[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 70 (Friday, May 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5216-S5265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 57. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 57) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal years 
     1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.

       Pending:
       Boxer amendment No. 3982, to preserve, protect, and 
     strengthen the Medicaid Program by controlling costs, 
     providing State flexibility, and restoring critical standards 
     and protections, including coverage for all populations 
     covered under current law, to restore $18 billion in 
     excessive cuts, offset by corporate and business tax reforms, 
     and to express the sense of the Senate regarding certain 
     Medicaid reforms.
       Wyden/Kerry Amendment No. 3984, to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding revenue assumptions.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Wyden 
amendment of last night be set aside so that we can proceed to the next 
amendment, the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 3985

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on tax deductibility of 
       higher education tuition and student loan interest costs)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, and Senator Biden of 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3985.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TAX RELIEF PRIORITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that:--
       (1) the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1997 (S. Con. Res. 57) calls for $122 billion in net tax 
     reductions through 2002;
       (2) the Committee Report accompanying the 1997 concurrent 
     resolution (Senate Report 104-271) states, ``The Committee's 
     recommendation would accommodate further tax reform or tax 
     reductions to be offset by the extension of expired tax 
     provisions or corporate and business tax reforms. Should the 
     tax writing committees choose to raise additional revenues 
     through these or other sources, such receipts could be used 
     to offset other tax reform proposals such as estate tax 
     reform, economic growth, fuel excise taxes or other policies 
     on a deficit neutral basis'';
       (3) the tax reductions passed in conjunction with the 
     fiscal 1996 budget (H.R. 2491) included tax breaks which 
     would disproportionately benefit the wealthy and large 
     corporations, such as, reductions in the capital gains tax, 
     exemptions from the alternative minimum tax, reduced tax 
     penalties for corporate raiding of employee pensions, and 
     increased tax incentives for corporations to move jobs 
     overseas; and
       (4) over the last decade, the cost of attending college has 
     almost doubled, rising at twice the rate of inflation.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--The assumptions underlying the 
     reconciliation instructions in this budget resolution assume 
     that it is the sense of the Senate that any tax revenue 
     raised by the Finance Committee to provide gross tax * * * 
     the amount needed to pay for a per-child tax credit will be 
     used either:
       (1) to finance a tax deduction of $10,000 per year for 
     higher education tuition and student loan interest costs; or
       (2) to reduce the federal budget deficit;

     and not for tax cuts which disproportionately benefit the 
     wealthy and large corporations.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, what this amendment essentially says is that if there 
are to be any further tax cuts beyond tax credits for children and 
families, these cuts must take the form of a tax deduction of up to 
$10,000 per year for higher education tuition payments or student loan 
interest payments.
  The report of the Senate Budget Committee allows for additional tax 
cuts beyond tax credits for children and families. These additional tax 
cuts are bound to flow disproportionately to high-income wealthy 
people. I believe that we should, instead, focus our efforts where they 
ought to be--on tax relief to enable families to afford higher 
education. That is what this amendment that my colleagues and I are 
introducing on this side of the aisle would do. It is expected that 
this education tax cut would finance a $10,000-per-year tax deduction 
for higher education tuition and for student loan interest costs.
  Mr. President, on April 29, 1996, the front cover of Newsweek states 
in bold terms:

       $1,000 a Week--The Scary Cost of College

  This cover story addresses the fact that some colleges in this 
country cost their students $1,000 per week of school. That is what a 
family today in America is faced with.
  Mr. President, according to the College Board, tuition costs have 
gone up more than 40 percent since 1985. Expressed in constant 1994 
dollars, in 1985, tuition at the average private college was $10,058. 
By 1994, it was $14,486--a 44-percent increase. The average public 
college tuition was $2,095 in 1985. By 1994, it was $2,948--a 41-
percent increase.
  If you look at this next chart, what you can see is that over the 
years, since 1980, family income has risen only half as fast as 
skyrocketing medical costs; but even more than medical costs, what we 
see is a dramatic increase in private college tuition and public 
college tuition.
  There is an economic squeeze for working families in America. 
Affordable higher education is at the very top of the list of 
priorities for families in our country. The first thing we should do as 
public servants is respond to these families.
  Mr. President, as this next chart shows, in my State of Minnesota, 
from 1981 to 1992, the CPI has gone up 60 percent; the medical care 
subindex has gone up 133 percent; community college tuition has gone up 
151 percent; the University of Minnesota tuition has gone up 153 
percent; State university tuition has gone up 204 percent; and 
technical college tuition has gone up 316 percent.
  I spend a lot of time in schools in my State. I can tell you, Mr. 
President, it is not at all uncommon to meet students who are taking 6 
or 7 years to graduate because they are working two and three minimum 
wage jobs to get through. It is not at all uncommon to meet many 
students who are in their thirties and forties, going back to school at 
community colleges, who are trying to get back on their own two feet 
and are having a very difficult time making ends meet.
  It is not uncommon to meet students who sell plasma at the beginning 
of the semester to buy textbooks. Mr. President, when we talk about 
higher education, we are talking about a major economic issue for 
families in Minnesota and all across the country.
  As we see in this next chart, if we look at the last 15 years, we see 
that median family income has gone up 5 percent. However, tuition at a 
public 4-year institution has gone up 98 percent, and tuition at a 
private 4-year institution has gone up 89 percent. If we want to 
respond to working families in our country, then we need to make sure 
that no additional tax cuts flow to wealthy or high-income people 
before we make higher education affordable for everyone. That is why 
this amendment says that it is the sense of the Senate that whatever is 
left over by way of tax cuts goes to education.
  Now I want to talk about student loans. Look at this chart. This is 
really rather amazing. What we see here is that, in the 1974-75 school 
year, grants made up 80 percent of an average student aid package. 
Twenty years later, in the 1994-5 school year, grants make up only 20 
percent of student aid. In 1974-5, only 20 percent of a student's 
financial package was loans--and now loans are up to 80 percent.
  So tuition and costs have skyrocketed beyond the means of most

[[Page S5217]]

families in Minnesota and in our country. And student aid has gone down 
in real terms, with loans replacing grants in greater proportion. In 
the meantime, real family income is not going up--in fact, many 
families over the last 20 years are just standing still, barely able to 
make ends meet. This is happening, even though we all know, and 
families know, that higher education is the most important factor in 
determining whether or not our sons and daughters and grandchildren 
will be able to make a good living in the future.
  It is not uncommon, I say to my colleagues, as someone who spent over 
20 years in higher education, to find students graduating from school 
with debts ranging from $20,000-$30,000 to $60,000. This 
disproportionately affects those with lower and middle incomes. This 
next chart expresses what we mean when we talk about a ``declining 
standard of living'' for the bottom 60 percent of the population, or 
what we mean when we talk about the economic squeeze of the middle 
class, of working families in America. Here we see real family income 
from 1979 to 1993, looking at it by quintile: The top 20 percent of 
families saw their incomes go up 18 percent, the next 20 percent up 5 
percent, the middle 20 percent down 3 percent, the next 20 percent down 
7 percent, and the bottom 20 percent down 15 percent.
  This amendment is a reasonable proposition. I hope there are 100 
votes for this amendment.
  This next chart is rather amazing, and gives you a sense of the 
prohibitive cost of higher education. If you were to send your son or 
daughter to a public college and you started saving 17 years in 
advance, you would have to put away $234 a month. $234 a month. If you 
planned 5 years in advance, it would be $765 a month.
  If you want to send your child to a private college, and you start 
saving 17 years in advance--and that is pretty good advance planning, 
starting at the time of birth of your son and daughter--you would have 
to put away $489 per month. If you waited until your child was in 
junior high, 5 years before starting college, which is still pretty 
impressive advanced planning, you would have to put away $1,599 per 
month to be able to afford private higher education. Almost $1,600. And 
this is after you pay your mortgage, after you buy your groceries, 
after you clothe your children, and after you save for your own 
retirement.

  I suggest to you, Mr. President, and I suggest to my colleagues, that 
the vast, vast, vast, vast--I said that four times--majority of 
families in our country, whether it be Minnesota or Wyoming or South 
Carolina, you name it, cannot afford to put this kind of money into 
savings, as much as all of us want our sons and daughters and 
grandchildren to do well.
  So, Mr. President, what this amendment says, in a nutshell, is that 
if we as Senators want to respond to the concerns of working families 
in our States, if we want to respond to the concern that parents have 
that their children be able to do well--and we know there is a huge gap 
between employment earnings of those who graduate from college versus 
those who are not able to do so--if we want to provide some relief to 
working families, to middle-income families, if we want to make sure 
that every woman and every man--some of them not so young, because we 
are talking about community colleges as well--has the opportunity for 
higher education, then what we have to make sure is that when we talk 
about tax cuts, anything beyond tax credits for children and families 
will go toward a $10,000 tax deduction that families can use to pay for 
tuition and to pay for the interest on their loans.
  This is what I would call an eminently reasonable amendment. I think, 
from the point of view of my State, from the point of view of the State 
of Massachusetts or Washington or other States represented here, there 
is probably no more important priority for families than to make sure 
that men and women, women and men, are able to afford higher education. 
I have spent a lot of time on campuses, and I can assure my 
colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--that this is a hugely 
important issue to the people we represent.
  I cannot think of an amendment I brought to the floor of the Senate 
that has more importance in terms of how it affects families all across 
our country, and I hope there will be very, very strong support for 
this amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the concept of a tax deduction for college tuition costs. 
The amendment we are considering today specifies--that it is the sense 
of the Senate--that if there is any tax revenue raised by the Finance 
Committee beyond what is needed to pay for a per-child tax credit, it 
should be used to either finance a tax deduction of $10,000 per year 
for higher education tuition and student loan interest costs, or to 
reduce the federal deficit. While I am not comfortable with some of the 
language of the amendment, which appears to preclude tax cuts in any 
other form this year, I share the sponsors belief that a tax break for 
the costs of higher education should be among our highest priorities 
when discussing tax changes in the 1997 Federal budget.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill that was introduced by Senator 
Daschle in January, 1995 that would make working families with annual 
incomes under $100,000 eligible for a tax deduction of as much as 
$10,000. This legislation, which is based on a proposal made by 
President Clinton, is a commonsense approach. It is well targeted to 
ease an already crushing and still rapidly growing financial burden on 
many hard-working families who are struggling to get by today.
  Mr. President, we all know that the American people are anxious about 
their economic future. They are worried about the security of their 
jobs and about their ability to take care of their families. As any 
parent with children in college or children approaching their college 
years can tell you, nothing compounds these anxieties like the 
spiraling costs of higher education. For many average working families, 
there is a real fear that they will not be able to afford to send their 
children to college, or that doing so will break them financially.
  The basis for this fear is all too real. According to the College 
Board, the average yearly cost in 1994 for an undergraduate attending a 
private university was $19,561, which is 94 percent higher than the 
same cost 10 years ago. The average yearly cost for a public 
university, $6,862 is up 76 percent over the same period.
  It's no wonder then that many middle class families are being priced 
out of the higher education market. The establishment of a tuition tax 
deduction along the lines of what we are proposing, in combination with 
student loans and grants, would help many families keep pace with these 
rising costs. It would accomplish that goal without creating any new 
bureaucracy or burdensome regulations, and would leave it to families 
to decide how to maximize the benefit of the deduction.
  Best of all, it would help our children get the tools they need to 
find and hold on to good jobs. In today's economy, and even more so in 
the future, that means a college education.
  There is no more sound predictor of economic success than a 4-year 
degree. Consider this example: a male college graduate earns on average 
83 percent more than a man with only a high school diploma. A similar 
disparity exists for women with different levels of education.
  We must also remember that many of the young minds that we stimulate 
today will be the engineers, inventors, business leaders and skilled 
workers who stimulate the economy and create the jobs of tomorrow. As 
one parent, wrote to me, ``Without the intellectual curiosity and the 
understanding of the world about us that a college education affords, 
along with the knowledge and the skills in some specific area, we would 
not develop the minds of those people in our country who are able to 
come up with the ideas and develop businesses that create jobs.''
  Congress has an opportunity to respond to the fears of the American 
people about the financial costs of higher education and to their hopes 
about their children's futures. This tax deduction proposal is an 
important step toward reaching those goals, and I think it sends a 
strong message to the American people that we in Washington are 
listening.
  Congress should heed the calls of hard-working middle class families 
who want their Government to value education. This idea makes a world 
of sense, and hopefully it will soon help

[[Page S5218]]

make us a nation of greater knowledge and prosperity.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican budget has many flaws, but 
its worst flaw is its deviousness. Last year's Republican budget was a 
naked assault on Medicare, education, and the environment. This year's 
budget simply puts a figleaf on the same obnoxious priorities. 
Obviously our Republican friends learned the wrong lesson from last 
year's debate. Instead of changing their priorities, they've concealed 
them.
  Education is a prime example. They cut 20 percent over the next 6 
years--and falsely call it a freeze of current spending. The 
devastating cuts in title I, Pell grants, and Head Start are not even 
mentioned.
  In the area of taxes, the Republicans boast that their budget 
provides maximum flexibility for tax legislation this year. As we 
learned last year maximum flexibility is a code phrase for capital 
gains tax cuts and other tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals and 
corporations in the Nation.
  Senator Wellstone has offered an amendment specifying that the first 
priority for any tax cut beyond the tax credit for children should be a 
tax deduction of $10,000 a year for college tuition and interest on 
student loans. Otherwise, available savings should be used for deficit 
reduction.
  Tax relief is vital to keep college within reach for students and 
working families. Higher education is no longer a luxury for the few. 
It is a necessity for participation in the modern economy. According to 
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 60 percent of all jobs created 
between 1992 and 2005 will require education beyond high school.
  But rising college costs and heavy college loan burdens threaten to 
put college out of reach for many students and working families. That 
is why tuition tax relief is so important. President Clinton's proposal 
would allow a tax deduction of up to $10,000 a year for college tuition 
costs, and restore the deduction for interest on student loans.
  For a family earning $50,000 a year, this relief would mean a 
reduction of $1,500 in their tax burden. Students paying back their 
student loans would be able to deduct the interest on their loans, just 
as homeowners deduct the interest on their mortgage. Students had this 
benefit until 1986, and it is time to restore it.
  We know from experience that education is an investment that will 
more than pay for itself for students and the Government. Under the GI 
bill, every dollar invested in college aid produced $8 in economic 
returns. The additional taxes paid by GI bill graduates during their 
working lives have more than paid for the cost of the program.
  Education and skills are the key to higher wages for American workers 
in the global economy. Economist Paul Krugman writes,

       We are living through one of those difficult periods in 
     which technological progress, instead of producing broadly 
     shared economic gains, steadily widens the gap between those 
     who have the right skills and those who do not.

  The education gap has been steadily growing. From 1969 to 1989, the 
real income of college-educated heads of households between the ages of 
25 and 54 rose by 22 percent. But in that same period, the income of 
heads of households without a college education increased by only 1 
percent.
  The average high school graduate in 1992 earns $6,000 more than a 
high school dropout. The average college graduate earns $14,000 more 
than a person with only a high school diploma.
  At the same time, the cost of college is increasing at more than 
twice the rate of inflation. The April 29 Newsweek cover story said it 
all. When elite colleges cost $1,000 a week to attend, paying for 
college is truly scary.
  Tuitions have risen in public colleges as well. At the University of 
Massachusetts, tuition and fees have more than doubled over the past 
eight years, from $2,200 in 1988 to $4,560 in 1996, in order to 
compensate for declining State support.
  To make matters worse for students squeezed by increased college 
costs, the value of Federal student aid has declined drastically, and 
has shifted from grants to loans. In 1975, 80 percent of Federal 
student aid came in the form of grants. Now 80 percent of student aid 
comes in the form of loans.
  Borrowing to cover costs has skyrocketed. In 1994, the average 
student loan debt was $12,520. By 1998, the average debt will reach 
$21,000. Over the last 8 years, borrowing in the Federal student loan 
program has more than doubled.
  The growing cost of a college education has become a heavy burden on 
families across the country. But they know that it is still the best 
investment they can make in their children's future. We must do more to 
help ease that burden. I urge my colleagues to support the Wellstone 
amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by 
the junior Senator of Minnesota to use the Tax Code creatively to help 
families afford higher education. While Republicans are cutting Pell 
grants and student loans for average working families, Democrats 
propose to give every family a $10,000 maximum deduction for tuition 
costs, and allow their sons or daughters who take out student loans to 
deduct the interest on those loans so the burden of debt they carry 
when they graduate will not be so great as it otherwise would be.
  These proposals are real-life solutions to real-life family problems. 
How can we say that people should go to college--everyone should 
receive the training they need--and then make it as difficult as we can 
to do it? We need to make it easier for Americans to afford the 
education and training they need to compete in a new global 
marketplace.
  The costs of college are rising rapidly. This year, the average 
undergraduate will pay up to 6 percent more than last year for tuition 
and fees at both 4-year and 2-year colleges. Parents putting children 
through college, adults returning to school, and graduates with student 
loan payments are all facing these costs.
  This tax deduction is targeted to middle-income families, to help 
ordinary Americans meet the costs of higher education. A full tax 
deduction would be available to two-income families earning up to 
$100,000, and single individuals earning up to $70,000. These tax 
deductions could be used for educational expenses at 4-year colleges 
and universities, community colleges, and vocational and professional 
schools. This amendment would help 16.5 million students across the 
country better afford the costs of higher education.
  This is in contrast to the Republican budget which caps the Federal 
direct student loan program at 20 percent of loan volume. This will 
result in disruptions for colleges and universities and real problems 
and uncertainty for students. Since schools participating in the direct 
loan program currently handle nearly 40 percent of loan volume, many 
will be forced out of the program. But the real reason Republicans are 
trying to mangle this successful program is to help assure banks and 
guarantee agencies continued access to Federal subsidies.
  Under the current Tax Code, although education expenses related to 
one's current job are tax deductible, education investments to prepare 
for new jobs and careers are not. This amendment would address this 
discrepancy.
  But beyond helping families pay for tuition costs, I want to help 
parents get the lifetime education and training they will need to 
compete. Investment in higher education is crucial to making sure that 
Americans are able to meet the challenges of jobs which require 
advanced skills. Statistics show that the more education a person has, 
the more money he or she will earn. We need to provide access to 
higher-paying jobs for students from all families, and this is an 
important step in that direction.
  Mr. President, in 1995 President Clinton proposed a deduction for 
tuition expenses. I was proud to support his proposal, but I did not 
believe it went far enough. I have heard from dozens, indeed hundreds, 
of Massachusetts students or the families of those students, about the 
difficulties they are experiencing in paying back the loans they have 
taken out in order to be able to afford post-high school education. 
Before the Senate Democratic leadership introduced the President's 
proposal, I urged that they expand the proposal to provide tax 
deductibility of interest paid on outstanding student loans, and they 
agreed that such a provision would be desirable and would offer real

[[Page S5219]]

and important help to Americans who are seeking to improve their 
educational levels and their competitiveness as workers; the leadership 
group added tax deductibility of loan interest payments before they 
introduced the measure. I am pleased that the amendment we are debating 
today contains both these key features that will enable deduction from 
income taxes of both tuition and student loan interest payments.
  This is a solid amendment, Mr. President, which will help Americans 
to help themselves. I compliment the Senator from Minnesota for 
developing the amendment, the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and 
his staff who have labored diligently to produce the Democratic 
leadership amendments and prepare them for floor action, and all other 
Senators who have been involved in assembling this amendment and 
bringing it to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment, which takes a very significant step toward helping the 16.5 
million students in colleges and universities to afford the education 
they need.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, while I have the floor, in very short 
order, I want to also send a few other amendments to the desk. First of 
all, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the existing amendment for a 
moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3986

   (Purpose: To ensure that funds are provided for the hiring of new 
  police under the Community Oriented Policing Service in fiscal year 
                                 1997)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk. 
This amendment is to ensure that full funds are provided for the hiring 
of new police under the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) 
Program in fiscal year 1997. I see on the floor my colleague from 
Massachusetts, who has been a real leader on this issue. I can say, 
speaking just for the State of Minnesota, that police chiefs and 
sheriffs and the law enforcement community have done an extremely 
effective job in taking this program and dealing with issues of 
domestic violence. COPS has led to a lot of concentrated work with 
young people, a lot of concentrated work in neighborhoods that have 
high levels of violence.
  I cannot think of a more important program, and that is why this 
amendment makes certain that this budget resolution provides for COPS 
to be fully funded. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3986.

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

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT FUNDS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO 
                   HIRE NEW POLICE OFFICERS.

       (a) It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the function totals and reconciliation 
     instructions in this budget resolution assume: (1) full 
     funding of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund; and (2) 
     that sufficient funds will be made available for Public 
     Safety and Community Policing grants to reach the goals of 
     Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994 (Public Law 103-266).

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
John Kerry be listed as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3987

(Purpose: To prevent Congress from enacting legislation that increases 
           the number of children who are hungry or homeless)

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3987.

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

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec.   . Sense of the Senate.--(a) It is the sense of the 
     Senate that the assumptions in this budget resolution assume 
     that Congress will not enact or adopt any legislation that 
     would increase the number of children who are hungry or 
     homeless.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the assumptions in 
     this budget resolution assume that in the event legislation 
     enacted to comply with this resolution results in an increase 
     in the number of hungry or homeless children by the end of 
     fiscal year 1997, the Congress would revisit the provisions 
     of said legislation which caused such increase and would, as 
     soon as practicable thereafter, adopt legislation which would 
     halt any continuation of such increase.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment simply says that the 
Senate will not enact any legislation that will increase the number of 
children who are hungry or homeless. And it also says that if, in fact, 
legislation passed by Congress does increase the number of homeless or 
hungry children by the end of fiscal year 1997, the Congress will 
revisit the provisions of the legislation which causes the increase and 
would, as soon as possible, adopt legislation to stop the increase.
  Mr. President, I have brought this amendment to the floor of the 
Senate before. It was defeated twice, believe it or not. It was then 
passed on voice vote. I deeply regret that I let it pass on a voice 
vote. I want to have a recorded vote on this because I believe, as a 
matter of fact, some of the decisions we are making, in terms of some 
of the cuts we are making, will create more hunger and homelessness 
among children, and I want all of us to be held accountable.


                           Amendment No. 3988

     (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to 
 maintaining current expenditure levels for the Low Income Home Energy 
           Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for fiscal year 1997)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this 
amendment be set aside, and I send another amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] for himself, Mr. 
     Kohl, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
     Levin and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 3988.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LIHEAP.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) home energy assistance for working and low-income 
     families with children, the elderly on fixed incomes, the 
     disabled, and others who need such aid is a critical part of 
     the social safety net in cold-weather areas during the 
     winter, and a source of necessary cooling aid during the 
     summer;
       (2) LIHEAP is a highly targeted, cost-effective way to help 
     millions of low-income Americans pay their home energy bills. 
     More than two-thirds of LIHEAP-eligible households have 
     annual incomes of less than $8,000, more than one-half have 
     annual incomes below $6,000.
       (3) LIHEAP funding has been substantially reduced in recent 
     years, and cannot sustain further spending cuts if the 
     program is to remain a viable means of meeting the home-
     heating and other energy-related needs of low-income 
     families, especially those in cold-weather States;
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--The assumptions underlying this 
     budget resolution assume that it is the sense of the Senate 
     that the funds made available for LIHEAP for fiscal year 1997 
     will be not less than the actual expenditures made for LIHEAP 
     in fiscal year 1996.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. 
What this amendment says is that we should sustain the same level of 
funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This has 
been a huge battle. I do not know that there has been an issue that I 
have worked harder on, and I cannot believe that every single time this 
comes up, we have to fight so hard to make sure that people do not go 
cold in the United States of America.
  So I want to get a strong affirmative vote on this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set 
aside.

[[Page S5220]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3989

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this next amendment that I am about to 
send to the desk I send on behalf of myself, Senator Murray and Senator 
Wyden. It says that it is the sense of the Senate that no welfare 
reform provision should be enacted by Congress unless until Congress 
considers whether such welfare reform provisions would exacerbate 
violence against women and their children, further endanger women's 
lives, make it more difficult for women to escape domestic violence, or 
further punish women victimized by violence. Any welfare reform measure 
enacted by the Congress should require that any welfare-to-work 
education or job placement programs being implemented by States address 
this impact of domestic violence on welfare recipients.
  One word of explanation, Mr. President. We have some fairly dramatic 
data that shows, in many cases, as many as 50 percent of women on 
welfare or in workfare programs have been or are victims of domestic 
violence. They have been battered.
  I suggest to my colleagues that any welfare reform provision that we 
enact must take into account these circumstances. It cannot be ``one 
size fits all.'' It took Monica Seles 2 years to play tennis again. 
Imagine what it is like for a woman and her children who have been 
beaten over and over and over again.
  We cannot pass a piece of legislation without any special allowance 
for these families that have gone through this violence, because we 
must not force these women and children back into very dangerous homes. 
That is what this amendment says.
  This Congress and this country have become much more focused, thank 
goodness, on the problems of domestic violence. When we consider 
welfare reform, we must take this interest into account.
  I repeat this. You cannot force a mother and her children, even if 
she is low income, back into a dangerous home where she could end up 
being murdered.
  I will repeat that once more. We cannot pass legislation without 
taking into allowance the problems of domestic violence, the problems 
of women who have been battered, the problems of children who have been 
battered. We cannot pass this legislation without understanding that 
one size does not fit all, because if we do, in the case of many 
families--and in the relatively short period of time I have next week, 
I will have some data to bring out--we will force many women and 
children back into dangerous homes. We are going to force many women 
and children into situations where they could lose their lives.
  Mr. President, that is not melodramatic, that is the case. So I hope 
there will be overwhelming support for this amendment.
  Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mrs. Murray and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3989.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At an appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec.   . Sense of the Senate.--The assumptions underlying 
     functional totals and reconciliation instructions in this 
     budget resolution include:
       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that:
       (1) Violence against women is the leading cause of physical 
     injury to women. The Department of Justice estimates that 
     over 1 million violent crimes against women are committed by 
     domestic partners annually.
       (2) Domestic violence dramatically affects the victim's 
     ability to participate in the workforce. A University of 
     Minnesota survey reported that one-quarter of battered women 
     surveyed had lost a job partly because of being abused and 
     that over half of these women had been harassed by their 
     abuser at work.
       (3) Domestic violence is often intensified as women seek to 
     gain economic independence through attending school or job 
     training programs. Batterers have been reported to prevent 
     women from attending such programs or sabotage their efforts 
     at self-improvement.
       (4) Nationwide surveys of service providers prepared by the 
     Taylor Institute of Chicago, document, for the first time, 
     the interrelationship between domestic violence and welfare 
     by showing that between 50 and 80 percent of women in welfare 
     to work programs are current or past victims of domestic 
     violence.
       (5) The American Psychiological Association has reported 
     that violence against women is actually witnessed by their 
     children, who as a result can suffer severe psychological, 
     cognitive, and physical damage and some studies have found 
     that children who witness violence in their homes have a 
     greater propensity to commit violent acts in their homes and 
     communities when they become adults.
       (6) Over half of the women surveyed by the Taylor Institute 
     stayed with their batterers because they lacked the resources 
     to support themselves and their children. The surveys also 
     found that the availability of economic support is a critical 
     factor in women's ability to leave abusive situations that 
     threaten themselves and their children.
       (7) Proposals to restructure the welfare programs may 
     impact the availability of the economic support and the 
     safety net necessary to enable poor women to flee abuse 
     without risking homelessness and starvation for their 
     families.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that:
       (1) No welfare reform provision should be enacted by 
     Congress unless and until Congress considers whether such 
     welfare reform provisions would exacerbate violence against 
     women and their children, further endanger women's lives, 
     make it more difficult for women to escape domestic violence 
     or further punish women victimized by violence.
       (2) Any welfare reform measure enacted by Congress should 
     require that any welfare to work, education, or job placement 
     programs implemented by the States address the impact of 
     domestic violence on welfare recipients.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous-consent that we go back to the higher 
education tuition tax deduction amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the last unanimous-
consent request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, simply, on behalf of the manager, I want 
to make it clear that the majority has not yielded back time on the 
Wellstone amendments, nor have we given up the right to second-degree 
these amendments.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I inquire what the order is at this point 
in time, if there is an order, and, if there is not, I want to keep the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this point, Senators are obtaining 
unanimous consent to set aside previous amendments.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was originally scheduled to go at a later 
time. Because we were fogged in, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed with two amendments, which I was going to do 
later, at this moment in time and reserve such time on those amendments 
as is set aside for other colleagues on our side to be able to speak at 
a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I will be introducing two amendments on behalf of the 
leadership, one with respect to the environment and one with respect to 
education. I am joined on the education amendment by the distinguished 
Senator from Washington, Senator Murray. I will just proceed very 
rapidly on the environment one in order to dispose of it, and then we 
will spend a few minutes on the education one.


                           Amendment No. 3990

(Purpose: To help protect the quality of our water and air, to clean up 
toxic waste, to protect our national parks and other natural resources, 
and to ensure adequate enforcement of environmental laws, by restoring 
proposed cuts in the environment and natural resources, to be offset by 
 the extension of expired tax provisions or corporate and business tax 
                                reforms)

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S5221]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, and 
     Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 3990.

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

       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $439,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $790,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $1,025,000,000.
       On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $1,195,000,000.
       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $1,342,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $1,495,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $439,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $790,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $1,025,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $1,195,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $1,342,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $1,495,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $701,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $1,036,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $1,169,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $1,398,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1,674,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $439,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $790,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $1,025,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $1,195,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $1,342,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,495,000,000.
       On page 15, line 16, increase the amount by $701,000,000.
       On page 15, line 17, increase the amount by $439,000,000.
       On page 15, line 24, increase the amount by $1,036,000,000.
       On page 15, line 25, increase the amount by $790,000,000.
       On page 16, line 7, increase the amount by $1,169,000,000.
       On page 16, line 8, increase the amount by $1,025,000,000.
       On page 16, line 15, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 16, line 16, increase the amount by $1,195,000,000.
       On page 16, line 23, increase the amount by $1,398,000,000.
       On page 16, line 24, increase the amount by $1,342,000,000.
       On page 17, line 7, increase the amount by $1,674,000,000.
       On page 17, line 8, increase the amount by $1,495,000,000.
       On page 52, line 14, increase the amount by $701,000,000.
       On page 52, line 15, increase the amount by $439,000,000.
       On page 52, line 21, increase the amount by $1,036,000,000.
       On page 52, line 22, increase the amount by $790,000,000.
       On page 52, line 24, increase the amount by $1,169,000,000.
       On page 52, line 25, increase the amount by $1,025,000,000.
       On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 53, line 3, increase the amount by $1,195,000,000.
       On page 53, line 5, increase the amount by $1,398,000,000.
       On page 53, line 6, increase the amount by $1,342,000,000.
       On page 53, line 8, increase the amount by $1,674,000,000.
       On page 53, line 9, increase the amount by $1,495,000,000.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is an amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, Mikulski, Daschle, Baucus, Lieberman, 
Leahy, Dodd, Kennedy, and Graham of Florida. I want to particularly 
thank the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, for his 
persistent, continued leadership in this particular area and his 
efforts in committee to try to guarantee that we had adequate funding 
with respect to the environmental policy for this country.
  I regret enormously that this amendment to restore funding for 
environmental cleanup failed by a party line vote in the Budget 
Committee.
  This amendment that we are now proposing funds the most fundamental 
priorities of the country with respect to the environment, protection 
of our natural resources, our national parks.
  I will just preface the specifics of the amendment by saying, Mr. 
President, that all of us care enormously about the budget and the 
fiscal restraints that we are living under right now. The issue in 
Washington is not whether or not we are going to balance the budget. 
This fight should not be, ``They don't want to balance the budget.'' 
They do. ``They're irresponsible. They just want to spend a lot more 
money.'' We don't.
  That is not the fight. There are two budgets, one of which we voted 
on last night that balanced the budget by CBO figures in 6 years. It is 
a Democrat vision of how we ought to go about spending money to balance 
the budget. There is an opposing vision. That opposing vision suggests 
that we should not be spending a certain amount of money on 
environmental protection, but rather we ought to be spending that money 
giving tax breaks to our wealthiest citizens, people who already have a 
lot of money and do not particularly need at this moment to receive 
another tax break.
  Mr. President, I remind colleagues that we have reduced the deficit 
over the last 4 years and cut it in half. That is a promise kept by the 
President of the United States. When he ran for office, President 
Clinton said, ``I will cut the deficit of this country within 4 
years.'' It is now 3\1/2\ years later, and the deficit has been cut in 
half. In addition to that, we have had, as we know, record economic 
continued growth. We have had 8.5 million jobs created. That is the 
context in which we are making a number of choices about where we 
proceed from here.
  One of those most fundamental choices is whether we are going to keep 
faith with our commitment to the American people that our kids are not 
going to drink leaded water, that we are going to continue to proceed 
down the road of the Safe Drinking Water Act, that we are going to 
continue down the path of the Clean Air Act.
  We have made great gains in the last few years in the quality of the 
air that people breathe. There are less people entering hospitals or 
dying of emphysema or lung disease as a consequence of the fact that 
our cities are now becoming free of smog and carbon dioxide and the 
nitrogen oxides that used to not only take away the view, but take away 
life. That is an enormous gain in the quality of life for this country.
  Our amendment seeks to guarantee that we continue to make that gain. 
So we seek to restore $7.3 billion over 6 years for environmental 
protection funding. We seek to raise that funding to the President's 
requested level for three key environmental agencies--the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA] itself, for the National Park Service [NPS], 
and for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA].
  Mr. President, the President's budget and the Republican budget--here 
are two different views. These numbers are not rhetoric. The Republican 
budget seeks to cut $10.9 billion for environmental protection from the 
President's budget request over the next 6 years.
  The President's budget would, in fact, be cut severely by the 
Republican budget in the final year--fiscal year 2002. In 2002, the 
Republicans would cut by 20 percent the National Park Service budget. 
The President's budget for the National Park Service is extremely 
important given that the number of visits to our Nation's parks 
continue to increase and that steady pace of visits has taken its toll 
on many parks. For example, the Grand Canyon alone needs $350 million 
to repair roads, sewers, and water systems. In addition, over the last 
several years, Congress has added a substantial number of new 
responsibilities to the Park Service, while the core operational budget 
for the Park Service has remained flat in real terms since 1983.

