[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5413-S5442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thought since we are in a quorum 
call I might just briefly summarize since time is being charged to both 
sides--and this will be charged to our side--several amendments that I 
have introduced just to focus colleagues' attention on those 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield time?
  Mr. EXON. How much time does the Senator from Minnesota need?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Five minutes.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3985

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I actually laid down these amendments 
on Friday. But I thought since we have a quorum call and time is being 
charged to both sides--this charged to our side--I want to focus 
attention on several of the amendments that I laid down Friday. One of 
those amendments which was a leadership amendment--and I compliment the 
Chair for her very, very important work dealing with higher education--
was an amendment that I introduced as a sense of a Senate that any tax 
cuts beyond tax credits for children and families ought to go for an 
annual up to $10,000 deduction that families can take to help pay for 
the cost of higher education, and that would include tuition, and also 
the interest that families find themselves paying on the debt.

  That interest is extremely important because now, unfortunately, as 
opposed to at least when I went to school, about 80 percent of the 
financial aid packages are now loans as opposed to grants. It used to 
be quite different. It has flip-flopped in the last 15 years, or so. I 
hope that this money will go to higher education making it more 
affordable for families, or it has to go to deficit reduction.
  I hope that this amendment really will receive strong bipartisan 
support. I laid the amendment down as an education Senator. Most of my 
adult life has been devoted to education. I laid this amendment down as 
a leadership amendment for my party. But, frankly, I think this is an 
amendment that is important to the Democrats and Republicans alike. 
Since we are going to have a rapid succession of votes on lots of 
amendments, I just wanted one more time to focus attention on this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3987

  The second amendment that I might talk about very briefly was an 
amendment that I introduced at the beginning of 104th Congress and, 
frankly, I regret that it was passed finally on a voice vote. It just 
simply said that the Senate was taking the position that we would not 
pass any legislation that would create more hunger or homelessness 
among children. I actually lost on the vote on that amendment twice, 
and then it was passed by a voice vote. But given some of the budget 
proposals and given some of the, I think, fairly rigorous independent 
studies that have taken place suggesting that as a matter of fact we 
are in part taking some actions that will create more poverty among 
children, this time around I want to get a recorded vote.


                           Amendment No. 3986

  A third amendment I introduced, which is one that the Senator from 
Delaware has actually taken the lead on, just simply said that we ought 
to make a commitment that we will provide the full funding called for 
in the community police program--the COPS Program.
  I have to say to you, Madam President, that I have never received 
more positive reports with any Federal program in Minnesota than the 
COPS Program. A one-page form filled out by COPS going to Washington 
with money coming directly back to police chiefs and sheriffs used for 
really fine proactive preventive, important--not feel-good law 
enforcement--a real focus on domestic violence, a real focus on some of 
the neighborhoods most ravished by violence in our cities, and a real 
focus on youth, on some of the kids that are in the most trouble, not 
exclusive just to cities but in rural communities as well. So I hope 
that there will be very, very strong support for that.


                           Amendment No. 3989

  And then finally one other amendment that I want to talk about very 
briefly--one that my colleagues are probably less familiar with but I 
think it is an important amendment. And again, the Chair has taken real 
leadership on this. This issue has become unfortunately a more 
important issue in this country, and this issue deals with the central 
importance of our taking the steps that we need to take as a nation to 
reduce violence in homes.

  This amendment says that in the welfare reform we do we must allow 
States to take into account the special circumstances of a mother and 
her children who have been in homes where there has been violence; who 
have been battered. In other words, one size does not fit all. And my 
fear is that, if we are not careful, what we are going to do in the 
welfare reform area is we are going to be essentially saying to a 
mother that you have to work, and if you do not work that is it, 
without taking into account what has happened to her.
  Remember. It took Monica Seles 2 years to play tennis again after 
what happened to her. What is going to happen is we are going to force 
some of the women and children back into very dangerous homes? We have 
to take into account these circumstances. There have been several 
studies. The Taylor Institute came out with a study suggesting that a 
shockingly high percentage of welfare mothers in welfare to workfare 
programs right now have had to deal with this violence. So we must take 
that into account in the welfare reform area.
  I have used up my time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 3985

  Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed for up 
to 5 minutes on an amendment No. 3985.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5414]]

  Mr. BIDEN. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, this is the amendment to which the Senator from 
Minnesota spoke relating to the tax deductibility for up to $10,000 for 
higher education payments. A number of us have introduced separate--and 
some together--bills and sense-of-the-Senate resolutions to accomplish 
just that.
  The President I believe in his State of the Union called for such 
treatment. I would just like to reiterate what my friend from Minnesota 
said.
  First of all, this is only a resolution. I wish it were an up-or-down 
vote on a legislative initiative to change the tax law to allow parents 
and/or students to deduct up to $10,000 of the costs of a college 
education. That is the cost which most people are focusing in on. But, 
it is not just 4-year colleges. It can be a 2-year college. It can be a 
postgraduate undertaking.
  I hear my friends--and I know that the Presiding Officer is younger 
than I am but we are not that very far off, the four of us on the floor 
here--I hear people of our generation say how they worked their way 
through college. I worked my way through college. I was able to get 
some financial help and some scholarship money as well as help from my 
parents. But I worked my way through college. But do you know what? The 
minimum wage was $1.25 cents, and the total cost to attend our State 
university, the University of Delaware, was $325 a semester for 
tuition. You could work your way through college if you were willing to 
work.
  It always fascinates me when I hear people my age--I am now 53--talk 
about, ``Why don't they do what we did--work our way through school?'' 
because now the minimum wage is under $4.50 an hour. And to go to that 
same great university, my alma mater, is going to cost them about 
$6,000 if they are an in-State student. If you are unfortunate enough 
to have children like many of us do here who decide--and are able--to 
go to an institution other than the State institution which I attended, 
you will find that their tuition and room and board is $25,000 a year, 
if they go to Georgetown University, which one of my sons attended, or 
to Yale where another son is. That is $25,000 a year. We do not all go 
there. Most of us, as in my case, could not get there.
  I am very proud of my State university, and proud of having gone 
there. But the truth of the matter is when my dad and mom were helping 
me get there, and I was working my way through, the median family 
required only something on the order of less than 3 to 4 percent of its 
income to send someone to college. Now we are talking about almost 9 to 
10 percent. If they are going to go to a private institution, it can be 
well over 50 percent.

  So you cannot work your way through college any more in 4 years on a 
minimum-wage job. You cannot do it.
  So an awful lot of students, including even many of our children--and 
we are in relative terms more affluent than the average American--have 
loans. My colleague, the former professor, knows more about this than I 
do. I heard him quote the statistic that we have flipped. It used to be 
that most of the money people got to go to college were grants, and a 
minority were loans. Now they are almost all loans and a minority are 
grants.
  I realize, even if this resolution passes, it is not going to change 
the law. But maybe it will put us on record of doing something that is 
long overdue, just as we give businesses a tax break for investing in 
new machinery and new plant and equipment because it generates economic 
growth--I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. It is sound policy to say to a business that, ``If you 
invest in this new piece of machinery, it will increase productivity, 
you will end up hiring more people, and it will generate income.'' That 
is going to increase the economic growth of the Nation. It makes sense 
to do that. Well, there is nothing that increases the economic growth 
of this Nation more than investing in the higher education of our 
children.
  It is getting increasingly difficult for young men and women like me 
who come from a middle-income household--I guess technically lower 
middle-income, but a middle-income household--to be able to go off to 
college.
  It is just getting very, very, very hard. If my father were making 
the money he made then now, he would be making about $34,000 a year, if 
I am not mistaken. He had four children he sent to college. How do you 
send four children to the State university--the State university--on 
$34,000 a year? My father, it seems to me, and my mother and their 
counterparts today--my dad is now 80--think that college education is 
the single most important legacy, other than our religion, other than 
our Catholicism, in my case. The single most important thing my parents 
wanted to leave with me was to have a college education, which they did 
not have.
  It is getting awfully hard for people to do it. I think this is a 
sound investment. I think it is just. I know it is almost oratory if it 
is only a resolution, but it increases the prospects that we will find 
the wherewithal to go on record and actually change the law.
  So I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I thank my friend from 
Minnesota for his leadership. I realize he says this is bipartisan. I 
heard this idea generated from my Republican colleagues as well as my 
Democratic colleagues. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, in just 10 seconds, I want to say I 
was really remiss in the beginning when I laid down the amendment in 
not saying that it was on behalf of myself and Senator Biden. I am 
really proud to have him out here on the floor speaking about this.
  I was just going to say to my colleague from Delaware that if you 
think about the economics of this, this becomes the sort of central 
middle-class issue, working-family issue, because really what happens 
is, those students who can get the grant assistance tend to be the 
lower income students, and then if you are in the very high-income end, 
you can pay your way. But it is those families in between that are 
really feeling the squeeze. He is so right on the mark.

  The only other point I will make, Madam President, which is why I 
hope this is adopted as a statement before the Senate, I spent a great 
deal of time on campus. It takes a student on the average of 6 years--
it is getting up near 7 years--and that is because they are working two 
and three minimum-wage jobs. Most students are working 30, 45 hours a 
week while they are going to school.
  The other thing to add to the equation, which is very different than 
when we went to school, because we are similar in age, is that the 
students now are no longer 18 and 19 and living in the dorm. I think 
the majority of students now, if not the majority just about close to 
the majority of students are 30, 40, 45, 50, going back to school, many 
of them women, many of them with children. As a matter of fact, this is 
one of the ways in which many families get back on their feet. So those 
students who really have children feel this economic squeeze as well.
  I think this is just a critical vote, and I hope we will have a 
strong vote for it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that 
the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Madam 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. Madam President, I am about to yield whatever time he may 
need from our side to the minority leader. But before I do that, I want 
to renew the clarion call once again. We have, according to our 
records--this list in my hand which I will not bother to count--lots of 
amendments that have been offered, have been debated, that we are going 
to start voting on some time.
  But in addition to that, we have about 28 to 30 amendments that 
Senators have indicated to the managers are going to be offered. This 
would be a very good time to offer them because, if we do not see some 
movement on some of these things, we may run completely out of time. 
Then Senators are going to come here and say, ``Why

[[Page S5415]]

didn't you protect me in offering an amendment?''
  I am protecting them now. The chairman of the committee is protecting 
those on his side. But we are running out of patience on protection.
  So I plead once again that the Senators who have indicated to the 
managers of the bill that they are going to offer amendments, please 
come over and do so. If you are not going to offer the amendment, 
please call the cloakroom, the respective cloakroom, whether Democrat 
or Republican, and indicate that the amendment is not going to be 
offered. That will give us a chance to better manage and move the 
proposition along.
  I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. With that, I yield whatever time he may need off our time 
to the minority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The distinguished minority 
leader.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me first associate myself with the 
remarks of the distinguished ranking member. We are down, now, to the 
final couple of hours. I really hope we will not lose the opportunity 
to have a good debate on whatever issues are left outstanding. I think 
there has been a real, good-faith effort over the last 2\1/2\ days to 
reach this point. We have had a good debate. I hope we can finish it 
off now. There are virtually no Members on the floor prepared to offer 
amendments. We ought to correct that. We will give people an 
opportunity in the next 10 minutes to come to the floor and offer 
additional amendments.
  In the meantime, I want to call attention to a concern I have raised 
a number of times already relating to the circumstances in which we 
find ourselves on this particular resolution. I have viewed the 
procedures employed by the majority all through the 104th Congress with 
increasing concern. Our side, the Democratic caucus, has been 
systematically deprived of the opportunity to offer legitimate 
amendments. It has been an recurring practice on the Senate floor over 
the last several months for the majority to offer a bill, to fill the 
so-called parliamentary tree, preclude Democrats from offering 
amendments, and then file cloture so we are left with no other recourse 
but to vote against cloture and to continue to bottle up the 
legislation. It's either that or accept entire bills as forced upon us 
by the majority without seeking to exercise our fundamental rights as 
Senators to debate and amend. Given those terms, we've had no choice 
but to vote against cloture. We have voiced our concern over and over, 
and will continue to do so, about this fundamental abuse of Senate 
rules. Democrats never employed such extreme tactics when we were in 
the majority. I hope we will not get in the habit of doing so in the 
future. I think it is wrong. I think it undermines the good-faith 
effort Republicans and Democrats need to demonstrate in moving 
legislation through this body.
  Certainly, it's legitimate to oppose legislation. We can have 
extended debate. But to preclude the minority from offering even a 
single amendment is unprecedented, and, again, simply wrong.
  We are moving now from that practice to another one that, in my view, 
is even more threatening to the Senate as an institution. This 
resolution will do something that we have not done now in more than 20 
years. In fact, I would say in all of the modern day period of the 
budget process, we have never done this. Only once, right as we were 
beginning to employ the reconciliation process and before that process 
was well understood, did we ever do what the Republicans are attempting 
to do in this budget resolution.
  In fact, I think it's arguable that the one precedent adduced for the 
practice I'm about to describe is not a precedent at all--but rather a 
rudimentary misuse of the term ``reconciliation'' that should be 
dismissed as an example of anything.
  This is the first budget resolution that will instruct a committee to 
produce a reconciliation measure that actually increases the deficit. 
The 1974 precedent we will hear about was based on no reconciliation 
instruction. And this year's unprecedented abuse therefore calls into 
question what reconciliation is about in the first place.
  We all know what reconciliation was designed to be and what it has 
been. We all know that we pass budget resolutions with reconciliation 
instructions in order to ensure that the authorizing committees hit 
deficit reduction targets. Some way of enforcing deficit reduction on 
committees is the sole reason for being of the highly privileged 
vehicle we call reconciliation. We deprive Senators of their normal 
rights to debate and amend only because we seek to ensure that the 
committees follow through in the crucial business of exercising fiscal 
responsibility.
  That is the reconciliation process. Its objective is to continue to 
reduce the deficit, and it does so by compelling committees to live up 
to the expectations of the budget resolution. But what are we doing 
this year? As I say, except for the rare and understandable 
circumstances in 1974, this body is doing something we have never done 
before. We will be passing a reconciliation bill in three parts, one 
part of which will actually increase the deficit dramatically--
dramatically.
  I must tell you, what goes around comes around. I cannot see any 
reason why Democrats--once back in the majority--cannot conveniently 
begin to use reconciliation packages for all kinds of legislative 
agendas. I do not see why we may not ultimately authorize through a 
budget resolution a reconciliation package for each month. Let us just 
put all the legislation we want to do in each reconciliation package. 
We will then preclude the possibility of any more extended debates, 
preclude the possibility of an open and free discussion, preclude the 
possibility of amendments in some cases. We will change the very 
character of this institution in a very permanent way.
  I am not sure that is what the majority wants. In fact, I'm confident 
most on the other side of the aisle do not want that. I know if they 
were in the minority--they would certainly not want it. And I know that 
most of my friends on the other side do not expect to be in the 
majority forever.
  I would say that all of us, regardless of whether we are in the 
majority or minority, want to protect the institution of the Senate and 
its rules. That ought to be one of our foremost goals. If we are going 
to bend and change the rules so dramatically to serve the political 
needs of the moment, we are not living up to our responsibilities to 
the institution of the Senate. We are not living up to what our 
predecessors understood to be the practice of this body. And we are not 
living up to the obligation we have to our constituents to preserve the 
legislative freedoms and protections embodied in the Senate's rules and 
traditions.
  So, it is with great concern that I call attention to what I consider 
to be a very, very dangerous set of legislative circumstances mandated 
by this budget resolution. I think it is a fundamental abuse of the 
budget process. It is such an abuse that it calls into question whether 
the document before us actually constitutes a budget resolution.
  I would argue it does not. I argue that, because it creates a budget 
reconciliation bill devoted solely to worsening the deficit, it should 
no longer deserve the limitations on debate of a budget resolution. 
Therefore, I raise a point of order that, for these reasons, the 
pending resolution is not a budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to be heard on the point 
of order before the Chair rules?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think in deference to the minority 
leader I should be heard. I obviously did not bring this resolution to 
the floor without consulting with the Parliamentarian. So I think I 
know the answer to the Senator's question. But I do not think that we 
should let the Chair rule and then only have time if the Senator 
appeals to discuss our side, although if the Senator appeals we will 
also take some additional time.
  Mr. President, could I yield myself 15 minutes off the resolution or 
do I have some additional time because of the nature of the situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled by the wording of the 
Budget Act, and the Senator has 1 hour and 56 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself up to 15 minutes. I hope I will not use 
that much.

[[Page S5416]]

  Might I say to the distinguished minority leader that I do not think 
there are very many Senators--maybe I would yield to Senator Byrd--who 
have more concern about protecting and preserving this institution than 
the Senator from New Mexico. I truly think the Senate is a very special 
place, and it has a lot of attributes that make it that way. I 
personally will resist any efforts, now or in the future, to move this 
body away from its historic tradition of being very free and open on 
debate and having one very big characteristic, and that is that most 
things can be filibustered--open debate.
  However, I submit that there is a Budget Act that was adopted almost 
unanimously by the Senate that for very special events changed both of 
those rules. The rule that an amendment, that a bill or measure can be 
freely amended was altered; for as long as we have that Budget Act in 
place, that will not be the rule on a reconciliation bill.
  Second, the very nature of the budget resolution denies filibuster. 
In the very statute that creates it, that other characteristic about 
the Senate--open debate for as long as you want--is negated.
  That is not a unilateral decision by this Senator or Senator Exon or 
the minority leader. That decision was made when the Budget Act was 
passed, for there are time restraints on every aspect of a budget 
including 50 on the resolution, 20 when it comes back from conference. 
Reconciliation bills have a time limit on them.
  Additionally there is a very strict definition of germaneness with 
reference to offering amendments to reconciliation bills.
  Now, before I explain that we are not breaking precedent and cite for 
the Senate a number of occasions when we have heretofore done exactly 
what the Senator is complaining about, before we do that I would 
suggest that the concern that whether we have one reconciliation bill, 
two or three, that we are going to be able to do all the legislation of 
the Senate in derogation of the quality of the Senate with reference to 
open debate and the freedom of amendment, standing in the way of that 
is the Byrd rule.
  We do not change the Byrd rule in this budget resolution. There 
again, it establishes that if you intended to use a reconciliation 
instruction in that bill to just change the substantive law because you 
had not been able to pass it somewhere else, it will get knocked out by 
the Byrd rule.
  So the first thing I was worried about is if we do this in this 
sequence--and I will explain to the Senate why we did it this way--do 
we in any way open in any additional way these reconciliation bills to 
be used by Senators to amendment processes, to amend laws that are 
unrelated and in no way, in no way germane to reducing the deficit. The 
answer I got unequivocally is that we had not changed that. So that is 
point No. 1.
  Second, there is nothing in the Budget Act--section 310 and any other 
sections--that precludes us doing more than one reconciliation bill. 
Section 310(a) provides that a budget resolution may specify the total 
amount by which, among other things, revenues are to be changed. 
Section 310 dictates neither the magnitude nor the direction of the 
change. Reconciliation is a neutral budgetary tool. It is not required 
to produce deficit reduction.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. President, on that point alone, must each 
part of a reconciliation bill or each of the three reduce the deficit, 
I would call to the Senate's attention that in 1975 a reconciliation 
instruction and a bill passed here under the leadership of the Senator 
from Louisiana, Russell Long, chairman of the Finance Committee--in 
1975. It actually was used to reduce taxes, thus increasing the 
deficit--for that very purpose. Clearly, clearly, I find nothing in 
this law that says each reconciliation bill must reduce the deficit.
  Now, let me tell you that the budget resolution for 1994, your budget 
resolution for the year 1994 had two reconciliation instructions. One 
was for everything that you do normally, and the other was to change 
the debt limit of the United States by a reconciliation bill--two 
different instructions, two different bills. Now, if you can do two 
because it fits the necessities that one side of the aisle has, this 
should not mean that you cannot do three if it fits the other side.
  Now, in our budget resolution, we did this in three steps. This 
process would provide more extensive consideration on the Senate floor 
of our legislative proposals for balancing the budget in 2002, for if 
on each of the three components there are 20 hours of debate, it seems 
to this Senator that for those who want more time to debate, and 
certainly for those who would say this process we have adopted is 
closing debate, the exact opposite is true. There is more time for 
debate on each of them because rather than 20 hours for a big, giant 
bill, there will be three times that for each will be subject to that 
many hours of debate.
  By separating these proposals to balance the budget into what we 
might consider manageable issues, we permit Senators to address their 
concerns contained in each of the bills. Rather than as many Senators 
complain about the very large bill that has taxes in it, has all kinds 
of entitlements from all different sides in an all-or-nothing 
proposition, we permit them to have part of it, not all of it, in one, 
part in another, and then, of course, taxes or tax reductions at the 
end.
  The first bill reconciles savings equivalent to the assumptions 
contained in a resolution for welfare reform and Medicaid, and the 
committees must report on that.
  If the first bill is enacted, then the second bill would reconcile 
all committees regarding direct savings. The committees would report, 
by July 12, two totally distinct events with total debate on each of 
them under the Budget Act. If both the first and the second bills are 
enacted--if they are--then a final bill reconciles the Finance 
Committee regarding revenue reductions.
  I will read some history of past comments on reconciliation. Mr. 
President, a member of the President's own administration has in the 
past advocated consideration of separate packages. In 1982, during the 
debate on the rule to take up one of four reconciliation bills in the 
House of Representatives that year, then-Member of Congress Leon 
Panetta said, regarding the vote on the rule:

       This is, I think, one of the most important votes they will 
     cast this session. It will set the stage for whether we can 
     deal with reconciliation on an orderly basis, allowing 
     packages, allowing committees to come to the floor, and 
     allowing Members to vote up or down on those issues, or 
     whether we are going to capitulate to some kind of chaos, the 
     same kind of irresponsibility that we were put through last 
     year when we had an up-or-down vote on a last-minute 800-page 
     amendment.

  All circumstances are not alike. One might argue that Leon Panetta 
was arguing about a completely different situation. But, Mr. President, 
I think what he said is right. It does not mean you have to have more 
than one reconciliation bill, one movement or effort, and bringing the 
laws together and changing them so as to achieve the goal of the budget 
resolution. That is what a bill is that is called reconciliation.
  So, Mr. President, I am firmly convinced that we are doing the right 
thing. I believe when this budget resolution is passed, very shortly 
thereafter there will be a very healthy debate on a portion of the 
reconciliation package that we passed heretofore.
  I call to the Senate's attention that in House Concurrent Resolution 
64, fiscal year 1994, the House Agricultural Committee was reconciled 
for outlay increases for fiscal years 1994 through 1998. That was an 
increased reconciliation for food stamps.
  In addition, in our budget resolution last year, House Concurrent 
Resolution 67, the Finance Committee was reconciled for a revenue 
reduction. In 1975, I repeat, during the first use of reconciliation 
pursuant to what was then H. Con. Res. 466, both the Ways and Means 
Committee and the Finance Committee were reconciled for revenue 
reductions.
  Mr. President, it may be that we will, as the majority, be in the 
same position someday, in the minority, with this Budget Act still 
intact and the new majority may indeed want to offer one resolution 
with everything in it. We are not going to be able, based on today, to 
say they cannot do that. If they choose to go back to one huge 
reconciliation bill, all or nothing, they can. If they choose, Mr. 
President and fellow Senators, to go to two, the ruling of the Chair 
today will probably

[[Page S5417]]

say that there will be two. If they choose to do three, and the last 
one is a tax reduction package, then I assume we will be in a position 
where we can make some noise about it on the floor, but we are not 
going to get a parliamentary ruling that it is improper.
  Mr. President, I repeat, I believe the complexity of welfare reform 
and Medicaid are sufficient to be in one bill. I believe the complexity 
and the policy changes for those two proposals are sufficient to be in 
one bill.
  I submit that all the other entitlement programs are sufficient to be 
in another bill. I submit that the Republicans are committed, the 
President is committed, and indeed the bipartisan package is committed 
to some tax reductions. There is argument about which ones. But I 
submit that can be done under precedent as far back as 1975, to have a 
tax reduction reconciliation bill.
  So, Mr. President, I am sorry I talked so long, but I worked on this 
for a long time. As a matter of fact, I take a bit of pride in it. I 
thought this was a far better way to handle the business of a major 
change in the law of our land and tax cuts than we tried last year.

