[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5461-S5490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:

       Boxer amendment No. 3982, to preserve, protect, and 
     strengthen the Medicaid program by controlling costs, 
     providing State flexibility, and restoring critical standards 
     and protections, including coverage for all populations 
     covered under current law, to restore $18 billion in 
     excessive cuts, offset by corporate and business tax reforms, 
     and to express the sense of the Senate regarding certain 
     Medicaid reforms.
       Wyden-Kerry amendment No. 3984, to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding revenue assumptions.
       Wellstone amendment No. 3985, to express the sense of the 
     Senate on tax deductibility of higher education tuition and 
     student loan interest costs.
       Wellstone-Kerry amendment No. 3986, to express the sense of 
     the Senate that funds will be available to hire new police 
     officers under the Community Oriented Policing Service.
       Wellstone amendment No. 3987, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that Congress will not enact or adopt any legislation 
     that would increase the number of children who are hungry or 
     homeless.
       Wellstone amendment No. 3988, to express the sense of the 
     Senate with respect to maintaining current expenditure levels 
     for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal 
     year 1997.
       Wellstone amendment No. 3989, to express the sense of the 
     Senate with respect to the

[[Page S5462]]

     interrelationship between domestic violence and welfare.
       Kerry amendment No. 3990, to restore proposed cuts in the 
     environment and natural resources programs, to be offset by 
     the extension of expired tax provisions or corporate and 
     business tax reforms.
       Kerry amendment No. 3991, to increase the Function 500 
     totals to maintain levels of education and training funding 
     that will keep pace with rising school enrollments and the 
     demand for a better-trained workforce, to be offset by the 
     extension of expired tax provisions or corporate and business 
     tax reforms.
       Kyl amendment No. 3995, to express the sense of the Senate 
     regarding a supermajority requirement for raising taxes.
       Kyl modified amendment No. 3996, to providing funding for 
     the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program through fiscal 
     year 2000.
       Kennedy amendment No. 3997, to express the sense of the 
     Congress that the reconciliation bill should maintain the 
     existing prohibition against additional charges by providers 
     under the medicare program.
       Kennedy amendment No. 3998, to express the sense of the 
     Congress that the reconciliation bill should not include any 
     changes in Federal nursing home quality standards or the 
     Federal enforcement of such standards.
       Kennedy amendment No. 3999, to express the sense of the 
     Congress that provisions of current medicaid law protecting 
     families of nursing home residents from experiencing 
     financial ruin as the price of needed care for their loved 
     ones should be retained.
       Kennedy amendment No. 4000, to express the sense of the 
     Senate relating to the protection of the wages of 
     construction workers.
       Byrd amendment No. 4001, to increase overall discretionary 
     spending to the levels proposed by the President, offset by 
     the extension of expired tax provisions or corporate and 
     business tax reforms.
       Lott-Smith modified amendment No. 4002, to express the 
     sense of the Congress regarding reimbursement of the United 
     States for the costs associated with Operations Southern 
     Watch and Provide Comfort out of revenues generated by any 
     sale of petroleum originating from Iraq.
       Simpson-Moynihan amendment No. 4003, to express the sense 
     of the Senate that all Federal spending and revenues which 
     are indexed for inflation should be calibrated by the most 
     accurate inflation indices which are available to the Federal 
     government.
       Graham amendment No. 4007, to create a 60 vote point of 
     order against legislation diverting savings achieved through 
     medicare waste, fraud and abuse enforcement activities for 
     purposes other than improving the solvency of the Medicare 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.
       Ashcroft modified amendment No. 4008, to provide for an 
     income tax deduction for the old age, survivors, and 
     disability insurance taxes paid by employees and self-
     employed individuals.
       Gramm amendment No. 4009, to express the sense of the 
     Congress that the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security 
     benefits should be repealed.
       Brown amendment No. 4010, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that there should be a cap on the application of the 
     civilian and military retirement COLA.
       Harkin amendment No. 4011, to provide that the first 
     reconciliation bill not include Medicaid reform, focusing 
     mainly on Welfare reform by shifting Medicaid changes from 
     the first to the second reconciliation bill.
       Harkin (for Specter) amendment No. 4012, to restore funding 
     for education, training, and health programs to a 
     Congressional Budget Office freeze level for fiscal year 1997 
     through an across the board reduction in federal 
     administrative costs.
       Bumpers amendment No. 4013, to establish that no amounts 
     realized from sales of assets shall be scored with respect to 
     the level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues.
       Bumpers amendment No. 4014, to eliminate the defense 
     firewalls.
       Thompson amendment No. 3981, to express the sense of the 
     Senate on the funding levels for the Presidential Election 
     Campaign Fund.
       Murkowski amendment No. 4015, to prohibit sense of the 
     Senate amendments from being offered to the budget 
     resolution.
       Simpson (for Kerrey) amendment No. 4016, to express the 
     sense of the Senate on long term entitlement reforms.
       Snowe amendment No. 4017, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the aggregates and functional levels included in 
     the budget resolution assume that savings in student loans 
     can be achieved without any program change that would 
     increase costs to students and parents or decrease 
     accessibility to student loans.
       Chafee-Breaux amendment No. 4018, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Domenici (for Dole-Hatch-Helms) amendment No. 4019, to 
     express the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General 
     should investigate the practice regarding the prosecution of 
     drug smugglers.
       Feingold amendment No. 3969, to eliminate the tax cut.
       Domenici (for McCain) amendment No. 4022, to express the 
     sense of the Senate regarding Spectrum auctions and their 
     effect on the integrity of the budget process.
       Domenici (for Faircloth) amendment No. 4023, to express 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 shall also 
     contain to the maximum extent possible a strategy for 
     reducing the rate of out-of-wedlock births and encouraging 
     family formation.
       Domenici (for Faircloth) amendment No. 4024, to express the 
     sense of the Senate regarding reduction of the national debt.
       Exon (for Roth) amendment No. 4025, to express the sense of 
     the Senate regarding the funding of Amtrak.
       Domenici amendment No. 4027 (to amendment No. 4012), to 
     adjust the fiscal year 1997 non-defense discretionary 
     allocation to the Appropriation Committee by $5 billion in 
     budget authority and $4 billion in outlays to sustain 1996 
     post-OCRA policy.


                    Amendment No. 4019, as Modified

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent for a modification of amendment No. 
4019, the Dole-Hatch-Helms sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, the amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 4019), as modified, is as follows:

       The Senate finds that--
       Drug use is devastating to the nation, particularly among 
     juveniles and has led juveniles to become involved in 
     interstate gangs and to participate in violent crime;
       Drug use has experienced a dramatic resurgence among our 
     youth;
       The number of youths aged 12-17 using marijuana has 
     increased from 1.6 million in 1992 to 2.9 million in 1994, 
     and the category of ``recent marijuana use'' increased a 
     staggering 200% among 14 to 15-year-olds over the same 
     period.
       The Senate finds that--
       Since 1992, there has been a 52% jump in the number of high 
     school seniors using drugs on a monthly basis, even as 
     worrisome declines are noted in peer disapproval of drug use;
       1 in 3 high school students uses marijuana;
       12 to 17-year-olds who use marijuana are 85% more likely to 
     graduate to cocaine than those who abstain from marijuana;
       Juveniles who reach 21 without ever having used drugs 
     almost never try them later in life;
       The latest results from the Drug Abuse Warning Network show 
     that marijuana-related episodes jumped 39% and are running at 
     155% above the 1990 level, and that methamphetamine cases 
     have risen 256% over the 1991 level;
       Between February 1993 and February 1995 the retail price of 
     a gram of cocaine fell from $172 to $137, and that of a gram 
     of heroin also fell from $2,032 to $1,278;
       It has been reported that the Department of Justice, 
     through the United States Attorney for the Southern District 
     of California, has adopted a policy of allowing certain 
     foreign drug smugglers to avoid prosecution altogether by 
     being released to Mexico;
       It has been reported that in the past year approximately 
     2,300 suspected narcotics traffickers were taken into custody 
     for bringing illegal drugs across the border, but 
     approximately one in four were returned to their country 
     of origin without being prosecuted;
       It has been reported that the U.S. Customs Service is 
     operating under guidelines limiting any prosecution in 
     marijuana cases to cases involving 125 pounds of marijuana or 
     more;
       It has been reported that suspects possessing as much as 32 
     pounds of methamphetamine and 37,000 Quaalude tablets, were 
     not prosecuted but were, instead, allowed to return to their 
     countries of origin after their drugs and vehicles were 
     confiscated;
       It has been reported that after a seizure of 158 pounds of 
     cocaine, one defendant was cited and released because there 
     was no room at the federal jail and charges against her were 
     dropped;
       It has been reported that some smugglers have been caught 
     two or more times--even in the same week--yet still were not 
     prosecuted;
       The number of defendants prosecuted for violations of the 
     federal drug laws has dropped from 25,033 in 1992 to 22,926 
     in 1995;
       This Congress has increased the funding of the Federal 
     Bureau of Prisons by 11.7% over the 1995 appropriations 
     level;
       This Congress has increased the funding of the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service by 23.5% over the 1995 
     appropriations level; therefore
       It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals 
     underlying this resolution assume that the Attorney General 
     promptly should investigate this matter and report, within 30 
     days, to the Chair of the Senate and House Committees on the 
     Judiciary; and
       The Attorney General should ensure that cases involving the 
     smuggling of drugs into the United States are vigorously 
     prosecuted.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
minutes on the procedures that we are about to begin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are about to begin a series of what 
probably will be about 30 or more rollcall votes. These votes will 
occur in the order of the amendments as they were introduced and 
debated on the Senate floor.

[[Page S5463]]

  Each offerer of an amendment should be prepared to deliver a 30-
second statement in favor of the amendment immediately prior to the 
vote on the amendment. This will require, if we are going to do it this 
way, the offerer of these amendments to make sure they are on the floor 
and prepared to go. Otherwise, the process is going to bog down. Under 
the unanimous-consent agreement and the Budget Act, the offerer of the 
amendment will control 30 seconds, and the majority manager, Senator 
Domenici, will control 30 seconds if he opposes the amendment. Only if 
the chairman favors the amendment will this Senator control 30 seconds 
in opposition.
  I urge Senators to prepare three crisp sentences that they want to 
say in favor of their amendment. It will be unlikely that Senators will 
have time to say more than that. I also urge Senators to make every 
effort, as has been said by the acting majority leader, Senator Lott, 
to be here on the floor at all times and, certainly as a priority 
measure, immediately before their amendment is scheduled for 1 minute, 
equally divided, of debate. Then we will go to a vote. I thank all 
Senators for their assistance in expediting the process. We have had 
good cooperation, and I hope that will continue today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 1 minute equally divided between 
the sides on each vote.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, 1 minute equally divided, so 30 seconds 
each?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each side gets 30 seconds.
  Mr. FORD. It is hard to say good morning in 30 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. We are going to have to change the procedures in the 
Senate.
  Mr. LOTT. Are we ready to proceed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe the Boxer amendment is first.


                           Amendment No. 3892

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 3892 
offered by the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer].
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Medicaid serves many of our citizens in 
nursing homes and serves millions of disabled children who are in 
wheelchairs, and millions of our working families. This budget hurts 
those people. We would add back $18 billion, bringing Medicaid up to 
the President's level. It is still below the Breaux-Chafee level. If 
you vote for Breaux-Chafee, you should vote for this. If you voted for 
the President's budget, you should vote for this. We hope you will 
support this. We pay for it by closing corporate tax loopholes.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I say to the distinguished whip 
and Senator Exon, the reason I was delayed, we are having a rather 
major disaster in my State, and a lot of agencies got together to see 
what they might do about it. I apologize to the Senate for not being 
here promptly at 9:15.