  The Republican budget, in fiscal year 2002, would include a 12-
percent cut for Superfund even though there are thousands of Superfund 
sites not yet cleaned up; at many sites cleanup efforts have not even 
started.
  It would mean a 9-percent cut for the EPA's water programs, even 
though there is city after city in America with decaying water 
infrastructure, with problems with pipes and sewers and

[[Page S5222]]

combined sewer overflows. Nevertheless, there is a cut.
  It would provide a 23-percent cut for the Environmental Protection 
Agency's operations and enforcement programs, which is a way of gutting 
environmental protections and cleanups. If you do not have the 
inspectors--the environmental cops on the street--to go out to hold 
people accountable, then some people will take advantage of the system. 
Some people will cut corners on environmental measures or do nothing at 
all and pollution will occur, which is precisely why we are in the 
predicament we are in this country and, I might add, in every country 
in the world facing massive cleanups of toxic sites of poisons and of 
dirty water and of dirty air.
  There is a 21-percent cut for the EPA science and technology program 
which defies imagination when you measure what the Japanese are doing, 
what the Germans are doing, what other countries are rushing to do to 
create jobs in the new technologies that will clean up these 
environmental disasters. Why would the United States of America, the 
world's leader in many of these technologies, precisely because we have 
invested in them, suddenly retreat and disinvest?
  There is a 15-percent reduction in the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's operations and research program.
  Mr. President, these cuts that the Republicans are proposing are more 
than just numbers on a page. They express a set of priorities. They 
express their vision of where expenditures ought to go. They have to be 
counterbalanced against the choices that have been made to fund the 
alternative of that money.
  Where does that money go? Does it go into deficit reduction? No. It 
does not go into deficit reduction. They are taking from these 
environmental priorities and giving to people who already are doing 
very well in the United States of America. That does not really make 
sense.
  So the question has to be asked, again and again and again, what are 
the priorities of our Nation?
  Let me give a specific example of what happens in my State of 
Massachusetts in the area of drinking water. Massachusetts and the 
Nation have made great strides in the past two decades on cleaning up 
our water. Massachusetts is probably one of the States providing higher 
expenditure in terms of efforts to safeguard our drinking water. Yet 17 
percent of our citizens still drink from water systems that violate 
Federal water standards. We have over 1 million people in 80 
communities who last year drank water that failed to meet the Federal 
standards. We have 300,000 people in 14 communities who drank water 
containing disease-causing fecal matter. There are over 800,000 people 
who drank water from water supplies that failed to meet the 
Environmental Protection Agency standard for adequate filtering and 
disinfecting of tap water. In Massachusetts, in 1994 and 1995, there 
were 141 water systems serving nearly 500,000 people that failed to 
meet the basic sanitary testing requirements for tap water.
  Mr. President, that is just my State. I could show those examples in 
States all across this country. Why are Americans going out and buying 
bottled water at a cost that far exceeds their water bills on an annual 
basis? The answer to that is because they do not trust the water 
systems. Why do they not trust the water systems? Because they know 
these kinds of statistics exist. It is our responsibility to be able to 
guarantee that those systems work.
  What is happening in the face of that responsibility? We are going to 
cut back on enforcement. We are going to cut back on water grants to 
States. It is absolutely mindless. We should be assisting communities 
with investments for new water systems and testing measures. We should 
be spending more to guarantee that our citizens are safe. That is the 
responsibility of Government.
  What we have here are two very differing views of what that 
responsibility is and how it ought to be carried out. Mr. President, we 
are seeking, as I said, $7.3 billion simply to bring the level back to 
what the President recommended for three key areas: the EPA, the Park 
Service, and NOAA.
  There are reasons for doing this. With respect to an agency such as 
NOAA, many people do not know what services NOAA provides that 
Americans use and depend on every day. For example, NOAA runs the 
National Weather Service which is vital to the Midwestern States, 
particularly, for farming disasters, for prediction of storms. It is 
NOAA's long-term oceanic and atmospheric research program that 
developed the 5-day weather forecast and just recently made possible 
the 6-day forecast.
  The weather service modernization at NOAA is now at a critical stage. 
The President's budget would allow us to finish the job we are doing of 
providing new technologies and restructuring in this NOAA field. Future 
weather satellite coverage, by these cuts, would be cut in half. That 
would result in a blackout if any working satellite failed. The funds 
that are here would allow NOAA to maintain its fleet of satellites, 
assuring that there would be no gaps in satellite coverage. This is 
critical for weather warnings, for hurricane storm prediction, avoiding 
disasters, and for many other defense and civilian-oriented programs. 
NOAA's research increases the reliability of hurricane predictions 
saving the nation billions of dollars in losses.
  NOAA's programs help protect human lives and property; it provides 
national security by supporting weather service modernization and 
operations. It is critical to our flight systems, to the safety of our 
transportation network, to our national fisheries and coast protection 
efforts.
  I am not going to continue on in this area. I do want to emphasize, 
Mr. President, we are really simply asking that we keep going down the 
road that America has decided it would like to go down. Regrettably, 
what will most likely happen here is we will have these cuts proposed 
by the Republicans; we will expend enormous amounts of energy debating 
these cuts that the American people do not want; and then we will come 
back later this year and will probably win some kind of a restoration 
in environmental funding. At least, I hope we will.
  In the end, we are just nickel-and-diming ourselves and disinvesting 
in one of the most important quality-of-life issues that really matter 
to our fellow citizens.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kerry-Lautenberg 
amendment to restore funding for essential environmental programs.
  This amendment will help to protect the quality of our water and air, 
clean up toxic waste, and preserve our national parks and other natural 
resources by restoring proposed Republican cuts in the environment and 
natural resource programs.
  It appears as if my Republican colleagues are attempting to back away 
from and cleverly cover up all the damage their budget does to the 
environment.
  Some of my colleagues may be surprised to learn that their budget 
assumes savings derived from drilling for oil in the arctic refuge. 
It's in there, along with deep cuts for the EPA's enforcement and 
operations programs and the National Park Service's operations and 
maintenance activities.
  This amendment will keep the budget in balance by the year 2002. The 
$7 billion add back is easily offset by using just a fraction of the 
extension of expired tax provisions or the elimination of corporate 
loopholes the Republicans intend to use for their budget plan.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator 
Lautenberg's and Senator Kerry's amendment to restore funding for the 
National Park Service, EPA, NOAA, and the Department of the Interior.
  This amendment goes to the heart of the debate over what kind of 
government the American people want. And it expresses in legislative 
language some of the strongest values we hold dear.
  There is no doubt the American people are of a mind to reduce the 
size and cost of government. They believe government takes too much 
from their pockets and spends too much on programs that aren't working. 
Those are strongly held views, and on the face of it you might think 
this amendment runs counter to that public mood. But I would gladly 
take the opportunity to offer the essence of the Lautenberg amendment 
up for a very public vote of

[[Page S5223]]

the American people. There is doubt whether we can prevail on the 
Senate floor. There is no doubt that we would prevail in the court of 
public opinion.
  Because for all their doubts about government, the American people 
expect government to fulfill some very basic duties. Protect them from 
foreign enemies. Protect them from crime. And keep them and their 
children safe from hazards that they are unable to defend against on 
their own. That most definitely includes environmental pollution. They 
also care deeply about global warming, endangered species, and 
preservation of America's parks and forests.
  Yes; they're mad about taxes, stagnant wages, and government waste. 
But they're mad about beaches they can't swim at, water they can't 
drink, rivers they can't fish in, and air that's unsafe to breathe. 
This amendment shows respect for America, its land, air and waters and 
its people, by restoring funds for clean water, safe drinking water, 
enforcement of environmental laws, cleanup of toxic waste sites, and 
preserving our national parks.
  Let me address several key aspects of the amendment.
  First, Senator Lautenberg's amendment would restore $623 million to 
EPA's science and technology budget over the next 6 years. Frankly, Mr. 
President, I simply can't understand why the proposal before us cuts 
the President's request in this area by 21 percent.
  Let's look at what the science and technology account at EPA does. 
This account funds the operating programs of the EPA's Office of 
Research Development and the program office laboratories. These 
organizations provide scientific and technical expertise to help meet 
the agency's environmental goals. Specifically, these funds are used to 
improve our understanding of risks to human health and ecosystems, 
develop innovative and cost effective solutions to pollution prevention 
and risk reduction. Funding from this account is used by EPA to develop 
risk assessment criteria and to develop sound cost-benefit research and 
techniques. As we all know, there has been extensive talk this Congress 
about the importance of both risk assessment and cost benefit analyses.

  And the specific programs that EPA will focus on with funds from this 
account are critical. For example, drinking water research at EPA 
evaluates the effects of the pathogenic bacteria, parasites, and 
viruses that can cause serious illness or even death. In the air 
quality area, EPA intends to focus a multiyear effort on the dangers of 
small particles of soot known as particulate matter. A recent report by 
the Natural Resources Defense Council concludes that approximately 
64,000 people may die prematurely from heart and lung disease each year 
due to particulate air pollution. According to the report, lives are 
not just being shortened by days or weeks but by an average of l to 2 
years in the most polluted areas. EPA's research will focus on 
mortality estimates, an evaluation of the biologic mechanisms resulting 
in harmful effects, and development of innovative control strategies.
  Mr. President, all of us would agree that it is critical that EPA's 
regulations and policies be based on good credible science. But 
developing that science involves a public investment of funds. We 
shouldn't criticize EPA for failing to rely on the best science if we 
don't provide the resources to do the job.
  Second, I strongly support the restoration of funding for the State 
revolving fund under the Clean Water Act. SRF money is critical for 
Connecticut and particularly Long Island Sound.
  The SRF program espouses the virtues that the majority has been 
emphasizing this Congress--it provides low interest loans to States to 
meet community based environmental needs and offers flexibility in how 
money is spent. For example, Connecticut has received $170 million in 
Federal funds and has committed over $1 billion in State funds since 
1987 to improve sewage treatment plants.
  In Connecticut, clean water is not just an environmental issue--but 
an economic issue. Long Island Sound, for example, generates 
approximately $5 billion per year for the local economy--through fin 
and shellfish harvest, boating, fishing, hunting, and beach-going 
activities. The commercial oyster harvest is a great example. In 1970, 
Connecticut's once thriving shellfish industry was virtually 
nonexistent. Today, its $50 million harvest has the highest value in 
the Nation. This improvement is due in large part to required upgrades 
in water quality.

  Our work on cleaning up Long Island Sound, however, has a long way to 
go. Health advisories are still in effect for recreational fish 
consumption, and disease causing bacterial and viruses have been 
responsible for numerous beach closures. In March, the department of 
public health in Connecticut issued a fish consumption advisory for 
mercury levels in freshwater fish from Connecticut waterbodies.
  Connecticut still needs hundreds of millions of dollars to perform 
needed improvements on public sewage systems, which continue to be the 
largest source of pollution for the Sound. The total estimated cost of 
upgrading the outdated plants is estimated at $6 to $8 billion.
  Inadequate funding of the SRF delays needed improvements in Long 
Island Sound and in other great water bodies in this country --
improvements that have enormous economic, recreational, and 
environmental benefits. That's why I support the additional funding in 
Senator Lautenberg's amendment.
  Let me just touch briefly on several other provisions in the 
Lautenberg amendment.
  The amendment restores funding for NOAA's operations and research 
program. One of the missions of this program is to improve the National 
Weather Service's ability to predict hurricanes. This makes good 
economic sense. An average hurricane warning today covers about 300 
miles of coastline and involves preparation and evacuation costs the 
public in excess of $50 million per event. The improved approach to 
predicting hurricanes proposed by the National Weather Service can 
reduce the size of the warning areas, saving more than $5 million per 
storm, according to the Weather Service. This is a highly cost-
effective approach--the Service tells us that the savings are more than 
50 times the cost of the proposed additional observations. The enhanced 
observations will result in earlier, more accurate warnings. It will 
allow the public to protect residences more effectively and to relocate 
boats, recreational vehicles to safe locations. It will save property 
owners and insurance companies huge amounts of money. Moreover, when 
the areas of warning are smaller, the National Weather Service believes 
they will be taken more seriously, leading to more thorough 
preparations and saving more lives.
  Mr. President, the Lautenberg amendment expresses more clearly than 
many pieces of legislation we debate on the Senate floor the kind of 
values we cherish in this country. I strongly urge its adoption.
  Mr. President, I want to speak on one other matter in the budget 
resolution. The budget assumptions to the Energy Committee appear to 
include an assumption that revenues will be obtained from drilling for 
oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, although this is 
not clearly spelled out in the committee's report. This would be a huge 
mistake.
  As we found out during the fiscal year 1996 budget discussions, a 
wide majority of Americans oppose this move and the President clearly 
will veto any bill that includes opening up ANWR for drilling.
  The arguments for balancing the budget by drilling in the Regue 
continue to be very weak. Geological surveys show that the odds of 
striking oil are extremely low--the estimate for a major strike is only 
5 percent. Environmental studies predict irreversible damage from 
drilling to this pristine ecosystem from drilling, particularly the 
calving activities of the 150,000 caribou that simply have no where 
else to go. The footprint of development would span a network of 
hundreds of square miles along the highly sensitive coastline where 
wildlife and fish are concentrated.
  Mr. President, I urge that the Energy Committee not come back in the 
reconciliation bill with provisions to open ANWR for drilling.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this amendment because 
I feel very strongly about the long-term implications of turning our 
backs on the environment. This Congress tried

[[Page S5224]]

to repeal environmental laws and they tried to tie up the system with 
procedural gimmicks. They tried to cut funding for the EPA, and they 
tried to pass riders on the appropriations bills for temporary 
suspensions of environmental laws.
  While we were able to hold back some of this political pandering to 
special interests, the environment did suffer setbacks with the 
Republican initiatives that either slipped through the cracks or were 
forced through Congress as parts of larger compromises. But now we are 
talking about systematically reducing funding over the next 7 years. We 
simply cannot do that without having negative consequences.
  The Congressional Budget Office may conclude that the bill saves 
money, but that is only because they are counting dollars, not inches 
of acid rain, kilograms of toxic waste and concentrations of airborne 
particulates. When it comes time to pay the health bills of 7-year-old 
children who grew up around dirty Superfund sites, the cost will be 
high. The cost of neglect for our streams and rivers, the cost of 
apathy for safe drinking water, the cost of maintenance lapses in the 
National Park Service, and the cost of data gaps in basic environmental 
science will be high. The environment will not take care of itself. We 
have to step up and be responsible about the future we pass to our 
children.
  This budget is not responsible when it comes to basic protections for 
our air, water, streams, and natural resources. That is why we are 
working to restore environmental funding by using bipartisan offsets 
identified by the Republicans. Environmental protection is supposed to 
be a bipartisan issue. Presidents Bush, Reagan, and Nixon signed some 
of our most important environmental laws. We offer this amendment to 
bring the budget back into line with the bipartisan commitments made in 
the past 25 years.
  The people of the United States never voted to gut environmental 
spending. They voted for honest efforts to control wasteful spending, 
close wasteful loopholes, and refocus government on the priorities that 
government can do best. This amendment will make sure government 
provides basic safeguards for a clean environment. This is a job that 
government can do and needs to do. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3991

(Purpose: This amendment increases the Function 500 totals to maintain 
   levels of education and training funding that will keep pace with 
     rising school enrollments and the demand for a better-trained 
 workforce. This increase is fully offset by the extension of expired 
         tax provisions or corporate and business tax reforms)

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a second amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mrs. Murray, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
     Wellstone, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Simon, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Wyden, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3991.

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

       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $7,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $8,800,000,000.
       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $10,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $12,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $7,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $8,800,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $10,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $12,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $7,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $8,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $9,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $11,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $13,200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $7,900,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $8,800,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $10,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $12,100,000,000.
       On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 25, line 18, increase the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $7,600,000,000.
       On page 26, line 1, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $8,600,000,000.
       On page 26, line 9, increase the amount by $7,900,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, increase the amount by $9,500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, increase the amount by $8,800,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $11,300,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, increase the amount by 
     $10,300,000,000.
       On page 27, line 7, increase the amount by $13,200,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, increase the amount by $12,100,000,000.
       On page 52, line 14, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 52, line 15, increase the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 52, line 21, increase the amount by $7,600,000,000.
       On page 52, line 22, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 52, line 24, increase the amount by $8,600,000,000.
       On page 52, line 25, increase the amount by $7,900,000,000.
       On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $9,500,000,000.
       On page 53, line 3, increase the amount by $8,800,000,000.
       On page 53, line 5, increase the amount by $11,300,000,000.
       On page 53, line 6, increase the amount by $10,300,000,000.
       On page 53, line 8, increase the amount by $13,200,000,000.
       On page 53, line 9, increase the amount by $12,100,000,000.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is a very similar issue to the one 
just discussed. I am proud to be joined in this effort by the Senator 
who led the fight in committee, who has been one of the Senate's most 
outspoken and capable leaders with respect to the issue of education, 
Senator Murray of Washington. She attempted in committee to get this 
changed. We are now seeking this together on the floor, along with 
other colleagues.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, if somebody came along and said to 
Americans, ``I'm going to run for office, and I'm proposing the largest 
cuts in education in American history,'' you would be laughed out of 
the room. People would look at you and say, ``What, are you serious? 
That's your platform?'' That is what is being proposed. That is what we 
have in the agenda in this budget--the largest education cuts at the 
Federal level in American history.
  Now, it is incomprehensible to me, Mr. President, when we measure 
each of the particular Federal programs that are contained within the 
Federal budget for education, why at this point in American history 
that is the route we would choose to go down. Republican President 
George Bush led an effort, with the Republican Governors and Democrat 
Governors alike, to try to reform the education system of this country. 
Together, the President, President Bush, and the Governors fought for 
something called Goals 2000. President Clinton came into office and we 
managed to move that effort to fruition.
  It is the most basic kind of effort to try to address the problems in 
our schools. There is not any American who is not aware of the problems 
of our schools. It is why parents struggle to send their kids to any 
school they think will work. They go into debt to do it. They go to 
parochial school, they get out of public school, they struggle with 
their public school.
  State after State has stressed the issue of education reform. Yet, 
here we are, having passed something that offers school districts help 
to be able to

[[Page S5225]]

raise the standards, raise the standards of teaching for the kids, 
raise the standards of ongoing learning for the teachers, raise the 
standards of curriculum, raise the standards with respect to the 
administration of a school so you have school-based management--a whole 
host of things that almost everyone in the U.S. Senate would agree are 
good things to do--yet we are going to reduce, for literally tens of 
thousands of kids, the opportunity to be able to touch those goals.
  This budget would cut education by $25 billion in real terms over the 
next 6 years. In fact, it would cut education by $3.2 billion in fiscal 
year 1997 alone. When we examine this budget, we can only conclude it 
is the sequel to last year's story with respect to the attack on 
education that most Americans came to agree was extreme.
  Senator Murray and I rise today to offer an amendment that will 
restore our funding for education investments to the level proposed in 
the President's fiscal year 1997 budget. This simply comes to the level 
of a balanced budget over 7 years, by CBO figures, that the President 
offered in his budget.
  Mr. President, I will have two charts that show what has happened in 
education, but I will wait until the charts arrive.
  We have a lot of schools, despite increased resources, that do not 
have computers. They do not have facilities in libraries that even have 
modern textbooks. Many schools have part-time librarians because they 
cannot afford to have a full-time one. Many schools cannot even afford 
to stay open beyond 2:30, 2 o'clock in the afternoon. We have a huge 
public resource we have invested in, and we do not even use it into the 
evening for many communities--for remedial education, ongoing family 
education, for problems with language so people could proceed faster to 
the mainstream with respect to the use of language--a whole host of 
things we could be doing creatively. We do not do them, and now we will 
cut our capacity to be able to provide the kind of assistance that 
would allow schools to experiment in those areas.
  It is very difficult for me to understand why we are reducing the 
ability of people to even have remedial reading and other kinds of 
efforts when only one-third of the high school graduates in the United 
States of America last year had what is considered a passable reading 
level. We have 2\1/2\ million kids in America who graduated from high 
school last year. One-third of them were below basic reading level, 
one-third were at the margin, and only one-third were passable. Only 
100,000 of our high school graduates had what was considered a world-
class reading level. I do not know if every school in this country 
needs phonics or what, but to reduce the ability of schools to make 
those choices right now flies directly counter to the experience that 
everyone has come to agree is critical in order to be able to get a 
decent job in this new information management world we live in. 
Everybody understands that.
  The world is different. The marketplace is different. People are 
going to have to prepare for three, four, five careers in a lifetime. 
How do you do that if you are not coming out of the best education 
system in the word? How do you come out of the best education system in 
the world if you do not have the basic resources and the basic tax base 
in many communities to be able to afford it? How about the tax base 
issue?
  Title I: So many of our communities depend on title I money to be 
able to provide the mainstreaming, the extra teacher assistance, even 
the classroom level of students that provides adequate education at the 
early intervention level.
  Why would we be reducing the ability to do that? Why would we be 
reducing the ability of kids to have Head Start? Why would we be 
reducing the ability of kids to do the one thing we have learned is so 
important, which is to take at-risk kids and get them into a new 
learning environment where they can actually gain the skills to get a 
job when they are at risk of dropping out of high school? We have seen 
so many of these kids that we understand that this is critical.
  Mr. President, this amendment would still spend $17 billion less than 
function 500 than would have been invested if the prerescission 
policies of last year had kept pace with inflation. So this is not 
profligate spending. We are not coming here asking people to just throw 
money at a problem. We are asking people to keep up in those programs 
that have been proven to work at least with a level of inflation and 
prerescission level.
  Mr. President, I have more that I could say on this. I will turn to 
my colleague, Senator Murray, who will talk with greater specificity 
about what is at stake here.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.
  I am pleased to be offering this amendment today, along with Senators 
Kerry, Levin, Kennedy, Daschle, Wellstone, Simon, Harkin, Dodd, Kohl, 
Bingaman, Mikulski, Dorgan, and Wyden.
  Mr. President, our amendment simply increases the level of investment 
this country will make in education and job training over the next 6 
years. When Senator Magnuson, whose seat I now sit in, was here over 
two decades ago, education proponents were asking Congress to dedicate 
one-third of the Federal budget to education. Today, very sadly, a mere 
3 percent of our budget is invested in our children's education.
  Function 500's discretionary initiatives--the part of the budget that 
this amendment addresses--contain some of our most successful education 
and job training programs, including Head Start, title I, impact aid, 
school-to-work, vocational education, and education technology 
programs.
  I can tell you, as a Senator who is a preschool teacher, a PTA 
member, a mother, and a Senator, that I know each of these programs 
makes a difference in the lives of our young people.
  Mr. President, children are our Nation's most precious resource. I 
have heard so many of my colleagues say this. We know the next 
generation faces more challenges than any who came before them. They 
face a more competitive job market, rapidly changing occupations, more 
technology, and increasing international competition. Adequately 
funding function 500 is one of the best ways the Federal Government can 
prepare our children for the changing work force. It is a simple, 
commonsense investment. And it is an investment that yields big 
dividends quickly.
  I, personally, have seen a Head Start student smile as she listened 
to a teacher read her a book for the very first time. I have talked 
with college students who would not be in school were it not for a Pell 
grant. I was on a school board that passed a bond to put technology 
into our classrooms because we knew that in our lifetime every student 
would need to be able to use the latest technology. I have been in 
schools like the Bethel School District, where students tell me school-
to-work programs have changed their lives and brought personal success.
  Quite frankly, I am a little disappointed that we need to offer this 
amendment today. We all know last year's budget debate was acrimonious. 
But, after much haggling, we were able to restore valuable education 
funds in the omnibus fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill. I commend 
Senators Specter, Harkin, Kennedy, and others for their hard work and 
dedication to getting that job done in the last budget. But, after all 
of this, I did not expect to see the new Republican budget propose 
another truly inadequate level for education and job training funds.
  Now, I have heard the Republicans tell us their budget actually 
increases education spending by $3.1 billion over 6 years. Well, that 
is not the whole story. I have to tell my colleagues, that amount will 
not even keep pace with inflation. Nor will it match the amount needed 
to serve the Nation's increased enrollment projections. Student 
enrollment will increase 7 percent over the next 6 years, and next 
year's enrollment will be the highest national level since 1971. It is 
clear to me that, over 6 years, the Republican budget amounts to a 
cut--plain and simple. It is $26 billion below inflated fiscal year 
1996 levels. It is a retreat from our responsibility to provide 
education and opportunity to the next generation of Americans, and it 
lacks the core values I believe most Americans hold.

[[Page S5226]]

  Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I offered this 
amendment last week in the Budget Committee markup. Unfortunately, it 
was not accepted. It was rejected along party lines. But let me take a 
minute to describe this amendment a little bit further. This amendment 
increases function 500's 6-year spending level $56.1 billion over the 
Republican proposal. However, please note, this amendment falls short 
of what we would be spending under fiscal year 1995 prerescission 
levels.
  I want to emphasize that point. This amendment spends $17.7 billion 
less than what would have been invested if the fiscal year 1996 
prerescission policies were kept in place. The 1995 level is the most 
appropriate. However, I understand that that level is not fiscally 
possible because we all need to give a little as we move toward a 
balanced budget. I believe this amendment is truly a good-faith 
concession from the most acceptable education and job training funding 
level.
  Finally, it is important to understand that this amendment is paid 
for by closing corporate tax loopholes and extending expired tax 
provisions. Our children--our young people are worth it.
  Mr. President, I have held a series of town hall meetings throughout 
Washington State over the course of this past year. In Tacoma, Spokane, 
Yakima, and Vancouver people came together to talk about the 
responsibility adults have in improving the well-being of our children. 
We agreed to respect our differences, but to get beyond them to the 
things we can all agree on. Overwhelmingly, all adults and young people 
agreed we need to invest in our children's education.
  In fact, whenever I talk with my friends and neighbors about the 
budget, they always tell me not to cut Federal investments in education 
and job training. They know Head Start works in Washington State. It 
serves 11,000 kids annually, but there are 6,000 more eligible children 
that could be served with increased funding.
  I have seen firsthand the successes that come from our vocational 
education programs. We must remember that over 50 percent of our 
children will not go on to college, and they need to graduate with 
skills that give them real jobs. We know, vocational education and 
school-to-work programs help prepare those young adults to compete in 
the rapidly changing global marketplace.
  I recently talked to a young woman who was waiting to hear if she 
would get a Pell grant this year. Her eyes filled with tears as she 
told me this was her one chance to get to college next fall.
  I also know from personal experience, as a teacher, the progress 
being made in our public schools through title I funding and education 
technology grants. Sure, cutting education funds will not mean we stop 
teaching reading, writing, or math. But, if we do not pass this 
amendment it will mean one more child will not get the help they 
critically need to be a success one day.
  Mr. President, these programs work in my home State. But, support for 
these programs is widespread. My colleagues may have seen a recent USA 
Today poll that showed 82 percent of Americans do not want to balance 
the budget if it means cutting education. We should listen to this 
message and do what our constituents recommend.
  The debate over our fiscal priorities has come a long way since 
exactly 1 year ago, and Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget 
Committee, deserves a lot of the credit for advancing this discussion 
and moving our Nation closer to a balanced budget. I believe the 
differences between the two parties has narrowed to a point where 
compromise is within reach. All we need now is the courage to do so.
  Mr. President, last year's budget debate was painful for all of us. 
But, I know it was especially painful for our constituents--our hard-
working friends and neighbors. They did not know why the budget debate 
forced the Government to shut down twice; one time for 3 straight 
weeks. They did not see that as progress. Instead, they saw it as just 
another example of what is wrong with Congress and the Government 
today.
  I do not mention this to point fingers at any particular party, but 
as a reminder that the budget debate requires compromise if we hope to 
really serve the people.
  In the end last year, we learned our Government is truly a democracy. 
We learned any successful budget agreement will need to be as broad and 
bipartisan as possible. Most importantly, we learned that it is 
possible to balance the Federal budget without retreating on education 
or hurting children.
  The final appropriations bill increased education funding from the 
original proposal because we all recognized we needed to compromise on 
this critical area of funding. We have to do that again, now, with this 
budget and with the passage of this amendment.
  Mr. President, I am optimistic we have learned from our mistakes and 
I am confident Congress and the President can come to terms on a 
balance budget plan. Both sides have come a long way over the course of 
a year. During the appropriations process, Republicans have 
acknowledged the need to increase funding for education, the 
environment, cops on the street, and AmeriCorps; and the President has 
submitted a CBO-certified balanced budget that includes cuts in 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to note that many of my colleagues 
argue for the Republican budget package by claiming it will benefit our 
children and grandchildren in the long run. They claim we will give our 
children a better economy and lower interest rates tomorrow by 
balancing the budget today. Well, this may be true, but they fail to 
note that this plan cuts our vital investments to do so; programs like 
Head Start, title I, Pell grants, and vocational education.
  I fail to see how my children will be better off tomorrow without 
decent, quality education today. In fact, if my kids do not have an 
education, they will not get a job, and if they do not get a job, they 
will not be able to buy a home with those lower interest rates.
  Mr. President, a businessman recently commented to me that a good 
business that plans to be here in the future cuts its budget carefully 
and invests in its most important resources. He said he feared this 
Congress appeared to be having a fire sale. We need to look ahead and 
say we do want to survive long into the future. This amendment helps 
get us there.
  So, again, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, when 
compared to prerescission 1995 levels, this amendment is a modest 
investment in education and job training and restores a core value I 
believe Americans hold: The belief that education is important. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support Senator Kerry, myself, and 
others in supporting this critical amendment.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will just take a couple of minutes and 
then reserve the remainder of the time for other Senators who want to 
speak on this issue. I thank the Senator from Washington. I want to 
emphasize, if I may, a couple of points that both she and I have made.
  This is not a struggle, in my judgment, over whether one group wants 
to be fiscally responsible and the other group does not. We are both 
talking about a framework for a balanced budget. In fact, were it not 
for the insistence on a very significant size tax cut on a 7-year 
basis--still over $200 billion, less than that over 6 years--there is 
today enough money on the table by both sides, agreed upon, to balance 
the budget. I hope Americans understand that. We do not have to have 
this fight except for the struggle over a tax cut. It is the struggle 
over the tax cut that forces the taking of money from a whole lot of 
things that matter in order to give the tax cut. The tax cut is 
fundamentally a borrowing from the future to give to the present. The 
tax cut is essentially a transfer payment taking from the next 
generation in terms of investment and current programs and giving to a 
group of people to spend it today.
  That is really what we are fighting about here because we have 
identified, and the President has delivered to us and we have voted for 
a sufficient number of discretionary cuts to balance the budget of this 
country this afternoon. What we are saying in our vision is we are 
willing to support--many of us, not everybody perhaps--some form of a 
tax cut in order to have compromise here.

[[Page S5227]]

 There are certainly some Americans who really deserve one. If it were 
geared in a way that absolutely guaranteed that the right people were 
getting it, there might be much more support for building the 
compromise faster. But there is no excuse for taking 20,000 kids out of 
Head Start and saying you do not get a head start so we can give 
somebody earning more than $300,000 a year more money. It is 
irrational. But that is exactly what the program is at the same time as 
the stock market of this country went up 34 percent in one year, at the 
same time as company after company reports record profits, at the same 
time as interest rates are low, unemployment is low, and 8.5 million 
jobs have been created in 3\1/2\ years. What is the rationale for 
taking 20,000 kids and saying you do not get a head start so we can 
jump-start the economy--8.5 million jobs better than Ronald Reagan did, 
better than George Bush did? It is illogical.
  In New Bedford, MA, 294 children are currently participating in Head 
Start. So I wonder what Senator here would like to go tell those kids, 
go stand in front of them and say, ``No more program. Sorry.'' Or to 
say that ``50 of you are going to be out of this program and the rest 
of you get to go ahead because we think it is a good program. We just 
do not want 50 of you to continue in it so we can give people who earn 
$300,000 or more a nice tax break.'' That is the choice.
  Mr. President, another important effort that would be cut here is the 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. It serves over 134,000 kids in 
Massachusetts alone. The Republicans want to cut this antiviolence 
program by $50 million. That may be a relatively small cut. But again, 
I ask the question: Why? Why? Has somebody discovered suddenly that 
every school in America is free of drugs? Has somebody discovered 
suddenly that drugs are no longer a problem? Has somebody discovered 
that kids are not still bringing weapons to school and we do not need 
to make our schools safer? I cannot think of a parent in America who 
would agree that safe schools and drug-free schools is not yet a 
priority of this Nation. Yet, our friends on the other side of the 
aisle, in order to give this great big, fat tax cut, are coming in and 
saying, ``Sorry, kids. It does not matter how unsafe your school is. We 
are not going to consider that a Federal priority anymore.''
  Mr. President, I will just close by showing on these two charts the 
history of what has happened with respect to these expenditures. This 
is what we did in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 in the black--
every year the Federal priority was to try to help make a difference to 
hurting places in America. We were going to try to help these schools 
do better.
  Here is the Republican revolution. There is the date that the 
Republican revolution began--the biggest cuts in American history all 
of a sudden despite the fact that experts across the land will tell you 
that each of these efforts is working.
  Mr. President, here is the history in a different way. This is what 
we are doing. Last year the Republicans proposed a $26 billion cut in 
education appropriations. The Senator from Illinois is here. He will 
remember this. He was one of the people who helped to stop it. They 
wanted to cut $10 billion from education last year. That was their 
original goal. But the committee raised a storm. People raised a storm, 
and that came out of the committee at $4.9 billion. Then it came down 
here, and we had an effort, a fight on the floor, that resulted in a 
$3.7 billion cut finally. That is the bite of the apple they took. We 
came along and said, ``We do not want a $3.7 billion cut. We think that 
is wrong.'' So we had another big fight on the floor. We consumed all 
the time and energy of the U.S. Senate, and we finally won and got the 
$3.7 billion restored so we have a lesser cut.
  What is the lesson learned from that? The Senate ultimately voted--I 
think it was about 80-plus Senators--to say let us just take this tiny 
little nibble out of the apple. And what happens this year? They come 
right back and propose to devour the apple again with a $25 billion 
cut. Why are we are going through that exercise again? No wonder most 
Americans are sitting around at home saying, ``Have these guys lost 
their minds? Where are they coming from?''
  That is called extreme, Mr. President, from here, to here, with this 
intermediary experience, and here is what we wound up with. You would 
think somebody learned a lesson.
  So I hope that we are going to have the good common sense not to 
split ourselves apart but to come together around the most fundamental 
commitment we could make in this country today. There is no way we will 
compete with Japanese, with Germans, with any of the other developing 
countries who care more about education than we do apparently. They put 
the effort into it. We should be putting the effort into it. All of us 
know that very few Governors, very few mayors are going to run for 
office with the ability to say, ``I am going to raise the tax base, the 
property tax,'' which is the most onerous of all taxes, ``and I am 
going to adequately fund education.'' The whole purpose of these 
efforts was to make up the difference in those areas. I hope that we 
will do just that in this Chamber.
  I ask unanimous consent to reserve the remainder of time on both the 
environment amendment and the education amendment for those Senators 
wishing to speak thereon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator please yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield 2 minutes of his time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
Senator.
  Mr. EXON. I congratulate and thank the Senator from Massachusetts and 
the Senator from Washington for an excellent presentation on two very 
important subjects. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor 
to both of the amendments that have been offered and discussed this 
morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. I appreciate very much the vivid presentation centering on 
something that is very fundamental to those of us on this side of the 
aisle, and I hope and urge my colleagues to support these two 
amendments because they are absolutely vital to the future of America, 
and that is what it is all about.
  This amendment simply raises the function totals in the Republican 
budget up to those included in the President's budget for education and 
training programs.
  While the Republicans cite an increase in education spending compared 
to their freeze baseline, they admit a cut of $3.2 billion over 6 years 
to a 1996 freeze. How could that be? The answer is simple. Their so-
called ``freeze baseline'' for the education Function only freezes for 
1 year and then dips down in the outyears. They do not extend the 
appropriators' hard-fought compromise agreement on education spending 
through the whole budget window.
  The lesson of the long, drawn out, saga of the 1996 appropriations 
process was that the American people, the majority of Congress, and the 
President consider it a top priority to adequately fund education 
programs. The Republicans seem to need to be knocked over the head to 
learn that lesson.
  Let me say in closing that I strongly support the Kerry-Murray-Levin-
Kennedy amendment and urge its adoption by the Senate.
  I thank my friend and I yield back any time remaining that has been 
yielded to me.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the 
bill very much.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Kerry 
amendment. I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership as well as Senator 
Murray from Washington for her leadership.
  I first had the chance to meet John Kerry many years before we served 
in the Senate together. I was impressed by him then, and the 
contribution and sense of vision and understanding he had, and I have 
been impressed in my years in the Senate.
  Every study that any economic group makes of where we ought to go, 
what we ought to do, I do not care whether

[[Page S5228]]

it is conservative, liberal, what it is, they all come back and say one 
thing: we have to invest more in education.
  In the area of higher education, we are still preeminent in the 
world, though others are catching up. In the area of primary and 
secondary education, we are now among the developed nations in what we 
spend per person about 14th. In preschool education, we are way behind. 
We ought to be doing more. This is where we set the priorities.
  Let me just give you an historic analogy that my friend from Nebraska 
is old enough to remember along with me, if he will forgive me, and 
that is the GI bill after World War II. It was an interesting thing; 
there was a fight among veterans groups as to what should happen. The 
American Legion, of which I am a member--and I have sometimes differed 
with my friends in the American Legion--after World War II said we 
ought to have an education program for veterans, and they pushed it. 
And some of the other veterans groups said no, we should have a cash 
bonus for veterans. Fortunately, for the United States of America, the 
American Legion prevailed, and the GI bill was a huge step forward for 
this Nation. We then had in comparative terms about one-third of the 
income, even accounting for inflation, that we do today. The average 
grant, if you were to add inflation, from the GI bill today would be 
$9,400, regardless of income. We struggle for $2,300 in a Pell grant 
today for those of extremely limited income.
  However, in a sense we are going through the same fight. And here I 
differ with some of my friends on both sides. We do not call it a cash 
bonus today. We call if a tax cut. And instead of investing in 
education, we are being asked to cut back on education. It is 
shortsighted. We ought to be looking at our children and our 
grandchildren and saying, how do we build a better future for them? I 
have to believe we do not do it by giving tax cuts that, frankly, I do 
not think are wise. We are saying we are going to balance the budget in 
7 years, and it is kind of like a New Year's resolution. We are 
proclaiming a New Year's resolution to diet and starting with a huge 
dessert.
  And then we have the wrong priorities--$11 billion more for defense 
than the Defense Department requests but cutting back on education.
  So I strongly support my colleague from Massachusetts in this effort. 
I think he is right, and I applaud his leadership on this amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have been talking about the amounts of 
money which effectively will be authorized in the budget that has been 
proposed to us by the majority of the Republicans in the House of 
Representatives and the Senate. There are important differences in the 
priorities of Democrats and Republicans. The budget should reflect the 
Nation's priorities. And I want to just follow up and continue what I 
know was an excellent presentation by my friend and colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, talking about the priorities of education 
and to try and clarify what the proposed Republican budget would mean 
to parents, families, and school systems across this country.
  First, all of us know that money in and of itself does not solve 
problems. How we allocate resources is a pretty clear indication what a 
nation's priorities are. Education is among their highest priorities. 
It ranks above crime, the economy, health care, and the deficit for the 
first time in history. 82 percent of Americans oppose cutting education 
to balance the budget.
  The American people need to understand that there are significant 
cuts in K-12 and higher education in the Republican budget. American 
people do not support real reductions in funding of education programs 
or the elimination of some programs, to pay for tax breaks for wealthy 
individuals and corporations. I do not think that is a choice most 
Americans would make, yet that is before us in this budget proposed by 
our Republican friends.
  There are significant cuts in Head Start, which helps young people 
get on the first rung of the ladder of the education process and 
develop their self-esteem so they are better prepared to enter the 
school. The Republican budget freezes Head Start below current levels, 
denying at least 20,000 children this preschool experience in 1997 
alone. Our Democratic amendment increases Head Start by 10 percent in 
1997, allowing 796,500 children to benefit from this comprehensive 
education, nutrition, and health services program.
  There are real cuts in title I, which improves the math and reading 
skills of children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Republican 
cuts to title I will deny reading and math assistance to 550,000 
disadvantaged children next year. Our Democratic amendment increases 
title I by 7 percent for 1997, providing instruction to 7 million 
disadvantaged children.
  There are significant cuts in Goals 2000, which funds the efforts of 
local schools to enhance academic achievement. Republicans cut Goals 
2000 funding in 800 schools. Our Democratic amendment permits an 
increase in funding of $176 million in 1997, in order to respond to the 
high level of requests for Goals 2000 funds in States and localities 
trying to improve the achievement levels of their students.
  The Republican budget will also deny needed opportunities for job 
training to over 130,000 youths and adults in 1997. The House budget is 
even more extreme. It cuts job training programs by 43 percent below 
the 1995 level. The number of participants in this program will drop 
from 1.8 million this year to 1.1 million in 2002, a loss of 750,000 
participants. These programs now serve only 3.6 percent of eligible 
workers. The Republican cut would reduce that level to 2.2 percent.
  There are reductions in the support for Safe and Drug Free Schools. 
We hear a lot of statements about how we are going to deal with the 
problems of substance abuse. It is a complex issue. Safe and Drug Free 
Schools helps reduce violence and substance abuse in the schools of 
this country. This program is being seriously cut back.
  In higher education, Pell grants will be cut by $6.2 billion over 6 
years. As a result, 1.3 million students will lose Pell grants, and the 
value of the maximum grant will decline by $400 per student by 2002.
  Pell grants have already lost 25 percent of their purchasing power 
over the last 15 years. In 1979, a Pell grant provided three-fourths of 
the cost of attending a public college. Now it provides less than a 
third of that cost.
  Our Democratic amendment tries to ease the difficulties that students 
and working families face in struggling to pay for college. It allows 
Pell grants to keep pace with inflation, with the maximum Pell grant 
reaching $3,130 by the year 2002.
  Our amendment will also increase the investment in work study by 10 
percent in 1997. It will expand the number of students who gain work 
experience while they earn money for college from 700,000 to 1 million 
by 2002. By contrast, under the Republican budget 800,000 students will 
lose work study assistance by 2002.
  The Republican budget also dismantles the direct loan program, which 
has been overwhelmingly endorsed by students and colleges across the 
country. Under the direct loan program, students get their loans to pay 
for college faster and more easily than under the guaranteed loan 
program. Direct lending also offers income-contingent repayment, so 
that the size of a student's loan payment is determined by his or her 
income. Direct lending is an enormous success, an incredible success. 
If I have the time, I will read into the Record some of the various 
reports and assessments, where young people and colleges overwhelmingly 
endorse it.
  The House of Representatives effectively eliminates the direct loan 
program. The Senate caps it at 20 percent, which will still undermine 
it in a very significant way. Only 4 weeks ago Republicans and the 
administration agreed to let colleges choose a student loan program. 
That was only 4 weeks ago. But now, they come right back and say, ``No, 
we are going to go back on that agreement, not build on it.''
  The Republican budget denies colleges the opportunity to choose the 
loan program that provides the best service and lowest cost to their 
students. The Republicans say, ``Oh, no, we know best. We know best. We 
here in Washington, DC, know best. We here in the Senate know best.''
  You know better than what the students and colleges in my State of 
Massachusetts want? Schools and colleges