  I truly think it is fair to the Senate and it is fair to the public 
for they will better understand what we are doing. Since that is the 
case, I recommended it to both the House and the Senate. That is why we 
are here today. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order is debated under the 
discretion of the Chair.
  Would the Senator from South Dakota desire a few minutes?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand the parliamentary 
situation, the Chair could rule and then the debate is anticipated to 
be at least 1 hour on the appeal of the ruling of the Chair; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I prefer to have the ruling of the Chair. I anticipate 
the ruling, and then I will appeal the ruling.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All right. The Chair will rule that the 
resolution is appropriate and the point of order is not sustained.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I now appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 1 hour equally divided between 
the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no desire to use that kind of 
time. I know there are a number of Senators who wish to offer 
amendments. But in the interest of parliamentary procedure, let me take 
a little bit of time, and then we will present a series of 
parliamentary inquiries that may help set the record in this instance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, could I ask a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to let the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator intend to vote on this separately 
today or within the series of votes on the amendments?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think we can do it in the series of votes just to 
expedite things.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico, the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, notes that we have seen 
an occasion such as this arise. I alluded to that circumstance in 1974. 
That was 20 years ago. In the world of the Budget Act, that 20-year 
period is a lifetime. Congress, and in particular the Senate, have 
dramatically changed the budget process since then.
  In the 1980's, the Senate adopted, as the Senator from New Mexico 
noted, the Byrd rule to restrain and limit reconciliation. Since the 
early 1980's, a long history of using the reconciliation process to 
reduce the deficit has evolved.
  The chairman of the Budget Committee noted that the Byrd rule 
requires that there be a sufficient offset or deficit-reduction--and no 
worsening of the deficit in the outyears--to a reconciliation package 
for it to be in order. But his reconciliation instructions in this 
resolution trigger a tax provision that does absolutely no deficit 
reduction, and certainly worsens the deficit beyond the window of the 
resolution itself.
  Mr. President, that being the case, only two outcomes are possible. 
First, there would be no tax reduction after the 6th year; that is, 
that tax reduction anticipated in this reconciliation package would no 
longer apply in year 7 because, if it did, there would be a deficit 
created, and then obviously the Byrd rule would apply. Or, second, 
there is some sort of offset which is not delineated here. If that is 
the case, I'd like to hear what that undisclosed offset is.
  This difficulty is the inevitable result of using reconciliation 
improperly for deficit creation rather than deficit reduction. The fact 
that the Byrd rule creates clear problems for this approach only 
confirms that this resolution's reconciliation instruction is totally 
inappropriate.
  The 1970's precedent did not involve a budget process resolution 
instructing the committee to produce a reconciliation bill that worsens 
the deficit. Senator Long, who was chairman of the Finance Committee at 
the time, simply came down to the floor and claimed that the tax cut 
bill then under consideration was a reconciliation bill. Again, there 
had been no instruction to the Finance Committee. There was no previous 
understanding that the Senate was operating under reconciliation 
procedures.
  It is true that at that point everybody stood and saluted. But that 
does not change the fact that the chairman's tax cut bill should not 
have been considered a reconciliation bill in 1974, as the budget 
resolution had not directed the creation of a reconciliation bill 
itself.
  So, in sum, the 1974 precedent was wrongly decided. I hope that we 
will not build upon that error now in 1996. The Byrd rule and other 
subsequent amendments to the Budget Act clearly imply the deficit 
reducing nature of the reconciliation process.
  I will quote the language of 313-B, section 1, subsection (b):

       Any provision producing an increase in outlays or decrease 
     in revenues shall be considered extraneous if the net effect 
     of provisions reported by the committee reporting the title 
     containing the provision is that the committee fails to 
     achieve its reconciliation instruction.

  This is a portion of the Byrd rule, and in expressly singling out 
increased spending and tax cuts as potentially inappropriate in a 
committee's work product, the language clearly implies that the true 
reconciliation effort should be to reduce spending or increase taxes. 
In other words, the proper reconciliation function is deficit 
reduction.
  Mr. President, the bottom line here is that if a reconciliation bill 
produces only an increase in outlays or a decrease in revenues it is 
subject to the Byrd rule and therefore extraneous. Given those 
conditions, the third portion of this resolution's reconciliation 
grouping certainly violates the Byrd rule on the face of it.
  Mr. President, I know the Senator from New Mexico indicated it was 
for managerial facilitation that he has presented this bifurcated 
approach to the reconciliation package. I must say, I think 
``managerial'' can explain just about anything. Obviously, managers 
want all kinds of devices to move their agenda along.
  In any case, managerial comfort is no justification for a practice 
that clearly violates many decades of Senate procedure. And as I've 
said, this practice is unprecedented. It is dangerous. It is 
extraordinarily harmful to the institution itself.
  Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. DASCHLE. This resolution directs the creation of three 
reconciliation bills, as I noted. It provides that the third 
reconciliation bill shall occur only if the first two have been 
enacted.
  Is it the opinion of the Chair that this resolution would continue to 
be a budget resolution if it directed the creation of that third 
reconciliation bill--the one that solely worsens the deficit--even 
under circumstances when the Congress had failed to enact the prior two 
reconciliation bills?
  I would be happy to repeat the inquiry if that needs to be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would respond that it appears to be 
a hypothetical question, and I am not sure it would help to repeat it, 
but you might try.

[[Page S5418]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me rephrase it, because I think it is a very 
important question and I do not think it is hypothetical at all. In 
fact, it deals directly with the circumstances at hand.
  Is it the opinion of the Chair that this resolution would continue to 
be a budget resolution if it directed the creation of only that third 
reconciliation bill--the one that solely worsens the deficit--even 
under circumstances when the Congress had failed to enact the prior two 
reconciliation bills?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator's question is, can the budget 
resolution direct the creation of a reconciliation bill which lowers 
revenues, the answer is yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. A second parliamentary inquiry. Is it the opinion of the 
Chair that this resolution would continue to be a budget resolution if 
it directed the creation of only that third reconciliation bill--the 
one that solely worsens the deficit--and did not direct the enactment 
of the two prior reconciliation bills?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The answer is yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, third inquiry. The pending resolution 
instructs the Finance and Ways and Means Committees to produce a bill 
that cuts taxes. There are no other instructions to those committees 
with regard to that reconciliation bill. Is it the opinion of the Chair 
that it would be in order for a budget resolution to instruct the 
creation of a reconciliation bill that increased outlays and gave no 
other instructions to those committees with regard to that 
reconciliation bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Byrd rule forbids legislation that 
will increase the deficit in years beyond those covered in the budget 
resolution. If this third reconciliation bill does not find a way to 
end or offset its tax cuts in the years beyond 2002, would the bill 
violate the Byrd rule?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it would.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Is it not true, unless the budget resolution assumes 
that the tax cuts will sunset in 2002, or be offset by tax increases 
thereafter, the resolution calls for a reconciliation bill that would 
violate the Byrd rule?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution cannot make assumptions beyond 
the years which are instructed.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is not the question, Mr. President.
  What I am asking is that under the Byrd rule there must be a 
determination that the deficit is not increased by actions taken in the 
reconciliation instructions in the outyears, in the years beyond the 
window.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Byrd rule does not apply to reconciliation 
instructions. It applies to a reconciliation bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is my point, Mr. President. This resolution assumes 
that a reconciliation bill will be triggered that will violate the Byrd 
rule unless it is terminated at the end of 2002 or else subsequently 
offset.
  The assumption of the resolution is that tax cuts will sunset in the 
year 2002 or be offset by tax increases thereafter in order for it not 
to be in violation of the Byrd rule, is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The budget resolution makes no assumptions.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me ask you this: Would the 
reconciliation bill be in order if the budget resolution did not 
address the issue of deficit reduction beyond that 6-year timeframe?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I read to you under extraneous provisions (e):

       A provision shall be considered to be extraneous if it 
     increases or would increase net outlays or if it decreases or 
     would decrease revenues during a fiscal year after the fiscal 
     years covered by such a reconciliation bill or reconciliation 
     resolution.

  This only applies to reconciliation bills.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me then phrase my question another way, because I 
think we can now clarify this.
  The reconciliation bill triggered by this resolution would not be in 
order, in other words, if it failed either to offset the tax cuts or to 
sunset them after fiscal year 2002, is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just note parenthetically, if that 
is correct, that the majority party is the same party that has 
criticized the President's budget because the President sunsets his tax 
cuts. But now the majority comes before us with a reconciliation 
instruction that requires either that their tax cuts be abruptly 
sunsetted in the year 2002 or that taxes be increased dramatically 
after that point to pay for the continuing tax cuts.
  Is it the opinion of the Chair that it is in order for a budget 
resolution to call for the creation of 10 different reconciliation 
bills in one fiscal year?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no number limiting the number of 
reconciliation bills.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is, in my view, a ludicrous abuse of 
power. If this ruling is upheld we will be giving more and more power 
to the Budget Committee, power cloaked in the fast-track protection of 
the budget process itself. We will be granting immense power to the 
majority. If this precedent is pushed to its logical conclusion, I 
suspect there will come a day when all legislation will be done through 
reconciliation.
  A decade ago the Senate wisely amended the reconciliation process by 
adding the Byrd rule to ensure that reconciliation bills would be 
narrowly drawn and limited to their deficit reduction purpose.
  This ruling poses a serious threat to the Budget Committee as we will 
become more and more like the House Rules Committee and the Senate more 
and more like the House of Representatives.
  For those of us who want deficit reduction, the majority seeks a very 
dangerous precedent today. For those of you who believe in the history 
of the Senate and unlimited debate and the right of Senators to offer 
amendments, the majority seeks to set very dangerous precedents today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to overturn the ruling of the Chair. If 
we do not, the Senate will surely became a different place and a much 
diminished institution.
  Mr. President, I note the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, 
the former chairman of the Budget Committee, seeks recognition to 
address this issue. And I am sure my colleague, the current ranking 
member of Budget committee, does so as well.
  I yield the floor for that purpose.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not intend to stay and debate the 
issue very long. Perhaps Senator Gorton can stay in my stead.
  But let me just suggest that in the view of this Senator the Budget 
Act offers a great deal of latitude to the U.S. Senate and to the 
Budget Committee. It can be controlled by the U.S. Senate, if the U.S. 
Senate chooses to do so. As a matter of fact, even on the Senator's 
point of order, if the Senate chooses to sustain his appeal, or to 
grant his appeal, the Senate will have decided that it does not in this 
reconciliation bill intend us to have three reconciliation bills. I 
believe that is a matter for the Senate.
  But to argue that in this instance when you are contemplating a very 
large reconciliation bill with all kinds of things in it, one shot, one 
debate, one vote and that we cannot find a judicious way to do better 
than that by having more than one reconciliation bill, more than one 
opportunity to vote on this, seems to me to fly in the face of 
permitting the Senate to do its business in the best way that it can 
under very strict rules of the Budget Committee. And I, frankly, 
believe that this is a better way to handle a huge and varied number of 
bills--to have more than one debate. And, frankly, we are committed to 
a balanced budget and to the balanced budget continuing on beyond the 
2002. We do not intend to have tax cuts to take us out of balance in 8 
years. That would be matched up against entitlement savings that go on. 
It will be matched up against caps on discretionary programs that go 
on.
  So the issue of us being forced to sunset, and in some way that is 
under the technical ruling today, in some way that puts us in the same 
boat with the President who has submitted a budget that is not in 
balance under the same rules that the Senate applies, and then to say 
we put it in balance by triggering and closing off the tax cuts and to

[[Page S5419]]

say they are the same, to me just flies absolutely in the face of every 
kind of factual assessment you want to make about the two budgets.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has already appealed. There is 1 
hour to be equally divided.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Is it not appropriate to ask for the yeas and nays at 
this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is appropriate to ask for them.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am about to yield whatever is yielded from 
our time to my distinguished friend from South Carolina.
  I think this debate has been absolutely fascinating because from the 
very beginning of the budget debate this year I was struck by what I 
had never seen before; and, that is three reconciliation bills. I 
simply say that the excellent debate that has taken place highlights 
the fact, and proves beyond any doubt what I have always suspected--
that the majority in this case on the Budget Committee are trying to 
use this new reconciliation process to protect a tax cut from full 
debate and amendment, something they obviously could not get that done 
under the usual rules of the Senate. The budget reconciliation keeps 
those of us who are opposed to that kind of a proposition from using 
the traditional filibuster techniques. We should have a debate. We 
should have all of the rules in place when we talk about cutting or 
raising taxes.
  I happen to feel that the move by the majority in this instance is an 
undisputed abuse of power and if it is allowed to occur, will it cause 
them great heartbreak in the future.
  Certainly the Senator from South Carolina I believe has been on the 
Budget Committee since its inception, and I think there are few, if any 
in the body, who have a better understanding of what the intent of that 
legislation is.
  I am pleased to yield to him whatever time he needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my distinguished friend, the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate and I cannot keep up 
with everything going on. I hear different things--such as a 
``Reconciliation Act of 1975''--which are totally false.
  I also heard someone refer to Senator Long as having been chairman of 
the Budget Committee--also totally false.
  When I hear these things I remember very, very clearly the history of 
reconciliation. I can tell you in the late 1970's we used to kid about 
reconciliation over on the House side; they said they could not even 
pronounce it. And if you go to the Record you will find that back in 
1975, the Revenue Adjustment Act to which they are now referring was 
not a Reconciliation Act.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5559) to make changes in certain income tax 
     provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and for 
     other purposes.

  That was not reconciliation. I know Senator Long could use language 
loosely from time to time. But that was not a reconciliation bill. We 
did not start reconciliation until December 1980. I was chairman of the 
Budget Committee, and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico was on 
the Budget Committee at that time. And I am sure the Congressional 
Record will reflect the fact that the first reconciliation bill in the 
history of the Government of the United States of America was in 
December 1980, and has nothing to do with the precedent noted by the 
Parliamentarian in 1975. Back then we only had 1-year budgets.
  Now let me speak to the history of reconciliation. We started out 
discussing the matter with our colleagues on the House side. The 
distinguished Member from the State of Washington, Congressman Adams 
was the chairman at that time. And we talked back and forth. But after 
President Carter was defeated on a Tuesday in November, I went over 
that Friday to the White House, after we received new budget numbers 
from the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office 
projection of revenues and outlays showed that the deficit was going up 
to about $43 billion. I said, ``Mr. President, no Democrat is going to 
ever get elected if we don't cut the deficit. It is going to be the 
largest deficit in the history of the Government.'' He said, ``What are 
you going to do?'' I said, ``Well, there is a fancy word, Mr. 
President, reconciliation. I think I can get Chairman Giaimo to go 
along.'' I had talked to Bob ahead of time. I told the president, 
``What it means is cut; to go back and cut those things that were 
already allocated.'' Now, back then the fiscal year was from July to 
July. We were already in December and we needed to try to reduce. That 
is the history of reconciliation--to reduce deficits.

  This idea of coming in here and saying that the word is ``change'', 
and it does not specify up or down is totally out of the ballpark. It 
is in reference to the budget process. If we can find Mr. Giaimo from 
Connecticut we could bring him back here and some of the others--Brock 
Adams; Jimmy Jones who is now the Ambassador down in Mexico, they would 
tell you that reconciliation is a procedure to reduce the deficit.
  The whole context given here this afternoon is that of minority-
majority, majority-minority, and all of that. I understand that. The 
distinguished minority leader is right on target. But the greatest 
concern is that we may break all discipline from the majority or the 
minority in the United States Congress itself if we go this route. We 
have to overrule this nonsense. This ruling of the Chair is totally 
spurious with no basis whatsoever in fact.
  The truth of the matter is that the bill considered in 1975 was not a 
reconciliation bill, it was a tax revenue act. If you look at the bill 
you'll see that it was not reconciliation. And while we are clearing 
things up, someone just a little while ago said Senator Long was 
chairman of the Budget Committee. Not only was he not chairman, he 
never served on the Budget Committee. He served as the distinguished 
chairman of Finance. We had our differences with Finance all along, the 
difference between Senator Muskie and Senator Long. I was there when 
those particular debates were going on.
  I would plead to my colleagues very genuinely, to not violate the 
Byrd rule, which was to keep us sort of in harness and not just willy-
nilly put anything on a reconciliation bill.
  Let us not get around the debate with spurious arguments or about 
Senator Long as chairman of the Budget Committee that he never served 
on, or reconciliation that never occurred in 1975.
  Now, Mr. President, these are the hard facts. If someone would get 
out the Congressional Record and look back, they will see that the 
first reconciliation bill was passed by the Congress in 1980. I have 
got the picture. I have got the frame. I am sure Giaimo has the similar 
frame. The first reconciliation act in the history of this U.S. 
Government was in December, 1980. It was signed by President Carter, 
and was 5 years subsequent to the authority they are using now to get 
around what is going on.
  The problem here is the Presidential politics. It has gotten to be a 
cancer on this entire body. The plan is: we will make them vote on 
welfare; then we will make them vote on these other things; and then, 
finally in September, says that resolution, just before the election, 
we will bring up tax cuts, because the polls say everybody is against 
taxes. So we will just put them to the task.
  What we have now is Presidential politics, and they ought to be 
ashamed of themselves. Their authority is absolutely fallacious.
  I happened to be chairman of the Budget Committee at the time, and I 
told the President: if you can get Herke Harris and Jim McIntyre to 
leave us alone * * * because they were over on the Hill that fall 
trying to reelect President Carter, putting up money hither and 
thither. And I even went at that time to our liberal spending friends. 
I went to Senator Warren

[[Page S5420]]

Magnuson of Washington, Senator Frank Church of Idaho, Senator George 
McGovern of South Dakota, Senator John Culver of Iowa, Senator Birch 
Bayh of Indiana, Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, who used to sit 
right here, and I said: You have got to give us one vote. We have got 
to cut this thing back; otherwise, we are going to leave the biggest 
deficit in the history of the Government.
  The whole idea of the reconciliation--and I am giving you firsthand 
history; it is honest as the day is long--was to, by gosh, cut back on 
the deficit. It was not this nebulous argument that as long as it is a 
change then we can make it go up. I never heard of such a thing. We 
would have been run out of the Senate in those days. We had some 
discipline, some understanding of responsibility, some action of 
responsibility. It is totally irresponsible to come now and start 
ruling that you can put up a reconciliation bill since it is a change. 
Every bill is a change. So any bill can be called reconciliation. You 
can go up and you can go down and you can limit the debate. You can, as 
they call it, fill up the tree, so there are no amendments and there is 
a time limit and the majority retires from the floor and goes out to 
watch TV or something because they have the votes locked and fixed. It 
is really a shame. It is an embarrassment to this particular Senator 
who served as the chairman of the Budget Committee, and I can tell you 
the whole precedent given by the Parliamentarian is totally out of the 
whole cloth.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Nebraska would yield me just 
2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield to the Senator from 
North Dakota?
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have been fascinated in listening to the 
remarks, that are so much on point, by the Senator from South Carolina. 
I was there in 1980. I remember being called down to the White House on 
an emergency basis with the Senator as chairman of the committee. 
Chairman Giaimo was there, and I listened with keen interest to the 
keen recollection of the facts, with the names and the dates and the 
places by my talented colleague from South Carolina.

  Mr. President, I am very much afraid that we are proceeding here in a 
fashion that the majority thinks is good politics. It is going to have 
dire, dire consequences in the future if we continue to proceed and 
fail to overrule the Chair. In all reality we know our appeal will fail 
because the Republican majority of 53 has the votes to roll us on this 
side at every occasion.
  I would tell the Senate that other people who have had experience as 
Parliamentarians do not agree with the ruling of the Chair in this 
instance. But we should all realize and recognize--and the people in 
the gallery or the people watching on television maybe have some kind 
of questions--that the Parliamentarian, of course, is appointed by the 
party in the majority, and when we were in the majority we had our 
Parliamentarian. Now that the Republicans are in the majority, they are 
entitled to and have their Parliamentarian.
  We like to keep the Parliamentarians as nonpartisan as possible, but 
I must admit that over the years I have been here I have seen our 
Parliamentarian rule in our favor, and while I cannot prove it, I 
happen to feel that today's Parliamentarian rules in favor of the 
people that appointed him. So the Parliamentarian is not like a Supreme 
Court Judge that has lifetime tenure which enables him or her to make 
determinations based solely upon history and fact. I would be the last, 
Mr. President, to indicate that politics could possibly be involved in 
the matter before us today--but sometimes it just might be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. There are 27 
minutes remaining on the majority time.
  Mr. EXON. When the Senator from Missouri finishes--I will yield to 
the Senator from North Dakota. I have been advised that the Senator 
from North Dakota has to leave at 4 o'clock--I yield to him off the 
resolution.
  Mr. BOND. Go ahead.
  Mr. EXON. How much time does the Senator from North Dakota wish?
  I yield the Senator whatever time he needs off the resolution.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me just take 30 seconds. I do not 
think the majority party will want to establish this as a precedent. 
They would be here in full force, very angry with this, were it being 
done to them, were we to create multiple reconciliation bills in this 
manner.
  But the main point I want to make is, we are told that this third 
reconciliation bill would violate the Byrd rule unless the tax 
reductions are sunsetted, or unless some other expenditure reductions 
occur or some other tax increases occur, in order to pay for the tax 
cuts in the out years. When that point was affirmed, that it would 
violate the Byrd rule unless that occurred, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee said that there would be caps on entitlements and other 
expenditure cuts in the out years. They would have to be done in this 
third reconciliation bill.
  I ask, does anybody have information about what we are talking about? 
These would be cuts beyond what comes in the current budget 
recommendations of the Senate, so what kind of caps on entitlements or 
future cuts in the entitlement programs is the majority party proposing 
in order not to violate the Byrd rule? I ask the question only because 
the chairman of the Budget Committee made this point a few moments ago. 
If that is the intent, and if the information exists to tell us and the 
American people what that intent is in more specific detail, I think 
now would be the time for the majority to give us those details.
  Mr. EXON. Before the Senator from North Dakota leaves, may I ask a 
question of the Senator from North Dakota? We heard a great deal and we 
have had a lot of criticism from that side of the aisle on the 
President's budget with the idea that it has a trigger in the last year 
or two that is not factual, not upfront, and not leveling with the 
American people. In view of the fact that that charge had been made, 
whether it is true or not, and I think it is not, could the same thing 
not be said with regard to the action taken by the majority in this 
case by having a trigger that would benefit them? That seems to be all 
right----
  Mr. DORGAN. In response to the Senator, that is exactly the case that 
exists here. Either these tax reductions in the third reconciliation 
bill will be sunsetted, or there will be additional tax increases 
beyond the final year, or there will be additional cuts. It sounds like 
a trigger to me.
  I am told now by the chairman of the Budget Committee they are 
talking about caps on entitlements in addition to what we see in the 
budget. My question is, what would those be? Will they tell us and the 
American people what they are talking about, so we understand before we 
proceed down this road?
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend. We reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 4012

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes off of the 
resolution, not on this point in specific.
  I have a desire to talk about an amendment, No. 4012, the Harkin 
amendment, which cuts other committees and adds $2.7 billion to the 
Labor, HHS subcommittee. I say that for the information of any of my 
colleagues who may wish to join in.
  Let me just say in respect to the discussions we have had, very 
important discussions over the procedure in the Budget Act, I disagree 
with the ranking member on the other side, who ascribes politics to the 
process and to the Parliamentarian. I think it is time we had some good 
policy, because in the past this body, with the active involvement of 
the Presidents of the United States, has run up a $5 trillion debt, 
almost $18,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country.