  The Boxer amendment would increase taxes and Medicaid spending by $18 
billion. It also contains sense-of-the-Senate language requiring the 
maintaining of current law provisions on individual rights to sue in 
Federal courts, spousal impoverishment, and many other things. This is 
precisely the direction we do not want to go in, and we do not want to 
raise taxes to pay for more spending.
  I move to table the Boxer amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment offered by the Senator from California [Mrs. 
Boxer].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3982) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to yield immediately. Might I just remind 
Senators that was supposed to be a 15-minute vote. How long did it 
take?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question now is the----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How long did we 
spend on the last vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Twenty-two minutes instead of fifteen. That will never 
get the job done unless you want to stay until midnight or all day 
tomorrow at 22 minutes each. The next time we have a rollcall vote, we 
have already had unanimous consent that it is 10 minutes, and I would 
say to Senators I have been authorized to call regular order at the end 
of 10 minutes, so I hope you are here and vote.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. EXON. The other thing I remind the Senate is, we are going to be 
here today, as we usually are not, one vote after another. That tends 
to increase conversations on the Senate floor. That also is going to 
take an awful lot of time away from us. Please leave the floor if you 
are going to have extended conversation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.


                    Amendment No. 3984, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 3984 offered by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to 
the desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3984), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Corporations and individuals have clear responsibility 
     to adhere to environmental laws. When they do not, and 
     environmental damage results, the federal and state 
     governments may impose fines and penalties, and assess 
     polluters for the cost of remediation.
       (2) Assessment of these costs is important in the 
     enforcement process. They appropriately penalize wrongdoing. 
     They discourage future environmental damage. They ensure that 
     taxpayers do not bear the financial brunt of cleaning up 
     after damages done by polluters.
       (3) In the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster in 
     Prince William Sound, Alaska, for example, the corporate 
     settlement with the federal government totaled $900 million.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that assumptions in this resolution assume an appropriate 
     amount of revenues per year through legislation that will not 
     allow deductions for fines and penalties arising from a 
     failure to comply with federal or state environmental or 
     health protection laws.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, this amendment has been 
agreed to by both the majority and the minority. It simply says, if a 
polluter

[[Page S5464]]

engages in action that violates our environmental laws and that action 
results in a penalty or a fine, those actions would no longer be 
deductible under our tax law.
  Senator Kerry of Massachusetts joins me in this. I thank Senator 
Domenici of New Mexico and Senator Exon for support of this amendment, 
and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Finance Committee has reviewed this 
and made some modifications, and since it is acceptable to the Finance 
Committee, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 3984, as modified, offered by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  The amendment (No. 3984), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3985

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Wellstone 
amendment, No. 3985.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, since I have just 30 seconds, this is 
an amendment that I proposed. It is a leadership amendment on our side 
which addresses the sense of the Senate that any tax revenue raised by 
the Finance Committee that does not go toward a child tax credit will 
be used to finance a tax deduction of up to $10,000 a year for higher 
education tuition or to help pay off student loan interest or for 
strict budget deficit reduction.
  I cannot think of an issue that is more important to a broad section 
of the population than to be able to finance higher education for 
families.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Wellstone amendment, although it is 
a sense of the Senate and not binding, would tie the hands of the 
Finance Committee. The Senator from New Mexico does not think that is 
what we want to do.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague Senator Wellstone. As I understand 
the Wellstone amendment, it requires any tax revenues raised in excess 
of the amount needed to pay for a per-child tax credit be allocated 
toward a $10,000 annual deduction for higher education tuition and 
student loan interest costs or for deficit reduction. After careful 
consideration, and notwithstanding my support for the respective goals 
of deficit reduction and education assistance, I have concluded that I 
am unable to support the Wellstone amendment. Let me tell you why.
  Mr. President, although I share Senator Wellstone's commitment to 
increasing educational opportunities and easing the burdens associated 
with the costs of higher education, I do not share his all-or-nothing 
approach to determining our Federal budget priorities. Our Nation faces 
a number of difficult and complicated challenges arising out of our 
failure to reduce the Federal budget deficit, to achieve sustained 
economic growth, and to increase the global competitiveness of the 
Nation's labor force.
  I believe that the only way to meet these challenges is to adopt a 
comprehensive plan of action that moves the Nation forward on every 
front. Recognizing the need for such action, the members of the 
Centrist coalition offered a budget that called for deficit reduction, 
economic growth, and education incentives. Moreover, all of our 
proposals were paid for by spending reductions and elimination of 
loopholes benefiting special interests and foreign corporations. 
Finally, Mr. President, the members of the centrist group concluded 
that these investments and reforms would yield the maximum possible 
benefit if they were enacted as part of a comprehensive package.
  With respect to the education incentives, our group proposed a two-
part package. The first component called for the enactment of an above-
the-line deduction for interest expenses paid on education loans. The 
second component was an additional above-the-line deduction for 
qualified education expenses paid for the education or training of the 
taxpayer, his or her spouse, or the taxpayer's dependents.
  As the centrist proposal demonstrated, it is possible to craft a 
budget that fairly and equitably addresses our needs in critical areas 
such as education without excluding other important national 
priorities. Unfortunately, the Wellstone amendment leaves no room for 
many of the economic reforms--such as capital gains and estate tax 
reform and small business incentives--that are also critical to 
providing economic security for all of our citizens. It is this 
shortcoming that, in my opinion, creates a fatal flaw in my colleague's 
proposal.
  Mr. President, although I am unable to support Senator Wellstone in 
this particular instance, I do look forward to working with him, and 
others, to find bipartisan solutions to the challenges that lie ahead.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last month I introduced the Commonsense 
Middle-Class Tax Relief Act which embodies the principles outlined in 
this sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by the Senator from 
Minnesota. I enthusiastically support the pending amendment.
  Too many hard-working families in Iowa and across the country are 
worried about a lot of things--and of paramount concern is their 
ability to pay for college, for their children and for themselves. 
Families are struggling to pay the college tuition bill and student 
debt is soaring. Middle-income families need a break.
  The 1992 median income for families with children in Iowa was 
$35,100. Right now it costs $6,108 to pay tuition, fees, and room and 
board for a year at the University of Iowa. The cost is about the same 
at Iowa State. There is no doubt the average working family in Iowa is 
having great difficulty paying for 4 years of college for their 
children.
  But these families know that the key to a better future for their 
families is intricately linked to a good education, including college 
and vocational training. Therefore, they are doing whatever they can to 
send their kids to college. And for many, that means accumulating big 
debts to pay for those educations.
  Over the past decade and a half, college aid in the form of grants 
has decreased and has been replaced by an increased reliance on loans. 
The cost of attending the University of Northern Iowa is about $5,700. 
Over the past few years the average debt of students graduating from 
this very modestly priced state university has been climbing. For the 
1990-91 school year, the average debt was $2,589 and rose to $4,395 for 
1994-95.
  It is clear that many students are borrowing to pay for college. 
These students and their families need help.
  Today, middle-class Americans are working longer hours for smaller 
paychecks. This amendment would pave the way to provide a tax deduction 
for college tuition and interest on student loans--giving American 
families a raise in incomes, a raise in education and skills, and a 
raise in living standards.
  The Commonsense Middle-Class Tax Relief Act and this amendment are 
based on a fundamental premise: A higher education means higher income.
  This amendment would cut taxes on hard-working families trying to get 
ahead, raise incomes, and prepare Americans for the 21st century. It 
will mean higher incomes, higher education, and higher quality jobs for 
hard-working Americans.
  Mr. President, education is key to both the raising of incomes of 
average Americans and to increasing the competitiveness of America in 
an increasingly global economy.
  We should be able to agree on a bipartisan basis that this type of 
important middle-class tax relief is needed and will mean better 
opportunities and better incomes for millions of Americans.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
commonsense proposal.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table 
amendment No. 3985, offered by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Wellstone].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.

[[Page S5465]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3985) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May we have order in the Senate, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


             Amendments Nos. 3989, 4017, and 4024, En Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration en bloc of the following amendments; that 
they be considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, the motions to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, without further action or 
debate. The amendments are as follows: Wellstone, No. 3989; Snowe, No. 
4017; Faircloth, No. 4024.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. EXON. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3989, 4017, and 4024) were agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3986

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 3986 
offered by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone]. There will be 1 
minute equally divided for debate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May we have order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. The Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this is to make sure we have the funds for the hiring 
of new police under the COPS Program in fiscal year 1997. This comes 
directly out of the violent crime reduction trust fund which we passed 
as a part of the crime bill in 1994. We were all very clear in our 
commitment that the money would come out of this fund and the 
commitment would be lived up to and it would be money that would be 
spent on the COPS Program. As a Senate, we made that commitment, and 
this amendment just makes sure that we confirm that commitment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield back the 30 seconds that I have 
in opposition.


                Amendment No. 4028 to Amendment No. 3986

  (Purpose: To increase funding for the violent crime reduction trust 
   fund programs in 2001 and 2002 with offsetting reductions and to 
express the sense of the Senate regarding administrative funding of the 
        President's public safety and community policing grants)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in 
behalf of Senator Abraham and Senator Coverdell and ask that Senator 
Abraham be permitted to use the 30 seconds to describe his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Abraham, for himself, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Hatch, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 4028 to amendment No. 3986.

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

       In the pending amendment, strike all after ``SEC.  .'' and 
     insert the following:

     SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   ``COPS'' PROGRAM.

       (a) It is the Sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the function totals and aggregates in this budget 
     resolution assume:
       (1) full funding for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund 
     through the Fiscal Year 2002; and
       (2) that administrative funding for the Public Safety and 
     Community Policing grants should be reduced by half of the 
     President's request for the following reasons:
       (A) in an interview with the New York Times on May 12, 
     1996, a senior presidential aid claimed that, under the COPS 
     program, ``43,000 of the 100,000 cops will be on the 
     street'';
       (B) contrary to this claim, in a press conference Thursday, 
     May 16, 1996, Attorney General Janet Reno stated that, ``What 
     I am advised is that there are 17,000 officers that can be 
     identified as being on the streets'' as a result of the COPS 
     program; and
       (C) While the number of police officers actually placed on 
     the streets under the COPS program has lagged far behind the 
     White House's misleading claims, the President's request to 
     fund 310 administrative positions to oversee the COPS program 
     is an excessive $29,185,000.
       The number on page 37, line 17, is deemed to be increased 
     by the amount of $1,900,000,000.
       The number on page 37, line 18, is deemed to be increased 
     by the amount of $3,000,000,000.
       The number on Page 37, line 24, is deemed to be increased 
     by the amount of $400,000,000.
       The number on Page 37, line 25, is deemed to be increased 
     by the amount of $1,550,000,000.
       The number on Page 32, line 6, is deemed to be decreased by 
     the amount of $1,900,000,000.
       The number on Page 32, line 7, is deemed to be decreased by 
     the amount of $3,000,000,000.
       The number on Page 32, line 13, is deemed to be decreased 
     by the amount of $400,000,000.
       The number on Page 32, line 14, is deemed to be decreased 
     by the amount of $1,550,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment offered by myself, Senator 
Hatch and Senator Coverdell is designed to effectuate the goals of the 
first-degree amendment, but rather than doing it by sense of the 
Senate, we actually want to get the job done.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. EXON. Senators want to talk. We cannot hear what the speakers are 
saying. It is delaying things.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan will suspend until 
order is restored in the Senate. The Senate will come to order. 
Senators please take their conversations outside. The Senator from 
Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The objective of our amendment is to actually accomplish the goal of 
funding the violent crime reduction trust fund for the years 2001 and 
2002. The trust fund is currently set to expire just 4 years from now. 
This amendment keeps the fund going through the year 2002, providing 
necessary support for prison grants, the COPS Program, the Violence 
Against Women Program, and so on.
  To pay for it, we have offset funds from the 600-function programs 
for the years 2001 and 2002. We point out that even with this offset, 
there will still be more dollars in this budget for those programs than 
was in the administration's request for those programs, and, therefore, 
we think this is an effective way to both guarantee adequate funding 
for 600 programs and maintain the violent crime reduction trust fund.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. May I have 30 seconds for a response?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment does not 
say anything about whether or not the funding is going to be there next 
year for the COPS Program. That is the commitment we made. We made the 
commitment it would come out of this

[[Page S5466]]

violent crime reduction trust fund, and we should honor that 
commitment.
  What the Senator is representing is that it can come from the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, it can come from aid for kids 
with spinal bifida, MS, cerebral palsy.
  This is a very different amendment. We made a commitment for full 
funding in this trust fund. That is why we should support the amendment 
I offered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Abraham amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. EXON. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 4028 offered by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham]. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4028) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Parliamentary inquiry. Is the second-degree amendment 
in order now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                Amendment No. 4029 to Amendment No. 3986

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

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4029 to amendment No. 3986.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is to read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:

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

       (a) It is the sense of the Senate that sufficient funds 
     will be made available for Public Safety and Community 
     Policing grants to reach the goals of Title I of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 
     103-266).