[[Page S5229]]

should make their own choice. My colleges will not be permitted that. 
My students in Massachusetts will not be permitted that. Their option 
is effectively closed out by the arbitrary position which has been 
taken by the Republican majority.
  There is one group that will benefit from the Republican cap on 
direct lending. The guaranty agencies and banks in the guaranteed loan 
program will gain $100 billion in new loan volume, which will provide 
them $5 or $6 billion in new profits. That money ought to remain in the 
pockets of hard-working Americans.
  In the fiscal year 1995 Rescissions, we voted to cut education 
funding to $39.5 billion. Then, the next year, the 1996 Republican 
budget came in at $36.2 billion--a $3.3 billion shortfall. Many of us 
fought in the U.S. Senate and said, let us at least protect education--
by keeping funding at the fiscal year 1995 level.
  Eventually the Republicans ran into a brick wall because the 
President said the American people believe in investing in the children 
of this country and we are not going to backstep in education. We had 
to close down the Government. That was perpetrated by the unwillingness 
of Republicans to protect education and the environment.
  Then, only a few weeks ago, here in the U.S. Senate we voted 84 to 16 
to restore $2.7 billion to education, to get us back to where we were 
in 1995. The final passage of that bill was 88 to 12. Republicans and 
Democrats were saying, ``We support this. We are all for it.'' The 
victory was brief. Only a few weeks later, from April 25 to May 9, the 
Republicans propose a significant cut to education again by $3.2 
billion--$3.2 billion. The 1997 Republican budget is a thinly-disguised 
rehash of the harsh anti-education plan we defeated a few months ago.
  Now, what do our Republican friends say? We are going to use that cut 
that we were not able to get last year as the baseline for 
appropriations over the next 6 years. When they made their proposal on 
the budget, they cut $3.2 billion and used that as the baseline over 
the future years.
  Mr. President, this is the fundamental point. When you use that lower 
baseline and project it out over the period of the next 6 years, 
effectively it reduces funding for education by 20 percent, by one-
fifth.
  That is bad enough, but let us look at what is happening to the 
school-age population during that time. Over the next 6 years, we are 
going to see a significant expansion in the number of children that are 
going to public schools; enrollment is going to increase 7 percent. 
50,000 more teachers are needed just to avoid overcrowded classrooms.
  Mr. President, we face the same problem in higher education. There is 
going to be a 12 percent increase in the total students that enroll in 
postsecondary education as well. That is not figured in. So when we 
talk about a 20 percent reduction in education spending, we must 
remember that this decrease comes at a time when increased funding is 
needed just to keep up with the flood of new students.
  This is no time to cut education. Education is a priority for 
national investment. To prepare children for the future we need to 
spend more on education, not less.
  Our Democratic amendment gets these priorities right. It permits an 
investment in education that keeps pace with rising enrollments and the 
demand for a better trained work force. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for this amendment. This is a vote for education and for the wise 
priorities that will guide America sensibly to the future.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the education 
amendment offered by Senators Murray and Kerry.
  This amendment would restore the overall funding level for critical 
education and training programs jeopardized under this budget proposal. 
The amendment is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
  Students, parents, and teachers taught us a valuable lesson this past 
year. The budget we are considering today seems to have missed the main 
tenet of that lesson--this Nation can not afford large education cuts.
  Mr. President, over the next 6 years, funding for education programs 
under this budget would be reduced by 17 percent in real dollars, a cut 
of $7.4 billion. Such a weak commitment to education ignores profound 
challenges facing students, schools, and families.
  School violence is more and more prevalent; yet this budget 
jeopardizes the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program.
  The cost of obtaining a college education is going through the roof; 
yet this budget restricts opportunities for college aid.
  Math and reading scores of children are stagnant; yet Title I funding 
to help the most disadvantaged children build basic skills is weakened.
  And technology is racing past the classroom door; yet this budget 
leaves education technology programs behind.
  How can we make such assumptions? Because those programs were 
targeted for devastating cuts under the partisan budget plan last 
year--the same cuts which were so soundly rejected by the American 
people.
  It is true that the bulk of education funding comes from States and 
localities, but school administrators are the first to admit that the 
Federal contribution is critical. Cutting our investment in education 
is foolhardy. In the struggle to meet the challenges of educating 
today's students, schools and communities need more help, not less.
  We clearly must to be willing to make difficult decisions to reign in 
government spending. But it makes no sense to cut corners on education. 
There is a simple reason for this. In the next century, the world's 
strongest Nation will be the one which has the best educated people. If 
we abandon schools and students today, we will not be prepared for the 
economic challenges tomorrow.
  Reducing our investment in education will have painful results. 
Students with special needs will not get the individual attention they 
must have to succeed in school. Drugs and violence will threaten the 
safety of even more students and teachers. Students will not have the 
skills to make the connection to jobs after graduation. And ambitious, 
intelligent students will not go to college, because they will not be 
able to afford the tuition.
  Mr. President, according to the College Board, college tuition costs 
last year increased at a rate of 6 percent nationally, which is more 
than twice the rate of inflation. Only a decade ago, student debt 
levels were $9 billion. This year student loans may reach $29 billion, 
which is up from $27 billion last year and $24 billion in 1994.
  Facing the realities of skyrocketing tuition costs, parents are 
finding it harder than ever to help their children reach a higher 
standard of living. Families are falling deeper and deeper in debt 
trying to send their kids to college today.
  Are we prepared to turn our backs on those seeking to succeed through 
a good education? I should hope not. We confronted these same concerns 
last year, and we came to the right conclusion then. This year we are 
forced down the same road, and the answer must be the same now.
  I urge my colleagues to support education and vote for the Kerry-
Murray amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield to 
me for 1 minute?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Massachusetts, 
since he had indicated a few moments ago that he was retaining the 
remainder of his time later on, have we come to an end then at this 
particular period of time or does someone else wish to talk on this?
  Mr. KERRY. I know the Senator from Nevada wishes to speak with 
respect to the environmental amendment but I would ask unanimous 
consent--I think it is in order anyway--the remainder of time on both 
amendments be managed by the distinguished manager of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. How much time does the Senator from Nevada seek?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the manager of this bill could allow me, 
I would like 20 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

[[Page S5230]]

  Mr. EXON. I yield 20 minutes off of the time--
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, since I have been waiting here, I have a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I wanted to send to the desk. If the 
Senator from Nevada would allow me, it would only take me about 2 
minutes. Will he let me do that ahead of his 20 minutes?
  Mr. EXON. I inquire of the Presiding Officer, how much time is 
remaining on these two amendments, on the support side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 48 minutes in the 
aggregate on these two amendments.
  Mr. EXON. Forty-eight in the aggregate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Have been used.
  Mr. EXON. The Senator from Nevada has asked for 20 minutes and I 
yield that. The Senator from Washington asked for how much?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Three minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  Mr. EXON. I would simply say that the Senator from Washington is not 
seeking any additional time, as I understand it, on these two 
amendments. She is following with an amendment. She would like to go 
next under the order. I am wondering if possibly, to move things along, 
the Senator from Nevada could maybe shorten his remarks and then maybe 
come back later on this afternoon, if he is going to be available. We 
are trying to accommodate a whole group of people, as the Senator 
knows.
  All that I am saying is we thought we were about ready to proceed 
under the schedule with the amendment to be offered and remarks by the 
Senator from Washington. I am wondering if the Senator from Nevada 
might be able to accommodate us some on this.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend and the manager of the bill that I, of 
course, have no problem yielding to my friend from Washington. But I 
say to the two managers of this bill, I am trying to cooperate. I had 
an amendment that I was going to offer that is on the list. I decided 
not to do that because this amendment is pending. Therefore I feel, in 
the spirit of cooperation, that I have complied with that spirit.
  Mr. EXON. I see. In other words, basically what the Senator is 
saying, trying to expedite this, he will not be offering the amendment 
that we had scheduled for him to talk on this afternoon?
  Mr. REID. That is right. What I say to the two managers is that I am 
going to speak on the Kerry amendment that is an umbrella environmental 
amendment, and that way I will not offer my amendment, which is more 
specific. Theirs is more broad than mine.
  Mr. EXON. We appreciate everybody's cooperation. Sometimes 
cooperation--the Senator from Washington, as I understood it, was 
scheduled to talk around noon. Has that been moved up?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe it was 1:30 or 2. I am willing to do it now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Exon, I think we are 
doing great. It looks like this is going to be a day filled with good 
utilization of our time. But I will just state as these amendments have 
been offered, we have not yielded back our time in opposition. It would 
seem to me Senator Reid needs some time, but I think we also have to 
work in this time to rebut the Kerry amendment and the previous one.
  I do not want to do that now because you would rather use the time to 
accommodate a Senator, but clearly we are not going to be without a few 
words, although we have heard most of the arguments last year. We do 
not have to take a lot of time. But we do want to rebut the two 
amendments, so I would appreciate it if you did not go much beyond 
Senator Murray and then see if we want to use time in rebuttal. We are 
entitled to that right now, as I understand it. I will say I do not 
want to use that now.
  If the Senator has an important commitment to Senator Murray, let us 
do that, and then I would very much like to use some time on our side 
in rebuttal to the three that have been offered.
  Mr. EXON. I guess what you are saying is you do not object to remarks 
by the Senator from Nevada or the amendment to be offered by the 
Senator from Washington, in that order, is that right?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Actually I did not say that, but if that is what you 
want now, that will put us up another 30 or 40 minutes? That is fine.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Washington wants 3 minutes, and I will try 
to do mine in 15, no more than 20.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  Mr. EXON. I suggest, Mr. President, then to accommodate everybody as 
well as we can, the Senator from Washington be recognized at this time 
as per previous agreement and then the Senator from Nevada would follow 
in that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
accommodation and ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside in order that I may introduce an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3992

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the General Services 
  Administration should place a high priority on facilitating direct 
 transfer of excess Federal Government computers to public schools and 
               community-based educational organizations)

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3992.

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

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Assumptions.--The figures contained in this resolution 
     are based on the following assumptions:
       (1) America's children must obtain the necessary skills and 
     tools needed to succeed in the technologically advanced 21st 
     century;
       (2) Executive Order 12999 outlines the need to make modern 
     computer technology an integral part of every classroom, 
     provide teachers with the professional development they need 
     to use new technologies effectively, connect classrooms to 
     the National Information Infrastructure, and encourage the 
     creation of excellent education software;
       (3) many private corporations have donated educational 
     software to schools, which are lacking the necessary computer 
     hardware to utilize this equipment;
       (4) current inventories of excess Federal Government 
     computers are being conducted in each Federal agency; and
       (5) there is no current communication being made between 
     Federal agencies with this excess equipment and the schools 
     in need of these computers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals and reconciliation instructions in 
     this budget resolution assume that the General Services 
     Administration should place a high priority on facilitating 
     direct transfer of excess Federal Government computers to 
     public schools and community-based educational organizations.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment I sent forward is simply a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I believe most of my colleagues 
will support. I hope it can be accepted by voice vote later today or 
next week.
  This amendment simply directs the General Services Administration to 
facilitate the process of getting excess Government computers to 
schools or nonprofit school organizations. This amendment is following 
a Presidential Executive order that was to make modern computer 
technology an integral part of every classroom, provide teachers with 
professional development that they need to use new technologies 
effectively, and connects classrooms to the national information 
infrastructure and encourages the creation of educational software. I 
have heard many of my colleagues talk about the need to put computers 
and technologies into the classroom, but the reality is that many 
school districts cannot afford this expensive equipment.
  The President's Executive order now has all Federal agencies 
documenting their excess computer equipment. My amendment will direct 
GSA to facilitate this process so the excess computers that are in 
Government service can be gotten into the schools where they are 
needed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this. Again, I hope it can be done 
quickly and efficiently on a voice vote.

[[Page S5231]]

  I thank my colleagues and yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is now recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3990

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am speaking on the Kerry amendment dealing 
with the environment. I have here a publication on the Great Basin 
National Park. It is called ``The Story Behind the Scenery.'' It is a 
new publication, one of which I am very proud, because it showcases a 
national park that we have in the State of Nevada.
  Mr. EXON. Could I interrupt the Senator from Nevada for just a 
moment? I wonder if he will yield to the two leaders of the bill 
without losing his right to the floor. We are making some good 
progress. We have two amendments, one from the Republican side and one 
from the Democratic side, that we are prepared to accept at this time, 
if we could interrupt the Senator?
  Mr. REID. Fine.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, at the present time I have talked with the 
chairman of the committee. There are two amendments that we are 
prepared to accept, one from that side and one from this side. At the 
present time the staff is presenting those amendments to the Senator 
from New Mexico.
  I believe he has them now. I believe the chairman of the committee is 
prepared to offer these two amendments, one from each side, sense-of-
the-Senate amendments that we are ready to accept.


                           Amendment No. 3993

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on funding to assist youth 
                                at risk)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Campbell with respect to at-risk youth. I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Campbell, for himself and Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3993.

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

       At the end of title III insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING TO ASSIST YOUTH AT 
                   RISK.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) there is an increasing prevalence of violence and drug 
     use among this country's youth;
       (2) recognizing the magnitude of this problem the Federal 
     Government must continue to maximize efforts in addressing 
     the increasing prevalence of violence and drug use among this 
     country's youth, with necessary adherence to budget 
     guidelines;
       (3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that 
     between 1985 and 1994, juvenile arrests for violent crime 
     increased by 75 percent nationwide.
       (4) the United States Attorney General reports that 20 
     years ago, fewer than half our cities reported gang activity 
     and now, a generation later, reasonable estimates indicate 
     that there are more than 500,000 gang members in more than 
     16,000 gangs on the streets of our cities resulting in more 
     than 580,000 gang-related crimes in 1993;
       (5) the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention reports that in 1994, law enforcement 
     agencies made over 2,700,000 arrests of persons under age 18, 
     with juveniles accounting for 19 percent of all violent crime 
     arrests across the country;
       (6) the Congressional Task Force on National Drug Policy 
     recently set forth a series of recommendations for 
     strengthening the criminal justice and law enforcement 
     effort, including domestic prevention effort reinforcing the 
     idea that prevention begins at home;
       (7) the Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that 
     between 1991 and 1995, marijuana use among 8th, 10th, and 
     12th graders has increased and is continuing to spiral 
     upward; and
       (8) the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention reports that 
     in 1993, substance abuse played a role in over 70 percent of 
     rapes, over 60 percent of incidents of child abuse, and 
     almost 60 percent of murders nationwide.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals underlying this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget assume that--
       (1) sufficient funding should be provided to programs which 
     assist youth at risk to reduce illegal drug use and the 
     incidence of youth crime and violence;
       (2) priority should be given to determine ``what works'' 
     through scientifically recognized, independent evaluations of 
     existing programs to maximize the Federal investment; and
       (3) efforts should be made to ensure coordination and 
     eliminate duplication among federally supported at-risk youth 
     programs.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to speak to my 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment to Senate Concurrent Resolution 57, the 
budget resolution for fiscal year 1997. I am pleased to be joined in 
this initiative by my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. This 
amendment expresses the sense of the Senate to help young people at 
risk in three ways:
  First, the amendment calls for sufficient funding within existing 
fiscal constraints for programs to assist youth at risk by reducing 
illegal drug use, crime, and violence.
  Second, the amendment places a priority on supporting program 
evaluations which are scientific and independent to determine what 
works and to ensure the limited Federal dollars are invested wisely.
  And, third, the amendment calls for efforts to coordinate and 
eliminate duplication among federally supported at-risk youth programs.
  Mr. President, let me briefly address each of these points in the 
amendment.
  First, there are many programs funded by various Federal agencies, 
including the Departments of Justice, Education, Labor, and Health and 
Human Services. These programs help keep troubled kids out of gangs and 
off drugs. They give many kids a second chance to get their lives on 
the right track. And they should get the support of Senators within the 
fiscal constraints we all face with the Fiscal Year 1997 budget.
  Second, the amendment recognizes the importance of maximizing the 
Federal investment by ensuring these programs work. When Federal 
dollars are limited and we are working hard to balance the budget, it 
is important that we know what works. My colleague from Tennessee, 
Senator Thompson, is pursuing this matter in the Youth Violence 
Subcommittee, which he chairs. Therefore, this amendment places a 
priority on supporting scientifically recognized, independent 
evaluations of existing at-risk youth programs.
  And finally, the Federal Government supports over 100 youth programs 
through many agencies. A March 1996 report from the General Accounting 
Office [GAO] indicates that currently 16 different Federal departments 
and agencies are administering 131 programs to help delinquent or at-
risk youth. My colleagues Senator Kassebaum and Senator Cohen have been 
working on this important issue. The pending amendment calls for 
efforts to eliminate bureaucratic duplication and ensure coordination 
of these federally supported youth programs.
  Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues, during this busy and 
critical time of debate on the budget resolution, will join with me in 
making a formal statement to the American people that we have not 
forgotten our troubled youth, nor the impact they are having on our 
society. By agreeing to this amendment, my colleagues and I will be 
accepting the cold, hard statistics about the criminal behavior, drug 
use and violence among a segment of today's youth. But, we also will 
recognize the importance of helping these children in whom our future 
rests.
  This amendment is not about arguing over dollar amounts for different 
agencies' programs. This amendment is not about pointing the finger. 
Rather, this amendment is about taking responsibility for our youth; 
taking responsibility for the current overlap in programs and 
determining how this is affecting the children these programs are 
intended to help; and, about taking responsibility for the budget 
allocations we make regarding troubled kids. In short, this sense-of-
the-Senate amendment is about taking responsibility for our future and 
our children's future.
  Mr. President, we are experiencing an unprecedented wave of gang 
formation and gang activity in my home State of Colorado, and 
throughout the country, that is so menacing that society all but 
surrenders certain neighborhoods to gun-toting teens.
  According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], a comparison 
of arrests nationally between 1984 and 1994 reveals that juvenile 
arrests for violent crime had increased 68 percent. Murder arrests 
increased 168 percent and aggravated assault increased 98 percent over 
that period.

[[Page S5232]]

  In Colorado Springs, for example, statistics reflect this national 
trend of increased juvenile arrests for violent crimes. Between 1985 
and 1994, juvenile violent crime arrests in Colorado Springs increased 
from 59 to 211, an increase of 258 percent. While the juvenile 
involvement in murder and rape in Colorado Springs, based on arrest 
data, is infrequent, significant increases are seen in the categories 
of robbery and aggravated assault.
  According to the Colorado Springs Police Department, they have seen 
the emergence of youth gangs, and police have identified a small but 
extremely active number of habitual juvenile criminals. One study 
reveals that as many as 15 percent of local adolescents may be involved 
directly or indirectly with gangs.
  Police departments have been tracking serious juvenile offenders for 
many years, and from what we have learned it is clear the criminal 
justice system alone cannot impact the problem of juvenile crime. 
Prevailing social conditions, including family stability, education, 
and societal institutions all have impacts on the behavior of juveniles 
that are well-ingrained before they come to the attention of law 
enforcement. In addition, the FBI points out that the population group 
aged 10 to 17 years, which account for 98 percent of juvenile violent 
crime arrests, is projected to increase significantly by the year 2000. 
This development will almost certainly lead to further escalation of 
juvenile crimes and arrests.
  Colorado is not alone. Experts say most urban areas will see a rise 
in youth violence, stemming from poverty, lack of educational 
opportunities, the growing number of single-parent families and the 
illegal use of firearms.

  Add to that a profound demographic change. Current trends indicate 
there will be a dramatic increase in the population of 10- to 17-year-
olds over the next several years. According to the Department of 
Justice, murders by kids in this age group rose 124 percent from 1986 
to 1991.
  In Denver alone, it is estimated that there are currently 7,000 gang 
members, up from about 700 3 years ago.
  In 1994, I took to the streets in the gang-infested areas of Denver 
to meet with and listen to several gang members to find out why they 
got involved in gangs and how hard it is to leave. They told me that 
the biggest part of the problem is kids who are looking for some kind 
of identity, companionship, and affiliation they are not getting 
elsewhere.
  Also, these kids realize the solution to gangs and violence can only 
come through self-help. But getting through to these kids is a problem. 
After listening to them, I shared with them my experiences as a kid who 
frequently found himself in trouble with the law and also as a young 
man employed as a counselor to work with inmates confined at both San 
Quentin and Folsom prisons. Their response was ``how do they move from 
their current situation to becoming a productive member of society''? 
They can see both points, but haven't figured out a strategy for 
bridging that gap.
  I feel that putting offenders in jail is a priority, but equally 
important is the ability to take a broader approach, focusing on kids 
and families, court diversion programs and prison alternatives.
  Recently, members of my staff met with the Chief of the Denver Police 
Department, all of his Division Chiefs, the Executive Director of the 
Colorado Department of Public Safety, and the Director of the Youthful 
Offender System.
  All of these leaders agree that prevention efforts must begin at an 
early age--before the first stolen car or the first drive by shooting. 
Colorado spends an estimated $50,000 per juvenile on incarceration. 
Some of those funds need to go toward prevention.
  In Denver, there are 10 high schools and 18 middle schools that have 
frequent police calls to the school itself or the surrounding area. 
There is one exception. . .Lake Middle School, which has one uniformed 
Denver police officer on duty during school hours. This is not a 
McGruff or an officer friendly. This is a real officer that makes sure 
that the school is not disrupted by negative activity. This initiative 
has tangible results and it would be nice to see one officer in the 
other 27 schools.
  That is just one example of how prevention efforts that focus on 
youth are having a positive effect in my State. There are many more in 
Colorado and nationwide that deserve our support.
  In closing, Mr. President, I know there are no easy answers, but I 
think that if we take the time to listen, we very well may begin to 
understand the problem. I am committed to finding solutions to gangs 
and youth violence, and look forward to working with my colleagues on 
these problems. One step is to provide sufficient support during the 
fiscal year 1997 budget process. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
support passage of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment puts the Senate on record in 
support of funding for programs that help young people stay off drugs 
and avoid crime and violence. It also commits the Senate to evaluating 
all crime prevention and eliminating duplication of services among 
these programs. In short, this is a clear, concise statement that we 
support doing what works in preventing crime and we oppose bureaucratic 
duplication. This is a sensible approach to prevention that we think 
all Senators can support.
  While we work toward a balanced budget this week--a goal that I 
strongly support--we must not neglect our obligations to protect our 
citizens from crime. And as any law enforcement official will tell you, 
part of that fight must include efforts to help at-risk youth avoid a 
life of crime. It makes sense to support prisons and police because we 
must protect our communities. But we have clear evidence that many 
prevention efforts can and do turn young people around, reduce juvenile 
crime and delinquency, and stop crime in the first place. We should be 
supporting those efforts, too.
  While we should fund these effective measures, we should also gather 
more information on what works, so this amendment commits the Senate to 
supporting rigorous evaluation of existing prevention programs. And 
finally, we must do a better job of coordinating prevention programs, 
eliminating duplication, and streamlining the Federal bureaucracy.
  A bipartisan Senate has repeatedly supported crime prevention 
funding, yet funding has then been cut during House-Senate conferences. 
As we begin our efforts for fiscal year 1997, I am hopeful that the 
full Senate will once again speak out on behalf of America's at-risk 
youth, and commit to giving them the help they need to steer clear of 
crime and delinquency.
  Finally, I would like to thank Senator Campbell for his leadership 
and hard work on behalf of America's young people and in support of 
crime prevention--not only on this amendment, but throughout his tenure 
in the Senate. I look forward to working with him to see that the 
Senate follows through on the commitments contained in this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment. We are willing 
to accept it.
  Mr. EXON. We are willing to accept the amendment, Mr. President.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. If there be no 
further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3993) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3994

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of 
           budgetary savings in the mandatory spending area)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. This 
has to do with a sense of the Senate regarding the use of budgetary 
savings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Ms. 
     Moseley-Braun, for herself and Mr. Simon, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3994.

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

       At the end of title III, add the following new section:

[[Page S5233]]

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE USE OF BUDGETARY 
                   SAVINGS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) in August of 1994, the Bipartisan Commission on 
     Entitlement and Tax Reform issued an Interim Report to the 
     President, which found that, ``To ensure that today's debt 
     and spending commitments do not unfairly burden America's 
     children, the Government must act now. A bipartisan coalition 
     of Congress, led by the President, must resolve the long-term 
     imbalance between the Government's entitlement promises and 
     the funds it will have available to pay for them'';
       (2) unless the Congress and the President act together in a 
     bipartisan way, overall Federal spending is projected by the 
     Commission to rise from the current level of slightly over 22 
     percent of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States 
     (hereafter in this section referred as ``GDP'') to over 37 
     percent of GDP by the year 2030;
       (3) the source of that growth is not domestic discretionary 
     spending, which is approximately the same portion of GDP now 
     as it was in 1969, the last time at which the Federal budget 
     was in balance;
       (4) mandatory spending was only 29.6 percent of the Federal 
     budget in 1963, but is estimated to account for 72 percent of 
     the Federal budget in the year 2003;
       (5) social security, medicare and medicaid, together with 
     interest on the national debt, are the largest sources of the 
     growth of mandatory spending;
       (6) ensuring the long-term future of the social security 
     system is essential to protecting the retirement security of 
     the American people;
       (7) the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to begin 
     spending more than it takes in by approximately the year 
     2013, with Federal budget deficits rising rapidly thereafter 
     unless appropriate policy changes are made;
       (8) ensuring the future of medicare and medicaid is 
     essential to protecting access to high-quality health care 
     for senior citizens and poor women and children;
       (9) Federal health care expenses have been rising at double 
     digit rates, and are projected to triple to 11 percent of GDP 
     by the year 2030 unless appropriate policy changes are made; 
     and
       (10) due to demographic factors, Federal health care 
     expenses are projected to double by the year 2030, even if 
     health care cost inflation is restrained after 1999, so that 
     costs for each person of a given age grow no faster than the 
     economy.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that budget savings in the mandatory spending area should be 
     used--
       (1) to protect and enhance the retirement security of the 
     American people by ensuring the long-term future of the 
     social security system;
       (2) to protect and enhance the health care security of 
     senior citizens and poor Americans by ensuring the long-term 
     future of medicare and medicaid; and
       (3) to restore and maintain Federal budget discipline, to 
     ensure that the level of private investment necessary for 
     long-term economic growth and prosperity is available.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, both Democrats and Republicans 
agree that the Federal budget should be balanced by the year 2002. 
There is complete bipartisan agreement on that point, and there is 
complete agreement between the Congress and the President. 
Unfortunately for the American people, however, that is where the 
agreement ends. There is no agreement on how to balance the budget.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to repeat the 
mistakes both sides have made in the last few years. Given what is at 
stake, both for our country's future generally, and for individual 
Americans and American families all across this country, we have a 
responsibility and an obligation to work together to address these core 
issues.
  There should be no doubt what is at stake, and why addressing our 
budget problems is so important. One measure that demonstrates just how 
fundamentally important these budget issues are is our national savings 
rate. Private savings in America as a percentage of our gross domestic 
product has been declining for decades. In the 1960-69 period, it was 
8.3 percent. By the 1990-93 period, however, it declined to only 5.2 
percent.
  What is even worse is the huge increase in the percentage of our 
national savings being consumed by Government deficit. In the 1960-69 
period, only two-tenths of 1 percent of our total national savings went 
to finance Government deficits. By the 1990-93 period, however, fully 
3.5 percent of our national GDP went to fund Government deficits, 
leaving only 1.7 percent to fund new jobs, and the growth in 
productivity upon which the wealth and standard of living of every 
American ultimately depends.
  And the impact of our failure to come to grips with our deficits is 
not just a macro-economic issue. It is not something to be left to 
economists and policymakers. The daily life of every American is 
directly affected by this set of issues. There are no other issues that 
will have a larger impact on the kind of life each and every one of us 
lives than this one.
  The cover story in this month's the Atlantic Monthly by Peter 
Peterson entitled ``Social Insecurity: Unless We Act Now, the Aging of 
America Will Become an Economic Problem that Dwarfs All Other National 
Issues'' makes that point very well, and it also illustrates the 
problem we have to overcome. The article's preface states, in part, 
that ``the long gray wave of Baby Boomers retiring could lead to an 
all-engulfing economic crisis * * * Yet politicians of both parties say 
that most of the urgently necessary reforms are `off the table.' ''
  It seems to me, however, that every option has to be on the table, 
and that Democrats and Republicans, and the Congress and the President, 
have to work together--first to tell the truth to the American people 
about the causes of our long-term budget problem, and second, to come 
together to solve that problem in a way that makes sense for America. I 
don't suggest that this issue is above politics. What I do believe, 
however, is that this issue is so important that the only way to solve 
it is to invoke an old Chicago adage--good Government is good politics.
  During the last Congress, I served on the Bipartisan Commission on 
Entitlement and Tax Reform, the so-called Kerrey-Danforth Commission. 
Unfortunately, last year's budget battle did not begin to come to grips 
with the implications of the work of that Commission, even though an 
overwhelming bipartisan majority of the Commissioners were in complete 
agreement on the long-term budget threats we face, and the causes of 
those threats.
  The basic problem identified by the Commission was a simple one. The 
current budget trend the Federal government is on is completely 
unsustainable. Unless we act--soon--we face a future where the size of 
Government explodes. The portion of the gross domestic product of the 
United States consumed by the Federal Government will rise from 
approximately 21.4 percent of GDP in 1995 to over 37 percent of GDP by 
the year 2030.
  Looking at percentages of GDP may seem somewhat abstract to some. It 
might be useful, therefore, to think about what that figure might mean 
for the Federal Government and Federal deficits if we translate those 
percentages into the fiscal year 1995 Federal budget.
  In fiscal 1995, the Federal Government spent approximately $1.5 
trillion. If that year's budget took up 37 percent of GDP, as the 
Commission forecast for 2030, total fiscal year 1995 spending for the 
Federal Government would have been over $1.15 trillion higher, or $2.65 
trillion. The Federal deficit would explode from the $163 billion 
actually reported in fiscal 1995 to over $1.3 trillion.
  Think about that. The Federal deficit, under this scenario, would 
amount to almost 87 percent of the total amount the Federal Government 
actually spent in fiscal 1995.
  Of course, the budget could never actually get to that point; the 
Federal Government would go bankrupt long before then. That, however, 
is where current trends take us. The question is what drives those 
trends; what are the underlying problems we have to face.
  Looking at Senate Concurrent Resolution 57, one might think that 
domestic discretionary spending--programs like education, and 
transportation, and environment--are responsible for those trends. 
After all, over 50 percent of the net deficit reduction proposed in the 
budget resolution comes from domestic discretionary spending.
  Domestic discretionary spending, however is not the force driving 
budget deficits--either now or in the future. In fact, as a percentage 
of GDP, domestic discretionary spending is lower now than it was in the 
1970's and only slightly higher than it was in the 1960's. What is 
responsible is mandatory spending. Mandatory spending--principally 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal retirement, and interest 
on the national debt--has increased from about 6 percent of GDP in 1962 
to well over 11 percent now. And it is projected to almost triple to 
about 32 percent of GDP by the year 2030.
  Mandatory spending is steadily squeezing out discretionary spending,

[[Page S5234]]

rising from about 29.6 percent of the total Federal budget in 1963 to 
about 61.4 percent of the budget in 1993. And it is projected to 
account for fully 72 percent of the overall budget by the year 2003.
  It is mandatory spending and the factors driving it upward, 
therefore, not discretionary spending--not the programs Congress 
appropriates every year--that must be the focus of our attention. And 
that means we have to look at two core issues: rising health care 
costs, and demographics.
  Federal health care costs, principally Medicare and Medicaid, are 
projected to more than triple as a percentage of GDP by 2030. By that 
year, Medicare and Medicaid alone would consume more than $11 out of 
every $100 our economy generates.
  Even more devastating than health care cost inflation, however, is 
demographics. Health care expenses also illustrate that point. The 
Entitlement Commission found that even if Congress and the President 
can bring health care cost inflation under control, health care costs 
will double as a percentage of GDP by the year 2030.
  The simple fact is America is getting older. In 1980, there were five 
working Americans for every Social Security beneficiary. By the year 
2030, there will be less than two. Americans are now living much longer 
than they did in 1935 when Social Security began. The average life 
expectancy was 61.4 years then. It is 75.8 years now, and it is 
projected to be 78.4 years by 2025. In 1935, the life expectancy of a 
person reaching the age of 65 was 12.6 years. Now it is 17.5 years, and 
by 2025, it will be 18.8 years.
  The most fundamental budget issue, therefore, is this issue of 
demographics. When the baby boom generation begins to hit retirement 
age in a little more than a decade from now, Federal entitlement 
costs--the demands on Social Security and Medicare--will really begin 
to explode.
  Unless we begin to act now, by 2030, when all the boomers will have 
reached 65, Social Security alone will be running an annual cash 
deficit of $766 billion. If Medicare HI is included; the combined cash 
deficit of these two programs, in other words their spending minus the 
payroll taxes supporting them, will be $1.7 trillion by 2030.
  The Federal Government has essentially promised to pay today's adults 
$8.3 trillion in future Social Security benefits over and above the 
contributions they and their employers have made--a figure more than 
250 times as great as all the unfunded liabilities of all private 
sector pension plans in the United States.
  Unless we begin to face this looming challenge now, the taxes 
required to support Medicare and Medicaid would be in the range of 35 
to 55 per cent of every worker's paycheck by 2040.
  Mr. President, the budget problems I have discussed are a threat to 
the retirement and health security of virtually every American. The 
need for action now is compelling, for reasons related to Government 
finance, for reasons related to our economic prosperity generally, and 
most importantly, for reasons related to the lives of the American 
people, and the kind of retirement they will enjoy.
  We need to face our budget problems, and we need to act in ways that 
will enhance the retirement security of Americans. Most Americans do 
not currently have the resources to provide for their own retirement 
security through savings. In fact, in 1993, half of all American 
families had less than $1,000 in net financial assets, and that figure 
has not changed in the past decade.
  What we need, therefore, is a bipartisan approach to the budget, one 
based on these underlying budget realities. We need to tell the truth 
to the American people about what the Government needs to do, and what 
they need to do, to protect their retirement and health security. And 
we need a budget that is focused on retirement security, on health 
security, and on rebuilding our national savings rate.
  That is what the amendment I am offering today attempts to do. By 
adopting this amendment, the Senate will be saying that it believes 
that budget savings in the mandatory part of the budget should be used:
  First, to promote and enhance the retirement security of the American 
people by ensuring the long-term future of the Social Security system;
  Second, to promote and enhance the health care security of senior 
citizens and poor Americans by ensuring the long term future of 
Medicare and Medicaid; and
  Third, to restore and maintain Federal budget discipline to ensure 
that the level of private investment necessary for long term economic 
growth and prosperity is available.
  What this amendment is all about is the connections between issues. 
We cannot deal with retirement and health security if we do not tell 
the American people the truth about our entitlement problems, and tell 
them early enough so that they can act to help themselves. We cannot 
protect Social Security and Medicare if we do not ensure that Americans 
understand the linkages between tax policy and their health and 
retirement security. We cannot invest in other priorities of Americans, 
like education, if discretionary spending is squeezed out of the budget 
altogether by mandatory spending. And we cannot raise the national 
savings rate if we do not focus on restoring long-term, not just 
temporary, budget discipline.
  The time to start is now. The time to tell the American people is 
now. The time to come together in a bipartisan attempt to face these 
problems and to address them is now.
  This amendment is in no way an answer to the budget problems we face. 
It is, however, a demonstration of our understanding of our core budget 
problems, and our understanding of the impact these problems will have 
on the lives of the American people unless we act based on their 
priorities. I believe their priorities Americans want us to focus on 
are protecting retirement and health security, and raising our national 
savings rate by restoring real, long-term budget discipline. Those are 
my priorities. I hope all of my colleagues share those priorities, and 
will demonstrate that support by voting for this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield all time we have in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. EXON. I yield our time on this side.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3994) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from New Mexico, and I certainly 
appreciate and thank my friend from Nevada for his patience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Nevada is charged 
against the time of the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the two managers of the bill, I 
appreciate their moving this legislation along. I spoke on the floor 
yesterday about my concern about not having ample opportunity in normal 
working hours to debate this. That has been worked out. I extend my 
appreciation to the leadership on both sides of the aisle for that.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend.