  We are in the process of threatening the disability of our Government 
budget and the economy of this country as a whole if we do not pass a 
budget that responsibly gets us on a path to balance in the near 
future. The budget

[[Page S5421]]

resolution before us proposes to do that. It is a difficult budget. It 
is not easy, but I believe it is one that merits support.
  There was discussion about the budget the President supported. That 
budget has been voted down. That budget proposed spending and said if 
it did not get to zero deficit in 2002, several automatic actions 
should be taken. Those automatic actions lead to about a $16 billion 
tax increase and increase in spectrum fees, which would come to a 
middle-class tax increase in 2002, plus $67 billion in cuts in domestic 
discretionary programs that would be extremely painful and, frankly, 
from what we have heard from some of the administration officials, they 
may even have no intention of pursuing.
  Let me get back to the budget that is before us and, in particular, 
the Harkin-Specter amendment. This amendment, No. 4012, proposes to 
increase by $2.7 billion the amount in the functions for education, 
training and social services and for health activities. Everybody likes 
to be for education and for health care. That sounds very appealing. 
But that takes money out of other budgets that have been strapped--and 
severely strapped in the past. I note that it takes money out of the 
defense budget in many areas where there is no fat. It takes money, in 
specific, out of the budget for the Veterans' Administration and EPA, 
where we have suffered great cuts in the past.
  Last year there was a rescission of $7 billion out of the funding for 
the VA, HUD, EPA subcommittee. Then, in the appropriations bills, there 
was about an $8 billion cut in these functions. Here the amendment 
before us would take more money from those functions and add it to the 
Labor, HHS subcommittee. Frankly, that budget under this bill before us 
would go up slightly for education. Certainly, we all like education. 
But the problem is very serious when you take a look at where this 
money would have to come from.
  The proponents of this amendment say it will come out of 
administrative costs. This amendment says nothing about administrative 
costs. It just takes $1.2 billion out of one place, $1.5 billion out of 
another, $1.4 billion and $1.4 billion. It does not say anything about 
administrative costs. It does not define any fat.
  The cuts that were taken in the VA, HUD, EPA subcommittee last year 
were draconian cuts. We had to look everywhere we could to find ways to 
cut low-priority programs to enable us to fund the major programs 
funded in EPA and Veterans' Administration. Just last week, this body 
voted overwhelmingly, 75 to 23, against very severe cuts that the 
President had proposed to take out of veterans medical care.
  In addition, I think every Member of this body will recall that 
during the debates on the 1996 appropriations bill, the current-year 
spending bills, everybody wanted to spend more on the environment. 
Everybody had something more they wanted to add to environmental 
spending. Let me make it quite clear that if this amendment is adopted, 
the money is going to come out of the environment and/or Veterans' 
Administration health care. There is no other pot for it to come out 
of. There is no category of administrative costs and administrative 
waste that is going to be reduced. This money is going to come out of 
the environment and/or veterans health care.
  I know everybody would like to put more money in education. 
Certainly, I would as well. But after the battles that we have had 
here, to try to get the funds increased to carry out the vital 
environmental programs that the EPA is charged with, I would be very 
surprised if people will vote to cut the environment, and then they 
will come back to this floor when we are debating the bill itself and 
say, ``Why can't we put more money in the environment?''
  Mr. President, a vote for the Harkin amendment is a vote to take 
money out of the environment. It is a vote to take money out of VA 
medical care. These are the critical priorities that would be hit if 
this measure is to be adopted.
  I strongly urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. It 
reflects some serious changes from the judgment made by the Budget 
Committee and it will take down funding, approximately $430 million cut 
for HUD-VA would be just about equal to the increase planned for VA 
medical care, or it would equal about one-half of the planned Superfund 
reserve fund increase.
  These are vital priorities that have been debated on this floor in 
the past. We spent many months working to find additional offsets to 
put money into the environment. And if any of my colleagues are 
interested in the environment and are concerned about assuring that we 
have adequate funds to protect the environment, to clean it up, to 
leave the kind of environment we want to leave for our children, I urge 
them not to support this amendment to take money out of the 
environment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield just 1 minute.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a page from the 
``Major Congressional Action'' of the Congressional Quarterly Almanac 
of 1980.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                $8.2 Billion Reconciliation Bill Cleared

       For the first time in the six-year history of the 
     congressional budget process, lawmakers in 1980 approved 
     ``reconciliation'' legislation designed to trim the fiscal 
     1981 budget deficit by more than $8.2 billion.
       The bill (HR 7765--PL 96-499) cut back programs already on 
     the books to achieve outlay savings of $4.6 billion in the 
     year that began Oct. 1, 1980. It included revenue-raising 
     provisions expected to yield $3.6 billion during the year.
       Congress completed action on the reconciliation bill Dec. 3 
     when the Senate adopted the conference report on the measure 
     (H Rept 96-1479) by an 83-4 vote. The House had approved the 
     conference report earlier that day 334-45. (Senate vote 487, 
     p. 70-S; House vote 581, p. 168-H)
       Although some members castigated the bill as a ``backdoor'' 
     method for creating new federal programs and expanding old 
     ones, most participants in debate on the measure hailed it as 
     a clear signal that Congress intended to get control of 
     federal spending.
       As Rep. Delbert L. Latta, R-Ohio, ranking minority member 
     of the House Budget Committee, told House members: ``[I]f any 
     of my colleagues are thinking about voting against this 
     reconciliation, just keep this in mind, that if you vote 
     against it, you are saying you vote for $8.2 billion more 
     deficit for fiscal 1981.''
       The final vote on reconciliation was the culmination of a 
     six-month odyssey that started when Congress included in its 
     first 1981 budget resolution (H Con Res 307) a provision 
     requiring that authorizing committees come up with $6.4 
     billion in spending cuts in existing programs and $4.2 
     billion in new revenues. (Budget resolution, p. 108)
       The Senate approved its version (S 2885), S 2939) of the 
     reconciliation legislation in action June 30 and July 23, and 
     the House passed its bill Sept. 4. The largest conference in 
     the history of Congress, including more than 100 conferees, 
     convened Sept. 18.
       The conference itself took two months. Although many 
     discrepancies were resolved quickly, the knottiest issues--
     involving cost-of-living increases for military and federal 
     retirees, changes in Medicare and Medicaid, child nutrition 
     programs, mortgage subsidy bonds and the crude oil windfall 
     profits tax--delayed a final compromise until late November.
       The ultimate conference agreement fell short of the $10.6 
     billion in savings targeted by the first budget resolution. 
     It provided cuts of $4.631 billion in outlays ($3.092 billion 
     in budget authority) and $3.645 billion in new revenues, for 
     a total package of $8.276 billion in savings. The bill 
     projected total savings for fiscal 1981-85 at $50.38 billion 
     in outlays and $29.2 billion in additional revenues.


                               provisions

       As cleared by Congress, H.R. 7765 provided for the 
     following spending reductions and revenue increases:


                          spending reductions

       Education and Labor, $840 million in budget authority and 
     $826 million in outlays. Savings were achieved by lowering 
     federal child nutrition subsidies and reducing participation 
     by higher-income students in meals programs; facilitating 
     collection of and increasing the interest rates for student 
     loans; and limiting cost-of-living adjustments for Federal 
     Employees Compensation Act benefits for job-related accidents 
     to an annual basis.
       Conferees also, however, extended the authorizations for 
     several child nutrition programs--extensions that were not 
     part of either the House or Senate reconciliation bills. 
     (Story, p. 453)
       Post Office and Civil Service, $429 million in budget 
     authority and $463 million in outlays. Savings were achieved 
     by cutting the authorization for pubic service appropriations 
     to the Postal Service and repealing ``look back'' cost-of-
     living (COLA) benefits provisions for retiring federal 
     employees, which allowed them to receive the benefit of

[[Page S5422]]

     the previous COLA. Conferees did not change the current 
     twice-a-year COLA benefits for military and federal retirees, 
     which would have saved more than $700 million; the Senate had 
     agreed to this modification. Conferees also prohibited the 
     Postal Service from doing away with six-day mail deliveries.
       Highway, Rail and Airport Programs, $375 million in budget 
     authority and $917 million in outlays. Savings were achieved 
     by limiting obligational authority for highways, reducing the 
     authorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, restricting railroad rehabilitation, limiting 
     funds for airport development, planning and noise control 
     grants.
       Veterans' Programs, although the reconciliation bill itself 
     did not make any cuts in veterans' programs, the conference 
     report cited savings of $487 million in budget authority and 
     $493 million in outlays from veterans' legislation already 
     enacted. These savings came from limiting burial allowances 
     and terminating certain flight and correspondence training.
       Small Business, $800 million in budget authority and $600 
     million in outlays. The savings reflected revisions in 
     disaster loan programs included on the Small Business 
     Development Act of 1980 (PL 96-302). (Story, p. 546)
       Health, $12 million in budget authority and $915 million in 
     outlays. Savings were to come, in part, from deferring until 
     September 1981 the periodic interim payments to hospitals and 
     revising Medicare reimbursements so they were based on fees 
     charged when the service was performed rather than when the 
     claim was processed.
       Although the health conferees agreed to more than 80 new 
     provisions in Medicare and Medicaid programs, many of the 
     changes resulted in adding costs rather than savings. The new 
     health benefits programs included expansion of coverage for 
     home health services, benefits for care in outpatient 
     rehabilitation facilities and increases in payments for 
     outpatient physical therapy. (Story, p. 459)
       Unemployment Compensation, $32 million in budget authority 
     and $147 million in outlays. Savings were achieved by ending 
     the federal reimbursement to states for compensation paid to 
     former Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) 
     workers; eliminating the federal payment for the first week 
     of extended benefits in states that did not require 
     recipients to wait a week before obtaining benefits; and 
     denying extended benefits to those who did not meet certain 
     work-related requirements.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I read the first three paragraphs:

       For the first time in the six-year history of the 
     congressional budget process, lawmakers in 1980 approved 
     ``reconciliation'' legislation designed to trim the fiscal 
     1981 budget deficit by more than $8.2 million.
       The bill . . . cut back programs already on the books to 
     achieve outlay savings of $4.6 billion in the year that began 
     Oct. 1, 1980. It included revenue-raising provisions expected 
     to yield $3.6 billion during the year.
       Congress completed action on the reconciliation bill Dec. 3 
     when the Senate adopted the conference report on the measure 
     . . . by an 83-4 vote. The House had approved the conference 
     report earlier that day 334-45. . .

  And on. The rest of it, of course, is printed in the Record.
  The facts themselves support the position taken here. The authority 
for this absurd ruling is totally out of context from the idea of the 
budget process and restrictions thereof. It was in response to the 
concurrent resolution instructions to the Finance Committee. It was not 
a reconciliation bill. The title of the bill itself said:

       The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: ``A bill 
     (H.R. 5559) to make changes in certain income tax provisions 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and for other 
     purposes.''

  It was a separate bill. It was not reconciliation, because we tried 
to get reconciliation earlier, and we finally got it 5 years after the 
Budget Act had been passed. There it is. The Congressional Quarterly, 
totally impartial, said the first reconciliation act. I will get the 
other Congressional Records. So the very authority for this ruling is 
totally unfounded. We ought to overrule this ruling, so to speak, so we 
can maintain the integrity of the budget process and the integrity of 
the Senate itself.
  I thank the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, time and time again, we are proving the 
point that the theory behind the ruling of the Chair, as we understand 
it, which is totally faulty, has been destroyed --that theory has been 
destroyed completely--by the fact that we have proven beyond any doubt 
that the 1975 act, or whenever it was, that evidently the 
Parliamentarian is using as a basis for his theory is wrong.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Wrong as it can be.
  Mr. EXON. Senator Long was on another course altogether. He was 
cutting taxes. He was not using the reconciliation process, as we know 
and understand it, as part of the budget bill.
  The fact that words were used somewhere along the line is totally 
wrong when a Parliamentarian so rules because it is a faulty ruling, 
and I think most lawyers who look at it objectively will so agree.
  I retain the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Texas, is he prepared 
to go forward?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am, Mr. President.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator from Texas 
8 minutes on the argument on the appeal of the ruling on the point of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, there is one thing you have to hand our 
Democratic colleagues, they are absolutely consistent on tax policy. 
They are always consistent, and they are consistently wrong. They have 
three rules on taxes, and they never, ever violate them:
  Rule No. 1 is that tax increases are always fair, they are always the 
right thing to do, and they are always supported.
  Rule No. 2 is that tax cuts are always unfair, they are always for 
the rich, just as only rich people are ever taxed by tax increases, and 
they are totally consistent in applying these two rules.

  If there were a rule No. 3, it would be ``see rules 1 and 2 above.''
  What Senator Daschle is trying to do is stop us from voting on a tax 
cut, period. I remind my colleagues that this fund that we are setting 
up, this so-called reserve fund, provides a tax cut to working 
families, basically a $500 tax credit per child to working families who 
now have the highest tax burden in American history.
  When I was a boy 8 years old in 1950, the average family in America 
with two children was sending $1 out of every $50 it earned to 
Washington, DC. Today, the average family with two children is sending 
$1 out of every $4 it earns to Washington, DC, and what we are trying 
to do is to reduce the tax burden on working families, especially 
working families with children.
  Under our budget, we cannot give a tax cut larger than the spending 
cuts that we have written in the budget or we are violating our own 
budget and we are subject to a point of order. So we are not debating 
deficits here, we are basically debating whether or not we be allowed 
to cut spending and cut taxes on working families.
  The Democrats always take the view that tax increases are good and 
they are always on the rich. In 1993, when they imposed, without a 
single Republican vote, the largest tax increase in American history, 
their argument was, this is a tax on rich people. Nobody making less 
than $115,000 a year is going to pay this tax. Well, it turned out it 
had a gasoline tax in it. They tried to have a Btu tax equivalent to a 
gasoline tax of 7 cents a gallon. What they were able to pass was a 
4.3-cents a gallon tax on gasoline. It did not go to build highways. It 
went to general fund of the Government to spend. They taxed working 
people who have to drive their cars and their trucks to work to give 
money to people who do not work.
  Secondly, they taxed Social Security benefits. The President proposed 
taxing anybody who was rich, by his definition, who made $25,000 a 
year.
  When people raised questions about it, he said: ``Well, you know, 
many of these people own their own homes, and if they had to rent the 
home you could count that as income, if they own their refrigerator and 
they rented that, if they got an insurance policy or a little savings 
account.'' So shamed were Democrats in Congress that they did raise the 
level at which you started taxing their Social Security benefits to 
$34,000 a year.
  By their definition, those are rich people. They were going to tax 
John Q. Astor, we were told. As it turned out, 80 percent of those 
taxes on this top 1 percent of income earners turned out to be Joe 
Brown and Son hardware store.
  But the one thing you have to admire the Democrats about, they are 
absolutely consistent. And that is, they always raise taxes. They 
always raise

[[Page S5423]]

taxes. And they always say that only rich people pay taxes.
  They are also consistent in that they never support cutting taxes. 
What we are trying to do in this bill is to give a $500 tax credit for 
working families. That tax credit phases out as all deductions do, at 
high-income levels.
  The plain truth is, most American families never become truly 
economically successful until they are older and therefore almost by 
definition their children have grown up, gotten married, graduated from 
college. Mr. President, 75 percent of the tax cut we are talking about 
goes to families that make $75,000 or less. But following their basic 
rule that every tax increase is fair and every tax cut is unfair, they 
are against it.
  I just want to remind my colleagues before they vote on this, that 
under the Clinton budget, if it were implemented, we would have the 
highest tax burden in American history at the Federal level, 19.3 cents 
out of every $1 earned by every American on average will come to the 
Federal Government to be spent.
  What that means for working Americans is that for the first time in 
history, over 30 cents, in fact 30.4 cents, out of every $1 earned by 
every American family on average is not going to be spent by the people 
who earned it: it is going to be spent by their Government at the 
State, local, or Federal level.
  Our colleagues who object to cutting taxes for working families say, 
this is only fair. What they really believe but they do not want to 
tell us is, they believe Government can do a better job of spending 
money than working families can. They believe that a two-wage earner 
family where both the husband and the wife are out working hard, they 
are making about $50,000 a year, or $60,000 a year, when they combine 
their two incomes--we are trying to let them keep $1,000 more a year to 
invest in their own family and their own future. The Democrats are 
trying to use a parliamentary maneuver to prevent us from voting on 
that because they want to spend that money. They do not want working 
families to be able to spend it.
  This fits their principle. In the mid-1980's people discovered that 
in foreign policy the Democrats always blamed America first. What we 
are discovering in the 1990's is in domestic policy, they always tax 
America first. According to them, every tax is fair, every tax cut is 
unfair, every tax increase is paid for by rich people. Even if they are 
Social Security recipients making $25,000 a year, counting half of 
their Social Security, even if they are driving a pickup truck to work, 
Democrats think they are rich when it comes to raising their taxes.
  But when working families who are struggling every single day to make 
ends meet--and they are watching the Government squander their money--
when we try to let them keep $1,000 more a year to invest in their own 
children and their own families, somehow that is unfair, somehow 
suddenly they are rich.
  In truth, for the Democrats, anybody that works for a living is rich. 
Well, I think working families can do a better job. That is why I think 
it is absolutely imperative that we defeat this parliamentary maneuver 
and that we have an opportunity to vote on cutting taxes for working 
families. I think they deserve the tax cut. I intend to vote for it. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require 
off the resolution. I ask the Senator from Texas if he will spend a 
minute with me.
  Mr. GRAMM. Sure.
  Mr. BOND. Talking about the taxation philosophy. I wonder if he has 
taken a look at the amendments presented on this budget resolution.
  Does the Senator see a theme in the amendments that have been 
presented in this budget resolution?
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, I have not looked at the numbers. I would like to be 
educated on it. But as I look at them, we have a minimum of six 
amendments where the Democrats want to raise taxes and spend the money. 
And the number I looked at is that the tax increase was very 
substantial, over $180 billion total.
  Mr. BOND. I say to my good friend from Texas, I show to my other 
friends, just some rough calculations we have done. So far, we have six 
tax increases that are proposed in amendments on this budget 
resolution. The Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, $50 
billion; Senator Boxer, $18 billion; Senator Wyden, $1 billion; Senator 
Kerry, $48 billion; Senator Kerry, $6 billion; Senator Byrd, $65 
billion. As we calculate that, that comes up to about $188 billion.
  Mr. GRAMM. What would they do with that money?
  Mr. BOND. As I understand it, I say to the Senator, that would not go 
for tax relief. That would go for increased spending.
  Now we are getting up--the record was set, I believe, in 1993, where 
we had a $240 billion tax increase. We still have a few hours left on 
this resolution, and all we need is about, as I calculate it, about $52 
billion more in tax increases, and we could go over that $240 billion.
  Does the Senator think maybe there is an effort to break that record?
  Mr. GRAMM. I would say, if the Senator would yield, it is their 
record. It was the 1993 tax increase. And let me predict, not having 
seen what taxes those are, I bet you all those taxes are supposedly on 
rich people, people that drive automobiles and trucks and people that 
work for a living, which by definition are rich people. In fact, 
anybody that is taxed is rich and anybody whose taxes you cut are rich.
  Mr. BOND. I see our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee 
here, whose good office is responsible for helping frame this overall 
budget debate. I am happy to yield to him if he has some comments on 
this at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Since I was absent, I would like 
to be brought current. How much time in toto is still available for 
both sides on the resolution?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 57 minutes for the Senator from New 
Mexico; 56 minutes for the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Boy, are we doing well. We must just be in sync.
  Mr. EXON. We agree on something.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to speak to this, but I ask, in my absence 
has anybody come to the floor with additional amendments? Are we using 
time to make our points here or is somebody coming with amendments?
  Mr. EXON. The Senator and I have appealed over and over again to 
people to come to the floor or at least call us and tell us they are 
not going to offer the amendments. We have heard nothing from our side 
of the aisle on that. If the Senator has heard of anybody on his side 
of the aisle, that would be a step in the right direction.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have not.
  Mr. EXON. To answer the Senator's question, it would appear to me 
that neither Republican Senators nor Democratic Senators seem anxious 
to come over and claim some time to offer the amendments that they said 
they thought was important enough to be considered. So that is all I 
know about the proposition. Nothing evidently has changed, I say to the 
chairman of the committee.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.
  I shortly will offer three amendments on behalf of Senators on this 
side, one of them on behalf of Senator McCain and two on behalf of 
Senator Faircloth. Obviously we will not speak to them. They will be 
put on the same list for a vote when the vote comes.
  Mr. President, I want to use about 2 minutes here to just make an 
observation and make an inquiry of the Chair.
  First, I do not ask the Chair or the Parliamentarian for any 
information on this, but it is obvious that the Byrd rule by definition 
does not apply to provisions of a budget resolution. It applies to the 
legislative language in the reconciliation bills.
  Having said that, I have a parliamentary inquiry. It is brief. If a 
reconciliation bill reduced revenues in the outyears beyond the period 
of the reconciliation bill, but as a whole did not increase the deficit 
by virtue of offsetting spending reductions or revenue increases, would 
the revenue reductions violate the Byrd rule?

[[Page S5424]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they would not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Now, Mr. President, I have an amendment.
  Mr. EXON. May I inquire of my colleague, we have additional debate 
that was on the matter before the Senate. Do you wish us to finish that 
or do you want to go ahead? The Senator from South Carolina also wants 
to speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It will take me 3 minutes to get these amendments done.


                           Amendment No. 4022

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding spectrum 
   auctions and their effect on the integrity of the budget process)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an amendment regarding spectrum 
openings and the effect of their integrity on the process, and I send 
the 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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4022.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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--TRUTH IN BUDGETING.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that:
       (a) The Congressional Budget Office has scored revenue 
     expected to be raised from the auction of Federal 
     Communications Commission licenses for various services;
       (b) For budget scoring purposes, the Congress has assumed 
     that such auctions would occur in a prompt and expeditious 
     manner and that revenue raised by such auctions would flow to 
     the federal treasury;
       (c) The Resolution assumes that the revenue to be raised 
     from auctions totals billions of dollars;
       (d) The Resolution makes assumptions that services would be 
     auctioned where the Federal Communications Commission has not 
     yet conducted auctions for such services, such as Local 
     Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), licenses for paging 
     services, final broadband PCS licenses, narrow band PCS 
     licenses, licenses for unserved cellular, and Digital Audio 
     Radio (DARS), and other subscription services, revenue from 
     which has been assumed in Congressional budgetary 
     calculations and in determining the level of the deficit; and
       (e) The Commission's service rules can dramatically affect 
     license values and auction revenues and therefore the 
     Commission should act expeditiously and without further delay 
     to conduct auctions of licenses in a manner that maximizes 
     revenue, increases efficiency, and enhances competition for 
     any service for which auction revenues have been scored by 
     the Congressional Budget Office and/or counted for budgetary 
     purposes in an Act of Congress.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the 
Senate that when spectrum auctions are assumed in the budget 
resolution, that those auctions should occur in an expeditious manner 
and in a manner that is most efficient. The amendment does not force 
the FCC to act on any fashion other than that which is most 
appropriate.
  However, Mr. President, I am concerned that the Commission move 
forward with auctions.
  This amendment is about much more than auctions. It is about truth in 
budgeting. When the Budget Committee drafts a budget plan that includes 
auctions, it is assumed that those auctions will take place. To the 
Commission's credit, it has acted to auction much of the spectrum. And 
to date, over $20.2 billion has been raised by auction.
  But we must continue to move forward. In order for the Government's 
books to actually balance, we must bring in money we intend to spend.
  One such example is the issue of Local Multipoint Distribution 
Service [LMDS]. The Commission's rulemaking proceeding on LMDS is over 
3 years old. For 3 years we have been waiting for auction revenues. In 
the mean time, LMDS technology which was developed by American 
entrepreneurs is being implemented elsewhere in such places as Canada, 
South America, and Asia.
  LMDS will provide homes and offices with video, telephony, and other 
interactive data transfer applications including high speed Internet 
connections. In residential areas, for example, LMDS could provide a 
family with over 60 digital TV stations, 200 video-on-demand channels, 
two telephone lines, and a high-speed Internet connection.
  But, Mr. President, again let me repeat that this amendment is not 
about LMDS or any other specific service. There are other subscriptions 
services that are set to be auctioned that I would hope the FCC soon 
acts on. I would hope that the Commission move forward on those matters 
also and the FCC view this amendment as our imprimatur to move forward. 
But as I noted, this amendment is about the FCC acting in an 
expeditious manner in order to ensure that when the Congress assumes 
that money will be coming in, it is in fact coming in.
  Mr. President, I want to commend the Budget Committee and its 
chairman for moving the issue of spectrum auctions forward. For the 
most part, it has been reconciliation legislation that has mandated 
past auctions The Budget Committee has recognized that spectrum is a 
public asset, that it has great value, and that the American people 
should not only benefit by its use, but should benefit from its sale.
  Now we must ensure that the auctions the Budget Committee has the 
foresight to call for do indeed occur. I would hope the Congress would 
adopt this amendment and that the FCC would act as instructed by the 
Senate.


