two attempts previously to include what would follow in a unanimous
consent agreement. We have shied away from that and not made that kind
of commitment at all. I suspect we will not be able to at this time.
I simply say that I think there is every likelihood that we may, if
we can break the logjam, get a vote on the President's budget that this
Senator has been trying to accomplish since 11 o'clock this morning.
That may happen before the debate on your amendment, but I think there
is every likelihood that you will have an opportunity to offer your
amendment and engage in a debate, whether that is at 10 o'clock or 1
a.m. tomorrow morning, sometime in that general timeframe.
Mrs. BOXER. I am gratefully reassured. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to get an
indication of how much time has been used on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has used about 39\1/
2\ minutes. That is how much time is remaining in the debate.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Approximately 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has used approximately 20 minutes, and the
Senator from Michigan has used approximately 10 minutes.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I am wondering in light of that--we have Senator Frist
who has been hoping to have a chance to speak to this. There are only
about 5 minutes left. Can we agree to let him finish the debate to the
point that the vote has been agreed to? With that, I yield to the
Senator from Tennessee until the vote is at hand.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for
approximately 6 minutes.
Mr. FRIST. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the sense-of-the-Congress
amendment of the distinguished Senator from Michigan. Just to bring it
back, because we have been traveling a great deal over the last hour,
that particular amendment says that the Congress assumes that Congress
would keep the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund solvent for more
than a decade, as recommended by the President; No. 2, accepts the
President's proposed level of Medicare part B savings; and No. 3 and
most important, what I would like to speak to is reject the President's
proposal to transfer home health spending from one part of Medicare to
another which threatens the delivery of home health care services to
3.5 million Medicare beneficiaries.
Mr. President, it was exactly 13, almost 14, months ago that we all
received the status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs which
was compiled and written by six trustees, three of whom were from
President Clinton's Cabinet. In that, they use very simple words. And,
again, this is 14 months ago. We are waiting for the April edition--it
is a month, a month and a half late now--of this so-called Medicare
trustees' report.
The very first page says:
The Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which pays
inpatient hospital expenses--
Which I should add is part A--
will be able to pay benefits for only about 7 years and is
severely out of financial balance in the long range.
Mr. President, it continues to say that:
The trustees believe prompt, effective and decisive action
is necessary.
Last year, we took that action. We passed in this body a proposal
that would save and preserve Medicare. It was sent to the President of
the United States and it was vetoed.
The Medicare trustees' report basically said this. This is 1995 and
the year 2000. This is bankruptcy on this line. This is the Medicare
part A trust fund. Last year, the report said we would be going
bankrupt in 7 years, the blue line.
What we have found happen over the last 14 months is that things are
much worse than we had even anticipated at the time. Without doing
anything over the last year and a half, in large part because of scare
tactics put on television to scare our senior citizens away from change
which will preserve this program, we now find that Medicare is going to
be going bankrupt almost a year and a half earlier unless we act. It is
1996. We have about 5 years before Medicare goes bankrupt.
That is part A. Medicare part A is hospitals, part B physicians. Part
A is
[[Page S5173]]
going bankrupt much quicker than we ever anticipated. The President's
answer to that is,
Let's take the fastest growing part, the home health care
out of part A and transfer it elsewhere and then we can say
part A is solvent long term and we'll feel good about that.
That is more gimmickry. That is more smoke and mirrors. It is really
deceptive to the American people. We need to make part A truly solvent.
To make it truly solvent, we need to address the real problem. This is
the amount of deficit spending. We began deficit spending last year.
The trustee report said it would be next year. It actually began last
year.
A report from the monthly Treasury statement, the highlight of fiscal
year 1996 through March 31, tells that for the first 6 months of this
year, we are running a $4 billion deficit. We are on our way to
bankruptcy.
Mr. President, the problem that we have today in this transfer of
home health care is this: If we transfer this $55 billion of assets out
of the part A trust fund and put it elsewhere, yes, we can say part A
is solvent for 10 years, but the overall Medicare Program is not, and
unless the overall Medicare Program is solvent, we cannot deliver care
to those 37 million Americans out there. More smoke and mirrors. Let us
say we do not transfer that $55 billion of home health care out, then
what happens to the solvency of the trust fund? You can see that it is
going to go bankrupt between the year 2000 and the year 2001.