                           Amendment No. 3990

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise the Senator from 
Nevada when he has spoken 18 minutes.
  Mr. President, as I indicated, this is a beautiful publication about 
the Great Basin National Park. It has wonderful pictures, color 
pictures of a wonderful national resource. The oldest living things in 
the world are in the Great Basin National Park, it has bristlecone 
pines that are over 5,000 years old. This park has a glacier, it has 
the Lehman Caves, which are subterranean caves with stalactites and 
other features that are found only in caves throughout the United 
States. It is a wonderful park.
  But, for the beautiful pictures that you see and the description I 
gave, it does not portray what is behind the scenes, the story behind 
the scenes.
  Our national parks have become deplorable. The Presiding Officer is 
from a wonderful, beautiful sister State, a border State of the State 
of Nevada. I had the opportunity last year, for the first time in my 
life, to float down the beautiful Colorado River through the Grand 
Canyon. The scenery on that trip was beautiful, however, the other

[[Page S5235]]

part of the trip was seeing the other conditions they have in the park.
  I have to say, the average visitor does not see the deplorable 
conditions at Great Basin National Park or the Grand Canyon National 
Park where the park rangers must live. In many of these parks, and 
Grand Canyon is no different, the conditions in those parks where the 
employees live are unbelievable and embarrassing. More than half the 
National Park Service housing units are currently rated substandard.
  Why do I talk about this? I talk about this because the underlying 
budget that we are being asked to approve decimates environmental 
programs.
  What this amendment of Senator Kerry's does is restore $7.3 billion 
for environmental programs, providing full funding at levels requested 
by the President for the EPA, the National Park Service, and other 
environmental agencies of the Federal Government.
  I am going to speak today about the National Park Service. That does 
not take away the importance of restoring moneys to other units, but 
the National Park Service is in deplorable condition. In many cases, 
Park Service employees and their spouses and children are at physical 
risk in the substandard housing they have. This poor state of housing 
is considered, without question, a serious morale problem in many of 
the parks. How can we expect these hard-working--and they have become 
even harder working in recent years because we are so understaffed--
these hard-working men and women of the National Park Service to take 
care of the land if we do not, in effect, take care of them?
  These men and women love their jobs. They are park rangers because 
they have chosen that for their life's occupation, and they put up with 
these substandard conditions and substandard housing units, working in 
these beautiful outdoor areas. But they should not have to.
  The current National Park Service maintenance backlog is $4.5 billion 
and continues to grow each day that goes by. With the reduction 
proposed in this budget, our National Park Service will simply decay 
more. The infrastructure will deteriorate, and the ability to conserve 
these precious natural resources will decrease.
  Managers of the park systems have already closed various areas of the 
parks around the country, and they are contemplating closing more, 
because they do not have money to keep them up. Maintenance will fall 
further and further behind as our parks continue to deteriorate.
  In fiscal year 1996, the Interior Subcommittee took the largest 
percentage hit of any subcommittee in the entire Senate. This budget 
proposes to exacerbate the damage done by last year's cut. We should be 
working on a bipartisan basis to protect our environment. We should 
come here and talk about what is happening to the environment. The 
environment is being hit too hard. The environmental programs, in years 
gone by, have been bipartisan programs, going back many, many years to 
one of the leading environmentalists of our day, Theodore Roosevelt.
  President Roosevelt, the father of our national parks, once said, 
``To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the 
land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result 
in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we 
ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.''
  The spending cuts proposed in this budget would, instead of 
amplifying and developing, as President Roosevelt, the father of our 
National Park System, said, would result in the erosion of conditions 
in our National Park System. This underlying budget will not help. It 
will hurt our National Park System. This proposed budget strays from 
President Roosevelt's passion for the grandeur of our environment by 
attempting to gut national park funding. It would reverse the 
longstanding support by the citizens of this Nation to the continued 
preservation and protection of the national parks.

  Mr. President, I worked to get a national park in the State of Nevada 
and was able to do so. We were so proud as a State to have a national 
park. We were on the map for national parks. When people travel to 
national parks, they have a route they take. Nevada became part of 
that. It became a bridge from the States of Arizona and Utah which have 
all kinds of national parks. We have one in Nevada.
  Certainly, we have not been able to build a visitors center, and I 
can understand that, but certain things that need to be done for the 
people who visit that park should be done.
  Underlying all that is where the people at Great Basin National Park 
work, where they have to live. It is in a remote area. They live in 
places that I would not recommend. But there are other examples. In the 
State of Nevada, there are examples. We have not only a national park, 
but we have the National Park Service which takes care of the Lake Mead 
Recreational Area.
  The busiest entity in our National Park System is Lake Mead. Over 10 
million people visited last year at Lake Mead. We have many problems at 
Lake Mead. We have an antiquated water treatment system. The State of 
Nevada inspected the park's water treatment facilities and notified the 
park that because of surface water facility deficiencies, that the 
water supplied to areas of the park ``pose an acute risk to human 
health.''
  This occurred at the busiest park entity we have. As a result, the 
park had to post signs that visitors should boil the water before 
drinking. This is a national travesty for a park that received over 10 
million visitors last year. As a result of the current budget 
proposals, it may take longer than 10 years before this problem is 
corrected. I am going to try as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee to get some money in that system to take care of this 
embarrassing problem.
  There are other examples in Lake Mead. If the current budget 
proposals are enacted, we have been told we are going to eliminate air, 
boat and vehicular patrols, resulting in increased resource 
degradation, reduced emergency response and increased risk of injuries 
and fatalities.
  Mr. President, Lake Mead is located about 15 miles, at most, from Las 
Vegas. It is a 24-hour city. Lake Mead has become a 24-hour resource. 
People go down there all times of the night and day. We need law 
enforcement, which is being eliminated or reduced. We need vehicle 
patrols, both by land and water.
  If this budget proposal goes through, we have been told we are going 
to eliminate park ambulance services, we are going to reduce water-
quality monitoring, we are going to reduce daytime and weekend patrols, 
eliminate night shifts. I have already indicated we cannot do this. 
This is a 24-hour park. This will result, of course, if this budget 
reduction goes forward, in reduced visitor safety and an increase in 
crimes and vandalism in this park. That is wrong.
  Reduction in the number of toilets and campgrounds open to the public 
is being talked about, and I worked very hard to have those increased. 
We have a number of areas where we have toilets that can be taken to 
impacted areas on special tourist traffic weekends. They are talking 
about reducing them. They are talking about closing areas of the park.
  This is happening all over the United States. I am more familiar, of 
course, with Lake Mead. At Independence National Historic Park, they 
are talking about the same thing as Lake Mead, and the same thing at 
Yosemite.
  From Nevada we are close to Yosemite. We consider it, even though it 
is in California, part ours. But for Yosemite, Mr. President, they are 
talking about closing some of those campgrounds, resulting in a 
reduction in overnight stays of more than a million visitor nights. 
They are talking about a reduction in regular maintenance, resulting in 
the accelerated collapse of infrastructure.
  OSHA and other compliance citations will be inevitable. Visitor 
protection services will be reduced, resulting in increased visitor 
fatigue, resource damage and employee injury due to fatigue. We are 
talking about a cutback in snow removal, and at Yosemite, a reduction 
in cultural staff.
  Mr. President, these parks--and that is all I am talking about today 
is our National Park System--they are a national treasure. These parks 
belong to all Americans. We, as stewards of these parks, have no right 
to take these treasures from them.
  In the short term, this proposal would save money. It is penny-wise 
and

[[Page S5236]]

pound-foolish and in the long run it will cost us money. The result in 
this budget will be to increase maintenance costs in the future. Over 
the long run it would lead to irreversible consequences and irrevocably 
damage the Nation's heritage.
  The effect of this budget will result in outcomes immediately visible 
to the public, Mr. President, such as deferred maintenance, extensive 
closing of campgrounds and other visitor facilities, it would reduce 
visitor protection services, and cut back in the number of and types of 
tours, all over the United States. We can and we must find other 
savings in our quest to reduce the Federal deficit. We have done that.
  What this underlying amendment will do is reduce corporate welfare in 
exchange for putting this money back into environmental programs. It 
defies common sense to think that Congress will fund a tax cut at the 
expense of our national parks.
  Mr. President, we cannot allow that to happen. The amendment that we 
are offering would increase funding for the National Park Service by 
about $1.1 billion, the amendment that is included in the Kerry 
amendment. This is important. It would restore the National Park 
Service funding to the level of the President's budget. It would be 
offset, as I have indicated, by a reduction in tax loopholes. The 
national parks are one of the great legacies which we leave to our 
children.
  Let us make sure that we do not leave them a legacy in disrepair and 
decay. We owe them, Mr. President, better than that. The natural 
wonders of these national parks are a gift from powers higher than 
Congress. What we do with them is our gift to our children. In the 
early part of this century, President Teddy Roosevelt galvanized this 
Nation's efforts to preserve America's heritage by setting aside 
thousands of acres as national parks. The time has come for this body 
to galvanize support again for continuing to preserve this natural 
legacy.

  Mr. President, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
this is something we should work together on. This is important. The 
people--the people--want this. We just cannot let this embarrassment 
continue, the degradation of our National Park System. I have talked 
about how it impacts Nevada.
  We have one park in Nevada, and a few entities within the park 
system. The States of Utah, New Mexico, California, States all over the 
eastern and western seaboards have national parks. They are falling 
apart just like that one park in the State of Nevada. We are a new 
park. Some of the parks are suffering even more than we are. There are 
other parks, there are entities in the park system like Lake Mead.
  Mr. President, I repeat, over 10 million people visited that park 
last year. It is overutilized and we certainly do not give it enough 
help with the resources to maintain it in a way that we should be proud 
of.
  So I hope that we in a bipartisan effort can support this amendment. 
We were in the environmental battles last year, some of which led to 
the closure of the Government. We do not need that again. This is 
something we should do in the spirit of bipartisanship and a spirit of 
taking care of these great natural wonders that were originally 
developed, conceptually by a Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Arizona takes the 
floor, I ask unanimous consent that Amy Lueders, a congressional 
fellow, be allowed the privilege of the floor during the remainder of 
the debate on this budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Without objection, so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 3995

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding a supermajority 
                     requirement for raising taxes)

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment and send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes amendment 
     numbered 3995.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A SUPERMAJORITY 
                   REQUIREMENT FOR RAISING TAXES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Nation's current tax system is indefensible, being 
     overly complex, burdensome, and severely limiting to economic 
     opportunity for all Americans;
       (2) fundamental tax reform should be undertaken as soon as 
     practicable to produce a tax system that is fairer, flatter, 
     and simpler; that promotes, rather than punishes, job 
     creation; that eliminates unnecessary paperwork burdens on 
     America's businesses; that recognizes the fact that families 
     are performing the most important work of our society; that 
     provides incentives for Americans who save for the future in 
     order to build a better life for themselves and their 
     families; that allows Americans, especially the middle class, 
     to keep more of what they earn, but that raises enough money 
     to fund a leaner, more efficient Federal Government; and that 
     allows Americans to compute their taxes easily; and
       (3) the stability and longevity of any new tax system 
     designed to achieve these goals should be guaranteed with a 
     supermajority vote requirement so that Congress cannot easily 
     raise tax rates, impose new taxes, or otherwise increase the 
     amount of a taxpayer's income that is subject to tax.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that this concurrent resolution on the budget assumes 
     fundamental tax reform should be accompanied by a proposal to 
     amend the Constitution of the United States to require a 
     supermajority vote in each House of Congress to approve tax 
     increases.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment which 
expresses the sense of the Senate regarding a supermajority for the 
raising of taxes. It essentially says that once the Congress has 
achieved fundamental tax reform we would then move to the adoption of a 
resolution proposing to the States a constitutional amendment that 
would require a supermajority to raise taxes.
  The budget resolution that is before us now projects that revenues to 
the Treasury will rise from $1.42 trillion in 1996 to $1.85 trillion in 
the year 2002. That is an increase of $430 billion or about 30 percent 
by the end of that 6-year period, an increase that is attributable 
primarily to economic growth since the budget resolution assumes no new 
taxes.
  In fact, the increasing revenue figures actually factor in the effect 
of the $500 per child tax credit for families. Even taking into account 
the tax changes, revenues to the Treasury will continue to grow. What 
all of this means is that we can achieve a balanced budget without new 
taxes. We can do it by limiting spending, and pursuing tax policies 
that promote economic growth and opportunity.
  Mr. President, the budget resolution recommends the kind of change 
that people have been demanding: more responsible spending, tax relief, 
and progress toward a balanced budget. And yet it represents only part 
of the change that the people have been seeking. Fundamental tax reform 
represents the second part of the equation.
  By the time that Americans had filed their income tax returns on 
April 15, they had spent about 1.7 billion hours on tax-related 
paperwork. That is according to Internal Revenue Service estimates, and 
they should know. Business spent another 3.4 billion hours. According 
to the Tax Foundation, the cost of compliance will approach $200 
billion.
  If that is not evidence that our Tax Code is one of the most 
inefficient and wasteful ever created, I do not know what is. Money and 
effort that could have been put to productive use solving problems in 
our communities, putting Americans to work, putting food on the table, 
or investing in the Nation's future are instead devoted to wasteful 
paperwork.
  It is no wonder that the American people are frustrated and angry and 
that they are demanding real change in the way that Washington taxes 
and spends.
  Mr. President, I am offering this amendment today with two objectives 
in mind. First, to put the Senate on record with regard to the need for 
fundamental tax reform and, second, and perhaps even more important, to 
put Senators on record with regard to the

[[Page S5237]]

concept of a supermajority requirement for raising taxes.
  Last month the House of Representatives considered the tax limitation 
amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution to require a two-
thirds vote to raise taxes. The measure was similar, though not 
identical, to Senate Joint Resolution 49 which I introduced earlier 
this year.
  The Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee held a 
hearing on my proposal on Tax Day, April 15. I hope it will be 
scheduled for action by the full Senate later this year.
  The amendment I am offering today, however, merely deals with the 
concept of a tax limitation, something that is important whether 
fundamental tax reform succeeds or not, but which takes on added 
significance and importance if tax reform results in the elimination of 
most of the deductions, exemptions, and credits in which taxpayers find 
some refuge from high tax rates today.
  Deductions, exemptions, and credits have less significance if one low 
rate is applied to income. But without a supermajority requirement for 
raising taxes, people would be particularly vulnerable to any changes 
that Congress might make in a new single rate income tax or sales tax. 
A supermajority requirement for raising taxes would make it much harder 
for Congress to increase the burden on taxpayers after fundamental tax 
reform has been accomplished. That is, I believe, both appropriate and 
necessary.
  In fact, Mr. President, a supermajority requirement for raising taxes 
was recommended by the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax 
Reform appointed by Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich. The 
commission, which was chaired by former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, 
advocated a supermajority requirement in its recent report on how to 
achieve a simpler single rate tax to replace the existing maze of tax 
rates, deductions, exemptions, and credits that makes up the Federal 
income tax as we know it today.

  Here is what the Kemp commission report said:

       The roller-coaster ride of tax policy in the past few 
     decades has fed citizens' cynicism about the possibility of 
     real, long-term reform, while fueling frustration with 
     Washington. The initial optimism inspired by the low rates of 
     the 1986 Tax Reform Act soured into disillusionment and anger 
     when taxes subsequently were hiked two times in less than 7 
     years. The commission believes that a two-thirds 
     supermajority vote of Congress will earn Americans' 
     confidence in the longevity, predictability and the stability 
     of any new tax system.

  Mr. President, ideally, a tax limitation should be put into place 
after this comprehensive tax reform that is recommended by the Kemp 
Commission is accomplished. That is because tax reform necessarily aims 
to broaden the tax base and then apply one low rate to whatever amount 
of income is left. Because base broadening would be subject to a 
supermajority vote under the proposed constitutional amendment, some 
are concerned it could make comprehensive tax reform more difficult to 
achieve. In fact, that is correct.
  The sense-of-the-Senate amendment which I am offering today takes 
into consideration that particular concern, recommending that a 
supermajority requirement would occur in the context of fundamental tax 
reform. In other words, only after fundamental tax reform had been 
achieved.
  As I said before, however, a tax limit is needed whether tax reform 
succeeds or not. There is no small irony in the fact it will take a 
two-thirds majority vote of both the House and the Senate to overcome 
President Clinton's veto and enact last year's Balanced Budget Act with 
its tax relief provisions. By contrast, the President's record-setting 
tax increase of 1993 was enacted with only a simple majority--and not 
even a majority of elected Senators at that. The Vice President had to 
break a tie of 50-50 to secure passage of the tax increase bill in the 
Senate.
  The idea of a tax limitation is based on a simple premise: It ought 
to be at least as hard to raise people's taxes as it is to cut them. 
What we are attempting to do here is to force Members of Congress to 
think of tax increases not as a first resort but as a last resort. A 
tax limitation will make it harder to raise taxes, of course. But 
perhaps more than that, it will force Congress to fundamentally assess 
the ways it goes about raising revenues.
  Mr. President, this is perhaps the most important thing I have to say 
this morning. We should remember that the amendment does not limit 
revenues to the Treasury; it merely precludes tax rate increases 
without a supermajority vote. There is a reason for this. Most of us 
would agree that lower tax rates stimulate the economy, resulting in 
more taxable income, more taxable transactions and, therefore, more 
revenue to the Treasury. Lower tax rates, within limits, end up 
producing more revenue to the Treasury. So it matters how we raise 
revenues. Do we do it by trying to raise taxes or do we do it 
paradoxically, by lowering taxes? The latter is obviously preferable.
  The tax cuts of the early 1980's are a case in point. They spawned 
the longest peacetime expansion of our economy in the Nation's history. 
Revenues to the Treasury increased as a result, from $599.3 billion in 
fiscal year 1981 to $990.7 billion in fiscal year 1989, up 65 percent. 
Revenues to the Treasury during those Reagan years increased 
substantially with tax rate reductions. That is the way we should raise 
the revenues that fund Federal programs.
  High tax rates, on the other hand, discourage work and production and 
savings and investment. So there is ultimately less activity, less 
economic activity, to tax. That is precisely what Martin Feldstein, the 
former chair of the President's Council on Economic Advisers, found 
when he looked at the effect of President Clinton's 1993 tax increase. 
He found that taxpayers responded to the sharply higher marginal tax 
rates imposed by the Clinton tax bill by reducing their taxable incomes 
by nearly $25 billion. They did that by saving less, investing less, 
and creating fewer jobs. The economy eventually paid the price in terms 
of slower growth.

  It is interesting to note that revenues, as a percentage of the gross 
domestic product, have actually fluctuated around a very narrow band: 
18 to 20 percent of the GDP for the last 40 years. In fact, revenues 
amounted to about 19 percent of GDP when the top marginal income tax 
rate was in the 90 percent range in the 1950's, and they also amounted 
to just under 19 percent when the top marginal rate was in the 28 
percent range in the 1980's.
  Now, why the consistency? Mr. President, this is the most important 
point I want to make. Why do revenues to the Federal Treasury stay 
constant at about 19 percent of the GDP, whether tax rates are 90 
percent or 28 percent? It seems counterintuitive. Why is it so? It is 
because tax rate changes have a greater effect on how well or how poor 
the economy performs than they do on the amount of revenue that flows 
to the Treasury relative to the GDP. In other words, how Congress taxes 
is more important than how much it taxes. The key is whether tax policy 
fosters economic growth and opportunity, measured in GDP, or results in 
a smaller and weaker economy.
  The point is this: 19 percent of a larger GDP represents far more 
revenue to the Treasury and is, therefore, preferable to 19 percent of 
a smaller GDP. We raise revenues for the Federal Government not by 
raising marginal tax rates, but by reducing them. It is a paradox, but 
it is true.
  Requiring a supermajority vote for tax increases is, I think, sound 
policy. It is not a new idea. It is an idea this has already been tried 
and tested in a dozen States across the country. In 1992, an 
overwhelming majority of the voters of my home State of Arizona, 72 
percent, approved an amendment to the State's constitution requiring a 
two-thirds majority vote for tax increases. There is a reason that the 
idea has been so popular in Arizona and other States. Tax limits work. 
According to a 1994 study by the Cato Institute, a family of four in 
States with tax and expenditure limits faces a State tax burden that 
was $650 lower, on average, 5 years after implementation than it would 
have been if the State tax growth had not been slowed.
  Tax limitation works. It will force Congress to be smarter about how 
it raises revenue. It will force Congress to look to economic growth to 
raise revenue instead of simply increasing tax rates, which does not 
work, anyway. It will protect taxpayers from additional rate increases.
  I encourage my colleagues when we have the opportunity, I presume on

[[Page S5238]]

Tuesday, to support this simple sense-of-the-Senate amendment, to 
support the concept of tax limitation, to in effect, say, when we have 
achieved fundamental tax reform, then we should require a supermajority 
to raise the taxes.
  Mr. President, I want to conclude this part of the discussion on the 
more general subject of the budget that is before the Senate. As I 
said, relative to the amendment I am proposing here, revenues to the 
Treasury depend more on whether we have a healthy economy, whether we 
are conducting Government in a way to encourage growth, investment and 
savings, than it does on whether we are raising tax rates. What the 
budget that has been presented by the Republican Budget Committee has 
done here is to work in several ways toward that goal, to foster 
economic growth and investment, and, therefore, opportunity.
  I want to begin by commending the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
the Senator from New Mexico, and the members of his committee, for 
producing a budget which balances and, as I will note later, as a 
result of which quickly puts more money into the pockets of Americans, 
helping to stimulate this economic growth that I have been speaking of. 
It not only achieves balance, but it adheres to the schedule that we 
established last year for eliminating the budget deficit by the year 
2002. And I would also note that the progress that we have made since 
last year is really quite extraordinary. It might be assumed by the 
general public, watching the machinations in the Congress and the 
President's vetoes and gridlock reported by the media, that nothing has 
been accomplished. But the fact of the matter is, a lot of money has 
been saved, and $23 billion, or 9 percent, has been cut from domestic 
spending levels. And even more could have been saved had Congress not 
been forced to add back $5 billion to satisfy President Clinton's 
demands for more spending, and to ensure that he would sign the final 
budget for 1996 into law.

  But the point is that, with our efforts of last year, as 
controversial as they were, as contentious as they were, as much as the 
President made us put back money because he wanted to spend more, we 
still saved $23 billion last year.
  In last year's budget, the Congress eliminated about 200 Government 
programs. That is 200 programs that have been eliminated before we even 
start this year's budget cycle. It is really the great untold story of 
last year, that savings were achieved--not with President Clinton's 
help, but in spite of it. We made progress on taxes as well, Mr. 
President. Again, this came in spite of President Clinton's objections. 
We raised the Social Security earnings limitation to ease the burden on 
nearly 1 million seniors. We passed tax relief for our troops serving 
in Bosnia. We permanently increased the health insurance deduction for 
the self-employed from 25 to 30 percent. We would have liked to have 
done much more, of course. And we prohibited States from taxing the 
pension income of former residents who retired and moved to other 
States, the so-called source tax repeal.
  So we provided a lot of tax relief for Americans. There would have 
been additional tax relief for the American people if President Clinton 
had not vetoed the bill that we passed last November--vetoed it on 
December 6 of last year. When he vetoed that bill, he precluded an 
extension of the exclusion for employer-provided education assistance. 
He precluded a $500 per child tax credit. He prevented us from 
instituting a marriage penalty tax relief provision. He prevented us 
from implementing capital gains tax reform, and also a tax deduction 
for the first $2,500 in interest on a student loan. These are all tax 
relief provisions that we passed but the President vetoed.
  We would have provided Americans with enhanced opportunities to save 
in their individual retirement accounts. And we would have given them 
more choice in obtaining affordable health care through the medical 
savings accounts that were, again, in the bill we passed but that the 
President vetoed.
  The President said ``no'' to tax relief. In fact, it seems to me, Mr. 
President, that there is no tax that the President is willing to part 
with. Even the gasoline tax debate that we have had--it has obviously 
been grinding on the President, and he suggested that maybe he would 
approve it because it is very popular. But he will not commit to it. He 
admitted that he raised taxes too much back in 1993. But when it came 
time to roll the tax increases back, he has said ``no.''
  Now, the committee-reported budget before us today again challenges 
President Clinton to do some of the things that he has promised for so 
long. I am going to be offering another amendment, in a moment, which 
will really put this, I think, to the test. But the budget that we have 
produced here, which Senator Domenici and his committee presented to 
us, includes real welfare reform and middle-class tax relief. It 
ensures the solvency of Medicare and reforms Medicaid--all the things 
the President has said he wants to do. It balances the budget honestly, 
without the kind of gimmicks and triggers recommended by President 
Clinton, which, by the way, are gimmicks that will require deep cuts in 
domestic discretionary programs, including the environment, scientific 
research and education, if balance is to be achieved at all.
  In fact, despite the claims to the contrary, President Clinton's 
budget does not balance. I am going to repeat that. Despite the claims 
of some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the President's 
budget is not in balance. The director of the Congressional Budget 
Office, June O'Neill, in her testimony on April 17, said, ``Under CBO's 
more cautious economic and technical assumptions, the basic policies 
outlined in the President's budget would bring down the deficit to 
about $80 billion by 2002, instead of producing the budget surplus that 
the administration estimates.'' In other words, even though the 
administration estimates that it will be in balance at the end of 6 
more years, the CBO says, in fact, it will be in deficit by $80 
billion. In contrast, the budget proposed by Senator Domenici, called 
the Republican budget, is, of course, in balance.

  The bottom line here is that, for all the President's proclamations 
that he is now a true believer in a balanced budget, he still has yet 
to offer an honest plan to achieve balance by any certain date. As I 
said, the Senate Budget Committee's proposal does exactly what we 
promised. We promised not to cut Medicare. This budget does not. 
Medicare spending would be allowed to grow at twice the rate of 
inflation. In fact, per beneficiary spending would grow from $5,200 in 
1996 to $7,000 in 2002, a 35-percent increase. We allow it to grow, but 
at a sustainable level. We provide a $500 per child tax credit for 
every child under 18. We protect Social Security. We reform Medicaid. 
And we continue progress toward more market-oriented farm policies.
  There are very good reasons for us to be proposing this honest 
balanced budget, Mr. President. One is, of course, that it protects 
priorities, like Social Security and Medicare, and, importantly, it 
accommodates tax relief for middle-income families. First and foremost, 
it is the right thing to do. In fact, Mr. President, no generation 
before us has spent so lavishly on itself, only to leave the bills to 
future generations to repay. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said recently:

       There is great delight in working hard and living within 
     our means so our children could be better off than we have 
     been. Only in the last generation has this bias toward the 
     future been reversed. Now we are borrowing against the farm 
     to pay today's living expenses, and leaving our children to 
     pay off that debt.

  Mr. President, the Speaker is right. But balancing the budget is not 
just about the future. A balanced budget would produce substantial 
benefits for today's generations as well. The Congressional Budget 
Office predicts that a balanced budget would facilitate a reduction in 
long-term interest rates of between 1 and 2 percent--some say as high 
as 2.7 percent. Among other things, that means that Americans will have 
the chance to live the American dream and to own their own homes.
  A 2-percent reduction in the typical 30-year mortgage in Arizona 
would save homeowners over $220 a month. That is $2,655 a year. Let me 
repeat this. By balancing the budget now, interest rates will come 
down, and a 2-percent drop in interest rates would save the average 
family with a home mortgage in Arizona $2,655 each year.

[[Page S5239]]

 That is money in our pockets, Mr. President.
  So it is not just about the future, though the future is critical. It 
is about today, helping the working families of today keep more of what 
they earn, just as a result of making a commitment that we will have 
the Federal budget balanced in another 6 years.
  A couple of other examples. A 2-percent reduction in interest rates 
on a typical $15,000 car loan would save buyers $676. That is real 
money. The savings would also accrue on student loans, credit cards, 
and loans to businesses who want to expand and create new jobs. 
Reducing interest rates is, perhaps, one of the most important things 
we could do for people all over the country today.
  So the point I want to make in relation not only to the amendment 
that I have just proposed, which would commit the Senate to the 
proposition that economic growth is important and that we can achieve 
it more by reducing tax rates than by increasing them, is that the 
budget that we have proposed promotes that kind of growth, that kind of 
opportunity as a result. It is a good budget, a responsible budget. It 
accepts the challenge to rein in Government spending and to ensure that 
we leave our children and grandchildren with a legacy of more than debt 
and despair. So I urge my colleagues, when the time comes, to support 
this budget.
  Mr. President, I would like to reserve the remainder of the time on 
the amendment which I have just been discussing. I ask unanimous 
consent to lay this amendment aside and to send another amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3996

   (Purpose: To adopt the President's budget for the Low Income Home 
 Energy Assistance Program through fiscal year 2000 and freeze funding 
                      for the program thereafter)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3996.

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

       On page 4, line 10, decrease the amount by $90,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $85,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $174,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $85,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $174,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 31, line 17, decrease the amount by $90,000,000.
       On page 31, line 18, decrease the amount by $85,000,000.
       On page 31, line 24, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 31, line 25, decrease the amount by $174,000,000.
       On page 32, line 6, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 32, line 7, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 32, line 13, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 32, line 14, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am going to speak on this amendment for a 
little while and then again reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. How long does the Senator expect to speak on this 
amendment?
  Mr. KYL. I would say to the Senator from West Virginia, probably 
about 10 minutes, but certainly no longer than 15.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, this amendment is very modest, but I think it will 
provide a real test of whether everyone who likes to call themselves 
sensible about fiscal policy really means it. It is a test of whether 
we are really serious about holding the line on spending, or whether we 
are even unwilling to make a small step to balance the budget.
  This amendment deals with the so-called LIHEAP program, the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It accepts the President's 
spending figures, his budget, for this program for the next 4 years. 
This is a forward-funded program, but it accepts the President's 
figures through the year 2000, and then for the last 2 years of the 
program it continues spending at exactly that level. By contrast, the 
President would allow spending on that program to dramatically escalate 
in the last 2 years, which just happens to be the campaign year.
  So what I am proposing here is a very slight reduction in spending in 
the last 2 years of the 6-year program and spending at the 
administration's request for the first 4 years. This, therefore, is a 
good test.
  Will big spenders even vote against this modest cut? I am reminded of 
what happened about 3 years ago when the Senator who occupies the Chair 
and I both served in the House of Representatives and we were engaged 
in a similar debate. We had failed to cut 15 percent from a program. We 
then failed to cut 12 percent, and then 10 percent, and then 5, and 
then 3 percent. Finally, our colleague from Pennsylvania, 
Representative Walker, got up and said, ``All right. Then would you at 
least cut $19.93?''--that being 1993. Again, there was a vote taken. 
And, no, the House of Representatives would not even reduce the program 
by $19.93.
  This is a little more than $19.93. This will provide some real 
savings--a few hundred million dollars, which I know in Washington does 
not seem like much, but to Americans it is real money.
  So we will see whether we are even willing to cut a little bit in the 
last 2 years of a program by continuing the spending levels that the 
President has deemed sufficient for the next 4 years for the full 6 
years of the program.
  Let us talk about the actual numbers involved here. The budget 
resolution assumes that funding for LIHEAP will be constant at about $1 
billion for each of fiscal years 1997 through fiscal year 2002. But the 
President recommends LIHEAP funding of $1 billion for fiscal years 1997 
and 1998, declining to $910 million in fiscal year 1999 and $819 
million in the year 2000. What this amendment would do is to take that 
level of funding, $819 million, as I said, and have it be constant for 
the remainder of this period of time. So that under the amendment, 
LIHEAP would be funded at $1 billion in year 1, $1 billion in year 2, 
under the President's recommendation would decline to $910 million in 
fiscal 1999, $819 million in the year 2000, and then stay at $819 
million for the year 2001, and the year 2002.
  It adopts the President's figures, as I said, and then keeps the 
spending constant for the last 2 years. The President otherwise would 
allow LIHEAP spending to increase to $934 million in fiscal year 2001 
and $1.064 billion in fiscal year 2002. As I said, curiously enough, 
the high years are the election years.
  Here is what the Office of Management and Budget has said. The Office 
of Management and Budget, which is the President's office for 
calculating budget matters and working on budget matters, has said that 
the declining figures for those middle years--1999 and 2000--are due to 
standard percentage reductions applied to programs that are not a top 
priority--that are not a top priority. The President's own Office of 
Management and Budget has taken all of the items in the President's 
budget and has weighed them, has prioritized them, and has said that 
for those that are not a top priority, we are going to apply a standard 
rate of reduction. That is why even though it is $1 billion this year 
and $1 billion next year, it is going to go down to $910 million in 
1999 and then $819 million in the year 2000.
  The President's 1995 budget request, I would note, proposed to reduce 
LIHEAP's funding by half--by over $700 million. His 1995 budget 
proposal would have left $730 million in LIHEAP.
  So you see, Mr. President, while the Office of Management and Budget 
and

[[Page S5240]]

the President of the United States have said that the appropriate level 
was $730 million, in the last 2 years of the program they increase it 
to ultimately being over $1 billion a year. All we are doing is taking 
the Office of Management and Budget at its word, we are taking the 
President at his word that these programs really are a little lesser 
priority than some of the more important programs. But instead of 
taking the spending down to $730 million where the President would have 
taken it, we leave it at $819 million, almost $100 million more in the 
last 3 years of this 6-year period of time.
  So we would provide more for LIHEAP every year compared to what the 
President proposed just 2 years ago.
  I hope this will preclude anybody from arguing we are savaging the 
LIHEAP budget. We are spending more than the President proposed, and we 
are spending the same amount in the last 3 years of the program, the 
amount the President recommended in year 4, and then we are continuing 
that spending in year 5 and 6.
  Here is the reason for my amendment. The President's outyear figures 
are, obviously, unrealistic. They are not going to be obtained. You 
cannot backload all of the money into the last 2 years of the program, 
and this is because the President has relied on gimmicks to get to 
balance by the year 2002.
  Again, remember what I said before. Without those gimmicks, his 
budget would be $84 million in deficit according to the Congressional 
Budget Office. So the additional spending in these years cannot really 
be justified. It is not going to happen. I am simply saying, let us 
recognize that now and ensure that the budget that we pass will be an 
honest budget.
  Let me conclude with some statements and thoughts about LIHEAP that 
help demonstrate why this is not a top-priority program and, therefore, 
the President is right in suggesting that the spending be reduced 
somewhat.
  Remember that this program was initiated in 1981 to temporarily--
temporarily--supplement existing cash assistance programs and to help 
low-income individuals pay for escalating home fuel costs which 
resulted from the energy crisis of 15 years ago. Around Washington, 
every temporary spending program and every temporary tax seems to 
become permanent, and this one has, too. But it does not have to 
bankrupt us as well.
  Let me just mention that one of the major utilities in Arizona--
Arizona Public Service--has advised that average residential rates have 
declined 10 percent in real terms between 1980 and 1995 in constant 
1980 dollars. These real lower prices mean that it is time to 
reconsider the LIHEAP program, which assumed continuously escalating 
prices back in the days of high inflation. The Clinton administration 
informed the House Appropriations Committee in 1994 that low-income 
families now spend one-third less of their income on home energy than 
they did when LIHEAP was initiated.
  So they have confirmed this reality. And according to CBO's February 
1995 report, ``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,'' 26 
States--this is the real test, Mr. President--transferred up to 10 
percent of their LIHEAP funds, which was then legal to do--it is not 
any more, but they transferred up to 10 percent of their LIHEAP funds 
during 1993 to supplement spending for five other social and community 
services block grant programs which obviously had a higher priority to 
them. The transfers obviously indicate that some States believe that 
spending for energy assistance does not have as high a priority as 
other spending does--the same thing that the President himself 
confirmed.
  The point is this. LIHEAP has evolved from a temporary energy crisis 
assistance program to a broad income supplement which the Clinton 
administration in its 1995 budget request said, and I am quoting, 
``does not target well those low-income households with exceptionally 
high energy costs in relation to income and which does little to help 
assisted households achieve independence from the program.''
  So the Clinton administration has been quite honest about this. It 
has acknowledged it is not the best program to help the low-income 
families. It has acknowledged that the original purpose, to temporarily 
help people in an escalating time of fuel bills, is no longer a high 
priority because, as I noted, the fuel bills are going down, and 
therefore in its own budget request has assigned the LIHEAP program a 
lower budget priority applying an across-the-board reduction. It has, 
therefore, recommended that from the $1 billion we are going to spend 
next year and the year after, it be reduced to $934 million--fine--down 
to $819 million--fine--and my amendment simply says and hold it at $819 
million for the last 2 years of this 6-year period.
  What could be more reasonable? And yet I suspect this will put some 
of our colleagues to the test. I would just offer a challenge to those 
members particularly who come from the States that utilize LIHEAP 
significantly. This is an opportunity, an opportunity to do something 
that does not occur very often and that is to be able to say I voted to 
cut a program that is used by people in my own State quite a bit 
because I knew it was wrong, I knew that in effect because of changed 
circumstances this had become fat, not muscle, this had become almost a 
pork-type project. Of course, we know that we all have to pay for these 
spending programs, and we are willing to do our part to bring the 
budget deficit down. Members even from States that utilize this program 
can say that now because we are spending all we need to spend on the 
program, according to the administration. And so by holding the figure 
at the administration's level, we will be helping to reduce the budget 
and we will be also demonstrating in at least one small way that we 
really mean it when we say we can achieve deficit reduction. So not 
only for those States that do not particularly rely upon it but for the 
Members who come from those States that do, it is a real opportunity 
that does not come along very often. As I said, it will really help us 
to determine whether or not we are serious about achieving balancing 
our budget by the year 2002 or whether it is just rhetoric and we are 
leaving it to our children to pay the bills.
  I hope that when this LIHEAP modest reduction by in effect having 
level spending in the last 3 years of the program comes to a vote on 
Tuesday, all of our colleagues will join in supporting the amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from 
Massachusetts wishes to speak for, say, 15 minutes.
  Mr. President, I have an amendment which I will offer, and it may be 
that the Senator from Massachusetts has an amendment or amendments.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. I would like to offer some 
amendments dealing with Medicare-Medicaid. I will not speak on those 
measures now. I would like to get them in order.
  I do not want to interfere with the orderly procedure which is being 
followed here about submitting amendments and setting them aside. And 
so I would inquire if that is an agreeable process with the Senator 
from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
recognized at this point and I may yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts for 15 minutes without losing my right to the floor, and 
that the time he utilizes be charged either against his amendments or 
against the time on the resolution itself; that I then be recognized to 
call up my amendment. We will not be alternating as the Senators I 
think would like to do, but the distinguished Senator from Arizona, 
[Mr. Kyl], just offered two amendments. I did not raise any objection 
to that. So if Senators will give me consent, I make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object and I will 
not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have not set aside the Kyl amendments. We will do 
that first.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl amendments be 
temporarily set aside.

[[Page S5241]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am surely  not  going  to  object.  
Did  the Senator inform the Senate in my absence how long he was going 
to take on his amendment?
  Mr. BYRD. I will take the full hour. I will probably use 50 minutes 
of it and then charge some time against the resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And Senator Kennedy is going to need 15 minutes?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fifteen minutes and then offer amendments but will not 
speak on them out here because others want to address the Senate. I 
will address the Senate at another time on those measures but I will 
file them.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So we know on our side, how long is the Senator 
proposing that you use the time of the Senate between the two of you 
before one of us can be--is it an hour and 15 minutes that we are 
talking about?
  Mr. BYRD. No, I was going to use 50 minutes of my hour, reserve the 
remainder of the time and complete my speech on the time from the 
resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Before we get back on our side, so we will know who 
should be here, is it an hour and a half or what do you think?
  Mr. BYRD. I would think that would be about it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. About an hour and a half.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be 15 minutes. The Senator has indicated 50.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request of the Senator 
from West Virginia is granted.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank all Members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from West 
Virginia for his typical courtesy and I appreciate all of us are trying 
to have an opportunity to address the Senate on a number of the items 
that are included in the budget and adjusting schedules.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode 
Island Mr. [Pell] be added as an original cosponsor of amendment No. 
3991, the Kerry-Murray amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 3997, 3998, 3999, and 4000

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send four amendments to the desk, and I 
ask unanimous consent that they be considered individually. I further 
ask unanimous consent that they be laid aside. I hope to discuss them 
further during the course of the afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes 
     amendments numbered 3997, 3998, 3999, and 4000.