                           Amendment No. 4023

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding welfare reform)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is proposed by Senator Faircloth 
and expresses the sense of the Senate that balanced budget legislation 
should also contain a strategy for reducing the national debt. I send 
the 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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Faircloth, proposes an amendment numbered 4023.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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 WELFARE REFORM.

       The Senate finds that--
       S. Con. Res. 57 assumes substantial savings from welfare 
     reform; and
       Children born out of wedlock are five times more likely to 
     be poor and about ten times more likely to be extremely poor 
     and therefore are more likely to receive welfare benefits 
     than children from two parent families; and
       High rates of out-of-wedlock births are associated with a 
     host of other social pathologies; for example, children of 
     single mothers are twice as likely to drop out of high 
     school; boys whose fathers are absent are more likely to 
     engage in criminal activities; and girls in single-parent 
     families are three times more likely to have children out of 
     wedlock themselves; therefore
       It is the sense of the Senate that any comprehensive 
     legislation sent to the President that balances the budget by 
     a certain date and that includes welfare reform provisions 
     and that is agreed to by the Congress and the President shall 
     also contain to the maximum extent possible a strategy for 
     reducing the rate of out-of-wedlock births and encouraging 
     family formation.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, President Clinton devoted two of his 
weekly radio addresses this month to the topic of welfare reform.
  Like President Clinton, I was elected in 1992, and welfare reform was 
a key issue in my campaign. Since then I have introduced welfare reform 
bills in the 103d Congress and in this Congress as well.
  The current impasse on welfare reform has existed since the 
President's second veto of welfare legislation sent to him by the 
Congress. I found the President's recent remarks on welfare reform to 
be particularly aggravating because so much agreement exists between 
the President and the Congress on the problems in our welfare system, 
and on most of the solutions, and yet bipartisan legislation passed by 
Congress has not become law.
  In his May 4 address, the President said, ``The American people need 
a welfare system that honors American values: work, family and personal 
responsibility.''
  The issues related to family and personal responsibility have been of 
particular interest to me. In fact President Clinton and I strongly 
agree on the problems in this area. On January

[[Page S5425]]

29 of this year, when the President appointed Dr. Henry Foster to 
coordinate the administration's new National Campaign to Reduce Teen 
Pregnancy, the President said:

       This morning we want to talk about teen pregnancy, because 
     it is a moral problem and a personal problem and a challenge 
     that individual young people should face and because it has 
     reached such proportions that it is a very significant 
     economic and social problem for the United States.

  He went on to say:

       We know * * * that almost all the poor children in this 
     country are living with one parent; that there are very, very 
     few poor children, without regard to race, region or income, 
     living in two-parent married households.

  He continues by saying:

       We know that there are an awful lot of good, single parents 
     out there doing their best, but we also know it would be 
     better if no teenager ever had a child out of wedlock; that 
     it is not the right thing to do, and it is not a good thing 
     for the children's future and for the future of the country.

  Mr. President, I agree wholeheartedly with those points. Seventy-two 
percent of teenage births occur outside of marriage. I have stood here 
many times and emphasized that welfare reform that does not 
aggressively seek to reverse the rising rate of out-of-wedlock births, 
will not break the cycle of welfare dependency that is consuming more 
and more of our young people.
  I have not been alone in sounding the alarm on this problem. Many of 
my Republican colleagues have joined me, and we have all learned from 
our friend, Senator Moynihan, who first conducted ground-breaking 
research on this topic almost 30 years ago.
  It is my strong belief that illegitimacy is the root cause of welfare 
dependency. Children raised in single parent homes are six times more 
likely to be poor than those raised by two parents, and girls raised in 
single parent homes are three times more likely to have children out of 
wedlock as well.
  During last year's welfare reform debate, I advocated several 
approaches aimed at reducing illegitimacy. I supported the House 
efforts to limit the incentives in our current welfare program that, in 
effect, reward illegitimacy. I was also very proud that our welfare 
reform bill included a provision that I offered, which would promote 
and fund programs to encourage children to abstain from sexual activity 
before marriage.
  I'll let the President finish my point on illegitimacy. In the 
statement that accompanied the welfare reform bill that he sent to 
Congress in 1994, he said ``Preventing teen pregnancy and out-of-
wedlock births is a critical part of welfare reform.'' I agree.
  Mr. President, in his radio addresses, the President has highlighted 
the agreement that exists on welfare reform and also praised the States 
for work they have done on their own. In his most recent radio address, 
the President tried to take credit for innovative reforms recently 
proposed by the Republican Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson.
  I think it is ironic that the greatest barrier to these innovative 
State programs is the current Federal welfare system which requires 
States to negotiate a lengthy, and potentially partisan, waiver process 
through the Department of Health and Human Services. By refusing to 
sign welfare reform legislation, the President is denying States the 
flexibility that our welfare reform bill was designed to provide.
  Even though the President seemed to have endorsed the Wisconsin plan 
on Saturday, today's Washington Post contained a statement from White 
House Deputy Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, that details of the 
Wisconsin proposal would have to be changed before the Department of 
Health and Human Services would approve the wavier.
  With all this agreement that seems to exist between the Congress and 
the President, why can't the American people have the welfare reform 
that the Congress has passed, and the President has promised them?
  Mr. President, my amendment simply states that it is the sense of the 
Senate that if welfare reform is included in new balanced budget 
legislation, that those provisions contain a strategy to reduce the 
incidence of out of wedlock births as well as encourage the formation 
of two-parent families.


                           Amendment No. 4024

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding reduction of the 
                             national debt)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration. This is on behalf of Senator Faircloth 
referencing deficit reduction and the national debt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Faircloth, proposes an amendment numbered 4024.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:
  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 REDUCTION OF THE 
                   NATIONAL DEBT.

       S. Con. Res. 57 projects a public debt in Fiscal Year 1997 
     of $5,400,000,000,000;
       S. Con. Res. 57 projects that the public debt will be 
     6,500,000,000,000 in the Fiscal Year 2002 when the budget 
     resolution projects a unified budget surplus;
       This accumulated debt represents a significant financial 
     burden that will require excessive taxation and lost economic 
     opportunity for future generations of the United States; 
     therefore
       It is the sense of the Senate that any comprehensive 
     legislation sent to the President that balances the budget by 
     a certain date and that is agreed to by the Congress and the 
     President shall also contain a strategy for reducing the 
     national debt of the Untied States.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this amendment would very simply 
express the sense of the Senate that if we enact a balanced budget plan 
this year--that such legislation should also contain a strategy for 
reducing the national debt.
  The budget resolution we are debating today is a plan to balance the 
budget by the year 2002. But by the year 2002, our national debt will 
be $6.5 trillion.
  Mr. President, this debt represents a massive burden on the American 
people and future generations of Americans. I am deeply concerned about 
this debt burden that we have placed on our children, grandchildren, 
and children yet born.
  The budget resolution is a plan to end the deficit spending--which is 
certainly what we need. But I feel just as strongly that we need a plan 
to reduce this debt.
  It took this country nearly 200 years to accumulate a debt of $1 
trillion--and in the last 16 years the debt will have increased 
fivefold. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue--we don't need to 
assign the blame--we just need to develop a solution.
  All this amendment would do is encourage the Senate--express that it 
is our sense that we develop proposals to deal with this massive debt 
burden.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am about to yield whatever time he might 
need to the Senator from South Carolina.
  I wish briefly to respond. How interesting it is that the debate has 
shifted from the very legitimate discussion that we were having here 
with regard to the faulty ruling of the Chair to a charge that 
Democrats are trying to block consideration of income tax reductions. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Just repeating irresponsible charges over and over again without 
providing any backup proof is nonsense. That has been an old debating 
technique for a long, long time. When the facts are not on your side, 
talk nonsense.
  Mr. President, I want to get back, and I am sure my friend from South 
Carolina wants to get back, to the underlying problem that we have here 
that is far more than just one single independent ruling of the Chair. 
It is going to have far-reaching adverse effects on the U.S. Senate for 
as long as we can imagine into the future.
  Instead of addressing that, the Republicans come forth with charts. 
They say we are trying to stop the tax cut. We are not trying to stop 
the tax cut. All we want is the tax cut to be brought up in the usual 
fashion, to be debated in the usual fashion under the usual procedures. 
We are trying to expose this glaring trick that the Republicans are 
trying, by separating their reconstruction instructions into three

[[Page S5426]]

separate bills. The last one with regard to tax cuts would come in 
September of this year, a couple months before the election. Of course, 
I would be the last to accuse the Republicans of playing politics with 
this --let me be the first.
  We have just seen some charts presented here. They have done this 
before. They set up a straw man on fake straw and then they tear it 
down. They just had a list of Senators up there. They totaled up what 
those Senators had proposed and how much it would cost. No one has 
advocated raising taxes by the amount asserted from the Senator from 
Missouri. It is simply not the case that one can add up all of the 
offsets for amendments that fail. If the Senate chooses not to use an 
offset in one amendment, it is perfectly legitimate to try and use the 
same offset in a second amendment. When we do that, the Republicans set 
up a straw man--false numbers, false charges, false assumptions. Once 
again, setting up a straw man may fool the people of the United States 
temporarily, but not for long.
  I want to correct just one more thing. I want to correct the record 
on the statistics used by the Senator from Texas. The share of the 
economy that goes to revenues to fund the Government is not at record 
levels. Let me repeat that: The Senator from Texas said that the share 
of the economy that goes to revenues to fund the Government is not at 
record levels. It was higher in 1969. It was higher in 1970. It was 
higher in 1982. Sure, sure, we would all like to have lower taxes. The 
question is, what should come first? What should come first, Mr. 
President? Balancing the budget of the United States or enacting tax 
cuts that we all would likely vote for once we get a balanced budget?
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you can find the first two pages of the 
budget resolution conference report for fiscal year 1976 referred to as 
the authority for the Parliamentarian's rule about reconciliation back 
in 1975. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record. The 
report dated April 21, 1975 was submitted by Mr. Muskie, from the 
committee of conference. It is only a few pages, but I think it ought 
to be included.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Second Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 1976

       Mr. Muskie, from the committee on conference, submitted the 
     following conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 466:
       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the concurrent 
     resolution
       H. Con. Res. 466) revising the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for the fiscal year 1976, and 
     directing certain reconciliation action, having met, after 
     full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
     recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
       That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an 
     amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
     amendment insert the following:

     That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
     section 310(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
     for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1975--
       (1) The appropriate level of total budget outlays is 
     $374,900,000,000;
       (2) The appropriate level of total new budget authority is 
     $408,000,000,000;
       (3) The amount of the deficit in the budget which is 
     appropriate in the light of economic conditions and all other 
     relevant factors is $74,100,000,000;
       (4) The recommended level of Federal revenues is 
     $300,800,000,000, and the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     and the Senate Committee on Finance shall submit to their 
     respective Houses legislation to decrease Federal revenues by 
     approximately $6,400,000,000; and
       (5) The appropriate level of the public debt is 
     $622,600,000,000.
       Sec. 2. The Congress hereby determines and declares, in the 
     manner provided in section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, that for the transition quarter beginning on 
     July 1, 1976--
       (1) The appropriate level of total budget outlays is 
     $101,700,000,000;
       (2) The appropriate level of total budget authority is 
     $91,100,000,000;
       (3) The amount of the deficit in the budget which is 
     appropriate in the light of economic conditions and all other 
     relevant factors is $15,700,000,000;
       (4) The recommended level Federal revenues is 
     $86,000,000,000; and
       (5) The appropriate level of the public debt is 
     $641,000,000,000. And the Senate agree to the same.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, a careful reading of this particular 
budget resolution finds no reconciliation instructions. How can you 
have reconciliation without reconciliation instructions?
  I referred in my original comments to the fact that our distinguished 
colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee at the time, Senator 
Long, wanted it to appear as reconciliation because he was trying to 
limit debate and limit amendments. He was probably the cleverest of all 
Parliamentarians around here. He always stood in the well there: ``Yes, 
yes, Senator, I will take your amendment.'' He just took all these 
amendments, went over there, and you would never see them again. I 
remember it well.
  But there was, as the record will show, no reconciliation--he called 
it and they gave him limited time, but it was not reconciliation. As 
chairman of the Finance Committee, he was complying with a particular 
bill. Just like now, under this concurrent resolution that we direct 
the Commerce Committee or the Armed Services Committee or any other 
committee, and they comply. They come up with their particular bill. 
That is not reconciliation.
  As further authority, Mr. President, I refer to the statement made at 
that particular time by myself on December 3, 1980. I quote:

       Every Senator who signed the conference agreement, and 
     every Senator who votes to adopt it, has earned a share of 
     the credit for this first historic exercise of the 
     reconciliation power.

  That was the first time we were able to pass a reconciliation bill, 
December 1980--there was not any kind of authority for reconciliation 
back in 1975.
  Let me quote Mr. Henry Bellmon, ranking member at that particular 
time on the Republican side:

       Mr. President, this truly is a historic occasion. Today we 
     complete for the first time an important part of the Budget 
     Act called reconciliation.

  Mr. President, you cannot be more clear than that. They are using 
1975, the actions taken by the chairman of the Finance Committee and a 
spurious ruling at that particular because there was no such thing as 
reconciliation instructions. Senator Long put in, as I said, and I read 
the particular title, a tax bill. It is a separate bill. It is not 
reconciliation. It is ``a bill (H.R. 5559) to make changes in certain 
income tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.'' That is 
not a reconciliation bill.
  Now, Mr. President, I am continually hearing from my distinguished 
colleague from Texas, and they run him out every now and then with the 
little charts, about the biggest tax increase. It is all Presidential 
politics--the biggest tax increase, the biggest tax increase.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent again that we include in the 
Record from the Washington Post an article by Judy Mann back in 1995, 
January 1. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in its 
entirety in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From the Washington Post]

                       Fiddling With the Numbers

                             (By Judy Mann)

       Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, the Republican meteor from New 
     Jersey, had the unusual honor for a first-term governor of 
     being asked to deliver her party's response to President 
     Clinton's State of the Union message last week.
       And she delivered a whopper of what can most kindly be 
     called a glaring inaccuracy.
       Sandwiched into her Republican sales pitch was the kind of 
     line that does serious political damage: Clinton, she 
     intoned, ``imposed the biggest tax increase in American 
     history.''
       And millions of Americans sat in front of their television 
     sets, perhaps believing that Clinton and the Democrat-
     controlled Congress had done a real number on them.
       The trouble is that this poster lady for tax cuts was not 
     letting any facts get in her way. But don't hold your breath 
     waiting for the talk show hosts to set the record straight.
       The biggest tax increase in history did not occur in the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The biggest tax 
     increase in post-World War II history occurred in 1982 under 
     President Ronald Reagan.
       Here is how the two compare, according to Bill Gale, a 
     specialist on tax policy and senior fellow at the Brookings 
     Institution. The 1993 act raised taxes for the next five 
     years by a gross total of $268 billion, but with the 
     expansion of the earned income tax credit to

[[Page S5427]]

     more working poor families, the net increase comes to $240.4 
     billion in 1993. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act 
     of 1982, by comparison, increased taxes by a net of $217.5 
     billion over five years. Nominally, then, it is true that the 
     1993 tax bill was the biggest in history.
       But things don't work nominally. ``A dollar now is worth 
     less than a dollar was back then, so that a tax increase of, 
     say $10 billion in 1982 would be a tax increase of $15 
     billion now,'' says Gale. In fact, if you adjust for the 48 
     percent change in price level, the 1982 tax increase becomes 
     a $325.6 billion increase in 1993 dollars. And that makes it 
     the biggest tax increase in history by $85 billion.
       Moreover, says Gale, the population of the country 
     increased, so that, on a per person basis, the 1993 tax 
     increase is lower than the one in 1982, and the gross 
     domestic product increased over the decade, which means that 
     personal income rose. ``Once you adjust for price 
     translation, it's not the biggest, and when you account for 
     population and GDP, it gets even smaller.''
       He raises another point that makes this whole business of 
     tax policy just a bit more complex than the heroic tax 
     slashers would have us believe. ``The question is whether 
     [the 1993 tax increase] was a good idea or a bad idea, not 
     whether it was the biggest tax increase. Suppose it was the 
     biggest? I find it frustrating that the level of the debate 
     about stuff like this as carried on by politicians is 
     generally so low.''
       So was it a good idea? ``We needed to reduce the deficit,'' 
     he says, ``we still need to reduce the deficit. The bond 
     market responded positively. Interest rates fell. There may 
     be a longer term benefit in that it shows Congress and the 
     president are capable of cutting the deficit even without a 
     balanced budget amendment.''
       Other long-term benefits, he says, are that ``more capital 
     is freed up for private investment, and ultimately that can 
     result in more productive and highly paid workers.''
       How bad was the hit for those few who did have to pay more 
     taxes? One tax attorney says that his increased taxes were 
     more than offset by savings he was able to generate by 
     refinancing the mortgage on his house at the lower interest 
     rates we've had as a result. The 1993 tax increase did 
     include a 4.3-cent-a-gallon rise in gasoline tax, which hits 
     the middle class. But most of us did not have to endure an 
     income tax increase. In 1992, the top tax rate was 31 percent 
     of the taxable income over $51,900 for single taxpayers and 
     $86,500 for married couples filing jointly. Two new tax 
     brackets were added in 1993: 36 percent for singles with 
     taxable incomes over $115,000 and married couples with 
     incomes over $140,000; and 39.6 percent for singles and 
     married couples with taxable incomes over $250,000.
       Not exactly your working poor or even your average family.
       The rising GOP stars are finding out that when they say or 
     do something stupid or mendacious, folks notice. The jury 
     ought to be out on Whitman's performance as governor until we 
     see the effects of supply side economics on New Jersey. But 
     in her first nationally televised performance as a 
     spokeswoman for her party, she should have known better than 
     to give the country only half the story. In the process, she 
     left a lot to be desired in one quality Americans are looking 
     for in politicians: honesty.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me ask for 2 more minutes.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 2 more minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  I read here: The biggest tax increase in history did not occur in the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The biggest tax increase in 
post-World War II history occurred in 1982 under President Ronald 
Reagan.
  So I hope they would at least respect the truth every now and again 
and quit referring to the 1993 reconciliation bill as the ``biggest tax 
increase.'' I happened to have voted for it. It is working. It has the 
deficit cut in half. In fact, the deficit dropped another $30 billion 
since last week.
  Finally, Mr. President, under this limited time on April 24, 1991, we 
put in a bill--``we'' being Senator Moynihan of New York, Senator 
Kasten of Wisconsin, and the Senator from South Carolina--we put in 
that bill to cut $190 billion in tax cuts for working Americans. The 
distinguished Senator from Texas voted against it. We said, let us put 
Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis. It amounted to $190 billion 
in tax cuts on working Americans.
  You can keep running him out with his charts, but I am going to run 
out with his record. He had a chance to vote for it, and he voted 
against it.
  So spare us this particular off-Broadway act that we have to watch 
every other day or so--the biggest tax increase, and working Americans, 
around the kitchen table, and who is in the wagon and who is pulling 
it. We are in the wagon. The Congress is in the wagon. The people 
outside are the ones pulling it. The President is the one that has been 
cutting the deficit. And thank heavens for President Clinton, the only 
one in town since President Johnson that has cut the deficit.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, just to add another fact to the statement 
made by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, that largest tax 
cut in history that he indicated came in 1982, I believe. Is that what 
he said?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is correct, tax increase.
  Mr. EXON. I thought it might be interesting to note that the chairman 
of the Finance Committee at the time of the real largest tax increase 
in history, chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, the Finance 
Committee at that time, was Kansas Senator Robert Dole.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the ranking member, the Senator from Nebraska.
  I must say that I was surprised to see the Senator from Texas out 
once again railing against the Democrats in the last package that we 
passed, saying that it was just a tax package. It is very interesting.
  The Senator from Texas is not talking much these days about deficits. 
He is not talking about that much anymore. He is not talking much about 
debt anymore because we are 6 months away from an election. The 
Republicans are down by double digits in the polls. And so out comes 
the tax bogeyman. Let us haul that one out because that one seems to 
work pretty well. Let us run out the tax bogeyman. Let us run him 
around the track a few times.
  Mr. President, let us read the Record. First of all, the biggest tax 
increase occurred on their watch. They controlled the White House. They 
controlled the U.S. Senate. They passed the biggest tax increase. Why 
did they do it? Because the deficits were skyrocketing. They were out 
of control. So they took action.
  In 1993, the Democrats, when it was on our watch--we controlled the 
White House, we controlled the Senate, and we controlled the House--we 
took action. We can be proud of the action we took because we reduced 
these deficits. We have reduced them sharply. Let us just look at the 
record.
  Mr. President, this compares the records of President Clinton, 
President Bush, and President Reagan. This is what has happened to the 
deficits under these three Presidents. These are the deficits in 
billions of dollars starting in 1980.
  Ronald Reagan was elected. The deficit was about $70 billion a year. 
Ronald Reagan took office. By the way, it was not just Republican 
control of the White House; the Republicans controlled this body as 
well. They controlled the U.S. Senate, and they had effective control 
of the U.S. House of Representatives. Because everyone remembers what 
budgets passed in 1981, in 1982, in 1983, it was boll weevil Democrats 
joining with the Republican minority in the House, joining with the 
Senate majority, the Republican majority in the Senate, and a 
Republican President.
  What happened? Here is the record on deficits. The deficits exploded. 
They exploded under this theory of supply-side economics. They exploded 
under this notion that you can just cut taxes and not cut spending, and 
that somehow it is all going to add up. The deficits went to over $200 
billion a year.
  Then, we see that we had the beginning of the Bush administration, 
and again deficits took off. This time they reached $290 billion a 
year. That is what the deficit was when Bill Clinton came into office. 
Bill Clinton inherited a $290 billion budget deficit.
  Look at the performance based on a plan that we passed in 1993 
without a single Republican vote. Not one. Not one. The deficit has 
gone down each and every year.
  This morning we were told the deficit for this year will probably 
come in at less than $130 billion, a dramatic reduction in the budget 
deficit, in part because of economic recovery and in part because of 
the plan that we passed in 1993. We had the courage to stand up and do 
what needed to be done.

