Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)

[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:

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.

____________________