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is self-explanatory. That language 
which was in my original amendment was wiped out by the second-degree 
amendment, and it seems there would be consensus on that. Therefore, I 
would like to have this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, which I propose 
as a second-degree amendment. I hope to get unanimous support. We said 
we should fully fund it. We should.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the underlying 
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 3986.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3986) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3987

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 3987 
offered by the Senator from Minnesota.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. This sense-of-the-Senate simply says that in this 
budget resolution the Congress shall not enact or adopt any legislation 
that would increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless, 
and if in fact that does happen, that we take a look at it. And we 
would revisit the provisions of any such legislation that would have 
that effect.
  I hope I will get a strong vote for this. It was introduced in the 
beginning of this Congress and defeated. But then it was passed on a 
voice vote. I think it is important that we have a vote on this and 
that 100 Senators vote for the proposition that we are not going to 
take action that will increase hunger or homelessness among children.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. Would he 
accept a voice vote?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No, Mr. President. I want a recorded vote. I had voice 
votes before, and it got taken out in conference committee originally. 
This time I want a recorded vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It might get taken out even with a vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. At least the Senate is on record.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest that nothing in this budget 
resolution would indicate that we are going to increase the number of 
hungry and homeless in the United States. I suggest that every Senator 
vote aye.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S5467]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3987, offered by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3987) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum for just 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.


                           Amendment No. 3990

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have conferred with the distinguished Democrat 
manager, and he concurs that we set aside the Wellstone amendment 3988 
and that we proceed to 3990, which is a Kerry amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 3990.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, is it 60 seconds?
  Mr. EXON. Thirty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixty seconds divided equally. The Senator has 
30 seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment would add back the 
President's level of funding for environmental cleanup. It adds back 
$7.3 billion over the 6-year period. That would go specifically to EPA 
enforcement, to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to 
science technology research for the EPA and to the Everglades program 
as well as the National Park Service. This is critical funding in terms 
of their ability to meet increased responsibilities of research and 
protection, and, as I say, it simply brings it back to the President's 
requested level.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the budget resolution before us provides 
$1.5 billion more in 2002 for natural resources and the environment 
than the President does under his discretionary trigger. This amendment 
increases taxes $6.3 billion to pay for additional spending. I move to 
table the Kerry amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
motion to table the Kerry amendment No. 3990. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3990) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3991

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, by agreement with the minority, we are 
once again going to set aside Senator Wellstone's 3988 and proceed to 
the second Kerry amendment, 3991.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are skipping out of order again. I would 
like to inquire of the manager, is he suggesting that we skip over 
Wellstone, which is No. 3988, a second time to go to the second Kerry 
amendment? Is that right?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is what I suggested. And I do not think I need any 
more time than that. I still have one Senator I have to talk to about 
the amendment we are passing over and then we can go right back to it.
  Mr. EXON. I would not necessarily agree unless the Senator from 
Minnesota does agree that we have an agreement that we would go back 
for a vote on the Wellstone amendment and bring that up following 
moving ahead as the leader has suggested with the Kerry amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for his remarks 
trying to protect all Senators, but I have talked with Senator 
Domenici, and I am pleased to accommodate him on this. Whatever makes 
more sense is fine. We will wait until the next one.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not want to waste a lot of time. The Senator from 
New Mexico is not asking for anything untoward.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I know it is all right with you. It is Senator Exon.
  Mr. EXON. It is all right with me if it is all right with the Senator 
from Minnesota, and he said it is. That takes care of it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this seeks to add back to the President's 
level the funding for various education programs ranging from the title 
I, Head Start, Pell grants, Goals 2000, and safe and drug-free schools. 
It would effectively restore for 1.3 million students the Pell grants; 
it would restore 550,000 students who would lose money as a result of 
title I cuts; it would restore 20,000 children to the Head Start 
Program and 130,000 youth and adults to job opportunities and skill 
enhancement.
  This merely brings it back to the President's level, again, and is 
appropriately offset.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is an amendment which will add $56 
billion over the next 6 years to certain discretionary functions, and 
to do it,

[[Page S5468]]

taxes will be increased $56 billion. The increased funding will come 
from reducing tax deductions that are necessary for the child credit 
that many of us think would be more appropriate.
  So I believe we ought to table the amendment, and I move to table it 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment which 
Senators Kerry, Murray, and myself, along with others, are offering to 
protect funding for critical education and training programs over the 
next 6 years.
  Last year, the budget resolution passed by the Republican majority 
cut discretionary education and training funds below current services 
by $40 billion over 7 years. This year's proposal again threatens some 
of America's most proven and essential education and training programs, 
at a time when the challenges for the future are even greater. The K-
12, higher education and training initiatives that have proven to have 
the most success over the years should be made stronger, not weaker, as 
we enter the next century. What is a more important investment in our 
future?
  The amendment which I am offering along with Senators Kerry and 
Murray, seeks to protect initiatives that we know work. Parents, 
educators, and students all know these programs work.
  The amendment adds funding over 6 years to bring the amendment up to 
the levels requested in the President's budget.
  Mr. President, the part of the Federal budget which we are amending 
includes valuable, proven programs like title I, Head Start, school-to-
work, vocational education grants, Pell grants, safe and drug free 
schools technology challenge grants, and the Technology Literacy Fund 
and impact aid as well as Goals 2000 and AmeriCorps.
  Our amendment replaces the Republican proposal with the spending 
levels proposed by the President. Under our amendment, we would invest 
$270.4 billion over 6 years in discretionary spending for education, 
job training, and social services programs, $56.1 billion more than the 
proposed budget resolution.
  The Republican majority's budget fails to maintain fiscal year 1996 
funding levels for education and training programs. Over 6 years, it 
falls $3.2 billion below a freeze at fiscal year 1996 levels for these 
discretionary programs. It does not provide for any adjustment for 
inflation, or increased enrollment. which could result in deep cuts in 
services to children and education.
  By contrast, the President's budget demonstrates his continued 
commitment to a strong Federal investment in proven education programs, 
to ensure that America's children and families are prepared to meet the 
challenges of the 21st century.
  For example, the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request calls 
for increasing title I funds by 7 percent over fiscal year 1995 levels 
to raise the academic achievement of 7 million disadvantaged students 
in over 50,000 American schools; special education is increased by 7 
percent to maintain Federal support for the excess costs of educating 
almost 6 million children with disabilities; the Pell grant maximum 
award is increased to $2,700, up $360 or 15 percent from the 1995 level 
of $2,340, to provide grant aid to 3.8 million low- and moderate-income 
students; the College Work-Study Program is up by 10 percent, enabling 
an expansion of the number of students who earn some of their college 
costs from 700,000 to 1 million over the next 5 years; and the TRIO 
Program is increased by 8 percent, to provide outreach and other 
special support services to encourage 682,000 disadvantaged students to 
enter and complete postsecondary education.
  Last year, as the majority attempted to impose cuts on many education 
programs, people at the grassroots of America spoke up. As I traveled 
across Michigan, I heard again and again about the value of Federal 
support for such programs as title I and school to work, Pell grants, 
and Head Start. A recent Washington Post/ABC Poll indicates 82 percent 
of Americans oppose cutting education to balance the Federal budget. In 
early January, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that education is the 
top priority among voters, ranking above crime, the economy, health 
care, and the deficit for the first time in history.
  It is unclear if the resolution proposed by the majority provides 
adequate budget authority for the vital title I reading, writing and 
math program for fiscal year 1997 to follow through on the agreement 
reached in the omnibus appropriations bill just a few weeks ago. 
Earlier versions of the majority's fiscal year 1996 appropriations 
measure would have cut title I by 17 percent, denying services to 1.1 
million children nationwide and over 30,000 in my home State of 
Michigan. The School to Work Program which helps students make the 
transition from school to future careers and education by forming a 
three-way partnership between government, educators, and private 
industry would have been cut by 22 percent. Goals 2000, which helps 
States and local school districts raise academic standards and 
implement their own comprehensive reform plans was cut by 25 percent; 
and summer jobs for youth would also have been cut by 25 percent. It is 
only through the bipartisan efforts of my Democratic colleagues and 
some on the other side of the aisle that we were able to reverse these 
damaging cuts.

  Mr. President, the Senate budget resolution caps the Direct Lending 
program at 20 percent of loan volume, forcing 1.6 million students in 
1,100 colleges and universities out of the program against their will. 
Colleges should be able to choose the student loan program that 
provides the best services and lowest costs to their students. Direct 
lending permits college students to bypass the maze of lenders and 
middlemen in the guaranteed loan program and borrow directly from the 
Federal Government through their campus student aid office. At direct 
lending schools, needed money gets to students more promptly. The 
application process is simpler. Student do not submit a separate loan 
application to a bank.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, if direct lending is 
capped or eliminated, banks and guaranteed agencies will reap between 
$70 and $106 billion in additional business over the budget period 
generating an estimated $4 to $6 billion in extra profits.
  Under the Republican resolution, there is concern that the maximum 
Pell grant award will decline substantially over the next 6 years and 
that eligible recipients may be cut off of the program. I received a 
letter today from the president of the National Association of 
Independent Colleges and Universities, David Warren, who states that:

       The ability to maintain the Pell Grant maximum depends on 
     carry-overs in the funding from the previous year. The carry-
     over is not expected to be available beyond FY 1997, but the 
     base has been severely reduced. It will not be possible to 
     maintain the maximum grant in FY 1998 and beyond under the 
     parameters provided in the pending budget resolution.