  Mr. President, more needs to be done. It is not going to happen with 
this kind of running out and saying, well, we can just cut all the 
revenue of the Federal Government and somehow it will all

[[Page S5428]]

add up. We tried that before. It failed, and it failed miserably. Debt, 
deficits and decline, that is the direction our friends on the other 
side, at least some of them, seem to be willing to take us.
  Mr. President, we should never ever go back to that policy of debt, 
deficits and decline. That way lies ruination.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. May I ask a question of the Senator from North Dakota.
  I appreciated the Senator's factual remarks, and just to back up what 
the Senator has said, that is just not a Democratic Senator saying 
that. That is not just a Democratic Senator saying that based on the 
facts. The same thing was said by the Office of Management and Budget 
director under President Reagan. His name was David Stockman, and he 
admitted publicly--and I believe wrote in a book--that it was a sham 
all the way through. In fact, he used the words that all of this period 
the Senator has just alluded to was ``fiscal carnage.'' And he admitted 
that it was a Republican fiscal carnage. I just wanted to emphasize 
that. I am just wondering if the Senator had remembered that fact.
  Mr. CONRAD. I actually read David Stockman's book, and he makes very 
clear that this was a policy they hoped somehow would all add up, and 
it did not. It was a miserable failure that dug a very deep hole for 
this country.
  Mr. President, the facts are very clear. This is the record. Nobody 
can dispute these numbers. This is what happened.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 4007

  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to advise the chairman of the 
committee we have good news; a Senator has arrived in the Chamber to 
talk about an amendment. The amendment was previously offered but the 
Senator from Florida seeks recognition, and at this time I hope we 
could allot him 5 minutes charged jointly against the two sides.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection to the time allocation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on Friday I filed amendment No. 4007, 
reserving the time to discuss that amendment until today. I wish to use 
at least 5 minutes to review this very terse but important amendment.
  This amendment, Mr. President, provides that any funds which were 
derived by the more aggressive attack on Medicare fraud would be 
returned to the Medicare trust fund. We are facing two interrelated 
challenges. One is combating the rampant level of fraud which exists 
within our Medicare program and second is ensuring the solvency of the 
Medicare trust fund.
  It has been estimated by the General Accounting Office that the rate 
of Medicare waste, fraud and abuse is approximately 10 percent and in 
some areas of the country is estimated to be twice that amount. If we 
could use even the more conservative estimate, an additional 2 million 
seniors could be served each year through Medicare just by reducing the 
level of Medicare fraud.
  Medicare fraud ought to be the first place we look when we are 
considering reductions in the Medicare Program. Fraud undermines public 
confidence in Medicare. It is a very cost-efficient expenditure. One 
dollar spent on suppressing Medicare fraud on average will return in 
excess of $10 in reduced costs.
  There are a number of solutions, many of which have been contained in 
legislation adopted by this Senate, which will allow for a 
comprehensive assault on Medicare fraud. We have prescriptions such as 
using the Medicare Federal hospital insurance trust fund as part of the 
source of financing, more effective investigations and prosecutions of 
Medicare fraud. It is the intent that those savings derived by that 
more effective effort be returned to the trust fund both to reimburse 
for the expenses that have come out of the trust fund for the 
investigations and prosecutions and also the return to the trust fund 
some of the money which was pilfered from it by the fraud itself.

  Unfortunately, Mr. President, these efforts to assure that the 
savings derived by effective programs against Medicare fraud end up 
benefiting the trust fund for Medicare have been under assault. There 
are proposals, for instance, to divert these funds into new Federal 
spending efforts, efforts that are outside of the Medicare trust fund. 
There are also proposals to use it to finance new tax breaks.
  As worthy as those other spending efforts or additional tax 
reductions might be, it is not appropriate to use funds derived from 
the Medicare trust fund through the efforts to suppress fraud which it 
finances for any purpose other than assuring the solvency of the 
Medicare trust fund.
  So the amendment I have filed, which is amendment No. 4007, 
essentially establishes, as do other provisions within this budget 
recollection bill, a point of order which states, ``It shall not be in 
order for the Senate to consider any reconciliation bill, conference 
report or otherwise which 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.''
  So that is the essence of the amendment. It is to provide procedural 
protections to assure this Senate, to assure the American people, and 
especially to assure the over 35 million Americans who depend upon the 
Medicare trust fund for their hospital payments, that any funds which 
are pilfered from that trust fund, any funds which are used from that 
trust fund for purposes of effective enforcement will be for the 
benefit of the trust fund.
  I urge adoption of this amendment. I thank the Chair. I thank my 
colleague.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes from our time to the 
Senator from South Carolina.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me get right to the point of the 
statement I made back in 1980 when I was chairman of the Budget 
Committee and Mr. Giaimo of Connecticut, was chairman on the House 
side. Before I could get these records I put in a call to him. He is 
down in Florida just below Palm Beach. He verified my memory. Lots of 
times my memory is pretty good way back, and very precise, and then I 
cannot remember where I parked the car, so I always like to double 
check when I just speak from memory. He verified that Mr. Bellmon was 
the ranking member on the Senate side, and he and all the records show 
that the bill was not a reconciliation bill. There were not any 
reconciliation instructions in the fiscal `76 concurrent resolution on 
the budget, and the tax bill offered by Senator Long of Louisiana as 
the chairman of the Finance Committee was not a part of reconciliation.
  I thank the distinguished Senator.


                           Amendment No. 3986

  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  I would yield myself 5 minutes to speak on and in relation to 
amendment No. 3986 by Senators Wellstone and Kerry. This is an 
amendment which pertains to the violent crime reduction trust fund. It 
is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Since the time has not been yielded 
back, I am not in a position at this point to offer a second-degree 
amendment that I had considered, but I anticipate doing that at the 
appropriate moment.
  I do want to speak in relation to this issue though because I think 
it is a fairly significant one. The sense-of-the-Senate amendment that 
has been offered talks in terms of full funding of the violent crime 
reduction trust fund. I think, Mr. President, we should go further than 
just put this in the context of a sense of the Senate. Indeed, my 
intention is to offer a second-degree amendment which would accomplish 
the goal of fully funding the violent crime trust fund by moving moneys 
for the years 2001 and 2002 from function 600. It is my view that we 
should also stop, the administration should be much more up front and 
much more consistent with regard to the facts concerning the COPS 
Program, and I think in addition that we should take action to minimize 
the administrative overhead in relation to the COPS Program. The 
second-degree amendment which I will offer tomorrow along with Senator 
Coverdell would try to accomplish both of these objectives. 
Specifically, under the current law the violent crime trust fund is

[[Page S5429]]

set to expire in the year 2000, just 4 years from now.
  This amendment that we intend to offer would provide the funds to 
keep it going to the year 2002. That would mean funds for the prison 
grants; the GREAT Program; Violence-Against-Women Program; violent 
crime reduction programs for the Justice Department; INS, DEA, FBI; 
funding for the immigration initiative and border control programs; 
Byrne grants, and the COPS Program.
  We will be offering this amendment in due course to the Wellstone 
amendment because we feel the issue deserves more than just the sense-
of-the-Senate recognition. We believe the trust fund needs to be 
protected. The underlying Republican budget already fully funds the 
trust fund. We plan to carry it forward through the year 2002.
  In terms of the offset, it is our belief to fund this there would be 
corresponding reductions to function 600 in the budget. For those 
Members who might argue we should not be reducing this function below 
what was reported by the Senate Budget Committee, I point out that the 
Republican budget includes significantly more funding under function 
600 in the years 2001 and 2002 than the President's budget that we 
voted on last week.
  Specifically, over those 2 years the Republican budget currently 
exceeds the President's budget in the following areas: Low-income 
housing, $4.26 billion more; refugee and entrant assistance, $189 
million more; child care and development block grants, $330 million, 
the WIC program, over $1 billion more, and the Commodity Assistance 
Program, $66 million more.
  In other words, even after the amendment we would plan to bring 
tomorrow is adopted, the Republican budget will still provide more 
funding for these programs within the 600 function than the budget that 
the President has offered. At the same time, it would give us the 
ability to fully fund the violent crime trust fund.
  So at this point I conclude my remarks in that I must become the 
Presiding Officer here. I will be yielding time to the Senator from 
Georgia so that he might make further comment on this. At this point I 
call upon him.
  Mr. EXON addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I ask how much time the Senator from 
Georgia will need? We have had several speakers. We generally go back 
and forth. How much time does the Senator wish?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. If the Senator from Delaware would like to go ahead, I 
think actually the Senator from Georgia will take over this seat so he 
can take it upon himself.
  Mr. EXON. With that understanding, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes at 
this time to the Senator from Delaware. I believe under the rules he 
will be talking on an amendment, so the time should be charged on the 
amendment, which takes it jointly off of each side's time.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the manager. I was going to respond 
very, very briefly to the Senator from Michigan who just spoke about 
the violent crime trust fund. As the author of that trust fund, I am 
saying I am delighted to see so many Republicans coming aboard now, 
having voted against the establishment of that fund.
  I agree what the House did was outrageous and the proposals to cut 
the violent crime trust fund are equally outrageous. I want to point 
out, I want to remind everybody how we funded that. The Senator from 
Texas, Senator Gramm, was a cosponsor of the funding of that. We cut it 
by agreeing to do what none of the previous Presidents had done, cut 
the Federal work force by 272,000 people: No new taxes. No new taxes. 
We funded it for 6 years.
  Now I welcome the support for the trust fund and the recognition of 
the need for it, the recognition it may make sense to extend it beyond 
the 6 years for which we authorized it. The fact of the matter is, when 
I introduced that legislation and it was passed with six Republican 
votes--excuse my reference to partisanship here, but I find everybody 
is cutting the COPS program, they come and cut the prevention programs, 
there are fights on the floor here under the Republican leadership to 
cut the violence-against-women legislation--now I have Republican 
leadership talking about not only liking the trust fund but wanting to 
extend it another 2 years. I think that is a very worthwhile thing to 
do.

  I hope, if there is a genuine intent to do that, we will first make 
sure you all sign on and we are not going to cut the trust fund now. We 
did not fully fund the crime bill trust fund, which is now the crime 
law trust fund, last year to the extent that there was money in the 
trust fund in 1996. The House did not fully fund the trust fund this 
year. We did not and are not fully funding it. The money is there. We 
are not spending any money that had not had the nickel dropped in the 
box. You take a worker's paycheck who no longer works for the Federal 
Government and you put it in the box and you hire a cop, you build a 
prison cell, you go out and deal with a serious prevention program like 
the drug courts, you go out and make sure you build more boys clubs and 
girls clubs.
  So, I hope we are all singing from the same page here and that is 
that, A, by definition, the crime bill must be pretty good if we are 
extending the trust fund; B, if we are going to extend the trust fund 
another 2 years we should spend all that is in the trust fund for its 
stated purposes; and, C, I hope we are not going to decide we are going 
to keep kids out of crime, and trouble, and the drug stream by taking 
away the WIC program or taking away other programs to fund the COPS. 
There are better ways to do it.
  But I am anxious and willing and delighted that there is the support 
for the full funding of the trust fund and the extension of the trust 
fund.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as the manager I yield myself 3 minutes 
to support the statement you made, Mr. President, and the amendment to 
be offered tomorrow. I appreciate it, understanding the history of this 
from the Senator from Delaware. My support for his amendment is based 
in conjunction with setting of priorities. When we passed the crime 
bill we were told we were going to put 100,000 police officers on the 
street. Then, on May 12, 1996, George Stephanopoulos of the White House 
claimed under this COPS Program it would not be 100,000 police 
officers, it would be 43,000 police officers. And then on Thursday, May 
16 --that is just several days ago--the Attorney General, Janet Reno, 
stated, ``What I am advised is there are 17,000 officers that can be 
identified as being on the streets,'' as a result of the COPS Program. 
So, from 100,000 to 43,000 now we are down to 17,000 officers.
  I think it is appropriate that if it is less than 20 percent of what 
is promised we ought to adjust the appropriation for that program, 
which is of course what your amendment does, Mr. President.
  In reviewing the COPS officials efforts in their expenditures, I find 
they rented a 10-floor, 51,000 square foot office building to 
administer the program at a cost of $1.5 million a year. I would rather 
reinforce the priorities that were just enumerated by the Senator from 
Delaware than this typical Washington bureaucracy.
  They have five full-time Washington public relations specialists. 
What are they there for? Do we need public relations specialists to 
deal with putting cops on the street? The answer is no.
  In the 1995 budget, this program spent $10 million on administrative 
costs alone, funding 130 positions. Meanwhile the administration 
reduced by 100 positions the drug czar's office and only recently has 
indicated that would be repaired.
  For fiscal year 1996 this program proposed to double--double the 
number of administrative officers to 310 positions. Management and 
administration would reach over $29 million by fiscal year 1997, under 
the President's proposal.
  So, what we have here is a program that was much touted that would 
put 100,000 cops on the street; Then we said no, it is only 43,000, but 
the Justice Department verified that less than 20 percent, only 17 
percent of that program has been fulfilled. The reason is, it is bait 
and switch. It gets the community into the program but then after 3 
years the community is stuck with the bill.
  In the meantime, the administrative support of the program has it as 
if we had the whole shebang out on the

[[Page S5430]]

street. So it is time to scale back these administrative positions, 
this 10-story building, this 51,000 square feet, and get the 
administration down to the level commensurate with the actual product 
that this program has produced.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and I will not do 
this again to my friend--that I have 3 more minutes.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. My friend from Georgia has his facts wrong, with all due 
respect. What the administration said was, we have already funded, of 
the 100,000 cops, 43,000 to date. When the Republicans were telling us 
we would not get 20,000, remember Charlton Heston, ``Moses,'' was on TV 
saying this is only 20,000 cops from the entire 6 years of the program.
  We have already funded--who being recruited, being hired and being 
trained--43,000 cops already. Already. And because of the Biden crime 
bill, there are 17,000 of these 43,000 cops on the streets as we speak, 
with the remaining 26,000 having been funded and in the process of 
being recruited, hired and trained.
  Now, in terms of administrative costs, I challenge any of my 
Republican friends to pick up the phone and call any one of their local 
police agencies and ask them about the bureaucratic morass in cost. We 
insisted this get down to a one-page application. All the cops need do 
is send in a one-page application. It has been the most stunningly 
successful nonbureaucratic program that has been around in the last 20 
years.
  No. 2, cost, administrative costs, 10-story building, whatever that 
was about. The 100,000 cops has administrative costs of just over 1 
percent, just over 1 percent administrative cost for putting 100,000 
cops on the street over the duration of the bill, which takes 6 years.
  My Republican friends have come along with this brilliant idea of a 
block grant. You know what they factor in for the block grant? Three 
percent overhead. The 100,000 cops program is one-third or one-half 
below what the Republican proposal calls for in the block grant 
proposal. It is actually less than the block grant. This is, with all 
due respect, poppycock.
  Folks, nobody thought a year after this program was underway we would 
have it going, the administration--any administration--would have it 
going as well as it is: 17,000 cops making arrests as we speak because 
of Federal funding for cops that did not exist a year and a half ago; 
at total of 43,000 funded being recruited, being hired and being 
trained as a consequence of the crime bill right now. Right now. We 
have not gotten to 100,000 yet. No one said that. It was always said it 
would take the duration of time to get to the full 100,000.
  The last thing, in 3 years they are going to have to pay their own 
way--
  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I do not want to get into extended debate.
  Mr. BIDEN. I would love to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I do want to read the quote:

       Next week, 43,000 of the 100,000 cops will be on the 
     street.

  That is the quote.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in response, that is Mr. Stephanopoulos, 
who knows about one-fiftieth of this as I do. He is not the Attorney 
General; he is not anyone. He makes mistakes on occasion. What he meant 
to say, I am sure, is 43,000 funded and being recruited, being hired. 
You get recruited and hired before you go into training. You are not on 
the street yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Delaware has 
expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask that it be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, referring again to the Record made back 
in 1975. The Parliamentarian points out the fact that Senator Muskie 
called it the reconciliation bill in that 1975 discourse. The truth of 
the matter is Senator Hartke raised that point.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum while I search for 
the particular quote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS. I just reviewed the particular statement by Senator 
Muskie back in 1975. As I alluded in my original remarks, Senator 
Hartke of Indiana said, ``Where do you get that this is a 
reconciliation bill? There is no reference.'' Senator Muskie said, 
``That is what Senator Long called it.'' He said, ``Just by calling it 
that, does it make it a reconciliation bill?''
  I was going to read the exact quote, but I think the full Record 
should be included here at this point with respect to that special act 
in 1975. It is used as the authority that was a reconciliation bill. It 
responded to the second concurrent resolution.
  You read that Record. Mr. Muskie came on the floor at that particular 
time. He was catching up with what Chairman Long of Finance was doing 
and was trying to justify it. But the truth of the matter is, the 
Record will clearly show that the tax bill was only in response to the 
second concurrent budget resolution and not any reconciliation 
instructions. That was brought out by Senator Hartke. The exact 
discourse will be included in the Record. I had it here.
  Mr. President, I 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:

             [From the Congressional Record, Dec. 15, 1975]

       Mr. Muskie. Mr. President, I think this might be a good 
     point, with somewhat of a lag in floor discussion, to discuss 
     the pending legislation, as chairman of the Budget Committee. 
     I shall speak briefly of the relationship of the tax 
     reductions contained in H.R. 5559 and the requirements of the 
     congressional budget process.
       The second concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 
     1976, which is now binding upon Congress, provides for 
     extension of the temporary antirecession tax cuts of 1975 at 
     a level which will maintain current tax withholding rates 
     until the end of June 1976. The resolution mandated the 
     Finance and Ways and Means Committees to report such 
     legislation--specifically, legislation which would decrease 
     fiscal year 1976 revenues by approximately $6.4 billion less 
     than what they would be under existing law. H.R. 5559 meets 
     this standard.
       Extension through June 30, 1976, of the temporary lower 
     withholding rates established last spring will allow adequate 
     time for Congress carefully to develop budget targets for 
     fiscal year 1977 including an overall spending ceiling and 
     revenue floor. These targets will be established in the first 
     concurrent resolution to be adopted by Congress next May. 
     This schedule will allow Congress to establish reasoned and 
     accurate fiscal year 1977 spending and revenue decisions at 
     the first available opportunity under the new congressional 
     budget discipline. If Congress determines at that time to 
     further extend or alter the original 1975 tax reductions, 
     legislation to implement that decision can be enacted before 
     the June 30, 1976, expiration date.
       I would also like to take this opportunity to praise the 
     Finance Committee, and particularly its chairman, the 
     distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Senator Long, for so 
     closely integrating the vital work of the Finance Committee 
     into the framework of the new congressional budget process. 
     Decisions affecting Government revenue levels are vital both 
     to eliminating future budget deficits and to maintaining the 
     momentum toward economic recovery. Thus, the close 
     coordination of the tax writing committees with the budget 
     process is essential if the process is to be successful.

[[Page S5431]]

       The fact that H.R. 5559, as reported by the Finance 
     Committee, meets the reconciliation instruction in the second 
     concurrent budget resolution is proof of the commitment of 
     the Finance Committee to the successful working of the new 
     budget process.
       Since H.R. 5559 constitutes the first so-called 
     reconciliation bill required to be reported in the Senate 
     under the Budget Act, I would also like to explain very 
     briefly how reconciliation bills fit into the overall budget 
     process.
       In recent months, I periodically informed the Senate as to 
     the consistency of various bills with the budget targets 
     established by the first concurrent resolution last spring. 
     Subsequently, the second concurrent budget resolution has 
     just been adopted which establishes binding overall revenue, 
     spending, and debt figures for fiscal year 1976.
       The Budget Act provides a special procedure to insure rapid 
     enactment of legislation to bring current congressional 
     legislative programs into line with the figures established 
     in the second concurrent resolution. This legislation--which 
     can affect spending authority, budget authority, revenues, or 
     the public debt limit--is known as a reconciliation bill. 
     After enactment of the reconciliation legislation, the focus 
     of the budget process will shift to insuring that subsequent 
     legislation does not breach the second resolution figures.
       The Budget Act provides that legislation subsequent to a 
     reconciliation bill will be subject to a point of order if it 
     causes either expenditures to exceed the relevant spending 
     ceilings or revenues to fall below the revenue floor 
     established in the second concurrent resolution.
       With respect to reconciliation bills affecting either 
     spending or revenues, the Budget Act requires they fully 
     carry out the reconciliation instructions given in the second 
     concurrent resolution. The act further provides that no 
     amendment not germane to the provisions of that 
     reconciliation bill is in order.
       Therefore, in the case of the present second resolution 
     requirement that fiscal year 1976 revenues be reduced by 
     approximately $6.4 billion, amendments to the reconciliation 
     bill which would further reduce revenues more than $6.4 
     billion or raise revenues above the $300.8 billion set as the 
     appropriate revenue floor for fiscal year 1976 would be out 
     of order.
       The Budget Committee looks forward to working with the 
     Finance Committee in enforcing the revenue floor and spending 
     ceilings after this legislation is adopted.
       May I make the point that this is the point at which we 
     move beyond persuasion, which has worked very effectively and 
     to my satisfaction, up to this point, to the discipline of a 
     point of order.
       Mr. Hartke. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
       Mr. Muskie. Yes, I yield to my good friend.
       Mr. Hartke. How does this bill, which is the pending 
     business, become a reconciliation bill without being 
     designated a reconciliation bill?
       Mr. Muskie. I think that when we see an apple that looks 
     like an apple, we call it an apple.
       Mr. Hartke. How can we say this bill is the specific 
     reconciliation bill?
       Mr. Muskie. If it is not that, then it is out of order, as 
     to cutting revenues.
       In the first place, I understand the manager of the bill 
     has described it as a reconciliation bill. But beyond that, 
     the only revenue cut that is permitted under the second 
     concurrent resolution is a cut of $6.4 billion. If this bill 
     is not the instrument for achieving that cut, the assumption 
     would have to be, I guess, that a bill is coming along that 
     would. In that case, this bill, being extraneous to that, 
     could be held to be out of order. But I think that is a 
     semantic discussion. We do not mandate the words. All we 
     do is mandate the action.
       When I say ``we,'' I am talking about Congress as a whole.
       Mr. Hartke. In other words, the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget has made an assumption that this is a 
     reconciliation bill.
       Mr. Muskie. No, may I say, the chairman of the Committee on 
     Finance has told me it is a reconciliation bill.
       Mr. Hartke. The chairman of the Finance Committee can make 
     a statement, but that does not make it the situation. The 
     Committee on Finance has not acted upon this being a 
     reconciliation bill. There is no record of its being a 
     reconciliation bill; there is no mention of it in the report 
     as being a reconciliation bill. Therefore, I think a point of 
     order would not be well taken in regard to any amendment, 
     because it is not a reconciliation bill. This is a tax 
     reduction bill.
       I can see where the Senator may assume, but it is an 
     assumption which is not based on a fact.
       Mr. Muskie. May I make my point as simply as possible? The 
     second resolution does not permit tax reductions beyond $6.4 
     billion. If the Senator chooses to say that the proposed tax 
     reduction does not come in a legislative vehicle that could 
     properly be described as a reconciliation bill, still, in my 
     judgment, he cannot escape the point that if it is not that, 
     it is, nevertheless, out of order if it exceeds $6.4 billion.
       I really do not know why the Senator is chasing his own 
     tail.
       Mr. Hartke. I am not chasing my tail. I will point out, 
     very simply, that in my judgment, this is a case where two 
     Senators have gotten together and agreed that this is 
     reconciliation bill and there is nothing in the record to 
     show that it is a reconciliation bill.
       Mr. Muskie. May I say to the Senator, I have never 
     discussed this with Senator Long. If the Senator says I have 
     gotten together with him, the only way in which we have 
     gotten together is that the second concurrent resolution 
     mandates a tax reduction of $6.4 billion and the chairman of 
     the Committee on Finance has reported a bill which reduces 
     revenues approximately $6.4 billion. In that open and 
     nonconspiratorial way have the Committee on Finance and the 
     Committee on the Budget ``gotten together,'' in the words of 
     the Senator.
       Mr. Hartke. Let us avoid any conspiracy, but the fact is 
     that I think there are not very many, if any, Senators on 
     this floor that had the idea that this bill would not be 
     subject to amendment, other than the fact that there was a 
     unanimous-consent agreement, which is an entirely different 
     proposition. The germaneness rule only comes into effect if 
     this is a reconciliation bill.
       Mr. Muskie. Why does the Senator not test the point? He is 
     not going to persuade me of it.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 4025

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the funding of 
                                Amtrak)

  Mr. EXON. On behalf of Senator Roth, with myself as a cosponsor, I 
send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] for Mr. Roth, for 
     himself and Mr. Exon, proposes an amendment numbered 4025.