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


                           amendment no. 3997

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that the reconciliation 
   bill should maintain the existing prohibitions against additional 
            charges by providers under the medicare program)

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING ADDITIONAL CHARGES 
                   UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) senior citizens must spend more than 1 dollar in 5 of 
     their limited incomes to purchase the health care they need;
       (2) \2/3\ of spending under the medicare program under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act is for senior citizens 
     with annual incomes of less than $15,000;
       (3) senior citizens cannot afford physician fee mark-ups 
     that are not covered under the medicare program or premium 
     overcharges; and
       (4) senior citizens enrolling in private insurance plans 
     receiving medicare capitation payments are currently 
     protected against excess charges by health providers and 
     additional premium charges by the plan for services covered 
     under the medicare program.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that any reconciliation bill considered during the second 
     session of the 104th Congress should maintain the existing 
     prohibitions against additional charges by providers under 
     the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act (``balance billing''), and any premium surcharges for 
     services covered under such program that are levied on senior 
     citizens enrolled in private insurance plans in lieu of 
     conventional medicare.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican budget plan is designed to 
make Medicare ``wither on the vine,'' in the words of Speaker Gingrich. 
Under the guise of greater choice, it is rigged to force seniors to 
give up their family doctor and join private insurance plans. If the 
Republican plan had been enacted last year, private insurers would have 
reaped a bonanza. If only half of all seniors had left conventional 
Medicare, private insurers would have reaped windfall revenues of $625 
billion over the next 7 years.
  Not only does the Republican plan force senior citizens to join 
private insurance plans, it strips away existing protections against 
additional, uncovered provider charges--so-called balance billing--once 
they have enrolled. It eliminates current protections against premium 
surcharges for basic Medicare services. It puts every senior at 
financial risk.
  Unlimited balanced billing would be allowed under at least three 
circumstances under the Republican plan. Charges for any service--
except emergency services--supplied by a provider not having a contract 
with the private insurance company would not be limited. Charges for 
services provided through a Medicare medical savings account would be 
unlimited. And services provided by an unrestricted fee-for-service 
plan would be unlimited.
  Currently, private insurance plans receiving Medicare capitation 
contracts may not charge enrollees any additional premium for coverage 
of Medicare basic services. Under the Republican plan, that protection, 
too, is eliminated.
  Because of gaps in Medicare and high health care costs, senior 
citizens have a difficult time affording the health care they need. 
Eighty-three percent of all Medicare spending is for older Americans 
with annual incomes below $25,000. Two-thirds is for those with incomes 
below $15,000. Senior citizens typically spend more than $1 in $5 of 
their limited income to purchase the health care they need. It is wrong 
to expose them to higher medical bills and higher premiums so that 
doctors and insurance companies can reap greater profits.
  The President vetoed these unfair proposals last year, and the 
Democrats in Congress upheld his veto. The amendment I am offering 
today gives every Member of the Senate the opportunity to go on record 
as rejecting this new budget's proposals to allow balance billing and 
premiums surcharges in private insurance plans receiving Medicare 
capitation payments. I hope the Senate will adopt it.


                           amendment no. 3998

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that the reconciliation 
  bill should not include any changes in Federal nursing home quality 
        standards or the Federal enforcement of such standards)

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING NURSING HOME 
                   STANDARDS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) prior to the enactment of subtitle C of title IV of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, deplorable 
     conditions and shocking abuse of senior citizens and the 
     disabled in nursing homes was widespread; and
       (2) the enactment and implementation of such subtitle has 
     brought major improvements in nursing home conditions and 
     substantially reduced abuse of senior citizens.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that any reconciliation bill considered during the second 
     session of the 104th Congress should not include any changes 
     in Federal nursing home quality standards or the Federal 
     enforcement of such standards.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, strong Federal quality standards for 
nursing homes were enacted by Congress with solid bipartisan support in 
1987, after a series of investigations revealed appalling conditions in 
nursing homes throughout the Nation and shocking abuse of senior 
citizens and the disabled.
  Elderly patients were often allowed to go uncleaned for days, lying 
in their own excrement. They were tied to wheelchairs and beds under 
conditions that would not be tolerated in any prison in America. 
Deliberate abuse and violence were used against helpless senior 
citizens by callous or sadistic attendants. Painful, untreated, and 
completely avoidable bedsores were found widespread.
  Patients had been scalded to death in hot baths and showers, or 
sedated to

[[Page S5242]]

the point of unconsciousness, or isolated from all aspects of normal 
life by fly-by-night nursing home operators bent on profiteering from 
the misery of their patients.
  These conditions, once revealed, shocked the conscience of the 
Nation. The Federal standards enacted by Congress ended much of this 
unconscionable abuse and achieved substantial improvement in the 
quality of care for nursing home residents.
  Last year, the Republican budget programs included a frontal assault 
on these standards. The first House reconciliation bill repealed them 
entirely. The Senate bill reported from Committee did the same. As 
public outrage mounted, the Republican Congress was forced to modify 
their program--but each time the fine print left major loopholes. 
Fortunately, the President vetoed this harsh program, and the Democrats 
in Congress sustained his veto.
  It is difficult to believe that anyone, no matter how extreme their 
ideology, would take us back to the shameful conditions before 1987. 
But this is exactly what the Republican plan will do. The American 
people will never accept such a program, so the Republican program, 
once again, buries the assault on nursing home quality in fine print. 
This time, the House Commerce Committee has announced that it will 
maintain current standards--but the fine print says that enforcement 
responsibility will be taken from the Federal Government and turned 
over to the States. Yet it was because States failed to adequately 
protect nursing home residents that the Federal law was enacted in the 
first place.
  This amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that Federal 
nursing home quality standards should be maintained without any ifs, 
ands, or buts. This is the minimum assurance that senior citizens and 
their families deserve--and I hope the Senate will vote to give them 
that assurance.


                           amendment no. 3999

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that provisions of 
current medicaid law protecting families of nursing home residents from 
experiencing financial ruin as the price of needed care for their loved 
                        ones should be retained)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS CONCERNING NURSING HOME CARE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) under current Federal law--
       (A) protections are provided under the medicaid program 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act to prevent the 
     improverishment of spouses of nursing home residents;
       (B) prohibitions exist under such program to prevent the 
     charging of adult children of nursing home residents for the 
     cost of the care of such residents;
       (C) prohibitions exist under such program to prevent a 
     State from placing a lien against the home of a nursing home 
     resident, if that home was occupied by a spouse or dependent 
     child; and
       (D) prohibitions exist under such program to prevent a 
     nursing home from charging amounts above the medicaid 
     recognized charge for medicaid patients or requiring a 
     commitment to make private payments prior to receiving 
     medicaid coverage as a condition of admission; and
       (2) family members of nursing home residents are generally 
     unable to afford the high cost of nursing home care, which 
     ranges between $30,000 and $60,000 a year.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that provisions of the medicaid program under title XIX of 
     the Social Security Act that protect families of nursing home 
     residents from experiencing financial ruin as the price of 
     securing needed care for their loved ones should be retained, 
     including--
       (1) spousal impoverishment rules;
       (2) prohibitions against charging adult children of nursing 
     home patients for the cost of their care;
       (3) prohibitions against liens on the homes of nursing home 
     residents occupied by a spouse or dependent child; and
       (4) prohibitions against nursing homes requiring private 
     payments prior to medicaid coverage as a condition of 
     admission or allowing charges in addition to medicaid 
     payments for covered patients.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the cruellest aspects of the 
Republican proposals have been their failure to protect nursing home 
patients and their relatives from financial abuse. Last year, both the 
House and Senate Republican bills initially eliminated the protections 
in current law--enacted with broad bipartisan support in 1987--assuring 
that a spouse remaining in the community would be able to keep at least 
a modest amount of income and savings, so that she would not be reduced 
to abject poverty in order for a loved one to get the nursing home care 
he needed.
  Once the public became aware of these harsh proposals, the 
Republicans rushed to repair their public relations problem, but as in 
the case of nursing home quality standards, the provisions they claimed 
restored the current protections were as full of holes as a Swiss 
cheese.
  Their bills allowed nursing homes to charge patients more than 
Medicaid will pay, so that spouses could still be forced to sell their 
home or wipe out all their savings to give their loved ones the care 
they need. What kind of a spousal protection program is it that says, 
``The State can't take away all your savings and your home so that your 
loved one can get the care he needs, but the nursing home operator 
can?''
  Their bills continued to wipe out protections that have been included 
in Medicaid since 1965 against a State forcing adult children to be 
responsible for the cost of care for a nursing home patient. Twenty-
nine states have these laws on the books. Only the Federal law prevents 
them from being enforced--and the Republican bill would have repealed 
those protections. What kind of family values say that it is perfectly 
all right to tell adult children, struggling to raise a family and meet 
the needs of their own children, that the State can take away all your 
savings and hopes as a condition of their parents getting the nursing 
home care they need?
  And finally, their bills provided no protection against a State 
placing a lien on the home of a nursing home resident, even if a spouse 
or a child is still living there. That protection has been a part of 
current law for decades--but the Republican plan would have repealed 
it.
  The President vetoed these harsh bills, and the Democrats in Congress 
sustained his veto. The amendment I am offering today gives the Senate 
a chance to go on record as repudiating those Republican policies and 
directing that they not be included in this year's reconciliation 
bills.


                           amendment no. 4000

        (Purpose: To protect the wages of construction workers)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE DAVIS BACON ACT.

       Notwithstanding any provisions in the report of the 
     Committee on the Budget to accompany S. Con. Res. 57, it is 
     the Sense of the Senate that the provisions in this Budget 
     Resolution assume no changes to the Davis Bacon Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 3996

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was listening to my good friend from 
Arizona talking about LIHEAP, which is an essential program, 
particularly for seniors and children, to keep warm in the winter. He 
was talking about how people in Arizona do not get much value out of 
that.
  I was here when the Congress appropriated $3.4 billion to complete 
the central Arizona project. There is still 725 more to go. I will just 
say, the taxpayers of Massachusetts did not get much benefit from that 
program either.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me, the Senator from West Virginia has 
the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will Senator Byrd yield 1 minute to the 
Senator from New Mexico?
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely; gladly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not remember what the last project 
for Boston Harbor cost----
  Mr. KENNEDY. I was not the one who was complaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It almost cost more than the Arizona project, and we 
did not get anything from that in New Mexico, either.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Senator, was that not part of the Interstate 
Highway System? The completion of the top part of it was the last link 
and was the part that was to be completed in which Massachusetts 
taxpayers contributed, like others contributed for their highways in 
their State. We can talk about it at another time. I see my friend and 
colleague from West Virginia.

[[Page S5243]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Can I have an additional 30 seconds? This one I am 
talking about is known as the ``big dig.'' That is the one that is 
going to cost about $10 billion. At one point, it was kind of known as 
the ``great Tip O'Neill project.'' Everybody seemed glad to do that for 
Tip O'Neill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is called the Central Artery, which next time you go 
up, you will see the interstate signs on it. We hope you will enjoy 
your trips to New England.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not get there very often, and when it is finally 
built, there will not be such big traffic jams, and I will enjoy Boston 
then.
  I want to make sure for the Record it is understood that we are not 
in any way waiving the hour we have to rebut each of these amendments. 
We are accommodating by letting the Senators who are the proponents get 
them done today. That is a mutual request of both sides. I do not think 
we can take all the time on each amendment, but clearly by not 
answering them today does not mean we are not going to answer them, 
either in the presence of the proponent or not. At some point before 
final passage, we will answer most of them.

  I thank Senator Byrd for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 4001

 (Purpose: This amendment increases overall discretionary spending to 
the levels proposed by the President. This increase is fully offset by 
 the extension of expired tax provisions or corporate and business tax 
                                reforms)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside and that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, 
     Mr. Kohl, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Johnston, Mr. 
     Moynihan, and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4001.

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

       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $6,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $12,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $10,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $11,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $9,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by 
     $13,8,00,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $6,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $12,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $10,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $11,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $9,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $13,800,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $7,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $12,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $17,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $15,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $31,200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $22,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $6,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $12,700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $10,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $11,700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $9,700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $13,800,000,000.
       On page 42, line 2, increase the amount by $7,400,000,000.
       On page 42, line 3, increase the amount by $6,300,000,000.
       On page 42, line 8, increase the amount by $12,400,000,000.
       On page 42, line 9, increase the amount by $12,700,000,000.
       On page 42, line 15, increase the amount by 
     $17,100,000,000.
       On page 42, line 16, increase the amount by 
     $10,600,000,000.
       On page 42, line 22, increase the amount by 
     $15,300,000,000.
       On page 42, line 23, increase the amount by 
     $11,700,000,000.
       On page 43, line 5, increase the amount by $31,200,000,000.
       On page 43, line 6, increase the amount by $9,700,000,000.
       On page 43, line 12, increase the amount by 
     $22,300,000,000.
       On page 43, line 13, increase the amount by 
     $13,800,000,000.
       On page 52, strike line 9 through line 25; and
       On page 53 strike line 1 through line 9 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) with respect to fiscal year 1997, for the 
     discretionary category $496,600,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $539,200,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 1998, for the 
     discretionary category $501,600,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $534,800,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(3) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the 
     discretionary category $504,100,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $531,100,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(4) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the 
     discretionary category $509,100,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $530,900,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the 
     discretionary category $519,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $521,700,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(6) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the 
     discretionary category $520,300,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $525,600,000,000 in outlays.''

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment on behalf of 
myself and the following Senators: Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Bumpers, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Ms. 
Mikulski, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Dorgan. I welcome further 
cosponsors, Mr. President.
  Now, Mr. President, I yield myself 50 minutes of my 60 minutes, and I 
hope that the Chair will let me know when my 50 minutes have been 
concluded.
  Mr. President, I am deeply concerned by the offering of yet another 
budget resolution which shortchanges our country's future. The cuts in 
nondefense discretionary spending that would be necessary over the next 
6 years in order to meet the reduced levels of budget authority and 
outlays provided in this budget resolution are truly extraordinary.
  One has only to turn to page 211 of the committee report accompanying 
this budget resolution to see what I mean. On that page, one finds a 
table entitled ``Comparison of Budget Plans: Six-Year Totals.'' That 
table compares the deficit reduction that would take place over fiscal 
years 1997 through 2002 under President Clinton's budget proposals 
versus those under the Republican budget resolution that is now before 
the Senate.
  According to that table, in that committee report, over that 6-year 
period, fiscal years 1997-2002, discretionary spending will be cut 
under the Republican budget resolution by $296 billion. This amounts to 
$66 billion more in cuts to discretionary spending than the President's 
budget proposals, which would cut $230 billion over the same period.
  That is one of the reasons why I voted against the President's budget 
last night. I preferred it to the Republican budget that is before us. 
But the President's budget cut discretionary funding badly, even though 
the Republican resolution cuts it worse.
  Mr. President, look at the cumulative effect of the cuts in buying 
power that will have to be made over the next 6 years under either the 
budget resolution or the President's budget. They are mind-boggling--
mind-boggling. We are talking about cuts proposed by the President 
totaling $230 billion below the rate of inflation. And we are talking 
about cuts under the Republican budget resolution totaling $296 billion 
below inflation over the next 6 years for discretionary programs.

  When we pile real reductions of that severity, one on top of another, 
year after year after year after year, how can any thinking person 
expect this Nation to sustain any financial ability to meet the minimum 
needs of the American people in all of the critical areas that are 
funded by discretionary appropriations. Those needs are not frozen. We 
do not have a freeze on crime in America. We do not have a freeze on 
bridge repairs. We do not have a freeze on potholes in the roads or a 
freeze on the dirty water supply or a freeze on aging sewers or on 
environmental pollution. Those needs still

[[Page S5244]]

press and tax our financial resources. And it all adds up to hundreds 
of billions of dollars in backlogs--backlogs.
  What has been our response? Our response has been to budget less and 
less money to deal with the ever-increasing backlogs. If we continue to 
eviscerate our own Nation with this unwise and careless way of 
budgeting, I fear for the ultimate consequences. What will be affected? 
Nearly everything in the daily lives of the American people will be 
affected. For instance, two-thirds of the domestic discretionary budget 
goes to fund our Nation's infrastructure.
  About 13 percent of all domestic discretionary spending is for 
transportation programs--including the maintenance and improvement of 
our National Highway System, our airport and airway system, and all 
safety-related facilities and equipment, including our public 
transportation systems. In all areas of transportation there are 
glaring, unmet needs which not only affect the safety of the American 
people, but also cost our economy billions of dollars each year because 
of delays in getting our products to their markets and in getting 
workers to and from their jobs.
  According to the Department of Transportation, there are currently 
more than 234,000 miles of the nearly 1.2 million miles of paved 
nonlocal roads which are in such bad condition that they require 
capital improvements either immediately--just travel down the streets 
of Washington--or within the next few years. The Nation's backlog in 
the rehabilitation and maintenance of our Nation's bridges currently 
stands at $78 billion. That is the backlog as of now. And it is getting 
worse and it is getting bigger, the Nation's backlog.
  According to the Federal Highway Administration, 118,000 of the 
Nation's 575,000 bridges--more than one out of five--are structurally 
deficient. Heavier trucks are prohibited from using them--an action 
that has an immediate, adverse impact on the Nation's productivity. 
Another 14 percent of the Nation's bridges are functionally obsolete, 
meaning they do not have the land and shoulder widths or vertical 
clearance to handle the traffic they bear.
  Fully 70 percent of the Nation's interstate highways in metropolitan 
areas are congested during peak travel times. Such traffic congestion 
costs the economy $39 billion a year in wasted fuel and lower 
productivity for both passengers and commercial traffic. Congestion 
also undermines our ability to clean up the Nation's air, since more 
than 70 percent of the carbon monoxide emitted into the atmosphere 
comes from motor vehicles.
  To make matters worse, the Department of Transportation continues to 
estimate increased growth in vehicle use that will put us in even worse 
shape. Things are not getting better. Things are getting worse by the 
day. It has been estimated that the number of vehicles on our Nation's 
highways will grow by about 8 percent by the year 2000. However, over 
the same period, freight tonnage, carried by our Nation's trucks, will 
grow by more than 30 percent. Yet, under this proposed budget 
resolution and for several years to come, it can be anticipated that we 
will be required to cut, rather than increase, our investment in 
maintaining our Nation's highway system. How can we even consider not 
addressing these problems? This budget resolution totally ignores those 
needs.
  No area of infrastructure investment is as critical as our Nation's 
highway system. The system carries nearly 80 percent of U.S. interstate 
commerce and more than 80 percent of intercity passenger and tourist 
traffic. And yet, just 7 months ago the Department of Transportation 
published its annual status report on the Nation's surface 
transportation system. That report estimated that it would require 
additional annual investments of roughly $15 billion to adequately 
maintain our existing surface transportation infrastructure--$15 
billion annually just to maintain our existing surface transportation 
infrastructure. Unfortunately, we simply are not making the necessary 
investments to ensure a prosperous future for our children, especially 
when compared to the investments that are being made by our economic 
competitors throughout the world.
  Just as our Federal funding patterns have ignored the anticipated 
growth in highway use, so, too, are we ignoring the anticipated growth 
in airport use. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the 
number of passengers expected at our Nation's airports will grow almost 
60 percent over the next decade. That will not include me because I do 
not like to fly. My name is Byrd, but I do not like to fly. And what 
has happened in recent days has made me even more fearful.

  If no new runways are added, the number of severely congested major 
airports will grow by 250 percent. The Federal Aviation Administration 
estimates that in order to bring existing airports up to current design 
standards, as well as to provide sufficient capacity to meet the 
projected demand, it will cost no less than $30 billion over the next 
several years. What is this blatant neglect doing to safety standards? 
What is this blatant neglect doing to safety standards? Safety for 
whom? Safety for the American people? Safety for the traveling public?
  Mr. President, we do the American people no favor by ignoring these 
trends and by balancing the Federal budget on the back of critical 
domestic investments.
  Fully another 14 percent of domestic discretionary spending is for 
education, training, and employment programs--including Head Start, 
elementary and secondary education, Pell grants, and other college 
student financial aid.
  Tremendous unmet needs have also been identified in this portion of 
the budget. Over the past number of years, we have managed to 
substantially increase funding for Head Start, special education 
grants, and Pell Grants. But we clearly will be unable to sustain these 
increased levels of spending in the future under this budget 
resolution.
  Senators should not go home and beat their chests about how strongly 
they support education when they vote for the cuts in discretionary 
spending contained in this budget resolution. They will be saying one 
thing, while actually doing quite another. And there is too much of 
that in politics already.
  This Republican budget cuts $24.4 billion in budget authority in 
inflation-adjusted dollars from this portion of the budget over the 
next 6 years. This amounts to a cut of 25 percent in real terms.
  Another 12 percent of domestic discretionary spending is for 
environmental improvement and energy efficiency programs--ranging from 
sewage treatment grants to toxic clean-up to energy R&D programs.
  This Republican budget resolution appears to assume reductions for 
the Environmental Protection Agency totaling $5 billion over 7 years. 
These reductions are assumed to be applied to each EPA program account, 
including Superfund, State and Tribal Assistance grants, Science and 
Technology, and EPA operating programs. The impact of these proposed 
reductions would be devastating to EPA's ability to address protection 
of public health and the environment.
  It should be noted that while the annual request for wastewater 
treatment infrastructure programs is $1.35 billion, there are 
documented wastewater infrastructure needs of $137 billion throughout 
the United States. While the Federal funding for this infrastructure 
program leverages additional matching funds from States and localities, 
the administration's proposed budget assumes a level that enables 
States to provide $2 billion. With requirements totaling $137 billion 
today--and continuing to grow with the population--clearly the need is 
for more infrastructure funding for clean water facilities, not less.
  In the area of infrastructure requirements for States to meet the 
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the total requirements are 
unknown. A needs survey is now being conducted, and will be completed 
in June. No preliminary estimates are available, but it is safe to 
assume that the annual budget request of $550 million will be 
insufficient to address the needs of local communities in upgrading 
both publicly and privately owned drinking water systems. In my own 
State of West Virginia, a recent Federal study reports that it would 
take $162 million dollars to clean up and provide potable water to 
approximately 79,000 West Virginians. It would take another $405.7 
million to meet the worsening

[[Page S5245]]

drinking water supply situation of some 476,000 West Virginians. There 
you have it. We have an annual budget request for the whole country of 
$550 million and yet in West Virginia we have a total need for $568 
million--$568 million in West Virginia alone--as against $550 million 
for the whole country that is being requested in the budget. It does 
not make sense.

  We are becoming like a Third World country in many parts of the 
Nation. West Virginia is not alone. West Virginia is a rural State. 
What kind of a budget ignores the most basic, most basic need, clean 
drinking water, of people? Safe drinking water seems to me to be pretty 
basic stuff. What good is the environment that ignores that kind of 
need?
  Additionally, under this budget resolution, funding for watershed 
projects and flood prevention will be drastically reduced. Furthermore, 
water and wastewater treatment programs for rural areas will be cut 
more than one-third.
  Funding for the Nation's existing water resource infrastructure--its 
system of dams, locks, harbors, irrigation systems, reservoirs, and 
recreation sites--will suffer serious cuts. In the area of flood 
control and storm damage prevention projects, where cost-benefit ratios 
exceed 20 to 1, there will be insufficient funds to meet the needs. 
Already, there is a serious backlog of deferred operations and 
maintenance requirements on existing projects. Our ports and harbors, 
through which the bulk of our Nation's commerce and trade with the rest 
of the world moves, will be seriously affected by declining investments 
such as dredging and channel improvements.
  Under this budget resolution, the Nation's critical disposal of 
nuclear waste generated at electricity-producing power plants will be 
further set back. Over the next 30 to 40 years, estimates are that 
nuclear waste cleanup costs for both defense and civilian sites will 
total between $200 and $250 billion. What are we doing to the 
environment? What horrors are we unleashing with this type of neglect? 
Doesn't anybody in this town care?
  The question is, Mr. President, under the constraints of this budget 
resolution, how can we possibly meet the needs of the American people 
across the broad spectrum of our national life--from crime control, to 
job retraining, to better and safer highways and bridges and aviation, 
to drug treatment and prevention, to education, to research, to 
environmental cleanup, to clean water, and to programs which assist 
those in our society who are unable to care for themselves and their 
children through no fault of their own?
  How long--how long--will we continue to slash and burn these 
discretionary spending programs, while letting automatic entitlements 
and corporate welfare and tax expenditures grow and eat away at the 
foundation of our national economy? Where is the basic common sense and 
decency in this budget? Where is the basic common sense and decency in 
this budget?
  The amendment I am offering today will add $106 billion in 
discretionary budget authority and $65 billion in discretionary outlays 
over the 6-year period of this budget resolution. And if it is adopted, 
we will still be $230 billion below inflation over the period of 6 
years. For fiscal year 1997, budget authority, under my amendment, 
would be increased by $7.4 billion and outlays would be increased by 
$6.3 billion. Similar increases above the amounts included in this 
resolution are provided for in each of the remaining years through 
fiscal year 2002. In other words, my amendment would provide for the 
same level of discretionary spending as the Clinton budget over that 6-
year period--and that Clinton budget was $230 billion too low.

  My amendment will bring that figure for outlays and budget authority 
at least up to the Clinton budget--namely, $106 billion more in budget 
authority, and $65 billion more in discretionary outlays than this 
Republican budget resolution would provide. We need more--much more--
but at least this amount will give us some little chance of meeting our 
minimum needs.
  Furthermore, my amendment will eliminate the so-called defense walls 
for the period of this budget resolution. But so did the Clinton budget 
that was voted on last night. And every Democrat here voted for that 
budget--other than this Democrat. It was better than the Republican 
budget, but it cuts discretionary funding and cuts taxes--not as much 
as the Republican budget, but it still cuts taxes, which is utter folly 
at this time in our history. In other words, my amendment combines 
defense and nondefense discretionary budget authority and outlays into 
one figure for each of the fiscal years 1997-2002. Now, if any 
Democrats here oppose my elimination of the walls, they voted to do 
that last night in the Clinton budget, so they should not have any 
hesitancy in supporting my amendment. This will return us to the normal 
situation under which the Appropriations Committees are given one 
discretionary figure for budget authority and one figure for 
discretionary outlays each year. The committee will then determine how 
much budget authority and outlays should be allocated to defense and 
how much of the budget should go to nondefense spending each fiscal 
year. That is the way the system is supposed to work. There is not 
supposed to be an artificial gimmick to protect a sacred cow in the 
budget.
  In order to pay for its increase in spending, my amendment provides 
for a corresponding increase in revenue over the 6-year period of the 
budget resolution, and this increase in revenues is brought about from 
a combination of closing corporate loopholes, extension of expiring 
excise tax provisions, and/or elimination or modifications of the so-
called tax expenditures. As shown on page 211 of the committee report, 
the President's budget proposes $40 billion in savings from ``corporate 
reform,'' together with an additional $43 billion from extension of 
expiring tax provisions. The Republican budget resolution proposes $21 
billion and $36 billion, respectively, in those same areas. It, 
therefore, should be possible for the appropriate committees--Finance 
and Ways and Means--to find the additional revenues that I have 
proposed from some combination of those corporate reforms and extension 
of expiring tax provisions. However, if they are unable to do so, I 
strongly recommend that the Finance and Ways and Means Committees turn 
to the issue of tax expenditures as another excellent source for 
achieving the increase in Federal revenues over the next 6 years, 
called for in my amendment. That area of the Federal budget has 
miraculously--if you do not believe in miracles, here is one, in our 
own day and time--escaped the attention of the so-called deficit 
reduction hawks.

  Few Americans are familiar with the term ``tax expenditure.'' Simply 
put, tax expenditures are tax dollars lost to the Federal Treasury due 
to special provisions in the Tax Code, which allow deductions, 
exemptions, credits, or a deferral of tax payments. The word 
``expenditure'' is used to highlight the fact that these tax breaks 
are, in many respects, no different than if the Government simply wrote 
a check to the individuals or businesses concerned.
  The plain truth is, Mr. President, that tax expenditures are nothing 
more than another form of Government spending--back-door spending. But 
these checks are written to those with special interests and with 
special influence in Washington. And they go out of the Treasury first. 
They do not spend out over a year or 6 months like normal expenditures 
from the Treasury. They are gone--out the door right away every year to 
benefit the special interests, before anybody else gets one thin dime.
  Also, unlike the spending that is reviewed annually by the 
Appropriations Committee, once tax expenditures are enacted into law, 
very rarely do they again come under congressional scrutiny, certainly 
not with the frequency and the intensity of those programs which make 
up discretionary funding. As Dr. Paul McDaniel, of the University of 
Florida, testified before the Senate Budget Committee, over 80 percent 
of current tax expenditures were also in effect in 1986--10 years ago--
the last time Congress gave these programs a thorough review. Just like 
entitlements, then, tax expenditures continue indefinitely, largely 
overlooked by even the most determined budget cutters.
  According to the latest information available, tax expenditures for 
fiscal year 1995 totaled $453 billion, and are projected to grow to 
$480.4 billion for fiscal year 1996, $509.7 billion for fiscal year 
1997, $537.3 billion for fiscal year

[[Page S5246]]

1998, and $568.5 billion for fiscal year 1999. Just for those 5 years 
alone, then, these tax expenditures total more than $2.5 trillion.

  How long would it take to count trillion at the rate of $1 per 
second? It would take 32,000 years to count trillion. Over the 6 years 
of this budget resolution, total tax expenditures will exceed $3 
trillion. Should somebody not be taking a hard look at this huge area 
of back-door spending?
  The problem, however, is not just in the aggregate amount of these 
programs. Unlike traditional forms of discretionary spending, tax 
expenditures circumvent the extremely important authorization and 
appropriations process. Because these provisions come out of the tax-
writing committees of the House and Senate, those committees become, in 
effect, both the authorizing and appropriating authority. That fact is 
obviously very appealing to special interest groups seeking Federal 
financial support, and there are lots and lots and lots of those.
  Under the normal legislative process, anyone interested in obtaining 
Federal support must first begin by convincing the relevant authorizing 
committee to actually sanction their project in law. Even then, 
however, there is no guarantee that the Appropriations Committee will 
be able to fund the project to the full extent that had been 
authorized. And so it is not difficult to see that if a group could 
bypass that two-step process, they would have a much higher probability 
of seeing their interest fulfilled.
  Mr. President, make no mistake, some of these Tax Code spending 
programs are worthwhile and serve a useful public purpose. The earned-
income tax credit, for instance, has lifted many Americans out of the 
depths of poverty--hard-working Americans, whose only ``crime'' is that 
the work they do does not pay enough to support their families. Or the 
mortgage interest deduction, which has allowed home ownership to become 
affordable to many Americans that would otherwise be forced to forego 
that part of their dreams.

  However, although many of these tax expenditures are of significant 
benefit to a great many Americans, many tax expenditures benefit only a 
very select few. These expenditures should not be immune from review; 
our budget situation demands that we examine all spending. Whether it 
be done through the appropriations process or through the Tax Code, 
spending is spending. A dollar leaving the Federal Treasury through the 
backdoor of the Tax Code has just as much an impact on our budget, and 
on our deficit, as does a dollar going out the front door--appropriated 
by Congress. That is the front door. It goes out the appropriations 
door. We simply cannot continue to ignore these tax expenditures in our 
budget debates. It seems to me that the very least we can do is to 
require regular reauthorizations of all tax expenditures so that we can 
be certain that longstanding provisions, which may have been justified 
years ago when they were enacted, are still justified in light of 
current budgetary constraints.
  Take, for example, the mortgage interest deduction. This tax subsidy 
has, as I just noted, helped millions of families across our country 
achieve what many would describe as one of the most tangible aspects of 
the American dream--owning one's own home. It is, without question, one 
of the most valuable and worthwhile tax expenditures in our Tax Code. 
Yet, in tight budget times, does it make sense to subsidize the 
purchase of vacation homes? That is what we are doing today. Current 
law allows taxpayers to deduct the interest paid on up to $1 million in 
debt used to acquire and improve first and second homes, as well as the 
interest on up to $100,000 of other loans secured with a home, 
regardless of the purpose for which that money is borrowed. Because of 
the current tax rules on second homes, millions of Americans struggling 
to buy their first homes are, in effect, helping subsidize the vacation 
homes of the wealthy. Worse yet, to the extent that the revenue loss 
associated with the deductibility of mortgage interest on second homes 
adds to our budget deficit, the cost of helping wealthy Americans buy 
their vacation homes is simply being dumped on future generations of 
Americans, rich and poor.
  I say to my friends on the committee with the responsibility to bring 
forth the legislation to make cuts in entitlements and tax 
expenditures--come on in, the water's fine. We on the Appropriations 
Committee have already been exposed to public scrutiny in each 
appropriation bill every year. We have had tough, enforceable caps on 
discretionary spending for a number of years. We have always made the 
cuts to stay beneath those caps, and we will continue to do so. But, 
the discretionary well has dried up as far as contributing further to 
deficit reduction. Let us get on with tapping the more than $500 
billion that is spent each year on tax expenditures.
  Since 1980, investment in physical infrastructure--that means 
investment in our own communities--that means investment in the 
communities of every individual who is watching this Senate Chamber 
through that electronic eye; that is your community--investment in your 
community and in things that matter in the daily lives of our people--
that investment in physical infrastructure has declined, both as a 
percentage of all Federal spending and as a percentage of our Nation's 
gross domestic product. The cuts embodied in this budget--the here and 
now budget--resolution only exacerbate, only make worse, this trend--a 
trend that is both shortsighted and unwise.
  Any businessman will tell you that a business cannot prosper for very 
long if the necessary investments are not continually made in the tools 
and machinery that provide the engine for that prosperity.
  The owner of a small manufacturing plant can, perhaps, delay 
investments in new tools and machinery for a brief period of time. He 
may be able to continually piece that machinery together using 
temporary fixes. But over the long haul, more often than not, the 
failure to adequately invest in that machinery and equipment will prove 
to be a very expensive and costly mistake. In the end, that machinery 
must be replaced, often at a cost that proves to be considerably higher 
than the cost of continued and steady maintenance and investment. If it 
is not, then the plant will fall further and further behind and 
eventually go bankrupt.
  The same is true for our Nation's investment and maintenance of its 
infrastructure. People need to understand that. Increasingly, in recent 
years, we have embodied this penny-wise, pound-foolish frugality when 
it comes to our Nation's basic GNP generator, our infrastructure.
  For the last several months, we have heard much debate on the Senate 
Floor regarding the tragic maladies that are brought about by the 
Federal budget deficit, maladies that we threaten to pass on to our 
grandchildren. That is all true, but it is equally true that a less 
than robust economy only exacerbates our national deficit problem.
  I would like to take a moment to recount some of the maladies that we 
will also pass on to the next generation for our failure to adequately 
invest in our transportation infrastructure. How can we hope to ensure 
a prosperous future for our children's children, if we leave the next 
generation with a transportation network so dilapidated, unsafe, and 
inefficient that it is a national embarrassment rather than a source of 
national pride as has been the case in the past. How can we hold up our 
heads if we continue to let our national parks fall into disrepair, our 
sewers deteriorate, our air become filthy, our drinking water become 
polluted, our schools and our bridges become dilapidated and our 
highways become pitted, potholed nightmares? How can we be so blind as 
not to see the relationship of that kind of neglect to our national 
economy?
  We heard a great deal about building the country's infrastructure in 
the Presidential campaign 4 years ago. We never hear anything about it 
anymore. We do not hear anything about building our Nation's physical 
infrastructure. We are going to wake up, though, at the end of this 6 
years when we find that we have let our country down, let the 
infrastructure deteriorate, and then we will see what it costs to 
replace it.
  The American people are going to get tired of this so-called 
``Contract With America''--cut, slash, burn--and all of the tears that 
are shed for our children and grandchildren, if we do not balance this 
budget. Yet, those same Senators

[[Page S5247]]

who are shedding tears for our children and grandchildren and saying 
that we need to balance the budget, vote for tax cuts. It is all right 
to load that burden on our children and grandchildren, and they vote to 
see our infrastructure waste away.
  I am reminded of a parable in the Scriptures when Jesus was meeting 
with his disciples in the Mount of Olives. In chapter 25 of the Book of 
Matthew, the King James version, we read this:

       14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a 
     far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto 
     them his goods.
       15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and 
     to another one; to every man according to his several 
     ability; and straightway took his journey.
       16 Then he that had received the five talents went and 
     traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
       17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained 
     other two.
       18 But he that had received one went and digged in the 
     earth, and hid his lord's money.
       19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and 
     reckoneth with them.

  The American people are going to reckon with us. They are going to 
reckon with us one day.