  He goes on to say:

       The important roll of education in our Nation's growth is 
     clear, over the last 60 years, education and advances in 
     knowledge have accounted for nearly 40 percent of our 
     Nation's economic growth. We cannot turn back now.
  Mr. President, in addition to restoring funding for a variety of 
important education efforts, this amendment will also improve the 
funding levels of several job training programs.
  Education builds the foundation of a person's future. Job training 
programs are available to help people expand that base if their careers 
take unexpected turns. Unfortunately, more and more people are finding 
themselves in a position where they have to retrain because their old 
job no longer exists. As the rate of change in our economy increases, 
so does the rate of dislocation. Every day we are faced with 
announcements of major corporations laying people off. But unlike the 
past, people today may lose their jobs when they are 45 or 50. For 
these people, the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA] maintains two 
programs: title II-A, adult training, and title III, training for 
dislocated workers.
  Adult training is intended to prepare adults for participation in the 
labor force by increasing their educational and occupational skills. It 
is operated

[[Page S5469]]

at the local level through service delivery areas designated by the 
Governor. The budget resolution would maintain a level funding line for 
adult training at a time when we are concentrating on reducing the 
number of people on welfare. Adult training reduces welfare dependency 
by helping people become productive and successful members of society. 
By implementing the proposed budget levels, we will be serving 65,000 
fewer adults in 2002 than we did this year.
  This would be a tragic mistake. Our goal is increasing self-
sufficiency and that is what adult training accomplishes.
  The Job Training Partnership Act also funds a number of programs 
which are vital towards ensuring that our youth grow along with the job 
market and are not left behind. One of the most successful, and most 
widely supported, programs of this type is the Job Corps. A residential 
training program for at-risk youth, over 70 percent of its enrollees 
leave the program to take full employment, go on for further education, 
or enter the military. Job Corps works, and yet, its future is 
threatened by this budget.
  Similarly, the funding levels proposed by the majority for the Summer 
Youth and the Youth Training Grant Programs will result in hundreds of 
thousands of young people who don't receive valuable training and work 
experiences. Mr. President, now is not the time to walk away from our 
commitment to the youth of this country. We are asking them to take 
responsibility and to do that they must have the skills and the 
knowledge necessary to compete in the world. The programs I have 
discussed do that, and the amendment I am sponsoring today with my 
friend from Washington will ensure that these programs continue to 
serve the people that need them.
  Mr. President, it is important to note that, over 6 years, the 
amendment we are offering spends $17.7 billion less on function 500 
than would have been invested in the fiscal year 1995 pre-rescission 
policies had kept pace with inflation. This is a moderate and prudent 
increase. We can and should balance the budget over the next 6 years. 
We can do so without sacrificing critical investment in America's 
future.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we go again. The budget resolution 
goes about balancing the budget in all the wrong ways by placing 
education at the bottom of the Nation's priority list once again.
  I am pleased to cosponsor and support the Kerry amendment. The 
amendment puts education at the top of the national priority list by 
restoring funds for vital education and training programs over the next 
6 years. The amendment eliminates the cuts in the budget resolution and 
provides the investments to education and training as proposed by 
President Clinton.
  You will hear a lot of talk from the other side that they provide 
increases in education. Make sure you look beyond the blue smoke and 
mirrors because it is simply not true.
  Just a few weeks ago we reversed deep education cuts by restoring 
$2.7 billion to the fiscal year 1996 education appropriations bill. 
However, the pending resolution does not include this restoration in 
the baseline, therefore we are right back where we started from.
  Unless we adopt this amendment not only there will be no real 
investments in education, but there will be cuts over even the 
inadequate fiscal year 1996 levels. And our Nation will suffer as a 
result.
  Mr. President, during the last year students, parents, teachers, 
school boards, and school administrators were treated to a roller 
coaster ride because of great uncertainties caused by the Federal 
budget process. Let's not repeat that mistake again this year. The 
American people are sick and tired of the partisan bickering and want 
us to get on with the business of governing.
  We started last year with proposals for deep cuts in student loans. 
The House planned to cut $18 billion, the resolution offered by the 
Budget Committee called for cuts of $14 billion. We finally adopted a 
bipartisan amendment in the Senate which reduced the cut to $4 billion. 
Students and their parents were not thrilled, but saw this as at least 
an improvement.
  But then the resolution went to conference and the cut was $10 
billion. Students and their parents started to worry again.
  The Senate once again moderated the cuts and people rejoiced. The 
House did not and concern intensified.
  The final deal drastically cut the successful direct lending program 
and included cut of about $5 billion. That bill was rightfully vetoed.
  That was followed by the ups and downs of negotiations on the fiscal 
year 1996 appropriations bill. The Government was shutdown twice. The 7 
months the Federal Government was directionless because of short-term 
continuing resolutions instead of annual appropriations.
  Parents worried that their children would not get the reading and 
math assistance they need because title I funding was cut by 17 
percent. Teachers worried about whether or not they would have a job. 
School boards and administrators were unable to plan for the upcoming 
school year because they did not know what the budget would be for next 
year. In short, chaos reined.
  We should promise the American people that we will never do that 
again. Passing this amendment would be a good place to start.
  In addition to providing more sanity to the 1997 appropriations 
process, we will put out Nation on the right track for the future. We 
will make the investments that will enable the United States to remain 
competitive into the next century by making sure we have the 
healthiest, best educated and most skilled workers in the world.
  I urge adoption of the Kerry amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 3991, offered by the 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry]. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was annouced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3991) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3988

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the regular order would return 
us to the Wellstone amendment No. 3988.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is strong bipartisan support for 
this amendment. But last year with LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, it was a nightmare with the stop-and-start-funding.
  What this amendment just simply says is that we will have at least as 
much funding next year as we have had this year for this energy 
assistance program. I believe the chairman believes that is in the 
assumptions of the budget resolution. If so, fine. I hope we get a 
resounding vote because we had to fight very hard to keep this program 
intact this year. That is why I introduced the amendment and why I hope 
for a strong recorded, positive vote.

[[Page S5470]]

  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while I have great respect for Senator 
Wellstone, I just want to tell the Senate this is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that reaffirms what is in the budget resolution. It says the 
sense of the Senate is that we do precisely what is in the budget 
resolution.
  It seems to me that everybody can have that kind of sense of the 
Senate on everything in the budget resolution. Anything you like, you 
just come up and say, ``It's provided for, but I want to have a sense 
of the Senate on top of it being in the budget already.''
  There is no way to keep the amendment from proceeding, except we are 
going to use 15 minutes on a vote that probably is going to pass 
overwhelmingly because it is already in the budget resolution. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. EXON. If there has not been a sufficient second, I ask for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to inquire, would the Senator 
accept a voice vote on this amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, no. I want a recorded vote on this 
amendment because of the struggle over this past year. My understanding 
is that not until yesterday did we have anything really in writing that 
the assumptions pointed to this. It has been too big a struggle. Many 
Senators in cold weather States know that. We know what happened in 
Chicago last summer. I want to get a strong recorded vote.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program is one of the most important Federal programs for my home State 
of Massachusetts. I am pleased the President's budget calls for $1 
billion in LIHEAP funding for the next fiscal year, and $300 million in 
emergency funding.
  After the severe weather of this past winter--which was even more 
efficient than our friends on the other side of the aisle at shutting 
down the Government--I hope the Senate can speak with one voice and 
send a message to the appropriators that funding for LIHEAP should 
match this year's outlays.
  LIHEAP means real help to people who need it. As fuel prices continue 
to rise, Senators should know how important this program is to their 
constituents. I know how important it is to mine.
  For lower-income residents in Massachusetts--those who receive 
assistance under LIHEAP--nearly $1 in $5 of their income goes to pay 
for energy bills. That is, Mr. President, 20 percent of a household's 
budget just to heat the home. And after paying their fuel bills, the 
average low-income New Englander has only $43 left over. We cannot 
expect these people to live without LIHEAP, Mr. President. This program 
needs to receive funds sufficient to serve lower income families in 
areas which experience colder winters.
  LIHEAP pays up to half of the heating bills for a family during the 
winter months in New England. Everyone in this country knows how cold 
it was in my region of the country this past winter, how much snow we 
had, how people were literally freezing in the streets. In fact, twice 
as many people froze to death during the severe winter than were killed 
in the 1994 California earthquake. I will never forget this past 
winter, as the temperature dropped below 20 degrees and the chairman of 
the energy committee in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, 
Representative Albert Herren, told me my State's LIHEAP funds had been 
depleted--in December.
  Mr. President, it was so cold and so snowy in Massachusetts, some 
schools closed for snow days as late as April.
  LIHEAP helps families and LIHEAP helps children, Mr. President. My 
friends at Massachusetts General Hospital tell me that the number of 
cases of child malnutrition increase every winter as families are 
forced to choose between eating and heating. This country is better 
than that, Mr. President.
  I am pleased to join my friend from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, in 
sponsoring this sense of the Senate that funding for LIHEAP should 
match last year's outlays. That seems to me the minimum the Senate can 
do to send a message to the appropriators and to the country that 
Congress wants lower income Americans to survive the upcoming winter.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3988 offered by the Senator from Minnesota. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--12

     Brown
     Coverdell
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kyl
     Mack
     Nickles
     Thomas
  The amendment (No. 3988) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that says that when the Congress has adopted fundamental tax 
reform, we should, thereafter, adopt some kind of supermajority 
requirement to raise taxes as a constitutional amendment.
  This is the idea that came from the Kemp Commission, which said if we 
ever get to a single rate tax, whether a consumption tax or income tax, 
thereafter, we better make it harder to raise taxes because there is no 
place to shelter income taxes. So once we have tax reform, we should 
have a supermajority requirement.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this is a far reaching and very little 
considered amendment. It calls for a supermajority vote, presumably a 
two-thirds majority for Congress to approve a tax increase, but also 
calls for a flat tax. While many of us support tax reform, we should 
not be endorsing a particular plan without careful consideration of the 
alternative. I urge the Senators to vote against this unwise and 
undemocratic amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the 
amendment be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Center on Budget


                                        and Policy Priorities,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 1996.

    Kyl Amendment on Taxes Threatens Deficit Reduction and Protects 
                          Wasteful Tax Breaks

       The Senate is scheduled to vote on Sen. Kyl's amendment to 
     the pending budget resolution calling for ``fundamental tax 
     reform'' to replace the current ``indefensible'' federal tax 
     system, and endorsing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution 
     requiring supermajorities to ``raise tax rates, impose new 
     taxes, or otherwise increase the amount of taxpayer's income 
     that is subject to tax.''
       Sen. Kyl's amendment is a ``sense of the Senate'' amendment 
     and therefore would not

[[Page S5471]]

     have legal force, but Senators who vote for it may later be 
     pressed to vote for substantive legislation that would 
     replace current progressive taxes (which taken into account 
     ability to pay) with flat taxes, national sales taxes, or 
     other taxes that exclude investment income from the tax 
     base.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Footnotes to appear at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In addition, Senators who vote for the Kyl amendment will 
     be under great pressure to vote for S.J. Res. 49, Senator 
     Kyl's proposed amendment to the Constitution requiring 
     supermajorities to raise taxes.