  Mr. EXON. 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 THE FUNDING OF AMTRAK.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) a capital funding stream is essential to the ability of 
     the National Rail Passenger Corporation (``Amtrak'') to 
     reduce its dependence on Federal operating support; and
       (2) Amtrak needs a secure source of financing, no less 
     favorable than provided to other modes of transportation, for 
     capital improvements.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) revenues attributable to one-half cent per gallon of 
     the excise taxes imposed on gasoline, special motor fuel, and 
     diesel fuel from the Mass Transit Account should be dedicated 
     to a new Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund during the 
     period January 1, 1997, through September 30, 2001;
       (2) revenues would not be deposited in the Intercity 
     Passenger Rail Trust Fund during any fiscal year to the 
     extent that the deposit is estimated to result in available 
     revenues in the Mass Transit Account being insufficient to 
     satisfy that year's estimated appropriation levels;
       (3) monies in the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund 
     should be generally available to fund, on a reimbursement 
     basis, capital expenditures incurred by Amtrak; and
       (4) amounts to fund capital expenditures related to rail 
     operations should be set aside for each State that has not 
     had Amtrak service in such State for the preceding year.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to offer a sense-of-the-Senate 
regarding funding for Amtrak. My amendment has a very simple and 
important purpose. It states that Congress should establish a secure 
source of financing, no less favorable than that provided to other 
transportation modes, for capital improvements to intercity passenger 
rail.
  Recognizing Amtrak's severe needs for capital investment, I have 
introduced a bill, S. 1395, that would give Amtrak a dedicated source 
of funding. This legislation has already been approved by both the 
Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee. The 
legislation creates a new intercity passenger rail trust fund which 
would be funded by transferring revenues from the one-half cent excise 
tax that is currently going into the mass transit account. If this 
legislation is enacted, Amtrak would be able to use $2.8 billion over 5 
years for capital improvements, and States that do not have Amtrak 
service would be able to fund capital expenditures related to rail 
operations.
  Some of my colleagues have argued that taking one-half cent from the 
mass transit account would hurt the viability of this account. I would 
like

[[Page S5432]]

to clarify that the establishment of the intercity passenger rail trust 
fund would not have an adverse impact on mass transit or any other 
modes of transportation. There is currently a large unspent balance in 
the mass transit account, totaling about $10 billion. My legislation 
would only cost $2.8 billion over five. To ensure that the mass transit 
account would not be adversely affected by transferring the one-half 
cent, the bill provides that Amtrak would be prevented from receiving 
any funds from the rail trust fund if the balance in the mass transit 
account is insufficient to cover transit spending for the current and 
following fiscal years. Current projections indicate that this would 
not occur over the 5-year life of the rail trust fund.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all working toward an Amtrak which operates 
without a Federal operating subsidy, which provides quality service, 
and which is financially stable. Amtrak now covers approximately 80 
percent of its operating costs with self-generated revenue, up from 
just 48 percent in 1981. Yet we also know that no intercity rail 
passenger service anywhere in the world operates without some degree of 
public sector financial support.
  Mr. Chairman, if Amtrak is to stay alive and become economically 
healthy, there is no doubt that it will need the labor and management 
reforms contained in the Amtrak authorization bill which I know 
Senators Lott and Pressler and other Members hope to see enacted this 
year. Amtrak will need to continue to do its own internal 
restructuring. It will also need a dedicated trust fund to support 
capital needs in the same way we provide capital for highways and 
airports.
  Investment in all modes of transportation is important, but we have 
gone about it in a lop-sided way. Purchasing power for Federal highway 
programs has increased by 48 percent from 1982 to 1996. It has 
increased 78 percent for aviation, but has decreased 46 percent for 
passenger rail. In fact, Amtrak currently receives less than 3 percent 
of all Federal transportation spending. To attain balance, we must 
balance our financial support to all transportation components, 
including passenger rail service.
  As I have stated before, a secure source of capital funding is 
necessary for Amtrak's future economic health. New capital investments 
will allow Amtrak to operate more efficiently. With new equipment, 
Amtrak will attract substantial new ridership--bringing with it 
increased revenues and allowing Amtrak to eliminate its dependence on 
Federal operating subsidies. It currently costs Amtrak $60 million per 
year to operate and maintain its old equipment, which frequently breaks 
down and often requires parts to be specially made.
  As a Senator living along the Northeast corridor, I cannot stress how 
important it is that we have intercity rail service. Depending on the 
Senate schedule, I ride the train almost daily between Wilmington and 
Washington. Without Amtrak, I would not be able to live in Wilmington 
and work in Washington.
  Here in the Northeast, Amtrak is the dominant public carrier, with 
more than 10 million riders a year. Between Washington and New York it 
takes care of 43 percent of the combined air/rail passenger market. The 
need for rail service is also growing in other parts of America. For 
example, Amtrak service between San Diego and Los Angeles serves two 
million people. Routes also are growing between New York and Boston; 
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Detroit; and between Portland and 
Seattle. In fact, many of our rural communities are almost completely 
dependent on Amtrak for their transportation needs.
  As someone concerned not only about the environment, but about 
traffic congestion, especially in the Northeast, where we lack the 
lands and resources for new roads, I am a proponent of Amtrak.
  Simply put, Amtrak is safe, fuel efficient, speedy and the best 
transportation alternative for millions of Americans. It's $2.2 billion 
budget directly generates some 25,000 jobs nationwide, and more than 
than 33 million Americans across the country commute to work on Amtrak-
operated systems throughout the country. I am grateful for the service 
Amtrak provides me and the thousands of men and women who depend every 
day on Amtrak.
  If Congress hopes to privatize Amtrak in the next 5 years, and if we 
support continued intercity passenger rail service--service that is 
vital to both rural and urban areas--we must vote for a dedicated trust 
fund for Amtrak.
  Mr. President, thank you and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution offered by the Senator from Delaware that would 
allow Amtrak to invade the highway trust fund for its financial wants.
  Under this plan, Amtrak would divert one-half cent per gallon of the 
highway automobile fuel tax, from the mass transit account of the 
highway trust fund, and into a new trust fund designed to benefit 
Amtrak trains. By voting for this resolution, Senators would vote to 
classify much of this entirely new spending from this new trust fund as 
direct spending under the Budget Enforcement Act. Thus, this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution resolves the Senate to both plunder the highway 
trust fund and create a new entitlement. Now is not the time to create 
new entitlements; now is the time to show our sincerity in balancing 
the Federal budget.
  Mr. President, Senators should vote against this Amtrak resolution 
because it steals much needed capitol funds from our country's mass 
transit systems. And let me remind my colleagues that Amtrak is not the 
same as your local mass transit system. Both may carry significant 
numbers of passengers when compared to the private automobile, but the 
similarities end there and the differences begin. Local mass transit 
carries the working poor, disabled and the elderly to jobs, to local 
clothing and grocery stores, to medical services, and other amenities 
of the local community. These are people who do not have access to 
other modes of transportation and are highly dependent on the local 
mass transit system. Mass transit carries more people in 1 day than 
Amtrak carries in 1 year.
  Let me also remind my colleagues that 60 percent of the cuts made in 
the fiscal year 1996 transportation appropriations came from mass 
transit.
  Amtrak, on the other hand, has a very different ridership. A study 
states that ``travel on Amtrak by persons with incomes above $40,000 is 
3.5 times higher than intercity buses and nearly 1.5 times higher than 
airlines.'' This is not the working poor trying to get to their job, or 
the elderly to medical care. It is all well and good to buy new scenic 
cruisers and build train stations in New York, but not at the expense 
of getting people to their jobs, or to the doctor.
  Mr. President, on May 6 the White House issued a statement of 
administration policy on S. 1318, which reauthorized Amtrak. I as 
unanimous consent that that statement be entered into the Record after 
my remarks. It is clear from that statement that the administration has 
deep concerns about changing Amtrak's funding. In that statement the 
Office of Management and Budget ``strongly opposes'' providing Amtrak 
appropriated funds on an accelerated basis, fearing that this ``would 
unnecessarily increase Federal borrowing costs.'' They also oppose 
``subordinating the Federal interest as a creditor in the event of a 
default under the section 511 loan program'' and the proposed Federal 
guarantee of new borrowing authority for Amtrak authorized in this 
legislation.
  I have to ask my friend from Delaware if he intends to create a new 
tax to subsidize Amtrak as a follow-up to his sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution?
  I ask this because my reading of the amendment is that revenues taken 
from the highway trust fund and re-routed to Amtrak shall be re-routed 
between the period of January 1, 1997, through September 30, 2001.
  However, my reading of the Tax Code (Sec. 9503, 1996 Cumulative 
Annual Pocket Part, West Publishing Company, 1996.) tells me that the 
fuel tax for the highway trust fund expires on September 30, 1999. 
Thus, under current law there will be no revenues for 2 full years of 
this subsidy, if this subsidy were law. Indeed, under current law, the 
only automobile fuel tax that will survive after September 30, 1999, is 
President Clinton's 1993 4.3-cent-per-gallon fuel

[[Page S5433]]

tax increase for the general fund that so many of my colleagues in the 
Senate oppose.
  Therefore, I again would like to ask my friend from Delaware if he 
intends to increase highway taxes in the future, and is this the first 
step toward that tax increase?
  If Amtrak needs the Senate to sustain or increase a tax, then I 
especially urge all of my colleagues who oppose tax increases to 
consistently oppose this Amtrak sense of the Senate because, like all 
other tax increases, it will hit the pocketbooks of taxpaying 
Americans.
  Senators should vote against this Amtrak train invasion of the 
highway trust fund because this proposed new Amtrak trust fund 
contradicts any efforts to balance the budget. Senate bill No. 1395 
outlines the plan for the new Amtrak trust fund. That bill legislates 
direct spending from the highway trust fund, through the new Amtrak 
trust fund, and into Amtrak. I believe that Congress should not now be 
creating a new and special entitlement for Amtrak while at the same 
time we are reducing the growth of other more important entitlements 
that affect many more Americans. We in the Senate are in an historic 
and difficult process of offering this Nation a balanced budget. If 
this budget succeeds, it will be the first balanced budget enacted 
since 1969. While attempting to achieve a balanced budget plan for 
fiscal 1996, many in Congress have already made painful sacrifices. The 
budget resolution for 1997 requires that many of us repeat those same 
sacrifices. Given the choice, Mr. President, many of us might rather 
spend the necessary revenue offsets to increase funding for Medicare or 
Medicaid or for the protection of the environment. Therefore, it is 
inappropriate that Congress would at this same time create a new 
entitlement for Amtrak.
  Mr. President, this Amtrak resolution further cuts against a balanced 
budget because it is new spending. As the second most senior Republican 
Member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am here to remind everyone 
that the highway trust funds are on the budget. Though there is a 
separate account for the highway trust funds, there is no separate 
book. Any new and additional spending for Amtrak is to feed yet another 
hungry mouth, and yet another break in our fiscal dam. Therefore, in 
our budget balancing efforts, funding Amtrak from an existing source 
still requires that the Senate either raise someone else's taxes, or 
cut someone else's spending without a thorough review. I am against 
both. I want to balance the budget.
  Additionally, I will say that though this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution regards a revenue bill, the Senate Committee on Finance has 
held no hearings on the underlying bill, nor has it held a general 
hearing on the Amtrak train's invasion of the automobile driver's 
highway trust fund moneys.
  In summary, Mr. President, a vote in favor of this Amtrak sense of 
the Senate is a vote against highways and against automobile drivers. 
It is a vote in favor of corporate welfare and against Medicare and 
Medicaid beneficiaries. Indeed, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution for 
Amtrak is a vote against a balanced budget.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this 
resolution to bail out Amtrak by invading the automobile driver's 
highway trust fund and creating new spending.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement of 
administration policy be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy


           S. 1318--Amtrak and Local Rail Revitalization Act

       The Administration agrees with the thrust of S. 1318, to 
     enable Amtrak to respond to consumer needs and market 
     realities and to free itself from Federal subsidies. Although 
     S. 1318 includes many provisions to that end, some of its 
     provisions could impede achievement of these objectives or 
     impose other unnecessary burdens.
       The Administration is generally opposed to the imposition 
     of arbitrary caps on punitive damage amounts, and would 
     strongly oppose the inclusion of any provision in S. 1318 
     imposing such caps.
       The Administration also strongly opposes the requirement 
     that appropriated funds be provided to Amtrak on an 
     accelerated basis. This requirement, which is not necessary 
     to support Amtrak's operations, would shift $659 million of 
     Federal outlays to FY 1996 that would occur, under current 
     law, in FY 1997 and FY 1998. This would unnecessarily 
     increase Federal borrowing costs.
       In addition, the Administration strongly opposes Senate 
     passage of S. 1318 unless it is amended to:
       Delete the provisions for a permanent authorization of 
     appropriations for the Local Rail Freight Assistance Program 
     (LRFAP), and modifications to the section 511 loan program. 
     The President did not request, and Congress did not provide, 
     any appropriations for LRFAP for the current fiscal year. The 
     rail freight industry has clearly established its ability to 
     operate without Federal subsidies or loans. Any future 
     decisions to subsidize the rail freight industry should be 
     made by local State governments in the context of their 
     overall transportation planning, not by the Federal 
     Government.
       Delete the provision which would subordinate the Federal 
     interest as a creditor in the event of a default under the 
     section 511 loan program. Such provisions increase the risk, 
     and therefore the ``subsidy rate,'' of loans guaranteed under 
     this program, thereby reducing the number of loans which 
     could be made with the resources available.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, just briefly, what this amendment is is a 
proposition that we have been talking about for a long time, to provide 
some funding, badly needed funding, for the Amtrak system. The 
amendment speaks for itself. I simply ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  How much time would the Senator from Washington like?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Two minutes.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington. Is this 
on an amendment or another subject?
  Mrs. MURRAY. On an amendment.
  Mr. EXON. On an amendment the time would be equally divided. I yield 
the Senator from Washington 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me just take this opportunity to also thank the ranking member of 
our Budget Committee, Senator Exon, for the excellent job he has done 
over the past several days managing the budget and being a spokesperson 
for all of us.


                           Amendment No. 3991

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to remind all of my 
colleagues that one of the most important amendments that we are 
considering tomorrow is the Kerry-Murray amendment that adds $56 
billion to function 500. That is the function in the budget that covers 
education and the investment in our young people.
  I wanted to rise today to ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record articles from the Seattle PI that did a survey that shows 
the No. 1 issue in my home State is education. I believe this is 
replicated around the country. In fact, USA Today had a poll recently 
that said this is the No. 1 issue to voters.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 20, 1996]

              Daily Worries Concern Voters Most, Poll Says


                 schools, jobs overshadow other issues

                            (By Neil Modie)

       Meat-and-potatoes concerns--taxes, jobs and the economy--
     loom large in the minds of Washington voters as they look 
     toward this fall's elections. As a single issue, however, 
     education tops them all.
       A new poll, the Mood of Washington, shows the electorate 
     cares far less about the hot-potato issues--abortion, gun 
     control, gay rights--that apparently heat up political party 
     caucuses, TV screens and news pages more than they do the 
     voting booths.
       Most voters polled said they feel less safe than they did 
     four years ago. They think the public school system is 
     declining and feel they must struggle harder to maintain 
     their standards of living.
       When family and pocketbook issues preoccupy people, they 
     show little interest in the hot-button topics, observed Bruce 
     Pinkleton, a public opinion researcher at Washington State 
     University.
       ``When people are concerned about job security and other, 
     related issues, then some of the other (more emotional) 
     issues become less central to their decision making,'' said 
     Pinkleton; who conducted the poll along with Joey Reagan, a 
     fellow researcher who also works at WSU.
       Surveyors polled 556 of the state's registered voters 
     between April 24-30 in a collaborative project by The 
     Associated Press

[[Page S5434]]

     and 12 state newspapers, including the Post-Intelligencer, 
     the Olympian, the Tacoma News Tribune, the Herald in Everett 
     and the Sun in Bremerton.
       Worry about the state of public schools is widespread. 
     Nearly six in 10 voters polled believe public education is 
     worse than it was four years ago. And a slightly higher 
     number agreed that the education in Washington is 
     underfunded.
       I think education should get a better slice of the budget 
     pie and I would be willing to pay more taxes (to pay for 
     it),'' Judith Jenkins Harlin, a poll respondent from Redmond, 
     said in a interview. She is a homemaker, mother and school 
     volunteer who has been trained as a teacher.
       Cricket Hamilton, an Olympia search-and-rescue officer, 
     also thinks schools are in trouble but is unwilling to pay 
     more taxes to let educators spend more money.
       ``Definitely not,'' Hamilton said. ``reading, writing, and 
     arithmetic has to be brought back, not pottery.''
       Pinkleton, the researcher, observed: ``A lot of people feel 
     that education is underfunded, a big majority, and yet people 
     aren't terribly excited about paying more taxes, either. So 
     we kind of want to have our cake and eat it, too.''
       The poll didn't specifically ask voters whether they would 
     be wiling to pay higher taxes to support education. But it 
     did affirm Washingtonians' long-standing opposition to a 
     state income tax.
       Asked if they ``would support a state-income tax if state 
     taxes would be cut in other areas,'' 56 percent said no. 
     Barely more than one-third replied favorably. The rest had no 
     opinion.
       When asked how important they consider education in 
     deciding which candidate to vote for, nearly nine voters in 
     10 ranked important by more than three-fourths of the votes. 
     Then came welfare reform, the candidate's moral character, a 
     candidate's ability to work with political opponents, the 
     environment, and illegal immigration, in that order, with 
     each rated important by more than half those polled.
       At the bottom were gun control, important to barely half 
     the voters; abortion, mentioned by two out of five, and gay 
     rights, cited by just over one-fourth of those polled. The 
     voters weren't asked on which side of those issues they 
     stood.
       When the voters were asked, without mention of any specific 
     issue, to identify the most important concerns in this fall's 
     gubernatorial election, education again was the most-often 
     mentioned single concern, even above such perennial worries 
     as the economy, taxes and crime.
       However, although 125 voters named education, even more--
     191--said, ``I don't know.''
       That surprised Pinkleton.
       ``Clearly, issues are still developing in the minds of the 
     voters. . . . It's still fairly early (in the campaign 
     season),'' the researcher observed.
       After education, mention of other issues dropped off 
     steeply. Ranked below education, in order of the number of 
     times they were mentioned, were taxes, environment and 
     conservation, crime and law enforcement state spending and 
     the budget, the economy, health care and unemployment and 
     jobs.
       Other issues, including welfare reform, moral issues, gay 
     rights and prayer ranked far lower. None of the 556 voters 
     mentioned such volatile topics as abortion or gun rights.
       The responses suggested that voters trust their state 
     government more than they trust their fellow citizens.
       Asked whether they agree that ``voters usually make 
     informed voting decisions,'' only 43 percent did. But 53 
     percent said they trust state government to ``side with the 
     public interest'' in deciding between public interest and 
     special interests.
       The poll showed plenty of worry across a range of social 
     ills.
       Asked whether they agreed with the broad statement that 
     ``deteriorating social values are responsible for today's 
     crime problem,'' nearly eight in 10 said they did.
       One who emphatically agreed was Vern Dollar, 52, a 
     Vancouver resident, who declared: ``Our social values have 
     decreased. All the neighbors knew one another when we moved 
     in here 28 years ago, and I don't know the new ones who move 
     in. . . . There's an influx of California people and they 
     aren't very sociable, Good neighbors help neighbors.''
       Despite the worry about declining social values, one 
     finding of the poll might surprise Washingtonians aware of 
     the Pacific Northwest's long-held reputation--bemoaned by the 
     Rev. Billy Graham, among others--as something of a religious 
     wasteland.
       Asked whether they agreed with the statement that 
     ``religious values play a role in my everyday 
     decisions,''nearly two voters out of three did agree.
       Religion plays the strongest role in the lives of the 
     oldest voters, with more than seven out of 10 of those age 62 
     and older saying it did. But nearly six in 10 voters in the 
     least religious age group, those 18 to 39, said religious 
     values were part of their lives.
       Conservative voters were most apt to say religion is part 
     of their lives, and the most liberal voters were the least 
     likely.
       The poll revealed deep concerns across a broad topical 
     spectrum. For example:


                                 crime

       Nearly two out of three agreed they feel less safe then 
     four years ago, and nearly four in five favor stronger 
     penalties for criminals.
       That tough stance applied to youthful criminals, too. Asked 
     whether they agreed with the statement that ``criminals under 
     18 should be exempt from the death penalty,'' six in 10 
     disagreed. Even a majority of voters who identified 
     themselves as politically ``liberal'' disagreed that 
     criminals under 18 should be exempt. However, four-fifths of 
     voters labeling themselves ``very liberal'' said criminals 
     that young should be exempt.
       Men were less in favor of exempting criminals from the 
     death penalty than women were, with 72 percent of men 
     opposing that exemption while only 53 percent of women did.
       ``Even the death penalty is kind of a joke; it takes years 
     and years,'' remarked Trina Henifin, 22, a Bellingham 
     resident who was polled. ``How did they (carry out the death 
     penalty) way back before there was the appeals system? Do it 
     right away like they did in the old days.''
       Asked whether ``state government should spend more money 
     building prisons,'' 57 percent disagreed.


                            economy and jobs

       Nearly one in four of those surveyed said they were 
     concerned about losing their jobs. The worry was highest 
     among people with less than a high school degree.
       A majority of voters disagreed with the statement that if 
     they lost their jobs, it would be easy to find jobs with 
     similar pay. The least educated were most likely to be 
     pessimistic.
       And more than three voters in four agreed with the 
     statement that they have to work harder today to maintain 
     their standard of living than they did four years ago.
       ``The cost of living is higher, the cost of gas, 
     electricity has gone, up, food too,'' said Gerald Barnett, a 
     Spokane-area machinist and father of two, who first 
     registered to vote last year. ``I work overtime, and that 
     helps, but the more you make, the more they take out in 
     taxes.''


                           health and welfare

       Asked whether they agreed that limits should be imposed on 
     the length of time welfare recipients can receive state 
     assistance more than eight voters in 10 said they did. And 
     three-fourths agreed that ``welfare recipients should be 
     forced to work'' if they receive assistance.
       Without being asked specifically whether state government 
     should pay for health care, just under three-fourths of the 
     voters agreed that ``state make sure that health care is 
     available to everyone.''


             environment, property rights and other issues

       Washingtonians were lukewarm about environmental issues in 
     their responses to several queries on the subject.
       A plurality, 48 percent, disagreed with a statement that 
     ``protecting the environment is more important than 
     protecting jobs''--a choice that most conservationists argue 
     society needn't make--while just under one-third agreed. The 
     rest didn't answer. And a majority of the voters disagreed 
     with a statement that ``government agencies do an acceptable 
     job of balancing land use with environmental protection.''
       A plurality, 49 percent, agreed that ``public money should 
     be used to pay people when the government restricts how they 
     use their land,'' while 39 percent disagreed.
       Only one-third of the voters agreed that the state is more 
     racially divided than it was four years ago while nearly half 
     disagreed. More nonwhites than whites--but still less than a 
     majority--believe the state is more divided.
       A clear majority of voters, 58 percent, said ``acceptance 
     of homosexuals or bisexuals'' should be taught in the public 
     schools.''
       But support for the teaching of other values was much 
     higher: more than nine voters in 10 favor teaching 
     ``acceptance of people who hold different beliefs'' and 
     teaching ``moral courage;'' nearly as many want 
     ``responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancy'' taught, and 
     nearly three-fourths support teaching ``sexual abstinence 
     outside marriage.''
       Many voters seem to yearn for the values they grew up with, 
     values they see as eroded today.