Therefore, we must act and we must act decisively.
How do we respond? In the balanced budget resolution proposal which
is before us, we can see that we have solvency out to the year 2006.
This is 1996, 2006, this line is solvency. Current law, if we do
nothing, we are bankrupt in the year 2001.
Under the President's proposal, we extend that 1 year--only 1 year.
That will scare seniors once they know that. We need to look at that
balanced budget proposal, look what we do by opening it up, allowing
some competition, slowing the growth from 10 percent down to 6 percent,
and that is not a cut. We are slowing the growth from 10 to 6.1
percent. We are going to increase spending from $4,800 in 1995 to
$7,000 a year in the year 2002. That is not a cut.
Mr. President, by supporting this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, we
do reject the President's proposal to transfer home health spending.
Why? Because it is more gimmickry, it does not assure long-term
solvency of the Medicare trust funds. I urge all my colleagues to vote
to support this amendment.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3979
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in accordance with the earlier unanimous
consent agreement, at this time I move to table the Rockefeller
amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the motion to lay
on the table the Rockefeller amendment. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Kassebaum
Pryor
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3979) was agreed
to.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the vote to table the Rockefeller
amendment, I supported the budget resolution, which is moderate and
maintains the solvency of Medicare.
Contrary to the argument that there are Medicare cuts, the fact is
that Medicare expenditures increase by an average of 6.1 percent
annually with the following total expenditures each year: 1996, $196
billion; 1997, $209 billion; 1998, $224 billion; 1999, $236 billion;
2000, $249 billion; 2001, $263 billion; 2002, $279 billion.
On the 1996 budget resolution, I voted to increase Medicare
expenditures when the rate of increase was reduced by $268 billion and
there was a tax cut of $245 billion. In this budget resolution, the tax
cut is limited to $122 billion to cover a child tax credit.
I ask unanimous consent that the table on the ``Chairman's Mark
Budget Aggregates'' be printed in the Record together with the
``Medicare Fact Sheet.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
CHAIRMAN'S MARK BUDGET AGGREGATES
[Dollars in billions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-year
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary:
Defense..................................................... 265 265 263 266 269 268 268 1599
Nondefense.................................................. 271 271 264 260 256 250 249 1551
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal discretionary.................................. 536 536 527 526 526 518 516 3150
=======================================================================================
Mandatory:
Social Security............................................. 348 365 383 402 422 444 467 2484
Medicare.................................................... 196 209 224 236 249 263 279 1459
Medicaid.................................................... 96 105 111 117 126 133 139 731
Welfare programs............................................ 85 89 89 102 100 98 106 583
EITC (outlays).............................................. 16 18 18 19 20 20 21 116
Other mandatory............................................. 57 62 82 71 83 84 82 464
Net interest.................................................... 240 242 244 243 240 238 236 1444
=======================================================================================
Total outlays............................................. 1575 1626 1678 1717 1764 1798 1846 10430
[[Page S5174]]
Revenues........................................................ 1431 1471 1532 1600 1675 1755 1846 9879
Resulting deficit/surplus....................................... -147 -155 -146 -117 -89 -43 0 .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. All totals shown on a unified budget basis.
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, 08-May-96
____
Medicare Fact Sheet
The committee-passed resolution
Total medicare spending, 1997-2002: $1.459 trillion.
This is $60 billion more government spending than was in
the BBA, and $103 billion more than in last year's budget
resolution.
Total savings, relative to new CBO baseline: $158 billion.
Part A: Meets the President's test of keeping the part A
trust fund solvent for a decade without gimmicks, which
requires $123 billion of savings (CBO).
Part B: Assumes part B savings equal to the President's
part B savings ($44 billion).
Graduate Medical Education: Assumes $10 billion of
spending.
Total spending growth from 1996 to 2002: 43 percent.
Average growth rate from 1996 to 2002: 6.1%, or more than
two times inflation difference between Committee-passed and
the President's plan: 58 per beneficiary per day per capita
spending--1995: $4,800, 1996: $5,300, 2002: $7,000.
Keeps the Hospital Insurance Trust fund solvent through
2006, without gimmicks, meeting the President's stated goal.