                      Kyl Constitutional Amendment

       ``Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate or base 
     of any tax may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the 
     whole number of each House of Congress.''
       The Kyl amendment to the budget resolution and the 
     companion constitutional amendment are undesirable for a 
     variety of reasons.
       The nation will face very large deficits in coming decades 
     when the baby boom generation retires--perhaps exceeding 15 
     percent of the economy by 2030--if current budget policies 
     are not changed. Many experts believe Congress will need 
     to consider both significant spending cuts and revenue 
     increases in the decades ahead. The Kyl amendments would 
     effectively preclude such a deficit reduction package, 
     because of the revenue increases they would contain.
       Furthermore, the Kyl amendments would inequitably benefit 
     the wealthiest and most powerful at the expense of the rest 
     of the U.S. population. A two-thirds majority would be 
     required to curb special interest tax expenditures, which 
     disproportion benefit those at high income levels. By 
     contrast, a simply majority vote would suffice to cut federal 
     programs, which primarily benefit the middle class and the 
     poor. Apportioning the sacrifice of deficit reduction would 
     not be done on a level playing field.
       The Kyl amendments could threaten the solvency of Social 
     Security, which may ultimately need payroll tax increases as 
     well as benefit cuts to restore long-term balance. A payroll 
     tax increase would require a two-thirds vote, and runs 
     counter to the stated policy of the Kyl Amendment against 
     payroll taxes (see footnote 1). The same is true for 
     Medicare, which may also need premium increases to restore 
     solvency. Yet any premium increase that takes into account a 
     beneficiary's ability to pay could be considered a tax, and 
     therefore prohibited.
       The Kyl constitutional amendment has special problems of 
     its own--by requiring supermajorities for any new tax, base 
     broadener, or rate increase, it effectively precludes all tax 
     reform, from Chaffee-Breaux to Domenici-Nunn, from a flat tax 
     to a national sales tax. For example, the 1986 tax reform 
     bill, which lowered marginal rates while closing loopholes, 
     would have been unconstitutional simply because it broadened 
     tax bases. Last year's reconciliation bill would also have 
     been unconstitutional for the same reason.
       The Kyl constitutional amendment undermines the basic 
     principles of majority rule that are at the heart of American 
     democracy. Nowhere in the Constitution are supermajorities 
     required to adopt or amend issues of public policy--in fact, 
     the framers explicitly and knowingly rejected 
     supermajorities. Further, because it would require a two-
     thirds vote of the entire membership of the House and the 
     Senate (rather than two-thirds of those voting), this 
     proposal is even more restrictive than the two-thirds needed 
     to override a presidential veto or to amend the Constitution.


   i. the constitutional amendment and the long-term fiscal forecast

       The Federal deficit now has been reduced below two percent 
     of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size 
     of the U.S. economy), a level that many economists believe 
     does not cause significant damage even if maintained over a 
     substantial period of time. But as the Bipartisan Commission 
     on Entitlement and Tax Reform warned in 1994, if not action 
     is taken to raise revenue or restrain Medicare, Social 
     Security, Medicaid, and some lesser entitlements--and other 
     Federal spending remains constant as a share of GDP--the 
     deficit will rise sharply when the baby boom generation 
     retires. The Entitlement Commission forecast the deficit will 
     exceed 15 percent of GDP by 2030 if no such action is taken. 
     Based on a recent slowdown in the rate of growth of health 
     care costs, current forecasts are a bit less pessimistic, but 
     not by much. President Clinton's new budget forecasts the 
     deficit will equal 12 percent of GDP in 2030 under current 
     tax and entitlement laws and rise further to 26 percent of 
     GDP by 2050. In short, any reasonable long-term forecast will 
     show projected deficits in the next century to be extremely 
     large and of a magnitude unhealthy for the U.S. economy To 
     avoid such a development, major deficit reduction that 
     extends far beyond the steps Congress and the Administration 
     are currently considering will ultimately be needed.
       Testifying before the Entitlement Commission in 1994, 
     Robert Reischauer, then the director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office, observed that the public would be unlikely to 
     accept the steps that would be required either to extract all 
     of the needed deficit reduction in the decades ahead just 
     from government programs or to extract all of the needed 
     deficit reduction just from revenues. In the long run, 
     Reischauer predicted, policymakers will agree on some mix 
     of program cuts and revenue increases to prevent deficits 
     of a magnitude that would do substantial damage to the 
     economy.
       The proposed constitutional amendment is designed to ensure 
     that virtually none of those future deficit reduction 
     measures come from the revenue side and virtually all come 
     from cutting programs. That the amendment would bar virtually 
     all revenue increases can be seen by examining House votes 
     for the four principal deficit reduction measures enacted 
     between 1982 and 1993 that raised federal revenue. Although 
     three of these four measures were signed by Republican 
     presidents and all four enjoyed the support of Democratic 
     Congressional leaders, none received two-thirds support on 
     the House floor. A fifth measure--the 1983 Social Security 
     rescue plan, which increased Social Security payroll tax 
     collections--also failed to secure a two-thirds vote despite 
     strong support from President Reagan and Congressional 
     leaders.
       The constitutional amendment thus would likely lead to one 
     of several outcomes: (1) larger deficits over time; (2) a 
     greatly shrunken federal government that is unable to do much 
     beyond running Social Security and Medicare, maintaining 
     national defense, making federal pension and veterans 
     payments, and paying interest payments on the national debt; 
     and (3) steep reductions in Social Security and Medicare that 
     significantly reduce the living standards of millions of 
     elderly people who are not well off. Such stark outcomes are 
     not necessary if a balance of spending cuts and revenue 
     increases ultimately can be considered over the next three 
     decades. Such balance is what the amendment is designed to 
     prevent.
       That the statements in the previous paragraph are not 
     hyperbole can be seen by examining a chart the Entitlement 
     Commission published in 1994 showing the fiscal forecast 
     through 2030 under current tax and entitlement law. When the 
     baby boom generation reaches retirement and an unprecedented 
     proportion of the population is elderly, some increases in 
     revenues are likely to be needed, in addition to actions to 
     restrain Social Security and Medicare costs and actions of 
     the type the President and Congress are proposing for the 
     years between now and 2002.


   ii. the amendment effectively bars measures to close tax loopholes

       The requirement for a two-thirds majority would apply not 
     only to measures to raise tax rates but also to measures to 
     cut unproductive tax expenditures that grant subsidies to 
     powerful special interests. A recent Congressional Budget 
     Office study found that over half of the corporate subsidies 
     the federal government provides are delivered through the tax 
     code. Curbing corporate welfare provided through the tax code 
     is one way to help reduce the deficit, but it would require a 
     two-thirds vote under the proposed amendment. This would 
     essentially rule out closing corporate loopholes as a way to 
     help shrink the deficit.
       In fact, a substantial share of the federal budget would 
     effectively be placed off limits for deficit reduction by the 
     constitutional amendment. Provisions of the tax code that the 
     Joint Committee on Taxation classifies as ``tax 
     expenditures''--spending programs that operate through the 
     tax code by selectively reducing the tax liability of 
     particular individuals or businesses--now cost more than $400 
     billion a year. (The corporate subsidy provisions that 
     operate through the tax code are a part of this total.) This 
     is more than the government spends on Social Security or 
     defense.
       In testimony before the Entitlement Commission in 1994, 
     Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan referred to 
     these provisions of the tax code as ``tax entitlements'' 
     because they entitle those who qualify for them to government 
     subsidies provided in the form of a special tax reduction. 
     Greenspan testified that the tax entitlements should be 
     looked at, along with the spending entitlements, in 
     developing measures to address the nation's long-term deficit 
     problem.
       If anything, the proposed constitutional amendment would 
     encourage the spread of more tax expenditures over time, 
     since such measures would take only a majority vote to enact 
     but a two-thirds vote to remove. In addition, if Congress 
     passed a series of tax changes that were thought to be 
     deficit-neutral, but clever, high-priced tax lawyers and 
     accountants then found ways to convert some of the measures 
     into tax shelters at greater-than-anticipated cost to the 
     Treasury, it would take a two-thirds vote to scale the 
     shelters back so the original measure did not produce a net 
     revenue loss.
       Even measures to prevent companies from gaining tax 
     advantages by moving plants--and jobs--overseas would require 
     a two-thirds vote.


iii. amendment tilts toward the wealthy and the powerful at the expense 
                    of average families and the poor

       Most government benefits that low- and middle-income 
     Americans receive come from government programs, such as 
     Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and 
     grants, unemployment insurance, school lunches, and food 
     stamps. By contrast, most government subsidies that wealthy 
     individuals and large corporations receive come through 
     tax subsidies. As a result, a constitutional amendment 
     that makes it extremely difficult to scale back tax 
     subsidies when decades of deficit reduction lie ahead

[[Page S5472]]

     tilts the playing field in favor of the wealthy and 
     powerful over Americans of average or lesser means.
       In addition, such a constitutional amendment would place 
     off limits even measures asking program beneficiaries who 
     have high incomes to pay more for the government benefits 
     they receive. For example, to ``means test'' Medicare 
     premiums by raising the premiums on those at high income 
     levels, Congress must rely on the tax code to collect the 
     increased premiums, since Social Security offices (which 
     administer Medicare) have no information on beneficiaries' 
     current incomes. Indeed, when the Republican budget bill 
     reached the House floor last fall, the House parliamentarian 
     advised that its provision raising Medicare premiums for 
     those at higher income levels could constitute a tax 
     increase. Under the constitutional amendment, measures of 
     this nature would require a two-thirds vote, rendering them 
     extremely difficult to pass. This makes it more likely that 
     when steps are taken to restrain Medicare costs, low-income 
     and middle-income beneficiaries will have to bear a heavier 
     share of the load.
       The amendment also would be likely to injure the middle 
     class and the poor for another reason. If the federal 
     government is unable to raise revenue when needs for public 
     expenditures rise, one likely result will be to shift more of 
     the burden of raising revenue and meeting public needs to 
     state and local governments. Most state tax codes are 
     regressive (i.e., the taxes they impose consume a larger 
     percentage of the income of lower-income households than of 
     higher-income households). State and local governments 
     extract a larger proportion of the revenues they raise 
     from the middle class and the poor, and a smaller 
     proportion from the affluent, than the federal government 
     does. If revenue-raising burdens are shifted from the 
     federal to state and local levels, the share of the 
     overall tax burden borne by the middle class and the poor 
     is likely to rise.


 iv. amendment could lead to overly large cuts in social security and 
                           medicare benefits

       Social Security and Medicare benefits need to be restrained 
     in the years ahead. Both programs are out of long-term 
     actuarial balance, and both contribute significantly to the 
     projected increase in the long-term deficit.
       But the constitutional amendment would almost certainly 
     lead to larger reductions in Social Security and Medicare 
     benefits than otherwise would be needed, reductions that 
     could adversely affect the living standards of retirees, 
     including those of modest income and those in poverty. This 
     would be true for several reasons.
       First, by effectively preventing revenues from contributing 
     to deficit reduction despite the need for large-scale deficit 
     reduction in the decades ahead, the amendment would place a 
     greater deficit reduction load on Medicare and Social 
     Security. These two programs are projected eventually to 
     constitute half or more of the federal budget, exclusive of 
     interest payments on the debt. If there is no revenue 
     contribution to deficit reduction, there will have to be a 
     greater contribution from Medicare and/or Social Security 
     benefits than would otherwise be the case.
       Second, the amendment would effectively rule out measures 
     to raise Medicare premiums for those at higher income levels. 
     As noted above, last year's budget reconciliation bill 
     contained such a measure. When it was about to come to the 
     House floor, the House parliamentarian advised that it could 
     constitute a tax increase. A House rule that the new Congress 
     adopted in January 1995 requires a three-fifths majority for 
     measures raising tax rates, so the parliamentarian's advice 
     meant the budget bill would need a three-fifths vote unless 
     this rule was waived. The House leadership promptly arranged 
     for a waiver of the rule. But once a supermajority 
     requirement is in the Constitution, no waivers are possible.
       Third, the constitutional amendment effectively rules out 
     even small adjustments in Medicare and Social Security 
     payroll taxes as part of the effort to bring these programs 
     into long-term actuarial balance and also help reduce the 
     deficit. Modest increases of a fraction of a percentage point 
     in the payroll tax would require a two-thirds vote, thereby 
     making them virtually impossible to achieve. Yet Medicare in 
     particular is so far out of actuarial balance that it is 
     difficult to see how to restore long-term balance to the 
     program without some increase in payroll tax contributions 
     along with other changes, unless the health insurance that 
     Medicare provides is scaled back very substantially.
       In a symposium last September, Henry Aaron, Director of 
     Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and a well-
     known expert in this area, observed that the full $270 
     billion that Republican Congressional leaders were seeking in 
     Medicare savings over seven years could be achieved if one 
     combined Republican Medicare proposals that represent sound 
     policy and yield about half of the $270 billion in savings 
     with an increase of one-quarter of one percentage point in 
     the employer and the employee shares of the Medicare payroll 
     tax. This would slightly reduce workers' wages. (Most 
     economists believe that both the employee and the employer 
     shares of payroll taxes are effectively borne by employees in 
     the form of wages lower than they otherwise would be paid. As 
     a result, claims that small increases in payroll taxes would 
     heavily burden employers and cause substantial job loss have 
     little merit.) In return, employees would get a Medicare 
     system that had the resources to provide continually 
     improving health care to their parents and ultimately to 
     themselves as it took advantage of emerging medical 
     technologies that improve health and prolong life.
       Furthermore, one of several reasons that Medicare and 
     Social Security face long-term deficits is that over time, a 
     steadily increasing share of employee compensation is being 
     provided in the form of fringe benefits not subject to the 
     payroll tax, while a steadily smaller share is provided in 
     wages that are subject to the tax. Modest measures to shore 
     up Social Security and Medicare by slowing the erosion in the 
     share of employee compensation subject to the payroll tax 
     would, however, also require a two-thirds majority.
       Even measures to bring all state and local government 
     employees into the Social Security system--a step nearly all 
     budget analysts favor regardless of whether they are 
     conservative or liberal, and which would strengthen the 
     Social Security system and reduce the deficit--would require 
     a two-thirds vote, because such measures would increase 
     federal revenue. Such measures would become virtually 
     impossible to pass. (For a further discussion of these 
     issues, see an accompanying Center on Budget and Policy 
     Priorities analysis, ``Proposed Constitutional Amendment 
     Would Make It More Difficult to Address the Long-Term Social 
     Security and Medicare Crises.'')