                           *   *   *   *   *

                                                                    ____


          [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 20, 1996]

               Education Rated No. 1 of All State Issues

                            (By Neil Modie)

       The Mood of Washington poll confirms what the state's 1996 
     political candidates already seem well aware of: Voters are 
     plenty worried about public education.
       ``There's just a whole different intensity about the issue 
     this year,'' observed Terry Bergeson, executive director of 
     the state Commission on Student Learning and a candidate for 
     superintendent of public instruction.
       So far in the still-early campaign for governor, most of 
     the 10 major candidates--four Democrats and six Republicans--
     have been talking more about education than anything else, 
     even such tried-and-true issues as the economy, taxes and 
     crime.
       That's logical, since public education, including colleges 
     and universities, accounts for nearly 60 percent of the state 
     general fund budget.
       And candidates who survive the primary will be sharing the 
     general election ballot with two controversial education-
     related initiatives dealing with school vouchers and charter 
     schools.

[[Page S5435]]

       Whatever the reasons, some of the candidates' and political 
     parties' own polls are showing deep concern about the state's 
     school system, more so than in past years.
       In the Mood of Washington poll, 88 percent said education 
     was important to them in deciding who to vote for, and four 
     of every five in that group said it was ``very important.'' 
     No other issue rated such a response in the survey.
       ``That's amazing. That's the highest I've ever seen'' in 
     any poll, Bergeson said.
       The poll was a collaborative project by The Associated 
     Press and 12 state newspapers, including the Post-
     Intelligencer, the Olympian, the Tacoma News Tribune, the 
     Herald in Everett and the Sun in Bremerton.
       Nearly three in five voters polled said the quality of 
     public education is worse today than it was four years ago. 
     That view was strongest among the youngest and least educated 
     voters--those in the 18-to-39 age group and with less than a 
     high school education--as well as among the most politically 
     conservative voters.
       Slightly more than three out of five voters, and especially 
     the youngest and the most politically liberal voters, said 
     education is underfunded.
       When voters were asked to name the most important issues in 
     the gubernatorial election, education was mentioned most 
     often--by a long shot.
       Cheryl Causey, 49, a Mercer Island mother and a student in 
     interior design, thinks schools have improved ``in the area 
     of critical thinking skills rather than just role learning.''
       But she is concerned about a lack of classroom discipline 
     and ``a basic `dumbing down' in some areas. I've read some of 
     the textbooks used by my daughter and have found that some of 
     the language used isn't very challenging. It plays down to a 
     lesser intelligence and doesn't encourage the kids to really 
     think and go beyond.''
       Verna Kloehn, 73, a retired barber and Kennewick resident, 
     thinks kids nowadays are ``damn dumb. They can't assimilate 
     knowledge worth a darn.''
       Voters' concerns about public schools had to do not only 
     with the quality of education, but also crime and violence.
       And that was a worry expressed not only in urban areas, but 
     in smaller communities as well.
       ``We need more teachers, more guards,'' said Trina Henifin, 
     22, a Bellingham resident, ``I think it's terrible you have 
     to have guards in schools, but you do.''
       Bergeson, who directs a commission created to develop 
     statewide academic standards, surmised that voters might 
     think schools are worse than they were four years ago because 
     ``people are seeing more in the news about violence in 
     schools, about weapons.''
       ``It doesn't have so much to do with education'' as with 
     safety, she said.
       Bruce Pinkleton, one of two Washington State University 
     researchers who conducted the Mood of Washington poll, 
     suggested the concern about education might stem largely from 
     the public's tendency ``to look to the educational system to 
     rectify the ills of society.''
       Judith Jenkins Harlin, a Redmond ``stay-at-home mom'' and 
     school volunteer, agrees.
       ``I think public education has been asked to do too much, 
     and public education doesn't turn anyone away,'' said Harlin, 
     who is trained as a teacher. ``Teachers in public education 
     are trying to be mother, father, social worker, teacher, 
     legal enforcer--we are asking teachers to do too much.''

  Mrs. MURRAY. I have taken the time over the last year to talk to 
hundreds of young people in my home State. I have talked to people, 
young students who are 4.0 students; I have talked to students in 
juvenile detention centers. The one thing they all say in common is 
they believe that in this country today, adults do not care about them.
  Mr. President, we have an opportunity tomorrow to vote for the Kerry-
Murray amendment to put dollars back into our education account and 
show our young people they are a priority to us. I can think of no 
better investment in this country to invest in the education and 
training of our young people.
  I urge my colleagues to support that amendment. I remind my 
colleagues, this is a way we can make a difference for this country. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Washington for her kind remarks, and 
I thank her for the amendment she has just offered.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, once again, regarding the record and 
this ruling, I turn to the Congressional Record, the House of 
Representatives, H11693, December 3, 1980. I quote Mr. Panetta:

       It obviously is the first time that the reconciliation 
     process itself has been implemented under the Budget Act.

  Further:

       No other chairman in the history of the Budget Committee 
     has been able to say that reconciliation has been implemented 
     and put into place. They have passed budget resolutions. We 
     have passed continuing resolutions of one kind or another, 
     but this is the first time that a chairman of the Budget 
     Committee has implemented the reconciliation process.

  I yield the floor.

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the 
President's fiscal year 1997 budget plan. There is no one here that 
wants a balanced budget more than I do. The largest obstacle to 
sustainable, long-term economic growth is our huge national debt. This 
is why I support the administration's budget. President Clinton is the 
first President in 17 years to submit a balanced budget using the 
Congressional Budget Office [CBO] figures, all while protecting 
Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, and cutting taxes for 
middle-class families.
  There has been no President with a record of deficit reduction that 
compares to President Clinton's. Under the President's leadership the 
budget deficit has been cut more than in half. Four years ago, the 
Nation was faced with a budget deficit of $290 billion. The CBO is now 
predicting a budget deficit of only $144 billion for fiscal year 1996. 
Also, the total spending is lower as a share of the economy than in any 
year since 1979. This budget continues the highly successful deficit 
reduction of the President's 1993 economic plan and contains billions 
in entitlement savings and discretionary cuts.
  The President's budget guarantees the life of the Medicare trust fund 
for a decade without cutting it $167 billion as the Republicans have 
proposed. The Republican plan reduces Medicare by $50 billion more than 
the President's balanced budget plan. The cuts to Medicare payments 
that the Republicans propose will result in cost-shifting, undermine 
quality, and threaten the financial viability of many rural and urban 
hospitals. On the other hand, the President's budget restores the pre-
1980 law on part A home health benefits because home health care 
expenditures unrelated to hospital stays should not be financed by the 
part A trust fund. This helps extend the life of Medicare part A trust 
fund. In summary, the President's proposal reforms and modernizes the 
program, while providing more choices to beneficiaries.
  While the President's budget has moderate cuts in Medicaid, the $72 
billion reduction that the Republicans propose could be drastic. This 
$72 billion cut could total as much as $250 billion over 7 years if 
States spend only the minimum required to receive their full block 
grant allocations. Many middle-class families depend on the Medicaid 
guarantee to provide for the care of their parents. If States are 
forced to deny coverage or restrict benefits, this could adversely 
affect millions of Americans that depend on such help that the program 
provides. Another thing that concerns me about the Republican proposal 
is the insistency of the repeal of Federal enforcement of nursing home 
quality standards. These regulations are important to the families that 
have to make the tough decision to place a loved one in a nursing home. 
On the other hand, the President's budget provides the States with 
great flexibility in managing their programs while guaranteeing health 
care for millions of Americans.
  In order to reach a balanced budget, we all know decisions must be 
made in an effort to eliminate costs; however, these decisions must be 
carefully examined. This is particularly true when proposed cuts affect 
the educational system of our country. The Republicans want to use 
extreme cuts in education to balance the budget, when the President's 
plan shows that they are not necessary. The Republican resolution cuts 
education and training by $26 billion compared to 1995. The Republican 
plan also provides $60 billion less for education and training than the 
President's budget over the next 6 years. The future of our Nation 
depends greatly on the education that is provided to our children and 
the training that is available to our work force. The President's 
budget provides both the funding and policies needed to meet these 
challenges.
  The President's budget also provides tax relief for the middle-class 
working families of America, making it easier for them to pay for 
education and save for retirement. The President proposes a tax credit 
for dependent children, a

[[Page S5436]]

benefit that would affect 19 million families, expanded individual 
retirement accounts [IRA's] to provided greater incentives for savings 
for retirement, and an education and job training tax deduction that 
would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 a year for qualified 
education and training expenses. The President also proposes other tax 
relief aimed at small businesses, such as increased expensing, estate 
tax benefits for closely held businesses, pension simplification, and 
increased health insurance deductions for the self-employed. The 
President's budget offsets this much needed tax relief by eliminating 
or reducing corporate tax loopholes and preferences that are no longer 
warranted.
  Mr. President, I support the President's budget because this budget 
has a plan for balancing the budget while protecting Medicare, 
Medicaid, and education, along with providing a modest tax cut for 
middle-class Americans.


                            regarding ahcpr

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy 
with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee to discuss an 
assumption that appears on page 52 of our report and clarify the 
committee's assumptions regarding the discretionary health programs 
contained in function 550. The language suggests that the committee is 
assuming a significant reduction in the budget of the Agency for Health 
Care Policy and Research [AHCPR]. I expressed my concerns regarding 
this matter during the committee's markup of the resolution.
  Mr. President, I feel strongly about this Agency's mission for two 
reasons. First, as I pointed out during our markup, I believe that the 
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research has gone a long way toward 
reforming itself and has been responsive to the constructive criticism 
it received from Congress over the past year. For example, last year 
there was debate regarding the wisdom of AHCPR continuing to develop 
clinical practice guidelines now that so many medical societies, health 
plans, and others have begun to develop their own guidelines. AHCPR 
took this criticism seriously, engaged in a dialog with the health care 
community, and announced last month that it would no longer directly 
support the development of clinical practice guidelines. Instead, the 
Agency will work in partnership with the health care community by 
meeting their needs for an assessment of the scientific evidence in 
clinical areas for which these physicians and health plans--not AHCPR--
want to develop guidelines or other quality improvement strategies. 
This partnership approach is a winner for all: AHCPR will concentrate 
on its strengths, developing and assessing science, and physicians and 
health plans will have the information they need to develop better, 
evidence-based guidelines without the implication that the Federal 
Government is telling them how to practice medicine.
  Similarly, last year there were concerns about the multitude of 
overlapping data collection activities within the Department of Health 
and Human Services [HIS]. Despite the fact that the AHCPR has only a 
small, but important, role in the area of data collection, the Agency 
took the lead in proposing a major restructuring of its medical 
expenditure survey to eliminate areas of duplication with other HHS 
surveys.
  In both cases, AHCPR has been willing to take a fresh look at its 
activities and critically examine its role in relationship to the 
private sector and other Federal agencies. We should applaud this type 
of initiative and responsiveness, not cripple it.
  More importantly, Mr. President, I am concerned bout the potential 
impact on the clinical and health services research that AHCPR 
supports. Its mission in this area is critical to the future of our 
fast-changing health care system and to our efforts to restructure the 
Medicare program, while ensuring high quality of care. This Agency 
provides an important compliment to the work of the National Institutes 
of Health through its research on the outcomes, effectiveness, and 
cost-effectiveness of health care services in day-to-day practice. In 
the last 2 years, this Agency has come to realize its role as a science 
partner with the health care community and, as a result, AHCPR's work 
has been endorsed by every major medical, nursing, and health care 
organization, from the American Medical Association to the managed care 
industry. And from personal experience, in my work on the Medicare 
Program, I can testify that there are few issues on which such 
disparate organizations agree. AHCPR's scientific work provides 
clinicians and patients with the tools they need to work together to 
improve the quality of health care while constraining its cost.
  Mr. President, at this point I would like to yield to the 
distinguished Chairman and ask him whether he agrees with my 
interpretation of our budget assumptions and my conclusion that this 
budget resolution assumes no reduction in funding for the critical work 
of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to thank Senator Frist for his continued efforts 
in this critical policy area. The Chairman's mark of the budget 
resolution did assume a reduction in funding for the Agency for Health 
Care Policy Research [AHCPR]. Funding for AHCPR was assumed to be 
reduced to $46 million per year, beginning in 1997. Since then, I have 
worked with Senator Frist to find alternate assumptions to meet our 
discretionary spending targets within function 550. The resolution now 
assumes that funding for AHCPR will not be reduced.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 57, the balanced budget resolution for fiscal year 1997. I 
commend the hard work by the Budget Committee to bring to this floor, 
one more time, what the American people--and the people of Idaho--have 
demanded: A genuine, convincing plan to balance the Federal budget by 
fiscal year 2002.
  This balanced budget resolution is consistent, in its principles and 
its details, with what I believe most citizens in Idaho want.
  Like most Idahoans, I would prefer to go farther, faster. But I also 
recognize how far we have come in just a year and a half. In the last 
Congress, dominated by the President's party, we were told that $200 
billion a year in deficit spending, as far as the eye could see, was 
the best we could do.
  This budget resolution does not represent politics as usual. It looks 
to a brighter future of more jobs, more affordable educations, a more 
secure Medicare system, and real welfare reform--all within a balanced 
budget.


              Conducting the Balanced Budget Game In Idaho

  Mr. President, to focus in some depth on the budget priorities of 
Idahoans, last month, my office held a series of meetings in five 
locations in Idaho. We invited folks to participate in an exercise in 
hard choices--or, what I call the balanced budget game.
  We held these in Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Twin Falls, Nampa, and 
Boise.
  This exercise has been developed and updated regularly by the 
nonpartisan, nonprofit educational organization, the Committee for a 
Responsible Federal Budget.
  In this exercise, citizens get the chance to be a Senator for a day--
meeting in small groups that work much like the Senate Budget Committee 
during the markup of the budget resolution and walking through a 180-
page workbook resembling a Budget Committee markup book.
  Across the State, participants were grouped into 32 groups, or budget 
committees, with between 4 and 10 members each.
  I've used this exercise and similar ones in the past to poll the 
opinions of Idahoans on budget priorities and I've told Idahoans that I 
would again use their responses in this exercise to fight for Idaho 
values in the Federal budget.
  I have been reviewing in detail the individual results from each of 
the five cities where we held the exercise, and I am struck by the 
highlights that have emerged. I would like to summarize those briefly 
here. My office is preparing a complete analysis to send to the Idaho 
citizens who participated in those five cities.


          Idaho's Priority: Balance the Budget and Spend Less

  This is the result that stands out: Idahoans are demanding that we 
balance the budget. By far, most of the Idaho groups were willing to 
exercise more restraint, and balance the budget faster, than most 
Members of Congress or the President.

[[Page S5437]]

  In 31 out of 32 groups, Idahoans were able to agree on enough deficit 
reduction to balance the budget by fiscal year 2002.
  This is true--31 out of 32 balanced the budget--whether you compare 
their results against the baseline for fiscal year 1997 or the less 
optimistic baseline of fiscal year 1996, which is the one that was 
still used in the Exercise workbook.
  Thirty-one out of 32 groups saved more in spending than any budget 
before the Congress this year--more than the Budget Committee budget, 
more than the Chafee-Breaux substitute, and certainly more than the 
President's budget.
  In fact, 31 out of 32 groups reduced spending growth more over 5 
years than any Washington, DC, proposal would save over 6 years.
  On average, participants in the five Idaho cities called for the 
following levels of policy changes in spending programs, over 5 years:

                                                          [In billions]
Idaho Falls........................................................$679
Pocatello...........................................................662
Twin Falls..........................................................656
Nampa...............................................................637
Boise...............................................................671
                                                               ________

  Average for all 5 cities..........................................661

  This compares with $428 billion in spending policy changes in this 
year's committee-reported budget, and only $274 billion in the 
President's budget.


                         Discretionary Spending

  In the Idaho exercises, the five-city average for defense was to find 
$16 billion in savings over 5 years. Eight of the 32 groups voted for a 
$38-billion increase. These results seem to reflect the general 
consensus in Idaho, the Nation, and even in Washington, DC, that 
defense spending should not be changed greatly, in this changing and 
uncertain world.
  All 32 groups reduced domestic discretionary spending more than any 
budget now being debated on the Senate floor. Of course, they came 
closest to the Budget Committee's budget.
  In international affairs, the average 5-year savings from the Idaho 
groups was $15 billion, compared with $12 billion in savings in the 
Committee-reported budget, and with a slight increase in the 
President's budget.


                          Entitlement Spending

  Thirty out of 32 groups would reduce total entitlement spending more 
than any proposal now before the Senate.
  I think that result says something to those who accuse the committee-
reported budget, as well as last year's Balanced Budget Act, of making 
draconian cuts in spending.
  With great uniformity, Idaho participants supported an average of $50 
billion in housing and welfare reforms over 5 years, which is more than 
the President's 6-year proposal--$38 billion--and almost exactly the 
same as the Budget Committee's 6-year figure--$54 billion. This says to 
me that the Senate is on track in this area.
  Thirty-one of the 32 groups produced more direct savings in Medicare 
over 5 years than the Budget Committee budget over 5 years or the 
President's budget over the next 6 years. The average 5-year savings, 
with little variation from town to town, were $135 billion, compared 
with $115 billion over 5 years in the Budget Committee budget.
  In addition, 28 out of 32 groups chose one or more ways to means-test 
entitlement benefits, including 23 groups that chose an across-the-
board approach that would result in additional Medicare savings, and 2 
more that voted for means-testing Medicare, specifically.
  It bears repeating: Any savings from Medicare reforms will be used--
by law, they must be used--to shore up a Medicare system that is now 
losing money. We want Medicare to be there for those who need it. It 
won't be there--it will be broke--in just 5 years, unless we begin 
reforms today. The Budget Committee budget doesn't cut Medicare. It 
will provide more choice and more secure benefits in an improved 
system.


                                Revenues

  With regard to taxes, I was somewhat surprised at first, but the 
specific options selected and the comments of a number of the 
participants shed some light.
  A number of folks complained about static score-keeping that did not 
recognize that some tax cuts lead to economic activity and more tax 
revenues. I agree with them. But the exercise workbook estimates were 
based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. In both cases, the 
budget committees--here and in Idaho--agreed to be bound by an 
``outside'' referee.
  A number of folks complained that they wanted to vote for tax relief, 
but ran out of time, because that was the last section in the workbook. 
In this exercise, unlike here in Washington, DC, budget-writers did not 
have the luxury of ignoring the deadline to finish their work.
  A number said that, while they could write a budget that got to 
balance faster with some revenue increases, they didn't trust that 
Washington, DC, would use tax increases to reduce the deficit.
  And finally, support for any revenue increases was extremely 
scattered among a wide variety of options, with the broadest consensus 
on alcohol and/or tobacco excise taxes, occurring in only 13 of 32 
groups.
  Overall, 9 groups voted for some tax relief. Twelve groups did not 
vote for any tax increase, and another 6 supported very small packages 
less than $41 billion over 5 years, a magnitude similar to the 
extensions and loophole-closings that have been discussed in Congress. 
The median group raised revenues by only $34 billion.


                               Conclusion

  Mr. President, the exercise in hard choices has been an excellent 
educational tool for the public, very informative for Members of 
Congress--certainly including this Senator, and actually very enjoyable 
to participate in.
  I believe most everyone who attended had a positive experience. Some 
folks wished they could have had more time and more options. But there 
was understanding that the exercise was written with a limited number 
of options, out of consideration for the participants--all of whom gave 
up an entire morning, afternoon, or evening to provide me with their 
views.
  I appreciate all the advice and help my staff and I have received 
from the Committee for a Responsible Budget in conducting this exercise 
in Idaho, especially from Carol Cox Wait, the committee's president, 
and Susan Tanaka, vice president.
  Most of our colleagues will recognize the committee's name and work. 
Its board of directors includes many former Members of this and the 
other body, including several chairmen and ranking minority members of 
the Budget Committees, as well as distinguished former public officials 
like Paul Volcker of the Federal Reserve Board, Elmer Staats of the 
General Accounting Office, and Rudolph Penner and Robert Reischauer of 
the Congressional Budget Office.
  The exercise workbook used by the Idaho participants was prepared for 
fiscal year 1996, because most of the 1997 budget work had not yet 
begun in Washington, DC, and 1997 workbooks were not yet available. But 
with the exception of some changes in economic and baseline 
assumptions, we know all too well that the 1997 budget debate is really 
just a continuation of the 1996 process.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, these budget proposals now being 
negotiated will directly affect virtually every segment of the 
Government and every citizen of this country.
  I am strongly in support of deficit reduction and favor the 
elimination of the national debt over a period of time. I have long 
supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I supported 
the 1993 reconciliation bill which has already led to significant 
reduction in our annual deficits. However, there is a right and wrong 
way to pursue the same goal.
  There are proposals to adjust the Consumer Pricing Index [CPI] in an 
attempt to correct biases in its computation. This plan is to reduce 
the CPI by one-half of a percentage point. I feel that this is nothing 
more than masquerading an attempt to cut Social Security benefits and 
raise taxes.
  As we all know, the CPI has a major effect on Federal outlays, 
revenue, and the budget deficit. Outlays are affected because programs 
such as civil service retirement pay and Social Security benefits are 
adjusted so that the purchasing power of those payments will be 
preserved. Revenues are affected because taxes are adjusted so that 
increases in income are taxed at a higher

[[Page S5438]]

rate only if the increase exceeds inflation. Due to the significant 
relationship between the CPI and the budget, there has been much 
attention on how to contribute to the reduction of the deficit with the 
adjustment of the CPI.
  Before we attempt to adjust the CPI, we should realize the enormous 
effect it will have on the senior citizens of our country. Coupled with 
the proposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, an arbitrary reduction of 
the CPI, which leads to a decrease in the Social Security cost-of-
living adjustments [COLA's], would take a great financial toll on the 
elderly. Social Security recipients rely on annual COLA's to ensure 
that their purchasing power is not eroded by inflation. Just a small 
percentage reduction in the CPI can cause a substantial loss of 
benefits over time. Due to the compounding effect, the older one gets, 
the more money the beneficiary would lose. Economists have stated that 
the cost of living for the elderly has risen faster than other age 
groups. This is due to the rapid rise in health care services. It is 
believed that the current CPI actually understates the rate of 
inflation because the elderly spend such a large portion of their 
income on health care.
  In 1987, Congress called for a study to develop an experimental index 
for consumers over the age of 62. This study revealed that indeed the 
index for this group was understated and concluded that this was due to 
the medical care component. This analysis was undertaken by the U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], the organization that computes the 
CPI.
  Moreover, now is not the time to adjust the CPI knowing that the BLS 
has announced, as part of a continuing effort to update and improve the 
CPI, that it will be changing the way the CPI is calculated. This is 
estimated to reduce the CPI by approximately .3 percentage points. We 
should allow the experts at BLS to engage in a thorough analysis 
without Congress interfering.
  Mr. President, as one economist stated, this is merely ``an attempt 
to raise taxes invisibly, and lower Social Security invisibly, while 
appearing only to be scientifically correct in adjusting a bias.'' 
Finally, using funds generated by reducing Social Security COLA's to 
diminish the deficit is a misuse of Social Security trust funds.
  Mr. EXON. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains on the resolution?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 14 minutes and 
the Senator from Nebraska does as well.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would you tell me again, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 14 minutes and 
the Senator from New Mexico has 14 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You must be doing something with this time, Mr. 
Parliamentarian. How does this happen? No matter what each side does, 
we have 14 minutes each. You must be right on the ball.
  Mr. EXON. We control only the timekeeper.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a conference report from 1975, a 
budget resolution, just as a matter of information with reference to 
various items that have been discussed today of a parliamentary nature. 
I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be printed in the 
Record.
  There being objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

      Second Concurrent Resolution on the Budget Fiscal Year 1976

       Mr. Muskie, from the committee of conference, submitted the 
     following conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 466:
       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the concurrent 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 466) revising the congressional 
     budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year 
     1976, and directing certain reconciliation action, having 
     met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend 
     and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
       That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an 
     amendment as follows:
       That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant 
     to section 310(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     that for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1975--
       (1) The appropriate level of total budget outlays is 
     $374,900,000,000;
       (2) The appropriate level of total new budget authority is 
     $408,000,000,000;
       (3) The amount of the deficit in the budget which is 
     appropriate in the light of economic conditions and all other 
     relevant factors is $74,100,000,000;
       (4) The recommended level of Federal revenues is 
     $300,800,000,000, and the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     and the Senate Committee on Finance shall submit to their 
     respective Houses legislation to decrease Federal revenues by 
     approximately $6,400,000,000; and
       (5) The appropriate level of the public debt is 
     $622,600,000,000.
       Sec. 2. The Congress hereby determines and declares, in the 
     manner provided in section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, that for the transition quarter beginning on 
     July 1, 1976--


       JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

       The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the 
     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
     amendment of the Senate to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
     Res. 466) revising the congressional budget for the United 
     States Government for the fiscal year 1976, and directing 
     certain reconciliation action, submit the following joint 
     statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the 
     effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and 
     recommended in the accompanying conference report:

               Second Concurrent Resolution on the Budget

                                Outlays

       The House resolution provided for total outlays in the 
     amount of $373.891 billion. The Senate amendment provided for 
     total outlays in the amount of $375.6 billlion.
       The conference report provides for total outlays in the 
     amount of $374.9 billion. Estimates of outlays by functional 
     category of the budget is set forth below.