       20 And so he that had received five talents came and 
     brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst 
     unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five 
     talents more.
       21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and 
     faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, 
     I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the 
     joy of thy lord.
       22 He also that had received two talents came and said, 
     Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold I have 
     gained two other talents beside them.
       23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful 
     servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will 
     make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of 
     thy lord.
       24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, 
     Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where 
     thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not 
     strawed:
       25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the 
     earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
       26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and 
     slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, 
     and gather where I have not strawed:
       27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the 
     exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine 
     own with usury.
       28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him 
     which hath ten talents.
       29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he 
     shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be 
     taken away even that which he hath.
       30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer 
     darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

  Mr. President, there will come a day of reckoning for us. People are 
going to ask about our stewardship, and they are going to find that we 
have been lacking. They will find that we hid our talent in the Earth. 
We did not provide for the upkeep of their bridges and their highways 
and their sewer systems and their water systems, their parks, their 
forests. We did not continue the research that would enable us to stay 
ahead of our competitors. We will have proved to be poor stewards. And 
they are going to say, ``Throw them out.'' Take from him that hath not 
and give it to him which hath. We are going to come to that day of 
reckoning. The American people are going to get tired of this slash and 
burn philosophy. They are going to say, ``What has Government been 
doing for us? What have you done for us? What have you done for our 
highways and our bridges, our water systems?''
  So how can we be so blind as not to see the relationship of that kind 
of neglect to our national economy? We are not increasing the talents 
that have been entrusted to us. We are not investing so that we will be 
improving on our country's lot, so that we will be rendering a 
profitable stewardship. No, we are going to put our talents in the 
ground.
  Increased productivity means increased economic growth. Increased 
economic growth means more jobs and, thus more income for the U.S. 
Treasury. Increased economic growth means increased national security. 
It also means an enhanced competitive position for a nation. It means a 
higher standard of living, and increased public investment also 
encourages increased private investment. Why not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Just a reminder to the Senator. He 
has used 50 minutes; 10 minutes remains of the time requested.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield as much time as I 
may use off the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if you had a company, let us say, and you 
would like to buy a brand-spanking new fleet of trucks, all outfitted 
in bright red paint and chrome, how would you like to put that fleet of 
new trucks out on roads that are filled with potholes and on bridges in 
need of repairs? How would you like to have your trucks detour 18 miles 
around a bridge which was closed because it was unsafe? How much would 
that cost? How much would that lower your productivity? How much would 
that cut into your profits? You probably would be reluctant to invest 
in the new trucks at all. Hence, public investment encourages private 
investment and is conducive to the profit making of the private sector.
  A sound economy will require continued capital investment in our 
Nation's physical plant that not only replaces existing infrastructure 
but also expands capacity to accommodate growth. Reducing the Federal 
budget deficit on the back of critical capital investments will only 
undermine our national prosperity, productivity, and competitiveness.
  And those chickens are going to come home to roost one day, one day. 
Nobody talks about infrastructure anymore. People are going to wake up 
one morning and say, ``Where have you been? Where were you?'' That was 
the first question that the Lord asked in the book of Genesis when He 
came into the garden looking for Adam: ``Where art thou?'' And our 
constituents are going to say, ``Where were you? Where were you when 
they voted for that budget?'' I am not going to vote for it. Folly of 
follies. It cuts taxes. And so did the President's budget. That is why 
I voted against his budget. It is folly to cut taxes at this time. We 
ought to be increasing our revenues and building up our infrastructure, 
building our Nation's roads and bridges, funding our research needs, 
improving our parks and forests, and cleaning up our Nation's water 
supply.
  We are on our way down a very slippery slope. Budgets are the basic 
blueprints for our Nation's future. If we continue to write budgets 
that sap our vital domestic strength, we will shortly be on our way to 
Third World status. Then our people will ask, ``Where were you? Where 
were you?''
  The insanity in investing in everything but our infrastructure will 
become painfully apparent. When the backlogs are so huge that we cannot 
meet them, we will rue the day that we demagoged and pandered.
  Oh, you Republicans are going to cut taxes. We Democrats will also 
cut taxes. Pandering. That is pandering. The American people are not 
asking for a tax cut. We all say, balance the budget. Well, let us 
increase revenues and pay for the Nation's needs. Pay as we go so that 
our country can be competitive in world markets.
  We will rue the day that we demagoged and pandered and labeled all 
investments in our own country's basic infrastructure as ``pork.'' Is 
it pork to spend $10 billion on the Washington Metropolitan Transit 
System? No, that is not pork. This is the Nation's Capital. That is 
infrastructure. That is not pork, that is infrastructure.
  We have a deficit all right. And it is serious. But there is another 
deficit looming on the horizon which is in many ways far more serious. 
Once we allow America to fall into total disrepair, 6 years from now, 8 
years from now, 10 years from now, people are going to look around them 
and say: What has happened? What has happened to America? America's 
needs have not been met, its infrastructure needs have gone to pot, and 
the politicians squandered our rights.
  Once we allow America to fall into total disrepair, how will we ever 
afford the trillions of dollars it will take to put it right? Then 
there will be a big cry. All the politicians then will be for building 
infrastructure, because the people will be saying: Where were you? 
Where were you when this happened? Why did you allow this to happen?
  So, I ask my colleagues to begin to turn this disastrous trend around 
today

[[Page S5248]]

and support this modest attempt to answer America's most basic domestic 
needs, and invest at least President Clinton's level of funding in our 
own Nation and in our own people. And he was $230 billion lower than 
inflation over a period of 6 years.
  We are running out of time.
  In conclusion, let me briefly describe my amendment once again. It 
would add $106 billion in budget authority and $65 billion in outlays 
over the 6-year period of this budget resolution to discretionary 
spending. Total discretionary spending would then be the same as 
proposed by President Clinton. Too low, but at least that much. In 
addition, the amendment would do away with the defense wall for fiscal 
years 1997 and 1998 as proposed by the Senate Budget Committee and 
instead allow the Appropriations Committees each year to determine the 
appropriate level for defense and for non-defense spending. Finally, in 
order to pay for these spending increases, my amendment would close 
some corporate loopholes, and do tax extenders as proposed by the 
Senate Budget Committee and by President Clinton. I would also 
recommend an additional source of funds for consideration by the 
Finance and Ways and Means Committees--namely, tax expenditures.
  I welcome additional sponsors of my amendment, Mr. President, and I 
urge all Members to support the amendment. I reserve the remainder of 
my time.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time consumed 
in the quorum call be equally divided against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4002

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding reimbursement of 
   the United States for the costs of Operations Southern Watch and 
                            Provide Comfort)

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

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for himself and 
     Mr. Smith, proposes an amendment numbered 4002.

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

       At the end of title III, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REIMBURSEMENT OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES FOR OPERATIONS SOUTHERN WATCH AND 
                   PROVIDE COMFORT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) as of May 1996, the United States has spent 
     $2,937,000,000 of United States taxpayer funds since the 
     conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991 for the singular purpose 
     of protecting the Kurdish and Sunni population from Iraqi 
     aggression;
       (2) the President's defense budget request for 1997 
     includes an additional $590,100,000 for Operations Southern 
     Watch and Provide Comfort, both of which are designed to 
     restrict Iraqi military aggression against Kurdish and Sunni 
     people of Iraq.
       (3) costs for these military operations constitute part of 
     the continued budget deficit of the United States; and
       (4) United Nations Security Council Resolution 986 (1995) 
     would allow Iraq to sell up to $1,000,000,000 in petroleum 
     and petroleum products every 90 days, for an initial period 
     of 180 days.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that--
       (1) the President should instruct the United States 
     Permanent Representative to the United Nations to seek 
     modification of Security Council Resolution 986 (1995), to 
     specifically mandate and authorize the reimbursement of the 
     United States for costs associated with Operations Southern 
     Watch and Provide Comfort out of revenues generated by any 
     sale of petroleum or petroleum-related products originating 
     from Iraq.
       (2) in the event that the United States Permanent 
     Representative to the United Nations fails to modify the 
     terms of Resolution 986 (1995) as called for in paragraph 
     (1), the President should reject any United Nations-
     negotiated agreement to implement Security Council Resolution 
     986 (1995);
       (3) the President should take the necessary steps to ensure 
     that--
       (A) any effort by the United Nations to temporarily lift 
     the trade embargo for humanitarian purposes, specifically the 
     sale of petroleum or petroleum products, restricts all 
     revenues from such sale from being diverted to benefit the 
     Iraqi military, and
       (B) the temporary lifting of the trade embargo does not 
     encourage other countries to take steps to begin promoting 
     commercial relations with the Iraqi military in expectation 
     that sanctions will be permanently lifted; and
       (4) revenues reimbursed to the United States from the oil 
     sale authorized by the United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 986 should be used to reduce the Federal budget 
     deficit.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on April 7, 1991, United States led 
coalition forces and Iraq agreed to a cease-fire which ended Operation 
Desert Storm. Several days prior to agreeing to the terms of the cease-
fire, Iraq initiated military action against the Kurdish population in 
northern Iraq and a Sunni Moslem population in southern Iraq.
  Saddam Hussein's repressive actions against these Iraqi peoples 
included the use of helicopters flying strapping missions against the 
Kurds on the ground. In southern Iraq, Saddam's Republican Guard chased 
the Sunnis into the marshes along the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. 
After chasing the Sunnis into the marshes, the Republican Guard 
actually set fire to the marshes, burning many Sunnis alive.
  Saddam's barbarism against these forces did not go unnoticed by the 
coalition forces. General Schwarzkopf directly linked Iraq's repressive 
actions against the Kurds and the Sunnis to the cease-fire discussions.
  On April 5, 1991, 2 days prior to concluding the cease-fire 
agreement, the United Nations passed Security Council Resolution No. 
687 and No. 688. These resolutions condemned Iraq for its repressive 
actions against the Kurds and Sunnis.
  After adoption of these two resolutions, the Secretary General of the 
United Nations enlisted the support of the United States to engage in 
military operations to protect these Iraqi civilian populations against 
Saddam's aggression.
  These military operations became known, as we all learned over the 
next few days and weeks, as Operation Southern Watch and Operation 
Provide Comfort.
  Mr. President, that was in 1991, over 5 years ago. Since starting 
these military operations, the United States has paid and paid greatly 
to provide this watch and comfort. The cost of these military 
operations has been tremendous, both in terms of money and in lives. On 
April 14, 1994, the United States lost 15 American lives in a terrible 
accident, the result of conducting a dangerous and difficult military 
mission.
  In addition to the 15 American and 11 foreign national lives lost, 
the United States has spent $2.9 billion to conduct these military 
operations. But the cost continues to go up. The President's 1997 
defense budget request includes an additional $590.1 million to 
continue these military operations.
  On April 14 of last year, the U.N. adopted another security council 
resolution, No. 986. This resolution provides Iraq the opportunity to 
sell as much as $2 billion in oil and oil-related products every 6 
months for the purpose of providing food and medical relief to the 
people of Iraq. The revenues are to be placed in an escrow account with 
the United Nations.

[[Page S5249]]

  Paragraphs (8)(b), (8)(d), (8)(e), and (8)(g) of resolution No. 986--
1995--specifically authorize the use of revenues from the sale of Iraqi 
petroleum and petroleum-related products as reimbursement for costs 
associated with the implementation of resolution No. 986--1995--or 
previously passed Security Council Resolutions.
  Iraq and the United Nations have begun a fourth round of talks to 
continue negotiations related to acceptable terms for implementation of 
resolution No. 986. One of the primary issues of disagreement is over 
who would distribute the humanitarian aid. I must say I question the 
wisdom of handing fungible goods over to the Iraqi military and 
trusting them to distribute them to the needy.
  The amendment I offer today does not seek in any way to prevent this 
sale, nor does it seek to prevent efforts to relieve the humanitarian 
problems of Iraq. My amendment is very simple. If we are going to allow 
Iraq to sell oil to pay for humanitarian costs, the United States 
should recover the moneys our taxpayers are spending for the ultimate 
in humanitarian assistance: military protection!
  We are working on a budget resolution. We are working on a budget 
resolution that seeks to eliminate annual deficits, and, hopefully, 
someday even begin to reduce the debt. It is going to be very difficult 
to accomplish this if we have to continue to pay for these protections, 
these military actions, to provide comfort. We pay the bill for it, but 
others take the credit and get the benefit. It is the American 
taxpayers that are paying this bill. I would like to see if we cannot 
find some way to get a little help with these costs.
  The Members need to understand that the U.N. resolution that has been 
considered specifically authorizes the revenues from the oil sale to 
pay for U.N.-related costs for humanitarian assistance. If it is a good 
idea for the United Nations to be able to recover their costs, why not 
the United States as well and the American taxpayers?
  Frankly, it looks like the administration dropped the ball. Prior to 
the adoption of resolution No. 986, the administration, I believe, 
should have insisted that the American taxpayer be reimbursed for our 
bills from the sale of this oil.
  Again, Members need to understand that the United Nations is seeking 
to use money from the oil sale to recover moneys spent for humanitarian 
assistance in Iraq. I do not understand why the President was not 
aggressively protecting the American taxpayers the same way the United 
Nations was trying to protect their costs.
  There is one other thing that Members need to know prior to voting on 
this amendment: None of the $2.9 billion the United States has spent 
for these military operations has been counted toward our contributions 
to the United Nations. That is unbelievable.

  Even though these military operations exist solely because of the 
United Nations request for assistance, the United Nations does not 
count this $2.9 billion toward our contribution to the operation of the 
United Nations Numerous Members this past week have talked about how 
bad it is that the United States has not been fulfilling its payments 
to the U.N., that we are in arrears. They have been worrying about 
that.
  Some of my colleagues have complained that we are not paying our past 
due bills to the United Nations But the State Department ledger--as 
well as the United Nations ledger--does not account for all the 
financial support and support in kind that the United Nations receives 
from the Pentagon, for which the American taxpayer is having to foot 
the bill.
  I think this really is an outrage. If we are going to allow Saddam 
Hussein, with all of his oppression and treachery, to sell oil, risking 
diversion of the funds for more military modernization, more military 
aggression, more development of weapons of mass destruction, and more 
violations of international sanctions requiring weapons destruction and 
cessation of international oppression, I think we have to stand up and 
raise some serious questions about this.
  We should, at the very least, recover moneys from the sale of this 
oil to reimburse the American taxpayer, who is being forced to pay 
actually twice. We pay for the military operations to protect the Kurds 
and the Sunnis, and we do not get credit for this tremendous cost when 
the State Department tallies our dues to the United Nations.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider this amendment. It 
seems the fair thing to do. I understand the U.N. and Iraqi negotiators 
have been considering how to distribute the proceeds from the oil 
sales. It seems like this is a time to move in there and say we are 
entitled to some recovery from these oil sales to help offset the costs 
of doing what we think is the right thing to do, which we are doing in 
conjunction with the United Nations. I urge the President to ensure the 
American taxpayers interests are protected by rejecting any oil sale 
agreement which does not reimburse the United States for the cost of 
Operation Southern Watch and Operation Provide Comfort.
  I urge at the appropriate time that this amendment be adopted. It is 
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and I think that the American people 
would support this effort very strongly.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 3991

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on amendment 3991 
offered by Senators Kerry and Murray?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 45 minutes remains.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed 
for up to 10 minutes off of the time allotted for that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in 1989, 6 years ago, President Bush and 
the Nation's Governors recognized the critical need to raise education 
standards in this country. They sought to raise standards that we hold 
our students to and that we try to adhere to in our schools throughout 
the country. They met in Charlottesville, VA, in the first education 
summit in our Nation's history.
  They set ambitious goals to improve education by the year 2000. They 
agreed to measure their progress and to report their success to the 
American people every year.
  In 1995, last year, we reached the halfway point. The 1995 annual 
``National Education Goals Report,'' which came out last November, told 
us what had improved and also what got worse.
  Some things were better: 4th and 8th grade math achievement had 
improved; preschoolers were read to and told stories more than they 
used to be; according to the statistics we have, threats and injuries 
to students in schools had declined somewhat.
  Some things, however, had become worse. For example, 12th grade 
reading achievement had declined; fewer teachers had degrees in the 
subjects they were teaching; student drug use and the sale of drugs in 
our schools had increased.
  The overall conclusion of that report last year was--this is a quote 
from the report--it says:

       On the whole, our progress toward the National Education 
     Goals has been modest. Even in areas where we have made 
     significant progress from where we started, our current rate 
     of progress simply will not be sufficient to reach the 
     ambitious levels specified in the National Education Goals * 
     * * [Therefore, we need] to pull together as communities and 
     states to provide our children with an education that is 
     truly world-class.

  Mr. President, 13 years ago, early in President Reagan's term, in 
April 1983, President Reagan's Commission on Excellence in Education 
issued a famous report, a report that has become famous, entitled ``A 
Nation at Risk.'' The commissioners wrote that:

       * * * the educational foundations of our society are 
     presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that 
     threatens our very future as a nation and a people.

  They went on to say:

       [That the commission] deeply believes that the problems we 
     have discerned in American education can be both understood 
     and corrected if the people of our country, together with 
     those that have public responsibility in the matter, care 
     enough and are courageous enough to do what is required.

  Mr. President, the responsibility to improve education in this 
country is a joint responsibility. We in Congress are among those who 
have a public responsibility in this matter. Every year since the goals 
were set, we in Congress

[[Page S5250]]

supported progress toward reaching those goals by providing some 
increased level of funding each year until fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. President, let me just call my colleagues' attention to this 
chart to make the point I have been trying to make. This is entitled 
``A Break With Bipartisan Support for Education.'' It shows fiscal year 
1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, and in each year it shows some 
level of increase, in billions of dollars--some absolute increase in 
the total dollars the Federal Government has been willing to provide to 
assist States and local school districts with education.
  Last year, in 1996, for the first time since the summit in 
Charlottesville with President Bush, we saw an actual decrease proposed 
for funding in education. Now, I am proud to say that before the final 
chapter was written on the appropriations for 1996, most of that 
funding was restored. I do think the President deserves great credit 
for having insisted that we do better by education than was proposed in 
last year's budget bill.
  Now we are faced with a very similar circumstance, Mr. President. The 
amendment that is offered by Senator Kerry and Senator Murray would 
allow us to once again get on with bipartisan support for education. 
This amendment restores essential education funds. It restores $56 
billion in funding over 6 years for the function 500 in the Federal 
deficit--that is the education and training function. That is the 
amount needed to get to the level that the President requested.
  These funds are essential if we are to both maintain important, 
ongoing educational programs such as Head Start and title I, and also 
help schools enter the information age by buying computers, connecting 
those computers to the Internet, training teachers, and developing and 
purchasing sound instructional software.
  The Republican budget, if this amendment is not adopted, would have 
the effect of either cutting existing education programs or postponing 
any significant funding increase for technology until the year 2002. In 
my view, schools cannot wait until the year 2002 to train their 
students to be computer literate.
  The Republican budget proposal over 6 years would cut spending for 
education and training by $25 billion below the level spent in fiscal 
year 1995. The effective cut will be even greater because the level of 
funding provides no money for either inflation or the rising 
enrollments now occurring in the schools. The $56 billion proposed to 
be added back in this amendment is essential in order to maintain 
current program services, to accommodate inflation, to accommodate the 
increased numbers of students who are arriving at our schools, and who 
will be arriving at our schools during these 6 years, and to provide a 
modest investment in priority areas where we do have bipartisan support 
such as increased access to educational technology.
  Mr. President, let me talk a little bit about educational technology 
as it applies to my home State of New Mexico. In a State like New 
Mexico, this Federal support for better use and more access to 
educational technology will be crucial. We have some small rural 
schools in New Mexico that are already doing a good job of integrating 
the use of technology into the way they teach their students. One 
example is an elementary school in Tusuque, NM, where every classroom 
has four computers that are both connected to each other by a local 
area network, and are connected to the Internet. In Cuba, NM, there is 
a fiber network connection to every school in the district.
  But most New Mexico schools are not connected to the Internet. Most 
schools are not able to train their students to be computer literate 
today.
  A 1995 Office of Technology Assessment report identified New Mexico 
as one of the four most deficient States as far as the availability of 
educational technology is concerned. My State ranked 49th in the 
country in the availability of connections for technology use in 
schools.

  Our Department of Education in New Mexico has estimated the costs of 
investing in the simple steps that are needed to put a computer in each 
classroom. Their estimates give one a sense of the size of the problem 
that is faced in a State like mine. Their estimate is that something in 
the range of $53 million would be needed to put one workstation in 
every classroom and principal's office throughout our State. Mr. 
President, $87 million would be needed to include a workstation for 
each administrator and classroom projection system, $156 million would 
be needed to connect the computers and give them software and printers, 
as well as $22 million annually thereafter for the ongoing costs of 
phone lines and maintaining their connection to the Internet. Of 
course, even more would be required to train the teachers to use this 
equipment. The reality is this year our State legislature appropriated 
$3.5 million for equipment and professional development combined. That 
is a step in the right direction but it is far, far less than our 
schools need.
  This amendment that Senator Kerry and Senator Murray are offering is 
essential if we are to install educational technology now rather than 
waiting until the year 2002. The Federal Government has a 
responsibility to ensure a basic level of equity in our schools and in 
our students' access to the new tools for learning. Technology can be a 
great equalizer. It can also be a great divider. If we allow our 
schools to be organized in such a way that many of our students do not 
have access to that technology, then we are allowing technology to 
divide us rather than to bring us together.
  The workplace will demand some level of computer literacy from its 
workers. Students from poor schools and poor districts should not be 
put at risk because their schools could not afford to train them to use 
computers.
  This amendment is needed to allow a modest increase in the national 
investment in technology. The President's Technology Literacy Program 
would increase the funds available to schools for educational 
technology very substantially this next year. Without such help, richer 
States will supply their students with computer access to this computer 
literacy, but States like mine, States like New Mexico, will not be 
able to do so.
  Mr. President, I am persuaded that technology does hold real and 
realistic promise for leveling the playing field between rich and poor 
schools, between rich and poor States, as far as education is 
concerned. But to realize this promise we need to create a budget and 
pass a budget resolution that permits us to both maintain essential 
educational programs which we all support, such as Head Start and title 
I, and also to invest in some of these new needs such as educational 
technology.
  This amendment is needed to make our children computer literate for 
the 21st century, to connect them to the information highway. I urge 
adoption of the Kerry-Murray amendment when it comes to a vote this 
next Tuesday. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the status of the matter is that the Lott 
amendment is pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Pete Domenici, for the 
outstanding work that he has done, and always does, on this budget 
resolution. He acts with integrity, with a rich understanding of the 
issues, and with extreme fairness to all of us.
  I am in somewhat a rare position in this budget debate because 
usually around here, we find it easy to oppose the best-laid plans of 
mice and men, especially in this area of the budget, where one cannot 
get the job done without making some extremely unpopular choices. But I 
am proud to have been a supporter of the efforts spearheaded by the 
Budget Committee chairman and by our distinguished majority leader.
  While also a participant in the bipartisan Chafee-Breaux budget 
group, with two trains leaving the station, it is my fond hope that 
more of our colleagues will get aboard. But I will not count on it to a 
great degree. I see nothing conflicting between these two efforts. In 
fact, we ought to make every change in Medicare originally envisioned 
by the

[[Page S5251]]

first Republican plan of last year, plus we ought to also make every 
additional restraint on spending, as proposed by the Chafee-Breaux 
group, such as making adjustments in the CPI. That amendment will come 
before us, and it is a fine bipartisan effort. We hear a lot about that 
here, but nobody ever does it.
  Mark my words, this Congress will have to do all of the above before 
we claw our way out of this deficit mess and a debt that, even if we 
did it all right, at the end of 7 years would be a debt of $6.4 
trillion. This is not an either/or situation.
  The one singular way to err in this process is to repeat last year's 
exercise and experience and get nothing done in terms of restraining 
mandatory spending growth. We presented the President with a balanced 
budget reconciliation bill last year and he vetoed it. Did he veto it 
because there was something else waiting in the wings, something that 
would be enacted into law and would get the job done? No, you bet not--
nothing, nothing.
  A perfectly workable balanced budget reconciliation bill was vetoed, 
and the resulting burden will be placed on the backs of the future 
taxpayers. As a consequence, billions more are going sailing out the 
door on auto pilot. I hope we will do better this year, and one way to 
do it is to enact into law one of the balanced budget plans before us.

  Debate time is limited on this resolution, so I will make just a few 
points that I believe are of importance. First, I call the attention of 
the Senate to an amendment that was attached in the Budget Committee by 
the occupant of the chair, Senator Rod Grams of Minnesota. It is worthy 
of our attention and commendation.
  That amendment gives the sense of the Senate that our budget 
resolution should include an analysis prepared in consultation with 
CBO, which would show the impact on entitlement spending for the next 
30 years. That is one of the most important things we will do here. 
This country is facing a ticking fiscal time bomb in the form of a 
demographic explosion coming in the early 21st century--the retirement 
of the baby-boom generation. The real crisis faced by this country does 
not occur within the budget window that we see here envisioned in this 
or any other budget resolution. It starts happening in a very severe 
sense around the year 2012, and it will mean disaster.
  This is the work of the entitlements commission. We presented it to 
you; 30 of the 32 of us signed it. You have neglected it totally, and 
the President neglected it totally. But Bob Kerrey and Jack Danforth 
did tremendous work. So it will mean fiscal meltdown if we do not 
change our course.
  We have had a number of hearings on this subject, and every expert 
who has come before us has said we cannot wait to deal with this 
problem; we must address it now. Every year we wait means more severe 
benefit cuts in Social Security and Medicare, more drastic tax hikes in 
the years ahead, and payroll tax increases.
  But we are not making those tough choices in this budget. The reason 
is that we are simply not looking far enough ahead. If this Congress 
would raise its sights above the short-term horizon, beyond the next 7 
years, it would see a disaster looming approximately two decades away. 
The amendment of my friend, Senator Grams, is vitally important because 
it will force us to confront this reality.
  Further, the amendment says that the President should include 
generational accounting information each year in his proposed budget. 
This is a favored cause of mine. I think this is so important. My 
colleagues may recall that when the President submitted his first 
budget after his inauguration, it had a generational accounting 
chapter, which contained the alarming information that future 
generations stood to face 82 percent lifetime tax rates if present 
trends are sustained. Some political advisers in the White House must 
have dispensed with that one when they realized what it said that first 
year when the President was seeking the support of the American people, 
because we have not seen that data in any subsequent budget.

  I have asked this administration time after time, ``What happened to 
the generational accounting in your first budget?'' No one in the White 
House has ever given me an adequate explanation as to why this 
information should remain concealed from the American taxpayers. They 
have even asserted that the information now really is not all that bad, 
is not quite as alarming as before. But, still, they will not publish 
it for reasons that are vague and mysterious. Perhaps not so 
mysterious--it would have been difficult for the President to criticize 
our balanced budget plan last year if his own budget were to admit that 
these confiscatory tax rates awaited future generations if we did not 
get the job done.
  This is vital information, information about one of the greatest 
inequities ever foisted by the U.S. Government upon a generation of 
Americans. And we ought to see it revealed. I commend the Senator from 
Minnesota for adding the language in committee, and I do hope that the 
administration will heed it.
  Finally, I want to advise my colleagues that it is now my intention 
to offer a sense of the Senate, which I hope would be uncontroversial. 
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4003

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that all Federal spending 
 and revenues which are indexed for inflation should be calibrated by 
the most accurate inflation indices which are available to the Federal 
                              Government)

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

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], for himself and Mr. 
     Moynihan, proposes an amendment numbered 4003.

  Mr. SIMPSON. 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, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . ACCURATE INDEX FOR INFLATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) a significant portion of Federal expenditures and 
     revenues are indexed to measurements of inflation; and
       (2) a variety of inflation indices exist which vary 
     according to the accuracy with which such indices measure 
     increases in the cost of living; and
       (3) Federal government usage of inflation indices which 
     overstate true inflation has the demonstrated effect of 
     accelerating Federal spending, increasing the Federal budget 
     deficit, increasing Federal borrowing, and thereby enlarging 
     the projected burden on future American taxpayers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying this budget resolution 
     include that all Federal spending and revenues which are 
     indexed for inflation should be calibrated by the most 
     accurate inflation indices which are available to the Federal 
     government.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, please note that Senator Moynihan is an 
original cosponsor of that amendment. It is simply a sense of the 
Senate that our budget choices should make use of the most accurate 
measures of inflation that are available to the Federal Government. 
Simply that, a proposition that I believe no Senator should disagree 
with.
  I believe it will be acceptable to the managers of the budget 
resolution, but I think a rollcall vote may be appropriate on this at 
the appropriate time, simply because I believe it is so important that 
each Senator is on record as recognizing that we have an obligation to 
use the most accurate data that we have, when billions are at stake.
  We know that if we overstate inflation, it means that we erroneously 
pay out extra billions in terms of cost-of-living allowances, COLA's, 
we fail to properly index our tax brackets, and the deficit is 
increased by billions--indeed, hundreds of billions, when counting over 
a decade or more--as a result. This is not a matter of dispute.
  This amendment, I hasten to say, does not condemn, nor does it 
enforce, any particular measure of inflation for any particular purpose 
of the Government. Because of this, I believe it must

[[Page S5252]]

be approved. It is my hope that by recognizing our obligation to use 
the most accurate information available to the Government, the Senate 
can subsequently proceed to best determine how to properly meet that 
obligation.
  I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, and I ask the 
Chair to please tell me when I have used that time. I take this time 
off of the bill.
  Mr. President, it has been interesting to watch the discussion here 
on the floor this morning with reference to amendments from that side 
of the aisle. Normally, I would say tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend. 
But I choose to tell it like it is today. It is: Tax, Rockefeller; tax, 
Boxer; tax, Wyden; tax, Kerry; tax, Kerry; tax, Byrd. So it is tax, 
tax, tax, tax, tax, tax. Do you know how much in new taxes the 
Democrats have recommended yesterday and today? The total is $188 
billion in additional taxes that is desired by those six amendments. 
For what? To spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, spend. Most of them 
provide for new spending--not in the budget--and for that new spending, 
they tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax--six times.
  What are tax expenditures and corporate loopholes? Frankly, there are 
two ways to look at it. One way to think about it is they were taxes 
that the Government owned, and we said we are not going to collect 
them. That is a Democrat version of a tax expenditure. The other 
version is they belong to the taxpayer and not the Government.
  Let me suggest that it is not easy even in our budget to find $188 
billion in tax expenditures and loopholes to pay for these amendments. 
In fact, I do not believe that any Senator on that side would like to 
use some of the tax expenditures that I am going to list. They don't 
want to take it away from the American people. Remember? You take it 
away from them because you believe it is theirs or it is not the 
Government that should have had that tax and we did not want it, so we 
left it with somebody.
  Let me just give you some of the very interesting ones and put some 
numbers up alongside them. We could eliminate, Mr. President, the 
deduction for property taxes permitted under the Tax Code for all of 
the people who deduct property taxes on property they own. Most of them 
own homes. That would be a tax increase of $79 billion. So we could 
wipe out that property tax deduction and still have to find $110 
billion more to pay for the Democrat amendments. Let us go through a 
few more.
  We could take away the one-time rollover of a gain on a personal 
residence for people over 55 years of age. That could be one of these. 
But that will not even come close to finding all the taxes the 
Democrats want. It is worth $27 billion, not $188 billion. Let us go to 
a few more.
  We could take away--here is a little one. This might be one that is 
called a loophole. We could make it more difficult for startup 
businesses to get started. That is a $1 billion loophole. We could make 
it more expensive for communities to attract new plants and jobs to 
their communities. That is $3 billion.
  Now, we could also take away all of the charitable deductions to 
colleges, Mr. President; no more charitable deductions to colleges to 
pay for this new list of spend, spend, spend. That would only bring in 
$13.5 billion.
  So it seems to me that one man's loophole is another man's necessity. 
Is it necessary that we permit charitable deductions for colleges? I 
believe so. I believe it is very, very important. That is a necessity. 
That is for education.
  So that is what I have been hearing on the floor--close the loopholes 
to pay for the Government's programs on education.
  How would the Democrats feel about repealing the deduction for 
charitable contributions for education?
  We could take away this deduction for property taxes--$79 billion.
  Maybe one man's exclusion or one man's exemption is very important. 
For others it is throwaway. What would the millions of property owners 
think about that one? What would people with homes think of that one? 
Would they think that tax deduction is a necessity? I believe they 
would.
  I want to put it in perspective with one of the largest of all tax 
expenditures so people can put this into perspective. Let me talk about 
the big one.
  The home mortgage deduction is one of the largest tax loopholes that 
we have. Since we are using the word ``loophole,'' let us use it. I do 
not think it is a loophole. I think it is a necessity. By allowing a 
deduction for mortgage interest, the Government foregoes $330 billion 
in revenue collection over 6 years.
  These amendments, 188 billion dollars' worth of increase in taxes 
over 6 years--all of these numbers I have spoken of are over 6 years--
would be well over half the home mortgage deductions for Americans.
  So, Mr. President, I did not answer each amendment in detail. We will 
take a few minutes on each of the six amendments that I have just 
alluded to in detail. I will answer on Monday or Tuesday the attack on 
education. We will have some other Senators talk about it. But I just 
thought, since it was interesting, that there was one trend which went 
through all of them, and it was, let us pay for them by raising taxes, 
not by restraining the spending. So, if you have a priority, maybe you 
can find in this huge budget something you could restrain and pay for 
it. That is generally what people think we are doing up here. They do 
not think we are restraining a program and imposing a new tax. The way 
to get around it is to say we are not imposing a new tax because it is 
a loophole.

  Mr. President, later on I will discuss the education situation from 
the broader standpoint of how much we spend on education, how much the 
Federal Government spends, and how much all of the States and 
localities pay. So the public, if they are interested in this debate, 
can see in perspective what these budgets are relative to the total 
amount being spent on education.
  I believe those who watch it later on will be absolutely amazed to 
have heard arguments that these changes in education are going to make 
us less able to compete in the world markets and that millions of our 
children will not get educated. When we put it in perspective--how much 
the States, cities, and counties pay versus the changes at the Federal 
level--they are all going to be able to see that it is a very, very 
small portion of the education dollar.
  Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Simpson's 
amendment be laid aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4004

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the costs of training 
                   sessions off of Federal property.)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 4004.

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC  .SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FEDERAL RETREATS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
     that all Federal agencies will refrain from using Federal 
     funds for expenses incurred during training sessions or 
     retreats off of Federal property, unless Federal property is 
     not available.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer today a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment regarding Government travel. My amendment is 
simple--it says that it is the Senate's view that all Federal agencies 
should refrain from Government training sessions or retreats whenever 
Government property or facilities are not available.
  These are times of economic stress for our Government and businesses 
alike, Mr. President. However, like the business community, our 
Government should respond to the current economic situations. If a 
private business ran over $100 billion budget deficits each year, it 
would certainly not fly its employees to Disney World or Jekyll Island, 
GA, as we have seen from Government agencies in recent months. However 
laudable the goals of these training sessions, and I note that many 
are,

[[Page S5253]]

indeed, helpful, we simply cannot afford to do it.
  It is difficult to explain to Georgians that our Government must cut 
jobs at places like Savannah River site, where we have lost over 8,000 
employees in the last 4 years, when they read of elaborate business 
trips abroad and conferences held at resort locations. We must all 
tighten our belts--the Federal Government included. This amendment is 
not intended to halt Government travel or interrupt necessary functions 
of our Government agencies. It is merely intended as a directive from 
the Senate as to the Government's future travel decisions in lieu of 
our budgetary restraints. I hope that my colleagues will concur with 
this commonsense approach and support this amendment.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, to accommodate the Senator from Rhode 
Island, I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of my remarks, 
which will not be extensive, I be allowed to yield 5 minutes off of the 
time in opposition to the amendment No. 4002, the Lott amendment, to 
the Senator from Rhode Island, which would be only 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have just listened with keen interest to 
my colleague from New Mexico. I simply say that the remarks that he has 
just made is a typical case, if I have ever heard one, of constructing 
an imaginary, illusionary strawman and then tearing it to pieces.
  No one has advocated eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. No 
one that I know of has advocated elimination of the rollover or 
personal residence proposition that was alluded to by the Senator from 
New Mexico. No one has advocated eliminating charitable deductions. No, 
Mr. President. And I do not believe it contributes a great deal to the 
legitimate discussion of the budget with those kinds of gimmicks.
  I simply say that what we are doing here is trying to repair serious 
faults in the Republican budget. We did that last year in the 
Republican budget. The American people said, ``You are right.'' We are 
doing it in this budget, and I believe that the American people will 
say again that the Republicans are overdoing it. There is nothing wrong 
with various amendments that are being offered here that have been 
voted or will be voted down. There is nothing wrong with using the same 
proposition to finance some selective improvements in the Republican 
budget that we maintain are particularly demoralizing for education, of 
which we have heard a great deal about today from various Senators--
help for the needy of this country.
  So for the Senator from New Mexico to come in and cite a whole list 
of billions of dollars, then set up a straw-man to what we are trying 
to do and indicate that we are going to have to eliminate deductions of 
home mortgages, and so forth and so on, is just not accurate. I want to 
make sure everyone understands that is not the intended result of any 
of the amendments that have been offered for our side.
  Mr. President, to emphasize this a little bit more, let me simply say 
that there is a great deal of confusion today that has us very much 
concerned on this side as to the traps that are being laid down the 
line.
  It has been interesting to note that during the debate the 
Republicans have said time and time again that they have $122 billion 
in tax cuts in their budget. Yet, if one listens to the chairman of the 
Budget Committee on the House side, Congressman Kasich, he maintains 
that it is not $122 billion in tax cuts, primarily to benefit the 
wealthy, it is going to be $180 billion.
  Now, even people who throw big numbers around understand very clearly 
that there is a difference between a tax cut of $122 billion--only $122 
billion, I say facetiously, in the discussion that the Republicans are 
carrying on here on the Senate floor--there is a lot of difference 
between $122 and $180 billion that the Republican chairman of the 
Budget Committee on the House side says is included in this budget.
  We are confident that there are some traps being laid. We are 
confident that we are going to be back eventually into a debate not 
unlike the one we had last year that the American people agreed with 
the Democrats on, and that is to balance the budget by the year 2002 
but do not complicate that problem by a massive tax cut that basically 
is designed to benefit the wealthiest among us.