Makes no assumption about the part B premium, but is
consistent with a plan that matches the President's premium
proposal.
The president's plan
Total medicare spending, 1997-2002: $1.526 trillion.
Total savings, as scored by CBO: $116.1 billion.
Total savings claimed by the President: $124 billion.
Average growth rate from 1996 to 2002: 7.2%.
Total growth from 1996 to 2002: 52%.
HI Trust Fund goes bankrupt in 2002, buying only one
additional year of solvency.
Transfer $55 billion of home health spending from part A to
part B, artificially inflating the life of the HI trust fund.
Even with this gimmick, the HI trust fund goes bankrupt in
2005, and the President fails to meet his stated goal of
solvency for a decade.
Basic Facts
Number of beneficiaries, 1996: 37.5 million.
1995 total medicare spending: $180 billion.
1996 medicare spending: $199 billion increase in spending,
net of premiums, from 1995 to 1996: +$19.2 billion (+12%).
This increase in spending from 1995 to 1996 is more than is
spent in 1996 on: elementary, secondary, and vocational
education ($15.5 billion); all justice / crime / law
enforcement spending ($17.5 billion); all spending for
science, space, and technology ($16.5 billion); and
comparable to all spending for natural resources and the
environment ($21.5 billion).
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the next vote is going to
be on the Abraham-Domenici amendment. Have the yeas and nays been
ordered on that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the third
vote in this voting sequence be on or in relation to the Exon amendment
No. 3965, the so-called President's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. So that will follow the Abraham-Domenici. I think that
will be the last vote tonight.
Has this been ordered for 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been ordered for 10 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes on the
Exon amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Exon amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think I should announce that while we
are going to try to stay on after this vote to see what we can do to
negotiate and get some consent----
Mr. MURKOWSKI. We cannot hear you.
Mr. DOMENICI. Perhaps if some of you would not talk so much you could
hear me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Chamber, please.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am not running for anything around here. That is why
you do not pay attention.
Could we have order, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could we have order in the Chamber, please?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are going to convene tomorrow morning
at 9:30. We cannot tell you yet whether there are going to be votes. We
think there will be. Certainly tomorrow we are going to work a long
time trying to get amendments up. If Senators have amendments and can
be here tomorrow, they ought to be here. We are going to use a lot of
time on this budget resolution tomorrow. If we can get an orderly
sequencing of amendments, we might not have to stay here and vote. If
we can just get started in the morning to let us see where we are, but
for now you ought to be here because we may have votes early in the
morning.
Is that a fair statement, Mr. Minority Leader?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Are there additional votes tonight?
Mr. DOMENICI. There are no additional votes tonight--I have already
announced that--after the two remaining ones.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, could I add one thing that I think should be
driven home? If we are going to expedite this process, we are going to
have to have people who are on the list to come and offer their
amendments on Friday, or on Monday and not leave here tonight and
assume that they are home free until sometime on Tuesday because, if we
all do that, then Tuesday is going to be a much worse day than it is
destined to be in any event. So I hope people listened to what Senator
Domenici said and be here tomorrow to offer amendments, and not just
assume, and then everybody flock in here as they usually do at 2:30 on
Tuesday afternoon and say, ``Why can't I have 2 hours on my
amendment?'' It will not be.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I want to repeat what I
said. I have been asked by the majority leader to indicate to all of
you that we are trying to finish this budget resolution Tuesday night.
If that means at 12 o'clock on Wednesday morning at 1 or 2, that is
included in the definition of Tuesday. It may be Wednesday, or Tuesday
morning at 4 a.m. But we are going to try. If you can start offering
amendments tomorrow, we may have an agreement that on Monday there will
not be any votes. If we get a sequencing of amendments where you offer
10 or 15 amendments and offer them on Monday, then we may, indeed, be
able to give some of you the opportunity to not have to be here on
Friday and Monday. But we need cooperation before we do that.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I add one other thing? I ask the
Democrats before they leave here tonight and the Republicans before
they leave here tonight to come to our desks and tell us when you will
be here tomorrow, or want to be here tomorrow, or Monday with regard to
offering your amendments. If you will do that, and we will be working
back and forth as best we can on amendments as we have been, then we
might be able to reach some kind of a agreement that, yes. You want to
be here at 10, maybe not 10, or 10:30, we might be able to get an
orderly process going because otherwise Tuesday is going to be
unbelievably bad.