                            Budget Authority

       The House resolution provided for total new budget 
     authority in the amount of $408.004 billion. The Senate 
     amendment provided for total new budget authority in the 
     amount of $406.2 billlion.
       The conference report provides for total new budget 
     authority in the amount of $408.0 billion. Estimates of new 
     budget authority by functional category of the budget is set 
     forth below.

                                Deficit

       The house resolution provided for a budget deficit in the 
     amount of $72.091 billion. The Senate amendment provided for 
     a deficit in the amount of $74.8 billlion. The conference 
     report provides for a deficit of $74.1 billion.

                                Revenues

       The House resolution provided for Federal revenues in the 
     amount of $301.8 billion; and to achieve that level, it 
     directed the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance 
     Committees to reduce revenues by $5.4 billion. The Senate 
     amendment provided for revenues in the amount of $300.8 
     billion; and to achieve that level it directed the Ways and 
     Means and Finance Committees to reduce revenues by $6.4 
     billion.
       The conference report provides for revenues in the amount 
     of $300.8 billion; and directs the Ways and means and Finance 
     Committees to reduce revenues by $6.4 billion. The $6.4 
     billion reduction of revenues is necessary to maintain the 
     personal income tax withholding rate and extend the temporary 
     corporate tax reductions in the 1975 Tax Reduction Act.
       The managers accept the Senate position that it is 
     unrealistic to expect this required reduction in revenues to 
     be partially offset by $1.0 billion to be received through 
     tax reform during the remiander of Fiscal year 1976, as 
     contemplated in the house resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senators--Senator 
Exon just reminded me--that there will be no votes tonight. We had not 
planned on any votes during the day, and nothing has changed. So when 
we finish here in about 20 minutes we will be finished, and we will 
start at 9 o'clock in the morning. We have been authorized to call the 
Senate into session, and we will immediately start with the amendments, 
establishing some order this evening. Staff on both sides will work on 
that. Remember that the amendments then will be voted on one after 
another. Maybe we will have a little recess at some point. There will 
be 10-minute rollcall votes. If last year is any indication of how much 
time it will take, we will be voting from 9 o'clock to well into the 
night.
  I am very hopeful that we can accept some of these amendments. I am 
even toying with the idea--I do not know

[[Page S5439]]

what the Senator would think about this--if we might put all of those 
amendments that are sense of the Senate and just accept them all. What 
does the Senator think about that? We would not have any votes. We 
would take them all. Who knows what will happen to them?
  Mr. EXON. We would want to review them. But that is an interesting 
proposal. Could I suggest one other thing that we might consider? We do 
not have to decide on that tonight. But I would like to suggest since 
we are going to have, once again, an awful lot of votes, would there be 
any likelihood that we may cut the votes down to say 7\1/2\ minutes to 
move things along in a more expeditious fashion, because we I think 
would agree tonight that we would probably have 1 minute each for 
explanation of each amendment.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I think we may be closer to 1 minute equally divided--
30 seconds each. But essentially last time we had this rather prolonged 
series of votes we tried to get it down to the minimum amount that 
would be required for the rollcall and other things, and I believe I 
heard Senator Dole ask and they said they could not get it down to much 
under 8 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. My only thought with that is that might be the case. The 
only trouble with 10 minutes, then it becomes 12 minutes. It is like 
speeders on the highway. But I am just making a suggestion to try to 
expedite things for the good of the body as a whole. We can discuss 
that later.


                           Amendment No. 4026

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Economic 
 Development Administration should place high priority on maintaining 
           field-based economic development representatives)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in 
behalf of Senators Bingaman, Snowe, Cohen, and myself and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Bingaman, for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 4026.

  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 REGARDING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
                   ADMINISTRATION PLACING HIGH PRIORITY ON 
                   MAINTAINING FIELD-BASED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
                   REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Economic Development Administration plays a crucial 
     role in helping economically disadvantaged regions of the 
     United States develop infrastructure that supports and 
     promotes greater economic activity and growth, particularly 
     in nonurban regions.
       (2) The Economic Development Administration helps to 
     promote industrial park development, business incubators, 
     water and sewer system improvements, vocational and technical 
     training facilities, tourism development strategies, 
     technical assistance and capacity building for local 
     governments, economic adjustment strategies, revolving loan 
     funds, and other projects which the private sector has not 
     generated or will not generate without some assistance from 
     the Government through the Economic Development 
     Administration.
       (3) The Economic Development Administration maintains 6 
     regional offices which oversee staff that are designated 
     field-based representatives of the Economic Development 
     Administration, and these field-based representatives provide 
     valuable expertise and counseling on economic planning and 
     development to nonurban communities.
       (4) The Economic Development Administration Regional 
     Centers are located in the urban areas of Austin, Seattle, 
     Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
       (5) Because of a 37-percent reduction in approved funding 
     for salaries and expenses from fiscal year 1995, the Economic 
     Development Administration has initiated staff reductions 
     requiring the elimination of 8 field-based positions. The 
     field-based economic development representative positions 
     that are either being eliminated or not replaced after 
     voluntary retirement and which currently interact with 
     nonurban communities on economic development efforts cover 
     the States of New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, North Dakota, 
     Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode 
     Island, and North Carolina.
       (6) These staff cutbacks will adversely affect States with 
     very low per-capita personal income, including New Mexico 
     which ranks 47th in the Nation in per-capita personal income, 
     Oklahoma ranking 46th, North Dakota ranking 42nd, Arizona 
     ranking 35th, Maine ranking 34th, and North Carolina ranking 
     33rd.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals and reconciliations instructions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that--
       (1) it is regrettable that the Economic Development 
     Administration has elected to reduce field-based economic 
     development representatives who are fulfilling the Economic 
     Development Administration's mission of interacting with and 
     counseling nonurban communities in economically disadvantaged 
     regions of the United States;
       (2) the Economic Development Administration should take all 
     necessary and appropriate actions to ensure that field-based 
     economic development representation receives high priority; 
     and
        (3) the Economic Development Administration should 
     reconsider the planned termination of field-based economic 
     development representatives responsible for States that are 
     economically disadvantaged, and that this reconsideration 
     take place without delay.

  Mr. DOMENICI. That amendment will take its place.
  The Senator is willing to accept it. We have no objection to the 
amendment, and I yield back all time on the amendment.
  Mr. EXON. We agree on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4026) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 4002, as modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Lott has asked that I submit an amendment to 
the desk with reference to Iraq oil and the amendment that heretofore 
had been offered.
  I send it to the desk. It is a modification of his previous 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Lott to 
modify the previous amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4002), as modified, 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 the 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) 
     (referred to as ``SCR 986'') 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 ensure any 
     subsequent extension of authority beyond the 180 days 
     originally provided by SCR 986, specifically mandates and 
     authorizes 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 any subsequent resolution extending the authority 
     granted by SCR 986 as called for in paragraph (1), the 
     President should reject any United Nations' action or 
     resolution seeking to extend the terms of the oil sale beyond 
     the 180 days authorized by SCR 986;
       (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 much 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 SCR 986, or any subsequent action or 
     resolution, should be used to reduce the Federal budget 
     deficit.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on Friday, May 17, 1996, I proposed a sense-
of-Senate resolution that urged the President

[[Page S5440]]

of the United States to ensure that American taxpayers' interests are 
protected by rejecting any Iraq-United Nations oil sale agreement which 
does not reimburse the United States for the costs of Operations 
Southern Watch and Provide Comfort.
  To review the background leading to this amendment, several days 
prior to the cease-fire ending Operation Desert Storm, Iraq initiated 
military action against the Kurdish people in northern Iraq and the 
Sunni Moslems in southern Iraq. On April 5, 1991, 2 days prior to 
concluding the cease-fire agreement, the United Nations passed Security 
Council Resolutions No. 687 and 688, condemning Iraq for its repressive 
actions against the Kurds and Sunnis.
  The Secretary General of the United States Nations then enlisted the 
support of the United States to engage in military operations to 
protect these Iraqi civilian populations against Saddam Hussein's 
aggression. In addition to the 15 American and 11 foreign national 
lives lost, the United States has spend $2.9 billion to conduct these 
military operations known as Provide Comfort and Southern Watch. 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, 1995, the United Nations 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.
  Yesterday, Iraq accepted the U.N. offer to sell limited supplies of 
oil to buy food and medicine for its people. Iraq oil could begin to 
flow with 30 to 60 days while American tax dollars continue to be spent 
to prevent Suddam's aggression against the Kurds and Sunnis. I think 
this is wrong.
  The amendment that I offered last Friday, and have had to modify 
slightly because Iraq agreed to the U.N. offer, does not prevent the 
sale of oil or prevent efforts to relieve the humanitarian problems of 
Iraq. It simply states that if Iraq is going to be allowed to sell oil 
then the United States should recover the money our taxpayers are 
spending for the ultimate humanitarian assistance: military protection. 
Under this resolution the United Nations is recovering their costs for 
providing humanitarian relief. So why not recover the American 
taxpayers' expense for preventing Suddam's aggression?
  Because the oil deal was accepted by Iraq yesterday, I have modified 
the amendment to state that in any subsequent extension of authority 
beyond the 180 days originally provided by Security Council Resolution 
986, the Untied States should be reimbursed for the costs associated 
with Operations Southern Watch and Provide Comfort. I think the 
American taxpayer is entitled to some recovery from these oil sales to 
help offset the costs of doing what is right and doing it in 
conjunction with the United Nations.
  Mr. President, 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 want us to ensure that they are reimbursed for 
their costs associated with Operations Southern Watch and Provide 
Comfort.


                Amendment No. 4027 to Amendment No. 4012

  (Purpose: To adjust the fiscal year 1997 non-defense discretaionary 
  allocation to the Appropriations Committee by $5 billion in budget 
 authority and $4 billion in outlays to sustain 1996 post-OCRA policy)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there is pending an amendment No. 4012 
offered by Senators Harkin and Specter. It is obvious that when we 
close up the Senate here in a few minutes and yield back the remaining 
time--and there is not much time remaining--there will be no further 
amendments that will be allowed. It means that if the Senator from New 
Mexico or anyone else has a second-degree amendment to any of the 
myriad of amendments we have in the long list, including the Harkin-
Specter amendment, they would be able to offer a second-degree 
amendment.
  And because I have an amendment, a second-degree amendment to the 
Harkin-Specter amendment which I want the Senate to know about, I ask 
unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer the second-degree 
amendment tonight and get it in the Record with a statement. I do not 
think I am denying anybody anything by doing that because in just a few 
moments this will have ripened into a situation where when that 
amendment comes up, I could second degree it. So since that is the 
case, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senator from 
New Mexico to offer a second-degree amendment to the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. EXON. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4027 to amendment No. 4012.

  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 appropriate places in the Harkin amendment, make the 
     following changes:
       On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 25, line 18, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 27, line 16, increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 27, line 17, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 42, line 2, decrease the amount by $1,800,000,000.
       On page 42, line 3, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 52, line 11, decrease the amount by $0.
       On page 52, line 12, decrease the amount by $0.
       On page 52, line 14, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       On page 52, line 15, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, on 
     page 52, line 15, the amount is deemed to be 
     $270,923,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, the amount is deemed to be 
     $1,323,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, the amount is deemed to be 
     $1,361,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, the amount is deemed to be 
     $1,392,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, the amount is deemed to be 
     $1,433,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, the amount is deemed to be 
     $1,454,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, the amount is deemed to be 
     $1,318,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, the amount is deemed to be 
     $1,353,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, the amount is deemed to be 
     $1,382,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, the amount is deemed to be 
     $1,415,600,000.
       On page 4, line 21, the amount is deemed to be 
     $1,433,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, the amount is deemed to be 
     $232,400,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, the amount is deemed to be 
     $223,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, the amount is deemed to be 
     $206,300,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, the amount is deemed to be 
     $185,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, the amount is deemed to be 
     $143,500,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, the amount is deemed to be 
     $5,449,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, the amount is deemed to be 
     $5,722,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, the amount is deemed to be 
     $5,975,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, the amount is deemed to be 
     $6,207,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, the amount is deemed to be 
     $6,398,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, the amount is deemed to be 
     $6,550,500,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, the amount is deemed to be 
     $290,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, the amount is deemed to be 
     $277,400,000,000.
       On page 6, line 15, the amount is deemed to be 
     $256,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 16, the amount is deemed to be 
     $236,100,000,000.
       On page 6, line 17, the amount is deemed to be 
     $193,300,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, the amount is deemed to be 
     $155,400,000,000.
       On page 9, line 22, the amount is deemed to be 
     $14,900,000,000.
       On page 11, line 22, the amount is deemed to be 
     $16,700,000.
       On page 11, line 23, the amount is deemed to be 
     $16,800,000,000.
       On page 13, line 17, the amount is deemed to be 
     $3,700,000,000.
       On page 13, line 18, the amount is deemed to be 
     $3,100,000,000.
       On page 15, line 17, the amount is deemed to be 
     $21,500,000.
       On page 17, line 16, the amount is deemed to be 
     $12,800,000,000.
       On page 17, line 17, the amount is deemed to be 
     $11,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 16, the amount is deemed to be 
     $8,100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 17, the amount is deemed to be 
     -$2,400,000,000.
       On page 21, line 16, the amount is deemed to be 
     $42,600,000,000.

[[Page S5441]]

       On page 21, line 17, the amount is deemed to be 
     $39,300,000,000.
       On page 23, line 15, the amount is deemed to be 
     $9,900,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, the amount is deemed to be 
     $10,800,000,000.
       On page 29, line 10, the amount is deemed to be 
     $193,200,000,000.
       On page 29, line 11, the amount is deemed to be 
     $191,500,000,000.
       On page 31, line 3, the amount is deemed to be 
     $232,400,000,000.
       On page 31, line 4, the amount is deemed to be 
     $240,300,000,000.
       On page 38, line 8, the amount is deemed to be 
     $13,700,000,000.
       On page 39, line 25, the amount is deemed to be 
     $282,800,000,000.
       On page 40, line 1, the amount is deemed to be 
     $282,800,000,000.
       On page 40, line 7, the amount is deemed to be 
     $289,400,000,000.
       On page 40, line 8, the amount is deemed to be 
     $289,400,000,000.
       On page 40, line 14, the amount is deemed to be 
     $293,200,000,000.
       On page 40, line 15, the amount is deemed to be 
     $293,200,000,000.
       On page 40, line 21, the amount is deemed to be 
     $294,700,000,000.
       On page 40, line 22, the amount is deemed to be 
     $294,700,000,000.
       On page 41, line 3, the amount is deemed to be 
     $298,900,000,000.
       On page 41, line 4, the amount is deemed to be 
     $298,900,000,000.
       On page 41, line 10, the amount is deemed to be 
     $303,400,000,000.
       On page 41, line 11, the amount is deemed to be 
     $303,400,000,000.
       On page 41, line 17, the amount is deemed to be 
     $348,234,000,000.
       On page 41, line 18, the amount is deemed to be 
     $351,240,000,000.
       On page 41, line 19, the amount is deemed to be 
     $348,465,000,000.
       On page 41, line 20, the amount is deemed to be 
     $349,951,000,000.
       On page 41, line 21, the amount is deemed to be 
     $351,311,000,000.
       On page 41, line 22, the amount is deemed to be 
     $352,756,000,000.
       On page 42, line 8, the amount is deemed to be 
     -$200,000,000.
       On page 42, line 9, the amount is deemed to be 
     $100,000,000.
       On page 42, line 15, the amount is deemed to be 
     -$400,000,000.
       On page 42, line 16, the amount is deemed to be 
     -$300,000,000.
       On page 42, line 22, the amount is deemed to be 
     -$800,000,000.
       On page 42, line 23, the amount is deemed to be 
     -$800,000,000.
       On page 43, line 5, the amount is deemed to be 
     -$1,200,000,000.
       On page 43, line 6, the amount is deemed to be 
     -$1,100,000,000.
       On page 43, line 12, the amount is deemed to be 
     -$3,700,000,000.
       On page 43, line 13, the amount is deemed to be 
     -$3,700,000,000.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This amendment is essentially across the appropriations 
spectrum, that is, across all of the bills, adds $5 billion in budget 
authority and $4 billion in outlays for nondefense discretionary 
programs for the year 1997.
  Mr. President, the Specter-Harkin amendment would provide $2.7 
billion for the education and training and health functions using an 
across-the-board reduction to agency administrative budgets--both 
defense and nondefense--including travel and contractual obligations--
to offset this additional spending.
  The amendment adds back the full $2.7 billion in both budget 
authority and outlays for spending to these budget functions and 
adjusts the discretionary spending caps to reduce the defense cap and 
increase the nondefense cap.
  I am offering a second degree amendment because I believe this 
amendment gets us into trouble.
  By adding these funds only to education and training and health, 
other subcommittees will be left making difficult spending choices, 
endanger other priority programs, and even head toward confrontation 
with the President as he looks at vetoes for bills that cut important 
Federal programs too deeply.
  This amendment provides $5.0 billion in budget authority and $4.0 
billion in outlays for nondefense discretionary spending in fiscal year 
1997. Every function with nondefense discretionary spending which is 
below a freeze is restored to a freeze level that reflects the 
enactment of the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and 
Appropriations Act.
  Functions in the budget resolution that are above a freeze--natural 
resources and environment, veterans, the crime control trust fund--are 
left at those levels.
  This freeze level differs somewhat from the budget resolution freeze 
level. Before the enactment of the 1996 omnibus appropriations bill, 
Congress had provided approximately $3.3 billion in emergency disaster 
funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and $500 million 
for other disaster-related programs.
  These disaster funds, which are essentially one-time emergency 
expenditures, are built into the post-OCRA freeze level used by the 
Appropriations Committees, spending more than ongoing Federal programs.
  We do have to make choices as we allocate taxpayer dollars. The 
budget resolution makes some assumptions about where spending 
priorities lie. The Appropriations Committees will make their own 
determination and refer that allocation to the full House and Senate in 
the form of 13 annual appropriations bills.
  Congress can accept or reject those bills, but I believe we need to 
be balanced in our approach to spending decisions.
  Under the Harkin-Specter amendment, adding the $2.7 billion to 
education, training, and health would require cutting nondefense 
programs by another $1.2 billion.
  What programs will be affected by those cuts?
  WIC? Veterans health? The Environment? Housing? Agriculture? 
Community and rural development? Law enforcement? Basic scientific 
research? Transportation? The space program?
  To help pay for these addbacks, defense programs would be cut by up 
to $1.5 billion. Again, what will be affected by this reduction? There 
are serious readiness and procurement underfunding problems in the 
defense budget, which this budget resolution seeks to address.
  I believe the assumptions of the balanced budget resolution are 
defensible. We should not reduce defense below the level recommended in 
the resolution because readiness is key to a strong defense for our 
Nation.
  Likewise, we should at least freeze non-defense spending at the 1996 
level which reflects the agreement between Congress and the President 
in the Omnibus Appropriation Act.
  I recognize that nondefense discretionary spending was the only 
portion of the Federal budget that significantly contributed to deficit 
reduction in 1996. This was due to the President's veto of the Balanced 
Budget Act, which included reform of major entitlement and mandatory 
programs.
  Today, I am saying we can do better than a freeze to keep some of our 
priority domestic programs operating effectively in 1997. These 
additional amounts are offset with the administration's debt collection 
reforms that were not included in OCRA. I urge the adoption of this 
amendment.
  I might just say for those who are interested in what prompts this, I 
have seen some early allocation of the assets given to the 
Appropriations Committee by the House budget resolution called 
technically the allocation of the money, that is, a big pot of money is 
divvied up, and I note that somehow or another the House appropriators 
seem to be saying we are going to make a couple of the subcommittees, 
in particular one of them, not only whole but real whole, and make sure 
that is not subject to any veto. We are going to put a lot of money in 
it. That is the labor, health and human services.
  I am not arguing that point. What I am arguing at this point if that 
is done on a budget that was submitted for all of the appropriations, I 
did not assume any such thing when I worked on this budget resolution. 
If it had been the case and thus resulting in some subcommittees 
getting a 10 percent cut--Interior, which the occupant of the chair 
will have difficulty with. It covers the Indian people and a lot of 
other things getting a 7 to 10 percent cut, and others getting as much 
as a 25 percent cut--I would not favor the level of funding for the 
first year, 1997, that I did in this budget resolution.
  I have just allowed for the Senate to approve some additional money. 
We will go to conference with the House on the budget resolution and 
see where it turns out. I am willing to discuss it further. There will 
not be a lot of time, with 30 seconds on a side, but essentially 
anybody who would like to talk to me about it tomorrow, I will be 
delighted to do that.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 4 minutes.

[[Page S5442]]

 The Senator from Nebraska has 11 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. In view of the arrangement we have reached, I yield back 
the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield back 
the time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Exon for his courtesies. 
This has been a very difficult budget resolution, in the sense that we 
have considered, overall, maybe more than 50 amendments. While the 
Senator from New Mexico thinks that many of them, being sense of the 
Senate and not binding on anyone, probably used an awful lot of time 
that was not necessary, that seems to be part of the U.S. Senate, and I 
am not complaining about it. But we have been here for a long time. 
That means we had to work together, and I think we did that very well.
  To the Senators, many who cooperated in using small amounts of time 
so their fellow Senators would have a chance to offer their amendments 
with some explanation, I thank them, from both sides of the aisle, 
Democrat and Republican.
  With that, I yield the remainder of the time on the budget.
  Mr. EXON. Before you yield back, will you yield to me for just a 
moment? I want to return the nice compliment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Certainly.
  Mr. EXON. I have always enjoyed working very closely with my friend 
and colleague. We are going to have a very tough day tomorrow. We are 
going to move things as expeditiously as we can.
  At the proper time tomorrow, I will take time to publicly thank the 
excellent staff on this side and also the staff on that side of the 
aisle for being constructive and helpful all the way through. It has 
been, once again, a unique experience. I have appreciated the courtesy 
that is always extended to me by the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Exon very much.
  Let me correct something. There have been a number of requests on our 
side and your side for 15 minutes in the morning. So if I can correct 
it, we will start voting at 9:15. That is what the unanimous consent 
will state.
  Mr. EXON. The 15 minutes will be morning business time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will decide that later. We will be back on the 
budget resolution at 9:15 instead of 9 o'clock.
  Mr. EXON. At 9:15.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________