V. The Constitutional Amendment Precludes Any Tax Reforms, from Chafee-
                  Breaux to the Most Thorough Overhaul

       Under the terms of the Kyl constitutional amendment, any 
     base broadener in a tax bill would make that bill 
     unconstitutional, absent a two-thirds vote by both chambers. 
     This would be true regardless of the amount of offsetting new 
     exemptions or deductions, regardless of any offsetting 
     reduction in marginal tax rates, and regardless of whether 
     the bill as a whole raised or lost revenue.
       The Chafee-Breaux plan would therefore be 
     unconstitutional--unless it obtained a two-thirds vote--
     because it contains the following items:
       Elimination of the subsidy of Part B Medicare premiums for 
     high-income persons (a new tax).
       Extension of expired tax provisions (such as the oil spill 
     liability tax and the federal unemployment surtax).
       Improvement in EITC targeting (reducing eligibility for 
     those with other economic resources, thus raising their 
     taxes).
       Closing tax loopholes and similar reforms (``corporate 
     welfare'').
       Reduced indexation via the CPI (because the reduction would 
     decrease the degree to which income tax brackets, etc., 
     change to offset inflation).
       For the same reason, last year's reconciliation bill would 
     be unconstitutional--it contained some loophole closers, and 
     it increased the effective tax rate on some small business 
     capital gains while creating a uniform, much lower capital 
     gains rate overall.
       Most flat tax proposals broaden tax bases by eliminating 
     some or all of the current exemptions or deductions from 
     income. (Some would create new exemptions for investment 
     income.) Therefore, they also would be unconstitutional. 
     Similarly, the Domenici-Nunn USA tax would be 
     unconstitutional because it includes some base broadeners and 
     raises rates, despite its major new exemptions for investment 
     income. So would a VAT or national sales tax, since it would 
     constitute a ``new'' tax. Special environmental taxes, such 
     as California's 1991 tax on the production of lead (which 
     paid for the evaluation, screening, and medically necessary 
     treatment of children with lead poisoning), would be 
     unconstitutional as well.\2\


                 vi. weakening our system of democracy

       Finally, the amendment would gravely weaken the principle 
     of majority rule that has been at the heart of our system of 
     representative democracy for more than 200 years. In effect, 
     the amendment would give only one-half of a vote to any 
     Senator who votes to close a tax loophole, broaden at tax 
     base, raise any tax rate, or create any new tax or certain 
     new fees. Senators on the other side would get a full vote.
       The constitutional amendment would partially restore the 
     system we had in the 1780s under the Articles of 
     Confederation, a system that functioned poorly and was soon 
     scrapped.
       The Articles of Confederation required the vote of nine of 
     the 13 states to raise revenue. At the Constitutional 
     Convention in 1787, the Founding Fathers recognized this was 
     an insurmountable defect and fashioned a national government 
     that can impose and enforce laws and collect revenue through 
     simple majority rule.
       The proposed constitutional amendment would end the ability 
     of a majority of the American people, acting through their 
     duly elected representatives, to decide whether they would 
     like to raise more revenues so the Federal Government can 
     address needs the majority finds legitimate. The amendment 
     would deny the majority this right both now and in future 
     generations.
       At its core, the amendment is rooted in deep distrust of 
     the ability of the majority of the American people to make 
     decisions that the authors of the amendment believe to be 
     ideologically correct. Hence, the amendment seeks permanently 
     to deny the majority that right. Powerful, well-connected 
     minorities

[[Page S5473]]

     would gain great power at the expense of the majority. In 
     short, the amendment fundamentally is anti-democratic.

             Votes for Recent Legislation that Raised Taxes

       Between 1982 and 1993, five pieces of legislation that 
     raised significant revenue were enacted. Presidents Reagan 
     signed three of these measures, while President Bush and 
     President Clinton each signed one. All five failed to secure 
     a two-thirds vote on the House floor.
       In passing the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 
     1982, a measure crafted in substantial part by Senator Bob 
     Dole, the House vote was 226-207. When the House considered 
     its version of the 1983 Social Security rescue plan the 
     following year, the vote was 282-148. The vote for the 1987 
     budget reconciliation bill, a product of bipartisan 
     negotiations that contained both spending cuts and revenue 
     increases, was 237-181, while the 1990 budget agreement 
     passed by only 228 to 220. The 1993 budget agreement passed 
     by a slender 218-216 vote.
       During this period only one measure that raised revenue 
     secured a two-thirds vote, the 1989 reconciliation bill. The 
     1989 bill was a minor measure. It did relatively little to 
     reduce the deficit and contained only very small revenue 
     increases. The revenue increases in all five of the pieces of 
     legislation that failed to secure a two-thirds vote exceeded 
     the level of revenue increases in the 1989 bill.

               Law School Dean Warns of Perverse Effects

       In testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of 
     the House Judiciary Committee on March 6, Samuel C. Thompson, 
     Jr., Dean of the University of Miami Law School, warned of 
     potential perverse effects from the proposed amendment. 
     Thompson wrote:
       ``. . . adoption of this proposed amendment would 
     significantly penalize the American public for mistakes made 
     in the tax legislative process. For example, assume that 
     after adoption of this Constitutional amendment, Congress 
     adopts a flat tax. Assume that it is estimated that the flat 
     tax will reduce revenues by $100 billion. It turns out, 
     however, that tax lawyers discover a gaping hole in this 
     legislation and that as a result the revenue loss is $200 
     billion, not $100 billion. The Treasury immediately proposes 
     a base-broadening amendment to close the loophole and to 
     restore fiscal responsibility. The amendment is opposed by 
     powerful special interests who will prevail if they can 
     convince just 33\1/3\ percent of the members of either the 
     House or the Senate to vote against the amendment.''

           Most States Do Not Have Supermajority Requirements

       Only six states require the approval of at least two-thirds 
     of their legislatures for any tax increase. Five other states 
     either require such approval for some taxes but not others, 
     require a three-fifths rather than a two-thirds vote, or 
     both. Other states generally require simple majority approval 
     for revenue increases of all sorts.
       Furthermore, a 1993 General Accounting Office study of 
     state budget trends found that a majority of states surveyed 
     had used both spending cuts and revenue increases to balance 
     their budgets in recent years. Revenue increases accounted 
     for about one-third of the deficit reduction these states 
     instituted to balance their budgets during the period 
     studied.

                     James Madison on Majority Rule

       The Constitutional Convention rejected requiring 
     supermajority approval for basic functions such as raising 
     taxes. Supermajority rules had applied in the Continental 
     Congress. The framers of the constitution had experience with 
     these rules and understood what they were rejecting.
       In the Federalist Papers No. 58, James Madison, one of the 
     key figures in drafting the Constitution, explained why the 
     Constitution rejected supermajority rule:
       ``It has been said that more than a majority ought to have 
     been required for a quorum, and in particular cases, if not 
     in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision . . . 
     [But that would mean] . . . [i]n all cases where justice or 
     the general good might require new laws to be passed, or 
     active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of 
     free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the 
     majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to 
     the minority. Were the defense privilege limited to 
     particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage 
     of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the 
     general weal, or in particular emergencies to extort 
     unreasonable indulgences.''
       Madison equated majority rule with ``free government.'' In 
     his view, freedom consisted not just in protecting 
     individuals from unreasonable intrusion by government, but 
     also in the right of citizens to have an equal voice in the 
     affairs of government. According to Madison, a person whose 
     vote is diluted by supermajority rules is not an equal 
     citizen and so does not fully enjoy the fruits of freedom.


                               footnotes

     \1\ The Kyl amendment to the Senate budget resolution 
     endorses a tax system that is ``fairer, flatter, and simpler; 
     that promotes, rather than punishes, job creation, . . . that 
     provides incentives for Americans who save for the future . . 
     . that raises enough money to fund a leaner, more efficient 
     Federal Government . . .'' Some of these phrases are 
     problematic. For instance, the tax code is currently much 
     less progressive than it was in the 1950s, 1960s, and most of 
     the 1970s. Restoring some of that progressivity is viewed by 
     many as enhancing fairness, and the extra revenues could be 
     used either to reduce the deficit or reduce effective tax 
     rates on the middle class. Yet this runs counter to the call 
     for ``flatter'' taxes. Second, payroll taxes ``punish job 
     creation'' to a certain extent, but are considered by the 
     public as a fair trade for Social Security and Medicare. If 
     those programs were funded through general revenues, support 
     for them might erode. Third, tax breaks for private savings 
     tend to decrease national savings because of the federal 
     revenues they lose, and in any case favor investors over 
     workers, again raising questions of fairness. Finally, 
     although a ``leaner, more efficient Federal government'' 
     sounds desirable, the idea that revenues should be cut (which 
     increases the deficit) runs counter to the greater good that 
     can be obtained by reducing the deficit.
     \2\ The California Court of Appeals recently, and apparently 
     correctly, overturned this California fee on the grounds that 
     it passed the California legislature without the requisite 
     two-thirds vote required by the California constitution.
  Mr. EXON. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl]. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Helms). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 41 as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--41

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3995) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to vitiate the yeas and nays on the 
underlying amendment in view of the success of the tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will give just a brief report. We 
started at 9:15. We have disposed of 12 amendments, 8 of them with 
rollcalls, and 4 accepted, or voiced. That is less than three actual 
votes per hour. The total going into this was 39 pending amendments. We 
have disposed of 12. If my arithmetic is right, we have 27 amendments 
remaining. On the last vote, we went 7 minutes over. We have been over 
on every single one. I do not know what time we will decide to actually 
close but we are getting perilously close to regular order on one of 
these.
  So I urge you to get here on time. I say to the Senate that I have 
spoken to Senator Exon and to a number of Senators.
  When we get to 12:15, the 2 rollcalls following 12:15 will each be 
15-minute rollcall votes instead of 10. That is to allow Senators to 
get a cup of soup. They can take 20 minutes if they hurry up and vote 
and leave and come back. The max you can get is 30, but I am fearful 
the time may run out on you. So that is going to be the case.
  In fact, I propound that as a unanimous-consent request.