So please drop by if you can be here on Friday like you are supposed
to be, and tell us when you will be here, and we will be glad to
accommodate you as best we can on timing.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Vote on Amendment No. 3980
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the amendment
offered by the Senator from Michigan.
[[Page S5175]]
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is
necessary absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDENT OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Kassebaum
Pryor
The amendment (No. 3980) was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3965
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the President's fiscal year 1997 budget
builds on the immense economic success of his 1993 budget.
Since the enactment of that historic deficit reduction package, the
Federal deficit has been cut in half--from $290 billion to a projected
$144 billion in 1996, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The
deficit as a share of the economy is down from 4.7 percent in 1992 to
2.3 percent today. Last week CBO projected the 1996 deficit may be even
lower--down to $130 billion.
These favorable reports serve as testament both to the effectiveness
of the 1993 deficit reduction package and a strong Clinton economy.
Actual total deficit reduction achieved by the 1993 budget package is
now estimated by CBO to be approximately $800 billion over 5 years. All
this progress has come from a deficit reduction package that was
enacted without a single Republican vote.
Although most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
predicted the 1993 package would bring about job loss and recession,
economic indicators have improved vastly since the Bush recession.
Unemployment is down from 7.3 percent in January 1993 to 5.4 percent in
April 1996. Inflation has been remarkably low during these times of
sustained economic growth, with the consumer price index increasing
less than 3 percent in each of the last 3 years. Since January 1993,
8.5 million jobs have been created, and more than 90 percent of those
were private sector jobs.
Interest rates--responding to sound fiscal policies--have fallen well
below the levels of 3 years ago, with the 30-year average rate dropping
from 7.67 percent in 1992 to about 7 percent today. Business investment
in equipment is up 11 percent per year in real dollars since the fourth
quarter of 1992. And corporate profits are up to a 13-percent annual
rate since fourth quarter of 1992.
The economy is strong. But the new Clinton budget is sensitive to the
underlying anxiety and apprehension of America's working families. This
budget secures the integrity of the Medicare trust fund through 2005,
and it does so without ravaging Medicare. In contrast, the Republican
budget cuts $50 billion more.
The President's budget maintains guaranteed health care for nursing
home seniors and poor children under Medicaid. In contrast, the
Republican budget could cut as much as $250 billion in Medicaid.
The President's budget maintains America's investment in education
and job training--Head Start, Basic Education Assistance (title 1), and
Job Training for Dislocated Workers. In contrast, the Republican budget
cuts $60 billion from these priorities.
The President's budget does not raise taxes on working Americans. In
contrast, the Republican budget cuts $20 billion from the earned income
tax Credit, raising taxes on 6 to 10 million hard-pressed working
families.
The President's budget protects the environment. In contrast, the
Republican budget cuts EPA operating programs by 11 percent in 1997 and
by 23 percent in 2002.
The President's budget does not offer tax breaks for the rich at the
expense of Medicare and education. In contrast, and contrary to the
representations made by some of my colleagues, the Republican budget
provides $180 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans over
the next 6 years.
Mr. President, the President's budget would balance the budget by
2002 using CBO economic assumptions. But, unlike the Republican budget,
it would balance the budget without abandoning America's priorities. It
would preserve paycheck security, health security, and retirement
security for America's working people.
The spending cuts in the President's budget are significant, yet they
are made in the right places. The President's budget would achieve more
than $600 billion in spending cuts by 2002. It would reduce the size of
the Federal Government work force by 200,000, making it the smallest it
has been in 30 years.
Finally, the President's budget would provide targeted tax relief for
working families and for families trying to send their children to
college.
The bottom line, Mr. President, is that the President's budget is a
budget that reflects the priorities of the American people. In
contrast, the Republican budget is the same extreme proposal the
American people rejected last year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 3965,
as amended, offered by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon]. The yeas
and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--53
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Kassebaum
Pryor
The amendment (No. 3965), as amended, was rejected.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
[[Page S5176]]
amendment was rejected, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________