  I simply say, Mr. President, on page 3 of this year's budget 
resolution report it states that, in addition to the child tax credit, 
``The committee's recommendation would accommodate further tax reform 
or tax reductions to be offset by the extension of expired tax 
provisions or corporate and business tax reforms.''
  Let me read that again. In the Republican budget, it says, and I 
quote, there could be ``further tax reform * * * to be offset by 
extension of expired tax provisions or corporate and business tax 
reforms.'' That ``corporate and business tax reforms'' is just another 
way of talking about the tax loopholes, as we call them, for 
businesses.
  Certainly I think that changes in some of the tax loopholes are 
entirely in order, certainly not the ones cited in tearing down the 
strawman by the Senator from New Mexico. But I certainly say that I 
think all Americans would realize and recognize and salute us if we 
could do more to tear down the tax loopholes or corporate giveaways 
that are clearly in the Tax Code today that encourage corporations and 
businesses in America to locate jobs in Mexico or elsewhere and get a 
tax break for doing it. Those are the kinds of loopholes that we think 
demand closing.
  The part of the Republican budget that I have just referenced goes on 
to say, ``Such receipts''--corporate receipts, tax loopholes, call them 
what you will--``Such receipts should be used to offset other tax 
reform proposals such as estate tax reform, economic growth, fuel 
excise taxes, or other policies on a deficit neutral basis.''
  That is a pretty typical case where the pot appears to be calling the 
kettle black.
  Last year's vetoed reconciliation bill, supported by virtually every 
Senate Republican, included approximately $26 billion in revenue 
increases for corporate and other reforms. President Clinton has 
proposed nearly $40 billion for corporate reforms in his balanced 
budget submission to the Congress. Although the proposals are not 
identical, the Republicans and the Democrats agree that significant 
revenue can be raised in these areas without touching all of the 
strawman that has been built up and torn down in what we have heard in 
the Chamber this afternoon.
  The committee report to this budget, on pages 63-67, describes 
expenditures in our Tax Code that would lose hundreds of billions of 
dollars in revenue over a 5-year period. In that context, the 
Republican proposals, as well, I might add in all honesty, as those of 
President Clinton, are modest efforts to reduce tax loopholes to 
eliminate corporate welfare and to make our own tax laws more fair for 
all Americans.
  Mr. President, our amendment ensures that these additional receipts 
will be used to lessen the cuts that otherwise would be viewed as fair 
by some and unfair by others. But in any event, to use that means 
rather than help pay for additional tax breaks for the wealthy, which I 
think we will eventually see emerge with great interest.
  I now suggest that we yield to the Senator from Rhode Island under 
the previous unanimous-consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lott). The Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.


                           amendment no. 4002

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I oppose amendment 4002. Not only does it 
demand that the President do something that is not within his power, 
but it also encourages a course of action that would undermine United 
States interests with regard to Iraq.
  Some time ago, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 986 to 
enable the sale of Iraqi oil and to use the proceeds for specific 
purposes--mostly to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of 
Iraq. Some of the funds would also be channeled to the U.N. Special 
Commission on Iraq--also known as UNSCOM--which is charged with 
monitoring and dismantling Iraq's special weapons programs, and to the 
Compensation Committee--which is settling international claims against 
Iraq.

[[Page S5254]]

  This resolution would urge that the President renegotiate the terms 
of the deal so that the proceeds would go to the United States 
Department of Defense in order to fund Operation Southern Watch--the 
no-fly zone in southern Iraq, and Operation Provide Comfort--the no-fly 
zone in Iraqi Kurdistan.
  The President does not have the power to renegotiate the deal. 
Resolution 986 was passed some time ago by the Security Council and 
cannot be altered. The United States voted for the resolution because 
it was concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, who were 
suffering under Saddam Hussein's authoritarian regime. At the time the 
U.N. resolution passed, it was becoming increasingly clear that the 
anti-Iraq coalition was beginning to fracture, and some of our allies 
were beginning to call for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. The 
Security Council resolution offered a rock-solid compromise: Iraqi oil 
could be sold, the proceeds used for humanitarian and security 
purposes, and strict monitoring procedures would be put in place such 
that Iraq could in no way benefit from the arrangements. If we were to 
reopen the compromise to discussion now, we may well be opening the 
door for erosion of the sanctions regime against Iraq. I doubt very 
much that the Senate would wish to do this.
  Furthermore, if the President were to try to do what is contemplated 
in the amendment--and I repeat, he has no standing to do so--then we 
would put other important objectives toward Iraq in doubt. We would 
suggest that we do not support the work of UNSCOM, which has done 
invaluable work in seeing that Iraq will no longer be able to threaten 
the world with weapons of mass destruction. We would suggest that the 
international community--including United States businesspersons--does 
not have the right to be compensated for claims against Iraq. We would 
suggest that Kuwait--the unfortunate object of Saddam Hussein's 
obsessions--does not have a right to be compensated for war damage. And 
worst of all, we would suggest to innocent Iraqis that we oppose them 
as a people and do not care about their treatment by Saddam Hussein.
  I well recall the many times that President Bush said during the 
Persian Gulf war that we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people, and 
called upon them to oppose Saddam Hussein. If we cavalierly suspend 
efforts to provide humanitarian assistance, the Iraqi people will only 
draw the conclusion that the United States is against them and wants to 
punish them for the sins of Saddam. I can think of no more effective 
way to bolster Saddam's standing in the eyes of the Iraqi people than 
to follow the course of action recommended in this amendment.
  I do not quarrel with the thought that the President should seek 
compensation wherever possible for U.S. operations that support U.N. 
missions. But in the case of Provide Comfort and Southern Watch, both 
operations clearly serve U.S. interests. We shouldn't insist on U.N. 
compensation for operations that are so important to our own country--
and jeopardize other humanitarian and security objectives in the 
process.
  Mr. President, I defer to none when it comes to Iraq. I introduced 
the first-ever sanctions bill against Iraq in 1988, well before it was 
popular or politic to oppose the Saddam Hussein regime. I am certain, 
however, the U.N. Security Council Resolution 986 is well-crafted and, 
if implemented, will serve U.S. foreign policy and national security 
interests. We should not try to tinker with it now, particularly for 
reasons that are as suspect as those put forth in the amendment.
  I strongly oppose this resolution, and urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need off 
the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4003

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there are two or three things I would like 
to, maybe, attempt to clear up. We have looked through the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Wyoming. It appears to me that the 
amendment, as we read it, from the Senator from Wyoming is, in effect, 
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that urges Government to use the most 
accurate possible information index available, as far as CPI allowances 
are concerned.
  We have surveyed our Members on this side, and there is generally 
wide agreement in this proposition, because it basically says we should 
do what is right and fair on this CPI matter. So if we can move things 
along, we are prepared, when someone is here, to agree, to offer to 
accept the amendment by the Senator from Wyoming.
  I just make that announcement.


                           Amendment No. 4004

  The second thing I would like to bring up a little bit now, just so 
we have a basic understanding on these things, is yesterday we made an 
agreement that all amendments had to be filed with the managers of the 
bill at a time certain last night. We received a unanimous consent 
agreement that be done. I certainly do not wish to be hard-nosed on 
this matter, but it appears to this side that the amendment recently 
sent to the desk by the Senator from Georgia was not on the list of 
amendments, at least not the one that we had, that was included in the 
unanimous consent last night.
  Under that situation, it would take unanimous consent for the Senator 
from Georgia to have his amendment considered. I would say, in all 
probability we might not object to a unanimous consent request in that 
regard, because we do not want to just arbitrarily shut people out, 
because sometime tomorrow we may have a situation where some Democrat 
inadvertently was overlooked with regard to a slot to offer what they 
consider to be a very important amendment.
  So I hope the majority will show us the same courtesy that we are now 
showing them, to recognize and realize that there may be times when it 
only makes good, common sense--and maybe to enhance the comity around 
here a little bit--we should realize and recognize that the best of 
man's plans sometimes go astray.
  I do not oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia. I 
have not made a decision on how I would vote on that, but I would 
simply say maybe we can work out some kind of an accommodation. At the 
proper time, we would like an explanation of how the Senator from 
Georgia made and obtained the right to offer his amendment without 
consultation with us, because it appears, at least, to be a violation 
of what we agreed to. But maybe we can work something out.
  So, simply saying, going back to the matter of the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Wyoming, we are prepared to accept that amendment 
if we can move things along this afternoon, which we are trying to do.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Since I see no other Senators on the floor seeking recognition to 
speak at this time or to offer an amendment, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum and ask unanimous consent the time of the quorum call be charged 
equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  A quorum is not present. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set 
aside the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendments Nos. 3992 and 4004

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask that we call up amendment No. 
4004, and I call for its adoption. It is my understanding that this was 
not on the original list. It is just an administrative error in its 
submission. But I understand we have reached agreement on this. This 
amendment will be accepted, and one of the other amendments on the 
other side will be accepted.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I agree with the statement made by the 
Senator from Georgia. We have agreed to accept his amendment, and, in 
turn, we have reached an agreement on the

[[Page S5255]]

amendment that is at the desk that was discussed earlier today by 
Senator Murray from Washington, amendment No. 3992, which I call up at 
this time. If we can adopt both of these amendments, which I think have 
been cleared on both sides, then we are one step closer to being 
successful in finishing this debate, hopefully, sometime by Tuesday.
  So I call up the Murray amendment No. 3992.
  All time has been yielded back on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to adoption of both 
amendment No. 3992 and amendment No. 4004?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3992 and 4004) were agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there are two additional amendments that I 
understand have been cleared. I thought they had been cleared. I have 
just been notified they have not necessarily been cleared.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged equally to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have two additional amendments that have 
been cleared on both sides. I believe that the Senator from Washington 
is on his way to the floor to clear both of these. I will just simply 
state that the two amendments that we have agreed to clear are one 
offered by Senator Snowe and Senator Feinstein to Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 57, and the other offered by the two Senators from the State 
of Montana, Senator Baucus and Senator Burns, to Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 57. Both of these have been cleared on both sides. When the 
Senator from Washington arrives, I believe it will be for him to ask 
for the unanimous consent. When that happens, we will get these passed.
  Following that, I hope that, with the usual procedures of moving from 
one side to the other, that the Senator from North Dakota will be 
recognized for the purpose of making a statement and/or the possibility 
of offering an amendment, as soon as we have cleared these two 
amendments.
  Mr. President, in view of the fact that we are temporarily held up on 
clearing these two amendments, I yield 5 minutes off the bill to the 
Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I observe that I admire the work of the Senator from Nebraska, 
Senator Exon, on this budget legislation. I also admire the work of the 
Senator from New Mexico. I know they come to the floor, and it is not 
an easy job to try to steer these pieces of legislation through the 
Senate. As I indicated, even though we have some disagreements from 
time to time on some of these things, I equally admire their commitment 
and their work.
  The budget that is brought to the floor of the Senate truly 
establishes what this country perceives to be its priorities. The one 
thing that is certain about all of this is 100 years from now, none of 
us will be here. No one. Not anyone within the sound of my voice will 
be here 100 years from now. If those living 100 years from now wanted 
to look back and understand a little bit about what we were about, what 
we treasured, what we valued, what we thought was important to our 
country, one way for them to evaluate that would be to look at the 
Federal budget. What choices did this group of Americans make about 
how to educate their children? How did we provide for their health care 
needs? What kind of a defense system did they need, and at what cost? 
How did they respond to the issues of poverty and hunger? You could 
look at the Federal budget and make some judgments about what 
priorities did this particular Senate or did this Congress think were 
important and were dear to it.

  There are common goals, it seems to me, notwithstanding the 
disagreements we have heard on the floor of the Senate in recent days. 
The common goal is to balance the Federal budget. I know some can point 
across one side of the aisle or the other and say, ``You didn't care. 
You are spenders,'' or ``You are taxers.'' The fact is, everybody here 
wants to see a budget that is in some reasonable balance.
  The other objective I think most of us would agree on is, we must 
meet the needs this country has. We must address the issue of defense, 
yes, education, health care, crime, and poverty. We must address those 
issues.
  I have heard a lot of discussion in recent days about the record of 
the current administration, the record of Congress. I think it is 
important to understand that the Government is smaller now than at any 
time since John F. Kennedy was President.
  This President, President Clinton, and Vice President Gore have 
developed a ``reinventing Government'' strategy that has cut 200,000 
Federal workers from the work force; 200,000 people who used to work in 
the Federal Government do not work in the Federal Government now. It is 
a Government that is 200,000 people smaller than when this President 
took office.
  It is the lowest number of employees working on the Federal payroll 
since John F. Kennedy was President, the lowest percent of Federal 
spending related to the gross domestic product since 1979. Back when 
President Reagan was President, we were up around 24 percent of GDP 
being spent by the Federal Government. It has decreased down to about 
22 percent, slightly over 22 percent.
  The deficit: The deficit has been cut very substantially, almost in 
half. The fact is, we have made some progress in some of these areas. 
Part of it was because of the 1993 act which we passed, which was kind 
of a tough thing to do, and cut spending in a significant way. It also 
increased some taxes. I voted for that. It was not a popular vote. I am 
pleased I did because it was the right thing to do. The economy has 
increased. We have had more economic activity. I think it was the right 
thing to do.
  As we discuss the priorities out here and talk about what is 
important and what is not, one thing that is obvious to all of us--it 
takes no skill to tear things down. That is a job for unskilled people, 
to tear things down. If you are going to tear a building down, who are 
you going to hire? A person with skills? You do not need people with 
skills. You hire unskilled people to tear things down. You hire skilled 
workers to build things.

  I am pleased to be a part of a group of people who have been 
builders. We said this country would benefit by a program called Head 
Start. It works. It invests in the lives of the young children ages 3 
and 4 and 5. It invests in young children's lives who are coming from 
families of disadvantage and low income and have suffered some 
difficulty. We know that it saves an enormous amount of money, and it 
helps these young children.
  I just use Head Start as an example, but there are others, plenty of 
others. We know that research at the National Institutes of Health 
works. What about this breathtaking miracle of giving people eyesight 
through removing cataracts, new knees, new hips, open-heart surgery? 
What about all of the research that is going on down at the National 
Institutes of Health that saves people's lives?
  At the turn of this century, people lived to be 48 years of age. Now 
it is 78. Is that an accident? I do not think so. It is because some 
people in these Chambers decided, let us invest some money in health 
research through the National Institutes of Health. It has been 
remarkably successful.
  We are talking about a whole range of issues that are very important 
to the future of this country: teachers, education, health care 
research, Head Start. I can go on--the WIC Program, investment in cops 
on the beat, an investment to try to deal with crime, a whole range of 
similar issues.

[[Page S5256]]

  As we work our way through it, we have disagreements about what is 
important. Some are going to bring to the floor of the Senate in a week 
or so a national missile defense program, $40 to $60 billion to spend 
to create an astrodome over America, apparently, to protect us against 
incoming missiles--$40 to $60 billion. When we talk about those 
programs, the sky's the limit.
  In fact, in this budget on defense, it is $11 billion more than the 
Defense Department said it wanted. It asks to build trucks that are not 
needed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DORGAN. In the military, they asked for trucks that were not 
needed, for planes that were not requested, for submarines that no one 
wanted, because they say, ``It's the defense. We'll stick $11 billion 
more to that even though the admirals and generals said they don't want 
it.''
  I hope, as we sift through these priorities, that we will decide 
there is a difference in spending. Some spending is investment. Some 
spending advances this country's interests. It invests in human 
potential. It improves this country.
  Other spending is wasteful. We should get rid of it. An agency that 
has 16 pages of regulations to buy cream-filled cookies--that is dumb 
spending. An agency that has 1.2 million bottles of nasal spray in 
inventory--there are not enough armies in 10 years to need 1.2 million 
bottles of nasal spray. We should get rid of the dumb areas of spending 
but invest in the things that are important for this country's future.
  That is what this debate is about: education, health care, help the 
environment, things that make this a good place to live. I am proud to 
be one of the people who I think have been builders to try to advance 
this country's interests by investing in the right things, but by 
making sure that Government works, not wastes.
  I will come to the floor at some greater length to talk about this 
issue of the Social Security trust fund, because this bill, I might 
say, the budget bill that balances the budget, on page 5 says in the 
year 2002 the budget is in fact not in balance at all, it has a $108 
billion deficit. How, you ask, did that happen? A $108 billion deficit 
in a bill they say is balanced? Because they will take $108 billion 
from Social Security so they can reach zero on page 1, and on page 5 it 
tells what we are doing.
  I fundamentally disagree with the presentation made earlier today in 
the Senate, and I hope we will have time in the next couple of days to 
have a lengthy discussion about whether we will collect the hundreds of 
billions of dollars in the Social Security trust fund to, in fact, save 
the Social Security system, or whether they will be used as offsets so 
someone can say they have balanced the budget when they have not. I 
yield the floor.


                     Amendments Nos. 4005 and 4006

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are now prepared to move ahead. I send 
two amendments to the desk that I earlier talked about and said they 
had been cleared. The first amendment is on behalf of Senator Baucus 
and Senator Burns of Montana. The second amendment is known as Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 57 and is introduced by Senator Hutchison, 
Senator Snowe, Senator Feinstein, Senator Mikulski, Senator Dole, and 
Senator Roth.
  I send these amendments to the desk and I ask for their immediate 
consideration. When the Chair asks for adoption of these amendments, I 
ask that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. I send the 
two amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] proposes amendments, 
     en bloc, numbered 4005 and 4006.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments, en bloc, are as follows:


                           amendment no. 4005

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the essential 
        air service program of the Department of Transportation)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ESSENTIAL AIR 
                   SERVICE PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the essential air service program of the Department of 
     Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 
     49, United States Code--
       (A) provides essential airline access to isolated rural 
     communities across the United States;
       (B) is necessary for the economic growth and development of 
     rural communities;
       (C) connects small rural communities to the national air 
     transportation system of the United States;
       (D) is a critical component of the national transportation 
     system of the United States; and
       (E) provides air service to 108 communities in 30 States; 
     and
       (2) the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive 
     Airline Industry established under section 204 of the Airport 
     and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and 
     Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992 recommended maintaining 
     the essential air service program with a sufficient level of 
     funding to continue to provide air service to small 
     communities.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the essential air service program of the Department of 
     Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 
     49, United States Code, should receive a sufficient level of 
     funding to continue to provide air service to small rural 
     communities that qualify for assistance under the program.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me start by thanking the Senators from 
New Mexico and Nebraska for their assistance in moving this amendment.
  The amendment I am offering today is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
regarding the Essential Air Service or EAS program. It highlights the 
continued importance of the EAS program and provides that sufficient 
funding levels be provided to eligible communities in the future.
  Mr. President, rural America faces many challenges. I do not have to 
tell you that people in rural areas of this country are struggling. 
They are struggling to make ends meet. And they are struggling with 
their transportation system.
  In recent years, funding for transportation programs that people in 
rural areas rely on have been dramatically cut. Amtrak service has been 
reduced. Rural transit programs are disappearing. Highway funds are 
threatened. And the Essential Air Service program is constantly under 
attack.
  Without an adequate transportation system, economic development, and 
job creation in these areas cannot take place. Just as urban areas 
depend upon transportation programs, so do those folks who live in 
rural areas.
  When Congress voted to deregulate the airline industry, there was 
clear recognition that some communities would be left without air 
service. The EAS program was intended to be the safety net for rural 
America. In order to protect those communities from losing air service 
altogether, carriers would receive a Federal subsidy as an incentive to 
continue operating in rural markets.
  In Montana, we have seven communities in the EAS program--the most 
communities in the program outside of Alaska. It is a vital program and 
it is essential to many people.
  The EAS program provides access. It connects the most rural areas of 
my State to the rest of the country. I do not know if most Members are 
aware of this, but Montana is as large as the area between Washington, 
DC and Chicago. That puts things into context. We are a big rural 
State.
  That is why continuation of the EAS program is so important. Many 
people in Montana rely on the EAS program. If they need to get to 
Billings or elsewhere to see the doctor or a specialist, they need to 
know that air service is available.
  And in order to attract new businesses to an area, there needs to be 
adequate air service. Many companies look at the transportation system 
available to an area before deciding to locate. Without access to air 
service, companies and the well-paying jobs they bring with them, will 
go elsewhere.
  I was very disappointed that this Congress cut the EAS program by 30 
percent last year. The result of these huge cuts in the EAS program has 
meant reduced service to our smallest communities. And the air carriers 
that

[[Page S5257]]

provide this service have had to struggle to make ends meet because of 
these cuts.
  I fought hard against a reduction in the EAS funding. The EAS program 
is such a small program, yet it has been dramatically and unfairly 
targeted. This goes against the intent of Congress when it recognized 
that our smallest communities deserve continued air service. You can be 
assured that I will fight this year to make sure this Congress and the 
Appropriations Committees do not make the same mistake again. This 
resolution is the first step.
  Again, I thank the Senators for their support.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this Chamber has been treading a difficult 
path in the last year. We want a balanced budget in the year 2002. We 
want a balanced budget for the next generation.
  I believe that as we set the budget for the coming years, we can find 
plenty of room for responsible cuts. This is also the chance to 
prioritize programs to get the best money can buy.
  One important priority is accessible air service to all communities, 
rural and urban, across the country. The benefits of airline 
deregulation did not apply evenly to every community. In other words, 
fears that unconditional deregulation would compromise the quantity, 
affordability, and quality of air service to small, rural communities 
have come true.
  That's the very reason that Essential Air Service was created. It was 
developed in response to fears that deregulation would leave holes in 
service throughout the country. And although EAS does not fill the 
holes completely, it does help connect many of our small towns.
  Air service is too important to our communities and their future to 
ignore. In a time when communication is instant through computers, 
faxes, and cellular telephones, people need to move around quickly and 
efficiently. Community growth through economic promotion and employment 
opportunities is hinged on adequate and accessible air service. Air 
service is vital not only as a dependable mode of transportation, but 
as a way to pull communities together and promote economic development.
  In my home State of Montana, where there are a great many miles 
between the dots on the map, there are few transportation alternatives. 
Amtrak serves the High-Line, and there is some bus service in the 
southern and western parts of the State, but for the most part there 
aren't many ways to get from here to there. Add to it the unpredictable 
weather and you get a mix that makes travel often difficult and 
occasionally impossible.
  Small, rural communities across Montana and America rely on air 
service for transportation, economic development, delivery of 
merchandise and services, and medical purposes. Every year Essential 
Air Service comes under fire, but it is still what the name implies: 
Essential. It is essential to the national transportation system; it is 
essential to the development and growth of small communities.


                           amendment no. 4006

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Congress and the 
 President should immediately approve legislation providing homemakers 
               with equal retirement savings opportunity)

       Insert at the appropriate place:
       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that the assumptions of 
     this budget resolution take into account that--
       (1) by teaching and feeding our children and caring for our 
     elderly, American homemakers are an important, vital part of 
     our society;
       (2) homemakers' retirement needs are the same as all 
     Americans, and thus they need every opportunity to save and 
     invest for retirement;
       (3) because they are living on a single income, homemakers 
     and their spouses often have less income for savings;
       (4) individual retirement accounts are provided by the 
     Congress in the Internal Revenue Code to assist Americans for 
     retirement savings;
       (5) currently, individual retirement accounts permit 
     workers other than homemakers to make deductible 
     contributions of $2,000 a year, but limit homemakers to 
     deductible contributions of $250 a year; and
       (6) limiting homemakers individual retirement accounts 
     contributions to an amount less than the contributions of 
     other workers discriminates against homemakers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the revenue level assumed in this budget resolution 
     provides for legislation to make individual retirement 
     accounts deductible contribution limits for homemakers equal 
     to the individual retirement accounts deductible contribution 
     limits for all other American workers, and that the Congress 
     and the President should immediately approve such legislation 
     in the appropriate reconciliation vehicle.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we yield back all time on our side.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we yield back time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments (Nos. 4005 and 4006) en bloc, are agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President I allocate myself 5 minutes on the 
budget.
  Mr. President, as we consider the budget at this time, I think it is 
critically important that we remind ourselves what the very key problem 
to the budget at the Federal level is and what ought to and can be done 
to correct the problem. I think it is important that we concentrate on 
what the basic problem is--Federal health care costs.
  I am reminded of the words of George Marshall after World War II when 
he was attempting to devise the Marshall plan. There were all sorts of 
problems that were created and discussed and kicked around. Finally, he 
held a meeting and said, ``Don't fight the problem; decide it.'' That 
is what I believe we ought to do here with respect to health care.
  We have kicked around with changes to Medicaid. We have fought over 
Medicare costs. But the deficit continues to increase. About one-half 
of the deficit is related to the health care costs of the Medicare and 
Medicaid Programs. Thus, as we go forward, it is clear if we do not get 
the increasing costs of these programs down, the hope of having a 
rational budget in the years ahead becomes very difficult, if not 
impossible. If these costs continue to increase at the current levels 
soon it will result in about half a trillion dollars in the Federal 
deficit. If we could take that half a trillion and use it for other 
matters, whether it is education or whatever, then the cuts in 
discretionary spending we are dealing with now which are creating all 
of the consternation would be pretty much a thing of the past.
  It is clear the most effective and most painless way to solve the 
budget problem is to solve the health care cost problem. If we analyze 
the problem and also look at the public's concerns and desires, it 
becomes clear we can solve it by both looking to conventional insurance 
concepts, combined with health care reform already under way in this 
country.
  People perceive the most difficult health care threat they face is a 
catastrophic medical event. I have a chart here which shows that what 
people want the most out of health care reform is catastrophic health 
care coverage. I emphasize the words ``coverage.'' Catastrophic 
coverage is not a mandated benefit. You might remember last month I 
made an attempt here to raise the lifetime caps in private health plans 
in order to ensure that people did not find themselves forced into the 
unfortunate situation of having to go bankrupt in order to qualify for 
the Medicaid Program in order to have health care coverage. Mr. 
President, according to a recent survey conducted by the Aragon 
Consulting Group out of St. Louis, MO, 82 percent of the people fear 
most that some day they will end up in bankruptcy and on a Federal 
health care program because they do not have catastrophic health care 
coverage.
  Let us take a look at what the present situation is, and, more 
important than that, see what we can do to solve the problem. Unless we 
get coverage to people--I point out that coverage is the important 
thing here. Right now we have millions of people who have no coverage 
at all because they work for an employer who does not provide coverage, 
or because individual health insurance coverage is too expensive and 
since they are not wealthy citizens they cannot afford health care.
  On the other hand, we have millions and millions of people who have 
coverage but not adequate coverage. They can have interim caps and 
annual caps on coverage. As I talked about before, they can have the 
overall lifetime cap on coverage, which means after an arbitrary amount 
of money is paid out by

[[Page S5258]]

the insurance company or employer, then they have to look to their own 
private resources to finance their health care needs.
  The best way to solve the health care cost problem is to use the 
basics of insurance. As I will point out later this is not something 
new. In the 1950's, the Eisenhower administration designed a 
reinsurance program that provided incentives in the market, very much 
like the one I will outline, to provide private health insurance to 
everyone.
  In 1993, the Clinton administration came forward with a plan. That 
plan would have, in the final analysis, provided health coverage for 
everyone. Eventually, the Federal Government would phase ourselves out 
of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs and we could end up with a system 
that would bring the costs under control. However, that was thrown out 
because it was too complicated. So we moved away from that.
  Around that same time, I had a plan I called MediCore which would 
have similarly solved the problems--I am goal oriented--and would have 
solved the problems by placing the States in a position where they 
could ensure everyone had coverage and the Federal Government would be 
out of it.
  Now, since that time, we have moved toward incremental reform. That 
is fine. The Health Insurance Reform Act, that we passed unanimously, 
was a good first step. But this bill does not address how we expect to 
get our Federal health costs under control.
  One of the most important issues we will be addressing this year is 
changes in the way we finance health care for senior citizens, persons 
with disabilities, the underinsured and uninsured. I wholeheartedly 
support reducing the deficit as well as moving the Government out of 
the role of running a health plan for the elderly and the disabled.
  The reason the Government's health care spending is out of control is 
really twofold. First, is the way we have chosen to pay for purchase 
services. When Medicare was designed in the 1960's it was modeled after 
private Blue Cross fee-for-service plans. The Government paid providers 
directly for each procedure performed. Paying for services rendered at 
a distance without any effective utilization control has been a 
disaster. Our failed attempts to control costs by continuing to cut 
payments to providers is a major reason our Federal deficit is so 
exorbitant.
  How can reducing provider payments have the effect of actually 
increasing our Federal deficit? The answer is the cost-shift this 
creates between insurance provided by the public sector with that 
provided by the private sector. Cost-shifting has only distorted the 
true costs of services and hides the inefficiencies in our overall 
health care delivery system.
  Second, the private market's failure to provide affordable coverage 
on reasonable terms to the elderly, disabled, and the poor led to the 
political demand for the Congress to create Medicare and Medicaid.
  The major design flaw of these entitlement programs was segregating 
the highest insurance risks into Government run plans.
  This segmentation has not provided any incentives for the private 
sector to find innovative ways to manage the highest cost cases in our 
health care delivery system. As a matter of fact, this segmentation is 
how people are shifted from private health plans to Government run 
health plans.
  The key to getting health care costs under control and to reduce our 
deficit is to utilize the most basic insurance principle of spreading 
risk of aberrational cases over a large number of people.
  This cost-shift from private insurance plans to the public insurance 
plans was the main argument I made during the debate we had on this 
floor last month when we unanimously passed the Health Insurance Reform 
Act. You might remember an amendment I brought to the floor regarding 
lifetime caps in private insurance plans. The cold dollar facts proved 
over and over again were that by removing these caps we would save 
billions of dollars in our entitlement programs.
  The accounting firm of Price Waterhouse estimated the savings to 
Medicaid would be $7 billion over 7 years. The National Taxpayers Union 
estimated that the Federal Government would save $3 billion and the 
State and local government would save $2 billion over 5 years. In 
addition, CBO scored the increase cost to businesses already providing 
coverage to their employees at 0.16 percent. Again the reason this cost 
to business is small is because we are spreading high-cost cases over 
about 165 million privately insured individuals.
  By the way, since the FEHB plans already have no lifetime caps there 
is no additional cost to the Federal Government as employer. This small 
change in lifting coverage limits would provide the American public 
with the same peace of mind we, U.S. Senators, have in the event a 
catastrophic illness or injury hits one of our family members.
  Central to any restructuring of the health insurance system is the 
understanding that what changes are made in the Government programs 
affect the private sector and visversa. The key is to find a mechanism 
that can act as a bridge between the public and private sectors.
  The solution that I have developed is a Federal Health Care 
Reinsurance Corporation. The mission of this agency is to provide for a 
true public private partnership in providing affordable private health 
insurance to all Americans The operating functions of the Corporation 
will be contracted out to the private market, therefore the principle 
function of the Corporation will be policymaking.
  The Reinsurance Corporation provides the market incentives for plans 
to compete and manage the care of people who have, in the past, been 
``dumped'' into the public entitlement programs because of high cost 
medical conditions. All health plans will participate in the financing 
of high-cost cases and, therefore, all health plans may draw on the 
fund for assistance in covering expenses for qualifying high-cost 
individuals.
  Payments would be made to health plans on behalf of an individual who 
becomes a high-cost case because of a particular medical condition. It 
is not a ``special'' health insurance for pool for individuals with 
high medical expenses.
  The Reinsurance Corporation would make it possible for private sector 
health plans to compete for the chronically ill and disabled population 
since plans would be protected against large aberrational costs 
associated with insuring these individuals. In order to make it 
feasible for private health plans to accept all comers it will be 
necessary to decouple the reinsurance payment from the level of risk 
that the health plans has accepted.

  Once the fund is operational, it would no longer be necessary for a 
health plan to exclude a high-cost person: The correct market response 
would be to apply to the fund for a payment on the person's behalf. 
Since the payment would follow the consumer, the consumer is always 
free to change plans if he or she is not satisfied with the quality of 
service in any particular health plan.
  As we tackle one of the biggest problems for the Federal Government, 
our deficit, we must keep in mind a goal we all agreed to a couple of 
years ago--the goal of moving toward universal coverage for all 
Americans.
  We must keep in mind that any changes we make to the public programs 
of Medicare and Medicaid must not add to the rolls of the uninsured, 
especially if it is due to unintended consequences of our changes to 
these programs. More uninsured Americans will only increase total costs 
to the health care system.
  We must develop a mechanism that provides the private health 
insurance market the incentive to cover higher cost individuals at 
reasonable prices rather than continue to allow the private sector to 
shift high-cost individuals into our public programs.
  Prior to the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, the Eisenhower 
administration proposed to deal with the private sector's risk averse 
behavior in health insurance by creating a Government-sponsored 
reinsurance program. The idea was to create a Government program that 
would demonstrate to the private sector that private insurance of 
higher risk clientele was feasible.
  If designed correctly, the Federal Health Reinsurance Corporation 
might be able to accomplish what President Eisenhower suggested over 40 
years ago, have a well-functioning private

[[Page S5259]]

sector health insurance system that competes for all members of society 
simply on quality and price.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, now is not the time to make the largest cuts 
in education in U.S. history. There is simply no growth in this budget 
for our Nation's many important education programs. To my mind, if we 
jeopardize the education of our Nation's children we are jeopardizing 
the economic well-being of our country. A commitment to education is a 
strong Federal investment that will ensure that America's children and 
families are prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
  Programs like Safe and Drug Free Schools, Head Start, Goals 2000, and 
title I are oftentimes the only hope for so many of the children 
growing up in disadvantaged communities. At this time, when student 
enrollments are at an alltime high, and expected to be at their highest 
level since 1971, we should be increasing the support that we send to 
States so that they may further their own initiatives in key areas of 
education. By making such drastic cuts in funding to these invaluable 
elementary and secondary education programs, the future of millions of 
children will be threatened.
  Over the last 30 years, the dream of a college education has been 
brought within reach of almost every American. As the population of 
traditional college age students will rise by 12 percent over the next 
decade, we as a nation must help keep the doors open to college and 
other postsecondary education opportunities. This budget would turn our 
backs on the college-bound students of America. By cutting $6.2 billion 
over the next 6 years, 1.3 million students will lose Pell grants, 
while 800,000 students would lose work-study opportunities by the year 
2002. In the span of a little more than a decade, we have gone from a 
situation where grants were 75 percent of a student's aid package and 
loan's only 25 percent to one where loans make up 75 percent of the 
package and grants only 25 percent. To my mind, this is not the 
direction which we should be moving. Now is the time to continue to 
assist college students in their quest for a brighter future.
  I am gravely concerned about the direction this budget resolution 
would takes us. I firmly believe that the drastic education cuts 
proposed would not guarantee that we as a nation are prepared to meet 
the challenges of the next century. Our commitment to education cannot 
stop here, therefore, I ask my colleague to carefully look at the 
implications of this budget resolution.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today the Senate continues debate on the 
fiscal year 1997 budget resolution. This budget resolution would 
balance the Federal budget by 2002 using realistic economic 
assumptions.
  Let me be clear, however, that it would have been my preference if 
the budget resolution had retained the flexibility in the first 
reconciliation bill to allow the Finance Committee to develop a tax 
relief bill for working families. However, I was assured by the 
chairman of the Budget Committee that the conference report on the 
budget resolution will resolve the differences between the 
reconciliation instructions to the Ways and Means Committee and the 
Senate Finance Committee. I, therefore, urge the Senate conferees to 
ensure that the conference report contain the option for some tax 
relief in the first reconciliation bill.
  Our Nation's working families are in need of tax relief so that they 
may more easily provide for their children. I believe it is our duty to 
respond to their need and give them a tax cut coupled with our efforts 
to balance the Federal budget.
  Let me just say a few words about the first reconciliation bill that 
will be moving through the Finance Committee next month. It is my 
intention to mark up the welfare and Medicaid reform proposals as 
outlined by our Nation's Governors.
  This package will meet the savings goals outlined in the budget 
resolution with $72 billion in savings in the Medicaid area, and $53 
billion in the welfare reform package. The Governors' bipartisan plan 
provides States with flexibility and incentives for moving ahead with 
fundamental reforms in both of these programs. I remain hopeful that 
their resounding support and unanimous vote in favor of these reforms 
will help move this necessary legislation through the Senate in a 
timely fashion, and that President Clinton will sign this bill--having 
already vetoed two welfare reform bills.
  Mr. President, today's budget resolution clearly demonstrates that 
the debate over Medicaid and welfare is not about spending levels, but 
instead about who will control the funds? Washington, or the States? 
This Senator agrees with the Governors. Give the flexibility to the 
States.
  Mr. President, last year Republicans proposed to preserve, protect 
and strengthen the Medicare Program. We worked hard to put together a 
balanced proposal that did not cut Medicare but slowed the rate the 
cost of the program was expected to grow. The budget resolution before 
us would also provide continued increased growth in Medicare spending.
  This 1997 budget resolution increases annual per beneficiary Medicare 
spending from the current average spending of $5,300 in 1996 to $7,000 
in 2002. This translates to 43 percent of the total program spending 
growth from 1996 to 2002.
  Mr. President, the time has come to put an end to out of control 
Federal spending that has taken money from the private sector--the very 
sector that creates jobs and economic opportunity for all Americans.
  The American people are crying out for a smaller, more efficient 
government. They are concerned about the trends that for too long have 
put the interests of big government before the interest of our job-
creating private sector. They are irritated by the double standard that 
exists between how our families are required to balance their 
checkbooks and how government is allowed to continue spending despite 
its deficit accounts.
  I believe the outcome of spending restraint for our Nation is one of 
the most important steps we can take to ensure the economic 
opportunities for prosperity for our children and for our children's 
children.
  As a nation--and as individuals--we are morally bound to pass 
opportunity and security to the next generation.
  The Federal bureaucracy must be reformed to meet the needs of all 
taxpayers for the 21st century. I am convinced that it is through a 
smaller, smarter government we will be able to serve Americans into the 
next century.
  The President's recent budget proposals for next year offer clear 
evidence of the lack of political will to make the hard choices when it 
comes to cutting Government spending. His budget does not take 
seriously the need for spending restraint. In fact, the only path that 
the President proposes is one that leads to higher Government spending, 
higher taxes, and ever-increasing burdens for our children.
  Deficit spending cannot continue. We can no longer allow waste, 
inefficiency, and overbearing government to consume the potential of 
America's future. I am committed to spending restraint as we move to 
balance the budget.
  Mr. President, the Republican-led Congress has acted to restrain 
Federal spending many times over the past year and a half. After the 
President vetoed the balanced budget last fall, we moved ahead with 
other legislation that would help cut Federal spending. In fact, 
earlier this year, the Republican-led Congress passed the line-item-
veto legislation, a tool that will to help trim Federal spending. We 
all know that we need every possible tool to help reduce Federal 
spending.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I urge 
that they join me in supporting the budget resolution later this week.