[[Page S5474]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, but I shall not object, I 
just want to compliment the manager of the bill for the very good 
suggestion that we keep plowing ahead. I would just like to say at this 
time I think it would be only fair to Members of the body if we tried 
to outline the proposition on the things to come. We have made some 
progress, although I join my leader in the Budget Committee in 
appealing for faster movement. I simply say that I believe it is 
obvious, at least it is obvious to this Senator at this time, that with 
the fact that we have an obligation that has been committed to for this 
evening, it would seem clear to me that there is no chance we will 
finish voting on this resolution today. I am just wondering if that is 
the feeling of the manager of the bill?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No, I have not given up on completing it. I have not 
even agreed that we will be in recess during this dinner we have for 
spouses. My wife is not terribly impressed with going, she said to me, 
so I might be down here voting. If the distinguished Republican whip 
does not like that----
  Mr. EXON. Is it possible to do anything on a 1-to-nothing vote?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We may be having rollcall votes all night tonight. I am 
thinking that is an option. But let me suggest maybe we can try 
something a little different.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will be quiet, please. Please let 
there be a modicum of decorum in the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Maybe we will have our staffs do this, if you would 
like to help us. Maybe we can take two or three of the sense-of-the-
Senate propositions that have some symmetry and maybe we can ask for 
them to be voted on en bloc, and maybe that would give everybody his or 
her vote.
  I note some staffers are saying no. But we might try it. Let us see 
if we could package a few of them. I am not sure that will work.
  Mr. EXON. We will talk on anything to expedite the process.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let us go to the next amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3996

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this is an amendment to save a little bit of 
money in the LIHEAP Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program. There are 6 years in our budget. The budget of the President 
and the committee and my amendment are all the same for the first 2 
years at $1 billion. The next 2 years, I accept the President's budget 
numbers, which are $934 million and $819 million respectively. Then, in 
years 5 and 6, I keep the number, adding $119 million. So for the last 
3 of the 6 years, the numbers spent would be $819 million, which is the 
President's number in year 4. The total savings would be $633 million 
if we accept this amendment rather than going the route of the Budget 
Committee.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds against the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may I have order?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Just a second, Mr. President. I believe I have the 
authority to designate the Senator in opposition. Senator Specter wants 
to do that. Can we give each one of them 30 seconds, Senator Specter 
and Senator Wellstone?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object----
  Mr. DOMENICI. And Senator Kyl would get 30.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I strenuously oppose this amendment.
  As chairman of the subcommittee having jurisdiction over LIHEAP 
funding, I can tell you that we have fought hard for program funding 
this year. There have been consistent reductions in program funding. We 
are into the bone. The LIHEAP funds are indispensable for the aging. We 
are talking about people who have the option of heating or eating. The 
vast majority, 80 percent, goes to people who have incomes of $7,000 or 
less. This funding ought not to be cut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I defer to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I will be happy to speak now, and allow the Senator from 
Minnesota to have the last word.
  I accepted the numbers from the President, whose budget office gave 
that program a lower priority by virtue of the fact it was supposed to 
be temporary. So in years 3 and 4 we have accepted the numbers of the 
President's budget and then just continued those numbers for years 5 
and 6. This is not a drastic reduction, but it is one small step we can 
take to at least show some sense of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is not the President's budget, not 
the last several years. It is a big difference. We just voted 88 to 12 
for support of this program. Now we are going to vote for hundreds of 
millions of dollars in cuts in the outyears. I am delighted my 
colleague is no longer trying to eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, but I would remind him that even in States like 
Arizona, this summer it could be 110 degrees in nursing homes and you 
might be eligible for cooling assistance. This is important for 
vulnerable citizens. We should have a strong ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 74, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Shelby
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--74

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3996) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3997

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the next two votes are the votes we are 
going to have 15 minutes on each of them. Senator Kennedy's amendment 
is up under the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if we could have order in the Senate, I 
will just speak briefly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will not proceed until we come to 
order. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the current law does not permit what we 
call double billing. If there are going to be services purchased for 
Medicare recipients, that will be payment in full.
  Under the Republican proposal, they are creating additional kinds of 
options to spread this out into the private sector. We say that that is 
fine, but we want to continue the same protection of no double billing. 
No double billing is extremely important to all Medicare recipients. We 
should maintain that concept in any new future private contracting with 
Medicare.
  That is what this amendment does, and I think it is absolutely 
necessary to protect our senior citizens.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

[[Page S5475]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, last year, we maintained current law 
prohibitions on balanced billing with traditional fee-for-service 
Medicare. If, however, a Medicare beneficiary wanted to choose a 
privately offered Medicare plan under that new plan, he or she must be 
permitted to choose a plan which might allow the doctor to charge more.
  This amendment would put us on record that we cannot have that kind 
of new plan which would be voluntary and chosen by the beneficiaries.
  So, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. EXON. May I inquire of the chairman, it is true now that this 
will be a 15-minute vote, as is the one to follow? Is that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This will be a 15-minute vote.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the 
amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3997) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if it is agreeable with the Senator from 
New Mexico, I suggest we have a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3997) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3998

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our next amendment is focused on nursing 
homes, to make sure the standards that were worked out in 1987, in a 
bipartisan way, which have been enormously effective in protecting 
seniors, are going to be continued not only that the Federal standards 
will be continued but also Federal enforcement.
  There is a question about whether we need this kind of an amendment 
or not. The House of Representatives now has been willing to accept the 
standards but not the enforcement. Seniors are entitled to both. That 
is what this amendment does, maintain the current law. I believe it is 
necessary for protecting our senior citizens.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, our Medicaid restructuring plan will 
maintain current law and nursing home standards. As I read the Kennedy 
amendment, it proposes to change country law as well.
  I ask the Senator if we could accept the Kennedy amendment without a 
vote, thus permitting us to proceed to another amendment. Would the 
Senator consider a voice vote?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the support for this 
program, but there is a very key element that differentiates this 
proposal with what has been happening in the House, and that is with 
regard to the enforcement. I think a strong voice for not only the 
standards but the enforcement, as well, is a very important part of it. 
It would be a strong indication, certainly to the conferees, that is 
the will of the Senate. I think it is of sufficient importance that we 
ought to go on record on that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to repeat, I have been assured by 
the Finance Committee before this amendment came up that we keep 
current law. I do not think we need a vote, but if the Senator wants 
it, I urge all Republicans vote ``aye.''
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Robb
       
  The amendment (No. 3998) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wanted to comment for the Senate.
  How many minutes are we over the 15?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Eight minutes over when regular order was called for.
  The next amendment is another Kennedy amendment.
  Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 3999

  Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct. Mr. President, this amendment just 
retains current law on spousal impoverishment. All of us remember 1987-
88 when these amendments were offered by our friend and colleague, 
Senator Mikulski of Maryland, in the Senate in a bipartisan way in 
terms of protecting spousal impoverishment and adult members of 
families, as well as prohibiting liens on the homes. We can all say we 
are for this proposal, but last year every single reconciliation piece 
of legislation that came before us went back on at least one of the 
four major protections on spousal and family impoverishment.
  By this record we will send a very clear signal that we want to 
retain the current law. It is important that we do so for these 
families of nursing home members, and this amendment will put the 
Senate on record in favor of those protections.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we assume precisely what the sense-of-
the-Senate amendment provides. I understand the Senator wants to vote. 
So he is entitled to a vote. I suggest that everybody vote for it.

[[Page S5476]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take 15 seconds. Last year every 
reconciliation had at least a cut back in one of the four major 
protections. We want the Senate on record that we are all for those 
protections. We have had bipartisan support it in the past. We should 
not take a chance on it in the future.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Massachusetts. On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Bennett
     Brown
     Faircloth
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
  The amendment (No. 3999) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4000

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe Senator Kennedy's amendment is 
up now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                    Amendment No. 4000, As Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to ask unanimous consent to 
modify the amendment. I send the modification, which I have shared with 
the Senator from New Mexico, to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I discussed it with him, is that what he said? ``I 
shared it.'' He did not say I agreed to the unanimous consent.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is, as always, accurate, in making the 
statement he has not agreed. I had hoped he might agree, as we agreed 
to the modification of Senator Kyl, Senator Lott, and Senator Dole's 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And we may, indeed, have some others. I really have no 
objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4000), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DAVIS-BACON.

       Notwithstanding any provision of the committee report on 
     this resolution, it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     provisions in this resolution do not assume the repeal of the 
     Davis-Bacon Act.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the committee report says the budget 
resolution assumes the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act which protects 
community wage standards for some 500,000 construction workers who work 
on Federal projects. This repeal means workers will be paid $4.6 
billion less over the life of the budget. That is not fair. We should 
be attempting to lift workers' wages.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate will come 
to order.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We should be lifting workers' wages, not reducing them. 
That is effectively what this amendment does. It ensures the Senate 
will go on record that this resolution does not assume the repeal of 
the Davis-Bacon Act.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                Amendment No. 4030 to Amendment No. 4000

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that States should be 
allowed to require welfare recipients to stay drug-free as a condition 
           for receiving welfare benefits from the taxpayers)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to 
amendment No. 4000. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4030 to amendment No. 4000.
       Strike all after the first word and insert the following--

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, point of order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will read the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the reading of the 
amendment, as follows:

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:

     SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING REQUIREMENTS THAT WELFARE 
                   RECIPIENTS BE DRUG-FREE.

       In recognition of the fact that American workers are 
     required to be drug-free in the workplace, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that this concurrent resolution on the budget 
     assumes that the States may require welfare recipients to be 
     drug-free as a condition for receiving such benefits and that 
     random drug testing may be used to enforce such requirements.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, point of order. Is the Senator from Nebraska 
correct the amendment that has just been offered is not in order until 
time has been yielded back on the previous amendment, which I do not 
think was accomplished?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor had yielded back his time, had 
concluded his time on the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is there time on the second-degree amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if there is any question, I yield back 
the 30 seconds that I had in opposition to Senator Kennedy's first-
degree amendment.
  Mr. EXON. I think that clarifies it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor of the second-degree amendment has 
30 seconds.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I believe it is an affront to the 
American people to adopt and support drug habits in individuals by 
virtue of subsidizing the welfare payments to those who continue on 
drugs. It should be an option of States to be able to drug test 
effectively and to condition the receipt of welfare payments on people 
becoming and remaining drug free.
  I believe that we do not really help people as long as we finance 
them while they are involved in drugs. So, the sense of the Senate 
stated here is that the States should have the right and opportunity to 
condition participation of welfare recipients in programs based on 
their being drug free.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 30 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we all know what this is. The Senator 
could have offered his amendment as an initial amendment or a second 
degree to other amendments.
  This is about working families. We are talking about construction 
workers who average $27,000 a year. All we are saying in this bill is 
we are not going

[[Page S5477]]

to repeal Davis-Bacon. If we are going to do that, we ought to do it at 
other times.
  This is about trying to maintain the existing standards which protect 
American workers out there, and the second degree amendment is a clear 
attempt to undermine the protection of those workers.
  I hope that the amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4030, offered by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] to amendment 
No. 4000, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Akaka
     Feingold
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Simon
  The amendment (No. 4030) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4031 To Amendment No. 4000

  (Purpose: To protect the incomes of construction workers and their 
 families and to express the sense of the Senate that the Davis-Bacon 
                      Act should not be repealed)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, will he yield for just an 
observation to the Senate? We have never come in within the time since 
we started this morning. We were just over again. We were over 8\1/2\ 
minutes when we gave everybody 15 minutes.
  So there is nobody on this side that objects to the following, and I 
assume that Senator Exon will agree, starting with the next vote we are 
going to call for the regular order at the end of the 10 minutes. That 
is what we are allowed, 10 minutes. We are going to call for the 
regular order, if they are missing on our side or the other side, if it 
affects the vote or does not affect it. I just want everybody to know 
that.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. EXON. I clamor my approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes 
     amendment numbered 4031 to amendment No. 4000.
       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DAVIS-BACON.

