[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.
____________________