                      Student Loan Budget Scoring

  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to call attention to an issue that the 
Senator from Illinois brought up at markup of the budget resolution 
last week. He was concerned that a provision included in the fiscal 
year 1996 resolution tilted the budget scoring of student loans in 
favor of the government-guarantee program. Our intent was to conform 
the treatment of administrative expenses of direct student loans to 
that of guaranteed student loans and I have been assured by the 
Congressional Budget Office [CBO] that they understood and implemented 
that intent. The Department of Education has interpreted the language 
differently than

[[Page S5260]]

CBO and therefore I can understand how this might lead some observers 
to question the actual effect of the change. Therefore, in response to 
a request from the Senator from Illinois, I directed my staff to look 
more closely at the issue to make sure that the language in the budget 
resolution fulfills our intent.
  This is not the first time this concern has been raised by the 
Senator from Illinois. During debate on the budget resolution last year 
he offered an amendment to strike the language. The amendment failed. 
Following that discussion, I directed my staff on the Budget Committee 
to draft a letter to CBO in order to ensure that our budget resolution 
language did not bias scoring of administrative expenses in favor of 
guaranteed student loans. Their response was placed in the record 
during debate on the budget reconciliation bill and I again ask 
unanimous consent that it 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, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In your letter of September 5, 1995, you 
     asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to respond to 
     several questions regarding the Credit Reform Act and section 
     207 of the 1996 budget resolution related to the treatment of 
     administrative expenses in the student loan programs. 
     Attached are CBO's responses to your questions.
       If you wish further details, we will be pleased to provide 
     them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Kalcevic, who can be 
     reached at 226-2820.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill.
       Attachment.

             Responses to Questions From Chairman Domenici

       The Credit Reform Act of 1990 provided that the federal 
     budget would record the cost of direct loans and guaranteed 
     loans on a subsidy basis rather than a cash basis. The act 
     defined the subsidy cost of a loan to equal the present 
     discounted value of all loan disbursements, repayments, 
     default costs, interest subsidies, and other payments 
     associated with the loan, excluding federal administrative 
     costs. Federal administrative costs of loan programs 
     continued to be accorded a cash-accounting treatment. 
     Estimates of proposals affecting student loans made from 1992 
     through early 1995 used the accounting rules established in 
     the Credit Reform Act.
       The budget resolution for fiscal year 1996, adopted in June 
     1995, specified that the direct administrative costs of 
     direct student loans should be included in the subsidy 
     estimates of that program for purposes of Congressional 
     scorekeeping. Since June, for estimating legislation under 
     the 1996 budget resolution, the Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO) has used this alternative definition of subsidy costs. 
     In addition, changes in economic and technical estimating 
     assumptions complicate the comparison of estimates made at 
     different times. The following questions and answers explore 
     the implications of the change in accounting for direct 
     student loans.
       Question 1. The President proposed, and signed into law in 
     1993, the Federal Direct Student Loan Program to replace the 
     guaranteed lending program. What was the time frame adopted 
     for the phase-in of that program when it was initially 
     enacted and what savings estimated was provided by CBO?
       Answer. The President's fiscal 1994 budget proposed 
     expanding the direct student loan program from a pilot 
     program (which was about 4 percent of loan volume) to a 
     program that would provide 100 percent of all student loans 
     by the 1997-1998 academic year. As part of the request, the 
     President proposed to lower interest rates to borrowers as of 
     July 1997, substantially increase the annual capped 
     entitlement levels for direct loan administrative costs, and 
     subsidize schools for loan origination. The budget proposed 
     no changes in the guaranteed loan program except to phase it 
     out. CBO estimated that the proposal would save $4.3 billion 
     over the 1994-1998 period. These estimates were completed 
     using the CBO February 1993 baseline economic and technical 
     assumptions. The President's proposal became the policy 
     assumed in that year's budget resolution.
       The legislation passed by the Congress differed 
     significantly from the policies assumed in the budget 
     resolution. The bill met the requirement to save $4.3 billion 
     by limiting the volume in the direct lending program to 60 
     percent of the total and substantially cutting subsidies in 
     the guaranteed loan program. Specifically, direct loans were 
     to represent 5 percent of total volume for academic year 
     1994-1995, 40 percent for 1995-1996, 50 percent for 1996-1997 
     and 1997-1998, and 60 percent for 1998-1999. The legislation 
     also provided that the ceiling could be exceeded if demand 
     required it.
       Question 2. In his FY 96 budget, the President proposed an 
     acceleration of that plan so that all student loans would be 
     provided directly from the government no later than July 1, 
     1997. What ``additional'' savings did CBO estimate for the 
     accelerated phase-in under the Credit Reform Act?
       Answer. The President's fiscal year 1996 budget request 
     included a proposal to expand the direct student loan program 
     to cover 100 percent of loan volume by July 1997. This 
     proposed change was estimated to save $4.1 billion from the 
     CBO baseline over the 1996-2002 period. That baseline 
     incorporated CBO's February 1995 economic and technical 
     assumptions and the direct loan phase-in schedule provided 
     under current law. This baseline reflected the rules that are 
     currently in law for estimating the cost of credit programs.
       The 1996 budget resolution specified that the direct 
     administrative costs of direct student loans should be 
     included in the subsidy estimates for that program for 
     purposes of Congressional scorekeeping. This change conformed 
     the treatment of the administrative costs of direct student 
     loans with that for guaranteed student loans. For purposes of 
     Congressional budget scorekeeping, the change overrides the 
     Credit Reform Act, which requires that the federal 
     administrative costs for direct loan programs be accorded a 
     cash-accounting treatment.
       For estimating legislation under the 1996 budget 
     resolution, CBO modified its baseline for direct student 
     loans to include in the subsidy calculations the present 
     value of direct federal administrative costs, including the 
     loans' servicing costs. The change means that direct loans 
     issued in a given year have their administrative costs 
     calculated over the life of the loan portfolio, with 
     adjustments for the time value of the funds. Therefore, the 
     subsidy costs of any year's direct loans will include the 
     discounted future administrative costs of servicing loans 
     which may be in repayment (or collection) for as long as 25 
     to 30 years. The inclusion of these administrative costs in 
     the subsidy calculations for direct loans increases the 
     subsidy rates for these loans by about 7 percentage points. 
     Consequently, the resolution baseline for student loans is 
     higher than the current CBO baseline. Under the assumptions 
     of the budget resolution baseline, the President's 100 
     percent direct lending proposal would save $115 million over 
     the 1996-2002 period.
       Question 3. What would be the long term costs, under 
     scoring rules in effect prior to the 1995 budget resolution, 
     for the above proposal? How would those savings be affected 
     over the life of the loan? How would those costs be compared 
     with the same volume of loans made under the guaranteed 
     program?
       Answer. The response to the first part of this question is 
     addressed in the previous answer. Compared to the CBO 
     baseline, the President's 1996 budget proposal was estimated 
     to save $4.1 billion over the next seven years. In order to 
     provide an estimate of a proposal to return to 100 percent 
     guaranteed lending by July 1997 under either the CBO or the 
     resolution baseline, we would need more detail than has been 
     provided on how the program would be restructured.
       Question 4. Did the credit reform amendment adopted as part 
     of the budget resolution direct the Congressional Budget 
     Office to exclude any costs for guaranteed loans?
       Answer. This year's budget resolution addressed only the 
     budgetary treatment of the administrative costs of direct 
     student loans. By defining the direct administrative costs of 
     direct loans and requiring these costs be calculated over the 
     life of the loan portfolio, the resolution allowed for the 
     costs of direct and guaranteed loans to be evaluated on a 
     similar basis. Thus, all of the program costs for both 
     programs are included in the resolution baseline and are 
     accounted for in the same way, whether they are calculated on 
     the basis of subsidy or cash-based accounting.
       Question 5. Are there any expenses of direct or guaranteed 
     loans that are currently excluded from the government subsidy 
     costs that would be more appropriately be included in that 
     subsidy? If so, what are they and why have they been excluded 
     from the subsidy cost? For example, some have argued that the 
     credit reform amendment did not include the administrative 
     cost allowance which is paid to guarantee agencies.
       Answer. Indirect administrative costs--those not directly 
     tied to loan servicing and collection--are included in the 
     budget on a cash basis for both programs. Some have asked 
     whether these costs would be more appropriately included in 
     the loan subsidy calculations. Although it might be 
     appropriate to include some or all of these costs in the 
     subsidy calculation, as a practical matter it is not 
     straightforward to determine which costs to account for in 
     this manner. For the most part the costs of government 
     oversight, regulation writing, Pell grant certification, and 
     other similar expenditures are personnel costs of the 
     Department of Education or contracted services. In addition, 
     many of the costs, such as program oversight, are not tied to 
     a single loan portfolio but affect many portfolios and both 
     programs. Allocating these costs to specific portfolios and 
     programs for specific fiscal years would be difficult.
       The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA-93) 
     eliminated administrative cost allowance (ACA) payments to 
     guaranty agencies. Until that time, the volume-based payments 
     were always included in the subsidy costs of guaranteed 
     student loans. However, OBRA-93 gave the Secretary of 
     Education authority to make such payments out of the $2.5 
     billion capped entitlement fund for the direct loan program. 
     Any expenditures from this fund would be accounted for

[[Page S5261]]

     on a cash basis. If the Secretary chose not to allocate any 
     funds for this purpose, then there would be no payments to 
     guaranty agencies.
       As part of its current services budget estimates, the 
     Department of Education announced plans to use funds 
     available under the capped entitlement to pay administrative 
     cost allowances to guaranty agencies at one percent of new 
     loan volume for the next five years. Both the CBO baseline 
     and the budget resolution baseline include these planned 
     administrative expenses on a cash basis under the capped 
     entitlement account at the Department's current services 
     levels.
       It makes little budgetary difference whether these payments 
     are computed on a cash or subsidy basis. Because the payments 
     are made at the time of loan disbursement, their estimated 
     costs on a cash basis or subsidy basis would be essentially 
     the same. As a result, over the 1996-2002 period the cost of 
     the student loan programs and the budget totals would be 
     changed only marginally by accounting for these payments on a 
     subsidy basis.
       Question 6. What possible mechanisms exist to reclassify 
     these costs as part of the Federal subsidy, to be scored on a 
     present value basis?
       Answer. The guaranty agency cost allowance could again be 
     made an automatic government payment under the guaranteed 
     student loan law. Including the current cash-based indirect 
     administrative expenses for both the direct and guaranteed 
     loans in the subsidy estimates would require amending the 
     Credit Reform Act, but it would be difficult to estimate a 
     wide range of Federal personnel-related expenses over a 25- 
     to 30-year period. Determining whether some types of 
     expenditures that are now accounted for on a cash basis 
     should be included in the subsidy calculation would require a 
     more thorough review of the current expenditures of the 
     Department of Education than has been conducted to date.
       Question 7. Does the credit reform rule adopted as part of 
     the budget resolution provide the proper framework to fairly 
     assess all direct Federal expenses of guaranteed and direct 
     loans?
       Answer. In general, the Credit Reform Act amendment allows 
     direct comparisons between the costs of the guaranteed and 
     direct loan programs.
       Question 8. Some have claimed that savings associated with 
     the Goodling proposal to repeal direct lending were a result 
     of excluding administrative costs of guaranteed loans. What 
     is the primary reason for the $1.5 billion in savings 
     associated with the Goodling proposal under the new scoring 
     rule?
       Answer. On July 26, 1995, CBO prepared an estimate of the 
     original Goodling proposal. The proposal had three 
     components: (1) eliminate the authority for new direct 
     student and parent loans effective in academic year 1996-
     1997; (2) change the annual and cumulative budget authority 
     levels under Section 458 to reflect the elimination of 
     indirect administrative cost anticipated for new direct loans 
     and the termination of payments of Section 458 funds to 
     guarantee agencies and limit the funds to $24 million 
     annually; and (3) reestablish an administrative cost 
     allowance (ACA) for guarantee agencies at 0.85 percent of new 
     loan volume or 0.08 percent of outstanding volume, with an 
     annual limitation on ACA subsidies of $200 million. Assuming 
     an enactment date of October 1995, the proposals would reduce 
     outlays for student loans by $227 million for fiscal year 
     1996 and by $1.5 billion over the 1996-2002 period.
       Relative to the budget resolution baseline, shifting loan 
     volume to guaranteed loans would save $855 million over the 
     1996-2002 period. Administrative expenditures would be 
     reduced by $1.97 billion over the next seven years by 
     lowering the cap. Of this amount, $824 million reflects the 
     elimination of the discretionary guaranty agency payments, 
     and the remainder reflects the elimination of the indirect 
     costs for the phased-out direct loan program. Reestablishing 
     the ACA for a 100 percent guaranteed loan program would cost 
     $1.3 billion over seven years.
       Although the Goodling proposal would have eliminated most 
     of the funds to oversee the phased-out direct loan program by 
     reducing the capped entitlement level for these funds, it did 
     not address the level of appropriated funds that would be 
     necessary to oversee the larger guaranteed loan program.
       Question 9. Did the Goodling proposal to eliminate the 
     direct loan program and make changes to the guaranteed 
     program you were asked to score, address all Federal 
     administrative costs of direct and guaranteed loans? When you 
     applied the new scoring rule, were you able to properly 
     categorize those expenses to provide a completely fair 
     calculation of the cost differential?
       Answer. All of the cost analyses of the Goodling proposal 
     for both the direct and guaranteed loan programs were 
     completed using the same budgetary treatment for both 
     programs. The Goodling proposal, however, did not address the 
     level of discretionary appropriations necessary to oversee 
     the larger guaranteed loan program.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the response from CBO confirmed, in my 
mind, that our intent to conform the direct loan scoring of 
administrative expenses to the guaranteed loan scoring of 
administrative expenses was fulfilled. In addition, the CBO letter 
noted that we made no changes to the method by which guaranteed loans 
are scored. This too was our intent.
  Mr. SIMON. I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to look more 
closely at this issue. I understand and respect his intent in 
supporting last year's budget scoring change. I moved to strike that 
language, during debate on the budget resolution last year, both 
because I questioned the change, and because other budget scoring 
issues were not addressed at the same time. My concern then, and now, 
is that the scoring change may have gone overboard, either in how it 
was written or how it has been implemented.
  The Chairman has moved swiftly in responding to my request at mark-up 
last week, and already a meeting has occurred among staff from the 
Committee, CBO, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Education 
Department. I ask my colleague what his sense of that meeting is, and 
where we go from here.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The meeting certainly confirmed that there have been 
conflicting interpretations of the language that was included in the 
fiscal year 1996 budget resolution. CBO insists that it has only added 
costs to the subsidy estimates of direct lending that were already 
implicitly or explicitly included on a net present value basis for the 
guarantee program. This was our intent. But according to the manner in 
which the Education Department has interpreted the language, they 
insist that CBO has added costs that are analogous to costs in the 
guarantee program which are not being included in the subsidy estimates 
of the guaranteed program. I hope that the Department of Education will 
share their specific concerns with CBO and that CBO will share the 
necessary information with the Department of Education so as to put 
their concerns to rest.
  Mr. SIMON. I agree with my colleague. CBO and the Education 
Department need to share data on this issue in order to answer this 
question. The meeting on Tuesday was a very good first step.
  Mr. DOMENICI. With regard to the intent of last year's scoring 
change, I wonder if my colleague would agree that prior to that change, 
there was a discrepancy in the Credit Reform Act with respect to how 
administrative costs are counted, which tends to make direct loans 
appear less costly?
  Mr. SIMON. I would respond that there are a number of imperfections 
in the budget scoring of student loans, and that the chairman's point 
about administrative costs is one of them. But on the whole, I believe 
the imperfections create a bias in favor of the government-guarantee 
program. That is why I objected last year to addressing only the issue 
of administrative costs, without considering other issues. I explained 
some of these issues in a letter to the chairman last week, and I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 6, 1996.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     Chairman, Senate Budget Committee, 621 Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As a member of the Committee, I am 
     writing to ask that in the fiscal year 1997 budget 
     resolution, you delete the provision that was added to last 
     year's resolution relating to the scoring of student loans. I 
     explain below--with an example from your home state--why this 
     narrow ``fix'' is not appropriate. If you allow the one-sided 
     scoring to stand, I would urge you to at least apply the 
     language to FFEL as well as the direct loan program.
       It is not appropriate to bend scorekeeping rules just to 
     accomplish a narrow policy objective. If scoring practices 
     are changed, all appropriate issues should be addressed, and 
     the corrections should be both balanced and comprehensive. 
     This is particularly important with loan programs, where 
     interest rate projections, the choice of discount rates, 
     varying tax benefits, and default expectations all play an 
     important role. As Lawrence Lindsey, a Republican member of 
     the Federal Reserve Board, pointed out last year in a letter 
     to Sen. Abraham:
       ``Making the [scoring] change the industry proposes without 
     looking at other changes which might be necessary is 
     problematic. For example, the use of the ten year treasury 
     rate for estimating purposes when program costs are based on 
     short term rates creates obvious inconsistencies. Further, 
     the $2.3 billion in revenue loss that occurs through the use 
     of tax exempt student loan bonds is not taken into account in 
     estimating program costs.''

[[Page S5262]]

       As Governor Lindsey pointed out, there are numerous 
     problems with the way that student loan costs are scored by 
     CBO (and in many cases by OMB). Let me discuss a few of them.
       1. Current scorekeeping practices do not consider default 
     problems that plague FFEL but are absent from direct loan 
     program.
       Three design flaws in FFEL contribute to default costs paid 
     by taxpayers. The direct loan program does not have these 
     flaws. However, CBO and OMB still assume that defaults in the 
     two programs will be identical. This makes no sense.
       First, GAO has pointed out that perverse financial 
     incentives contribute to defaults in FFEL. The auditors have 
     pointed out that ``guaranty agencies have more financial 
     incentive to expend resources collecting on defaulted loans 
     than working with borrowers to prevent defaults because they 
     can earn additional revenue from default collections.'' On 
     the other hand, because direct lending uses private sector 
     contractors to collect on loans, competitive pressures keep 
     them focused on the task of collecting payments. Since 
     defaulted loans are moved to other servicers or collection 
     procedures, direct loan contractors have no incentive to 
     allow defaults.
       Second, the enormous complexity of the guarantee system 
     causes borrower confusion and, according to the most recent 
     IG/GAO financial audit (February 1996), ``hampers the 
     Department's ability to obtain reliable student loan data.'' 
     This audit declares that ``[o]ne of the most significant 
     problems is that the Department's student loan information 
     system contains data that is not timely or accurate, thereby 
     limiting its use for compliance and evaluation purposes.'' 
     The number of lawsuits challenging default rate 
     determinations is testament to this problem.
       Third, and perhaps most dangerous, are the conflicts of 
     interest that plague FFEL. Both the U.S. General Accounting 
     Office and the Inspector General have pointed out how 
     guaranty agencies risk taxpayer funds when they, or their 
     officials, also have financial ties to lenders, secondary 
     markets, or loan servicers. Indeed, the collapse of HEAF, 
     which cost taxpayers an estimated $280 million according to 
     GAO, was related to a conflict-of-interest problem. In its 
     March 1993, report, the IG described an ``egregious'' example 
     in which one agency, accused of not following due diligence 
     requirements, asked the Department of Education to waive a $1 
     million fine ``because it would ruin its affiliated secondary 
     market.'' The report points out that:
       ``The guaranty agency's appeal was clearly designed to 
     protect the financial condition of its affiliated secondary 
     market. It also demonstrates how the financial health of an 
     affiliate may influence the decision-making of the guaranty 
     agency.
       ``The conflict was even more apparent in June 1990, when 
     the same guaranty agency completed a lender review of its 
     affiliated secondary market and reported numerous areas of 
     noncompliance, including due diligence violations. However, 
     the guaranty agency neither required the appropriate 
     repayments resulting from the violations nor took action to 
     ensure future corrective action. The guaranty agency's 
     actions were even more egregious because it had contracted 
     with the secondary market to review the secondary market's 
     own claims and determine whether the guaranty agency should 
     pay them.
       ``About eight months later, in February 1991, OSFA [ED's 
     Office of Student Financial Assistance] conducted a review of 
     the same secondary market. OSFA found that the guaranty 
     agency's prior review had not been appropriately resolved, 
     and compelled the secondary market to formally address the 
     findings. Only after OSFA's intervention did the guaranty 
     agency assess liability of over $1.1 million against its 
     affiliate. In our opinion, the guaranty agency's 
     reluctance to enforce the Federal regulations clearly 
     demonstrates that the interests of the taxpayers and those 
     of its affiliate were in direct conflict.''
       In the report, the IG did not identify the agencies by 
     name. But you will be interested in knowing that the above 
     example was the New Mexico agency, according to IG staff. 
     These types of costly conflicts of interest do not exist in 
     the direct loan program, according to testimony by the acting 
     IG before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on 
     March 30, 1995.
       Despite all of the design flaws of FFEL that contribute to 
     defaults, and the simplicity and appropriate competitive 
     pressures in the direct loan program, CBO and OMB still 
     assume that defaults will be the same in both programs. Given 
     the evidence, this practice clearly should be reviewed.
       2. Budget scoring does not consider significant tax losses 
     attributable to FFEL.
       Your staff's analysis of President Clinton's 1997 budget 
     criticizes OMB's scoring of direct versus guaranteed loans, 
     and declares that FFEL and direct loan ``program costs are 
     virtually identical. . .[but] capital for guaranteed loans 
     comes from private sector lenders.'' This latter statement 
     ignores the fact that (1) the capital is essentially co-
     signed by federal taxpayers, (2) the largest student loan 
     secondary market, Sallie Mae, is a government-sponsored 
     enterprise, and (3) most of the other secondary markets are 
     state government and non-profit entities that are financed 
     using state-sanctioned bonds that are exempt from federal 
     income taxes.
       The tax losses from these bonds--estimatedby the Joint Tax 
     Committee at $2.3 billion over five years--are not included 
     in the budget analysis of direct versus guaranteed loans.
       These government and ``non-profit'' secondary markets and 
     loan servicing entities also reduce federal income by not 
     paying income taxes on activities that would otherwise be 
     subject to corporate income taxes. Thousands of state 
     government and ``non-profit'' employees work for banks and 
     secondary markets collecting payments on loans. The 
     ``profits'' from these activities are not taxed, giving these 
     agencies an unfair advantage over risk-taking entrepreneurs 
     and robbing the federal government of revenue. In the direct 
     loan program, these activities are undertaken by private 
     sector, tax-paying contractors. Again, the budget analysis 
     ignores these millions of dollars of tax losses.
       3. Budget scorekeeping conventions protect banks from 
     interest variations and artificially reduce costs in FFEL, 
     while inflating direct loan costs.
       Through their entitlement to a ``special allowance 
     payment,'' lenders are protected by the federal government 
     from short-term interest fluctuations. Banks and secondary 
     markets, therefore, can and do fund their student loans 
     through low-interest, short-term securities. In this 
     situation, the standard accounting practice would be to 
     assume that the government's cost of funds is also based on 
     short-term securities. Indeed, that is the deal that Sallie 
     Mae got when the United States lent hundreds of millions of 
     dollars to the company; even though they were 15-year loans, 
     the interest rate was pegged to three-month Treasury bills 
     (and was reset weekly). However, CBO and OMB assume that the 
     government's cost of funds is a higher, long-term rate. This 
     practice unfairly disadvantages the direct loan program 
     compared to FFEL.
       4. Excess payments to banks should be counted. With its 
     forty-odd guaranty agencies and thousands of banks, the 
     crisscrossing invoices and subsidies make the guarantee 
     program nearly impossible to audit. GAO has found that some 
     banks benefit from this complexity by failing to pass along 
     student origination fees that are due the government. These 
     types of costs should be included in the cost calculation for 
     FFEL. Unfortunately, the guaranty agencies have prevented a 
     real analysis of the costs of the guarantee program by 
     refusing to provide the Department with data for a random 
     sample of borrower records. This type of insubordination 
     should not be tolerated.
       These and other important budget scoring issues cannot be 
     addressed by adding a few words to the budget resolution. 
     That is why I am asking that you delete last year's change. 
     If you will not delete it, then I urge you to at least fix it 
     so that it is not one-sided. (This can be accomplished by 
     simply applying the ``direct expenses'' portion of section 
     207 of the FY96 budget resolution to guaranteed loans made 
     under FFEL).
       Thank you for your attention to the matter. If you need any 
     clarification of the issues that I have raised, please 
     contact me or Bob Shireman on my staff.
           Cordially,
                                                       Paul Simon,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
  Mr. SIMON. I wonder whether the Senator from New Mexico has had an 
opportunity to review the letter?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have had the opportunity to look at the details in 
the letter, and I would agree with my friend from Illinois that the 
concerns he raises go beyond the scope of what I intended to be 
addressed by the budget resolution language last year, namely, the 
conforming the treatment of administrative expenses of direct student 
loans to that of guaranteed student loans.
  I wonder if my colleague would agree that, notwithstanding the 
problems he has discussed, the Credit Reform Act improved the way that 
Congress looks at government loan programs?
  Mr. SIMON. I would agree. We are engaged here in fine-tuning an 
important budget reform, not criticizing it. I thank my colleague for 
providing that perspective, and for his willingness to look at these 
issues.


             colorado river basin salinity control program

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Chairman, Mr. 
Dominici, to clarify an item in the budget resolution regarding the 
Natural Resources and Environment budget outline.
  The third point under discretionary assumptions states that the 
chairman's mark assumes the elimination of the discretionary funding of 
the Colorado Salinity Control Program and not the termination of the 
program.
  The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is a very important 
water quality program for the seven basin States, including my own 
State of Utah and the chairman's great State of New Mexico. Elements of 
the program are found in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of 
Land Management.

[[Page S5263]]

  Am I to understand that the word ``elimination'' refers only to the 
discretionary funding, since the program is now funded on the mandatory 
side of the budget?
  Mr. DOMENICI. the Senator is correct. Under the new farm bill 
legislation signed into law earlier this year, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Colorado Salinity Control Program was folded into the new 
EQIP program which is a mandatory program. The 1996 farm bill 
authorizes the Secretary to use funds of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to carry out the Colorado River Salinity Control Program.
  It is not the intention of the Budget Committee to eliminate the 
Colorado Salinity Control Program elements conducted by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior nor the newly authorized authority found in 
the farm bill and in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The 
mark is intended to state a Budget Committee assumption that there will 
not be discretionary funding as provided for prior to the passage of 
the 1996 farm bill.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman for helping to clarify this item.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, the Republican budget. 
In this proposal, the Senate has before it a blueprint for balancing 
the budget and reducing the National debt. Mr. President, a budget is 
more than a set of numbers. It is an outline of priorities and policy 
decisions. What a refreshing contrast this budget resolution is to the 
budgets submitted by the President. It illustrates the difference in 
philosophy between those who wish to put Government first and those of 
us who believe in ``We the People.''
  In his last State of the Union address, President Clinton declared 
the era of big government is over. While this was appealing political 
rhetoric, his budget actions do not support his words. The Clinton 
budgets implemented the largest tax increase in history, imposed the 
highest Federal tax burden ever, continued deficit spending, added to 
the national debt, substantially increased nondefense Government 
spending, and dangerously reduced funding for our national defense.
  Mr. President, in contrast, the Republican budget proposal will 
eliminate the Federal budget deficit by fiscal year 2002. It does so by 
slowing the growth rate of Federal spending. The budget resolution cuts 
how much money Washington spends on itself by trimming nondefense 
discretionary spending and holding defense spending at current levels. 
The resolution slows the rate of increase of spending for entitlement 
programs. The budget contemplates reforms in Medicaid and welfare. It 
implements changes which will maintain the solvency of the Medicare 
trust fund. Finally, after these reforms are enacted, the budget makes 
room for tax relief for America's working families. As a result of 
these actions, the Federal deficit will be eliminated and net interest 
obligations will be reduced.
  Mr. President, I support the overall direction of the proposed Senate 
budget resolution. I commend the chairman and members of the Senate 
Budget Committee for their efforts in bringing a resolution to the 
floor which controls entitlement spending, restrains the growth of 
Government, and eliminates annual deficits.
  Mr. President, we live in the greatest Nation on Earth. It provides 
Americans more freedom, more justice, more opportunity, and more hope 
than any Nation has ever provided any people in the history of the 
world. However, this great country of ours will be in jeopardy unless 
we do at least two things. First, we must provide an adequate defense 
to protect ourselves against the enemies who would destroy democracy 
and freedom. Second, we must put our fiscal house in order.

  Mr. President, regarding national defense, the President's budget 
proposes more reductions in defense spending. The Clinton budget fails 
to provide the resources necessary for readiness, modernization, or 
force structure. In short, the administration's defense spending plan 
buys an older, smaller, and less prepared defense force. In contrast, 
the funding for defense in the Republican budget allows the Armed 
Services Committee the opportunity to meet current readiness 
requirements, provide for improvements in the quality of life of 
military personnel and their families, and balance future needs of the 
military services for modernization. I commend Senator Domenici and the 
Members on both sides of the aisle for their support and commitment for 
a strong national defense.
  Another part of our national defense requirement is to provide for 
those veterans who have served our country. Those who have fulfilled 
their obligation of citizenship must not be deserted. Mr. President, 
the treatment by the President's budget of veterans' programs 
illustrates some of the gimmickry used to present the appearance of a 
balanced budget. Recently the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a 
hearing on the President's fiscal year 1997 budget proposal for 
veterans programs, which contemplates steep reductions in veterans 
funding, particularly for medical care. I was concerned to hear the 
Secretary testify at that hearing that there was no policy behind the 
budget request. He went on to state that the President assured him that 
all of our outyear numbers were negotiable and would probably increase.
  Mr. President, I am sure the Secretary is optimistic regarding his 
ability to persuade the President. However, it strains the integrity of 
the balanced budget effort, which the President claims to support, when 
the administration discards its own budget before it is even submitted 
to the Congress.
  I am satisfied that the Republican budget protects veterans benefits 
and health care. It increases spending authority overall, and provides 
modest increases for VA medical care.

  Mr. President, this budget resolution is a good step in putting our 
fiscal house in order. It provides for restrained growth in overall 
Government spending. Because spending grows at a lower rate than 
projected revenue increases, the deficit will be reduced each year, and 
will be finally eliminated in fiscal year 2002.
  This budget resolution provides for real deficit reduction without 
raising taxes. American families and businesses have carried a heavy 
tax burden to support the appetite of the Federal Government. Under 
present tax policies, Mr. President, capital investment is punished, 
earnings of senior citizens are penalized, consumption is favored over 
savings, and America's families keep less and less of their earnings. 
This resolution says ``No.''--I repeat, ``No.''--to balancing the 
budget by additional taxes.
  Mr. President, the Republican budget proposal provides a clear 
alternative to the tax burden imposed under Clinton budgets. That 
burden included a $268 billion tax increase, with some provisions being 
retroactive. It increased the top tax rate, particularly hurting small 
businesses, increased tax rates on Social Security benefits, and 
increased the gas tax, affecting all Americans. President Clinton later 
admitted that he had made a mistake--that he raised taxes too much.
  Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that this Congress attempted to 
correct that mistake by passing a number of tax relief measures. These 
included a child tax credit for working families, expansion of 
individual retirement accounts, capital gains relief, an adoption tax 
credit, phaseout of the marriage penalty, and an interest deduction for 
student loans. However, these were all vetoed by--I repeat--they were 
all vetoed by the President.
  Mr. President, this budget resolution gives us another opportunity to 
provide tax relief to working families. Our tax system is not only an 
economic burden, but also an administrative nightmare. The aggravation 
level of the taxpayers of this country continues to rise. After 
bringing our budget into balance, we must work toward a fair and 
simplified tax structure.
  Mr. President, the framers of our Constitution clearly established 
the priorities of our national government. While we have adapted to 
meet current needs and circumstances, the underlying principles remain 
constant--to provide for our common defense, establish justice, and 
promote the general welfare. While this budget resolution is not 
perfect, it puts us on a course to reap the promises of this Nation--
liberty for ourselves and our posterity. As Thomas Jefferson once said, 
``And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load 
us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and 
liberty, or profusion and servitude.'' Mr. President, the

[[Page S5264]]

choice for us is clear--let us choose economy and liberty. I thank the 
Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, we are in the second year of a Republican-
controlled U.S. Congress. This is the second year that an actual, real, 
balanced budget resolution is before the Senate for consideration. I 
suggest, in all humbleness, that is not a coincidence. During the years 
of the first 2 years of the Clinton Presidency when the other party 
controlled both the House, Senate and White House, all three branches, 
all three areas of the Government, not one balanced budget came to the 
attention of the Congress.
  There should be no misunderstanding in the minds of the American 
people who watch and listen to this debate. Congress only began to 
consider balancing the budget after the elections of 1994. That is the 
truth. That alone is a significant accomplishment in a city addicted to 
reckless spending.
  It is not enough. Good intentions alone are not going to balance the 
Federal Government's books. This country is $5 trillion in debt. That 
is with a ``t,'' Mr. President. Right now we are in the midst of the 
NBA playoffs, so let me give an analogy. Here is an idea of what $5 
trillion really is. Shaquille O'Neal, the basketball player who plays 
for Orlando Magic, earns $30 million each year. That is a lot of money 
playing basketball. He would have to play 166,000 seasons to earn $5 
trillion. That is our current national debt. He makes $30 million a 
year. It is almost unbelievable for anyone to even be able to fathom 
how much $5 trillion really is.
  This is what we are passing on to our children if we do not really do 
the job that we are elected to do, which is to balance this budget. If 
you break that down to more detail, every man, woman and child in 
America, every baby born as I am now standing on the Senate floor for 
these few minutes, will be born $20,000 in debt. That is what we are 
doing to our children.
  I think we have a moral obligation, if not a financial obligation, to 
solve this problem. It is not a Republican problem. It is not a 
Democratic problem. It is not a congressional problem. It is not a 
Presidential problem. It is an American problem that goes right to the 
heart and soul of this Nation. If we fail to get this job done, we will 
lose this Nation.
  That is what this is all about. Balancing the budget is about doing 
what we know is the right thing to do, despite the political 
consequences. Every man, woman, and child out there, every voter, every 
young person, they know the consequences if this country continues to 
drive this debt and allow the interest and the entitlement programs to 
consume our budget so there is nothing left for anything else. We have 
a rare opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner to have this budget 
signed into law.

  Why do I say that? This is an election year. Everybody says the place 
will go to pot and we will not get anything done. Let me use the 
President's own words. The President said, ``The era of big government 
is over.'' We should take him at his word. This budget ends that era, 
balances the budget, gets us on the track of downsizing again, making 
the Federal Government responsible for what it is supposed to be 
responsible for and not responsible for the things it is intruding 
into.
  The President also has stated he believes he raised taxes too much in 
1993. All right, this budget repeals the Clinton gas tax and it repeals 
$123 billion of the President's $250 billion tax increase. The 
President stated he supports a tax credit for families with children. 
All right, this budget provides a $500 per child tax credit for 
families struggling to make ends meet for each of their children. The 
President has said, ``Let's end welfare as we know it.'' All right, 
this budget reforms welfare, sends the power out of Washington and back 
to the States where it belongs. There is common ground. If the 
President means what he says, pick up the pen, Mr. President. Do not 
veto the bill; sign it. Sign it and go out to the American people, face 
the electorate, all of us, and say, ``We got it done. We balanced the 
budget.'' If the President gets credit for that, so be it; if we get 
credit for it, so be it. But get it done.
  The balanced budget before the Senate is a bold, I grant you it is a 
bold document, but it is a reasonable policy document. It meets the 
President's stated intentions. It meets our intentions. It balances the 
budget in 6 years, provides tax relief for working families, and 
reforms our broken welfare system. It is a blueprint that will guide us 
as we remove power from Washington, reduce the red ink and rebuild 
America.
  Every Senator in this Chamber knows, Mr. President, there is an 
important election night right around the corner on November 5. I think 
it is important we look past that election, look right on past it, and 
instead of looking to the next election, look to the next generation 
for a change.
  Our children and our grandchildren deserve to inherit a nation as 
great as the one we grew up in. They have a right to live and learn in 
a country that balances its books and pays its debts like you have to 
do in your family and in your business. There is only so much credit 
you can get and then you go under. It is called chapter 11. That will 
happen to us if we do not stop it.
  Children cannot vote. But if they could, I think it is pretty safe to 
say they would support the balanced budget before the Senate today, 
because we are passing the debt on to them. It is they who will have to 
pay for it, not us. I urge my colleagues, in closing, Mr. President, 
forget about November. Cast a vote for the future of your children and 
your grandchildren. I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4007

    (Purpose: Creates a 60-vote point of order against legislation 
  diverting savings achieved through Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse 
 enforcement activities for purposes other than improving the solvency 
        of the Medicare Federal hospital insurance trust fund.)

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

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself and Mr. 
     Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 4007.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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, insert the following:

     SEC.  . PROHIBITION ON CONSIDERATION OF RECONCILIATION 
                   LEGISLATION THAT DIVERTS SAVINGS ACHIEVED 
                   THROUGH MEDICARE WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN 
                   IMPROVING THE SOLVENCY OF THE MEDICARE FEDERAL 
                   HOSPITAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any reconciliation bill, conference report on a 
     reconciliation bill, or any other legislation that would use 
     savings achieved through medicare waste, fraud, and abuse 
     enforcement activities as offsets for purposes other than 
     improving the solvency of the Medicare Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund.
       (b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate by a \3/5\ths majority vote of the Members duly chosen 
     and sworn, or by the unanimous consent of the Senate.
       (c) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to this section shall be limited to 1 
     hour, to be equally divided between and controlled by, the 
     appellant and the manager of the bill or conference report, 
     as the case may be. An affirmative \3/5\ths vote of the 
     Members duly chosen and sworn or unanimous consent of the 
     Senate shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal 
     of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under 
     this provision.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in deference to time and to my colleague 
from Ohio, who has generously allowed me to offer this amendment prior 
to his remarks on our esteemed friend, Admiral Boorda, I offer this 
amendment with the intention of just briefly referencing it at this 
point and then asking unanimous consent that it be set aside.
  This amendment, Mr. President, has as its objective to assure that 
any savings that are achieved by the new effort that we are going to 
make on waste and fraud within the Medicare Program ends up benefiting 
the Medicare Program and, specifically, the Medicare trust fund.
  We are all aware of the concern that we have had that the Medicare 
trust fund was becoming financially vulnerable. In fact, that concern 
has been exacerbated by some recent information

[[Page S5265]]

that the trust fund is weaker than we had thought a year ago. This 
would assist in strengthening the trust fund by assuring that any 
proceeds derived from our assault against Medicare fraud and abuse, 
which have the result of depleting the trust fund without providing 
meaningful medical services to older Americans, then any funds that are 
recovered as a result of this war on Medicare fraud will go back into 
the trust fund and, therefore, strengthen it for this and future 
generations of older Americans.
  Mr. President, I look forward to discussing this matter in greater 
detail at another time. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that this 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my colleague from Ohio and commend him for his 
thoughtfulness on his upcoming remarks regarding Admiral Boorda.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________