       Notwithstanding any provision of the committee report on 
     this resolution, it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     provisions in this resolution do not assume the repeal of the 
     Davis-Bacon Act.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is as clear as it could 
be. It is just to express the sense that there is nothing in this 
underlying resolution that is going to repeal, effectively, the Davis-
Bacon provisions. I offer it as a second degree to the underlying 
amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I just urge my colleagues to vote to 
table the Kennedy amendment for a lot of reasons. The provisions that 
he is dealing with deals with Davis-Bacon, goes back to 1931, the 
Federal Government saying if you are doing Federal construction work, 
that the Department of Labor should set the labor rate, in many cases 
far in excess of what the prevailing wage really is in those areas.
  It costs taxpayers in excess of $3 billion. Maybe it is a payoff for, 
I do not know, $35 million for campaigns or something. It does not 
belong. If you believe in free enterprise, if you believe in the 
marketplace setting labor rates, you should vote to table the Kennedy 
amendment. I move to table the Kennedy amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second to table? There 
is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to lay on the table the amendment No. 4031. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--59

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4031) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The question is now on the second-
degree amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Madam President, we can adopt the amendment now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to vitiating the yeas and 
nays?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4031) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4032 to Amendment No. 4000

                (Purpose: To reform the Davis-Bacon Act)

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

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4032 to amendment No. 4000.

       At the end of the pending amendment, insert the following:

     SEC.    . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DAVIS-BACON.

       Notwithstanding any provision of the committee report on 
     this resolution, it is the

[[Page S5478]]

     sense of the Senate that the provisions in this resolution 
     assume reform of the Davis-Bacon Act.

  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I suggest that the amendment of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, as I understand it, is not in order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is a second-degree amendment to the Kennedy 
amendment. It is in order.
  Mr. EXON. Is that the ruling of the Chair, that it is in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment submitted by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania is in order.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania has 30 seconds.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, we just voted on whether there should 
be repeal of Davis-Bacon. Many of us are not for repeal of that. We 
believe that there needs to be reform of the Davis-Bacon law and that 
we, in fact, should assume that for the purposes of the budget. I think 
there is bipartisan support for reform of Davis-Bacon. I wanted the 
Senate to go on record for that reform measure.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Madam President, may I have 15 seconds to comment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I urge that all Members support this 
amendment and let us move ahead with the resolution.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 135 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The amendment (No. 4032) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
underlying amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
underlying amendment, No. 4000, as amended, be agreed to and the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4000), as amended, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 4001 offered by the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this budget resolution cuts discretionary 
budget authority over the next 6 years by $356 billion and outlays by 
$295 billion. My amendment adds $106 billion in budget authority and 
$65 billion in outlays to pay for programs like crime control, 
education, safer highways, aviation safety, drug treatment, 
environmental cleanup, and clean water. We pay for it by closing 
corporate loopholes and reducing tax expenditures which over the next 6 
years will exceed $3 trillion.
  I urge all Senators to support the amendment and cast a vote for an 
investment in America's future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, it is with reluctance that I must 
oppose the Byrd amendment. This would increase taxes and spending by 
$65 billion. It would strike the budget resolution's reconciliation 
instruction with reference to taxes, and it would eliminate the 
firewall between defense and nondefense spending. I believe, on any of 
those counts, it should be defeated. When you put them all together, 
clearly it ought to be tabled.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of 
Mr. Bingaman be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment offered by the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? It appears to be 
sufficiently seconded.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd]. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4001) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                Amendment No. 4002, As Further Modified

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
send to the desk a modification to amendment No. 4002. This 
modification is technical in nature.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4002, as further modified.


[[Page S5479]]


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

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

     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 Shiite 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 
     Shiite 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 such sale from being diverted to benefit the 
     Iraqi military; and
       (B) the temporary lifting of the trade embargo does not 
     encourage other countries to take steps to begin promoting 
     commercial relations with the Iraqi military in expectation 
     that sanctions will be permanently lifted; and
       (4) revenues reimbursed to the United States from the oil 
     sale authorized by SCR 986, or any subsequent action or 
     resolution, should be used to reduce the Federal budget 
     deficit.

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, is someone going to explain the amendment?
  Mr. EXON. We yield back the remainder our time.
  Mr. LOTT. I would take 30 seconds to point out the amendment 
expresses the sense of the Senate that the Clinton administration 
should ensure an extension of U.N. Resolution 986, which mandates the 
reimbursement of the U.S. Department of Defense for the costs 
associated with Operations Southern Watch and Provide Comfort out of 
the revenues generated from the sale of Iraqi oil and other oil 
products.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, we have no objection.
  I yield the time we have on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, there may be someone who wishes to talk on 
this side I did not know about.
  I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I thank my colleague and thank the Chair. 
I just wanted to rise to say, if this amendment was agreed to, it would 
circumvent some of our humanitarian programs. It would cause damage to 
the Kurdish minority in the country. I very much hope we could defeat 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Mississippi. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The Clerk will call the role.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I call for the regular order.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4002), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, the reason that I did not call for the 
regular order is because one of our Senators was present. He was here 
for about 5 or 6 minutes. He must have assumed he voted, and he left. 
Maybe he did vote and we did not get it recorded. We got him? All 
right. I am sorry.
  I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 4003 
offered by the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, this amendment simply notes that there 
are a number of indices that the Government uses to measure inflation 
and that we should strive to use the most accurate one that is 
possible. We have heard discussion of the CPI. There is another one 
called the chain-weighted GDP index.
  There are all sorts of ways to go. This just says, let us pick the 
most accurate one and get on with the business of then protecting the 
budget of the United States to get a handle on the correct and most 
accurate method of indices of measuring inflation or deflation or 
deflators or whatever we are using in this great complex formulae 
world.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I supported this when it was offered a few 
days ago by the Senator from Wyoming. As I understand the amendment, it 
in effect urges the Government to use the most accurate inflation index 
available. That is pure and simple. We have no objection from this side 
and have heard of no objection from that side. I am wondering, since it 
seems to have universal support, if we could save some time by voice 
voting this, if we could have the approval of that from the Senator 
from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I was hoping to follow that precedent, 
but I see that others have failed to do so. And I thought if I could 
take 10 more minutes, we could get a vote which would show that indeed 
we must be about our business. If we were to use the chain-weighted GDP 
index, that would get you a .4 reduction in things. That is what both 
CBO and OMB use. I just want to get that vote, if I could.
  Mr. EXON. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.

[[Page S5480]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 4003. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4003) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Coverdell be added as a cosponsor of Senator Kyl's amendment No. 3995.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 4007, 
offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham].
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment deals with two important 
issues. One is preserving the integrity of the Medicare trust fund, 
and, second, an effective assault against Medicare fraud. It provides 
that any funds that are derived by suppression of Medicare fraud will 
go back into the trust fund from which that fraud caused adverse 
effect. It would not be available for any other spending purposes.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment, which I think is 
both a statement of our commitment to suppressing Medicare fraud, 
protecting the Medicare trust fund, and balancing the Federal budget.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the Senator knows I am going to 
do this.
  The Graham amendment is not germane to the provisions of the budget 
resolution. I therefore raise a point of order against the amendment 
under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, anticipating this point of order, I would 
like to point out to my colleagues that on page 53 of the budget 
resolution before us, beginning at line 12, is almost in the same 
verbatim form, a point of order, except that point of order does not go 
to the reconciliation bill, which amendment 4007 does, but rather goes 
to the appropriations bills.
  If my amendment is considered to be nongermane, clearly, this 
provision is nongermane. I also point out that in the last budget 
resolution for fiscal year 1996 there were two provisions, which 
contained point of order enforcement of provisions within the budget 
reconciliation.
  So, Mr. President, we await the Chair's ruling, which I hope will be 
a finding that this is not a valid point of order on the Budget Act.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the proper order at the present time is 
this: I move to waive the provisions of the Budget Act for the 
consideration of the Graham amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope the Senators will deny this 
motion. This actually violates the Budget Act. This is a matter that is 
not even within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. This is a 
piece of legislation directing the treatment of savings of an 
entitlement in a future reconciliation bill. We have no authority to do 
it. We ought not be doing it here. I am not trying to treat one 
different than the other. The same ruling was held in committee on four 
attempts to do the same thing in the committee as we marked up the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to make an announcement. A while 
ago in kind of a frenzy I said we were going to work right on through 
this spousal banquet tonight, and I must tell you I have had more 
Senators concerned about this banquet than anything else we have done. 
I surmise that the wives have been watching on television. I know 
Senator Hollings told me that his wife called already, and she was kind 
of upset because she said Senator Domenici said that his wife did not 
even care about this event, and I just want to say to his wife Peatsy, 
I overstated my wife's position. My wife will be thrilled to be there 
tonight, and I really would ask that my previous comments, unless you 
object, be stricken from the Record.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object. Reserving the right to 
object.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
  Mr. EXON. Does the Senator's wife vote in New Mexico?
  Mr. DOMENICI. My wife voted in New Mexico, and she is still going to 
vote for me in spite of what I said.
  I thank the Senate.


                           Amendment No. 4008

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 4008 offered by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft].
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate an unfair 
tax on a tax paid by American workers. Every American worker pays 
Social Security taxes, but only after he or she has already paid taxes 
on that money. This is an unfair disparity. The corporations which pay 
the other half of that tax do not pay a tax on a tax. They get a 
deduction.
  Further, this amendment would promote and stimulate growth. The 
growth would be substantial--500,000

[[Page S5481]]

new jobs in the economy. It is a job-producing amendment that provides 
middle-class tax relief in a way that no other proposal does. I urge 
its adoption by the Senate.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. The budget resolution already has $122 billion plus in tax 
cuts, and the chairman of the Budget Committee on the House side says 
it is $182 billion. If you add the tax cuts that are being suggested by 
this particular amendment, it is $276 billion on top of what they are 
already suggesting, whatever that is.
  This amendment will more than triple an already unwise and 
unwarranted tax cut in this budget. It slashes discretionary spending 
by an additional $217 billion and adds over $75 billion in unspecified 
mandatory savings. We will never balance the budget if we are unable to 
control our urge to provide tax cuts in an election year. I urge 
Senators to vote against this budget-busting proposal that has, as far 
as I know, the support of none of the committees.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays, Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4008) was rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. The 
question now occurs on amendment No. 4009, offered by the Senator from 
Texas [Mr. Gramm].
  The Senator is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. In 1993, 
the President argued that he did not raise income taxes on anyone who 
was not rich. On its face, that is not valid. As I demonstrated in the 
debate on the floor of the Senate, the 1994 IRS 1040 form and its 
explanation show that the 1993 tax increase raised income taxes on the 
Social Security benefits of people who make $34,000 or more, counting 
half of their Social Security benefit. It seems to me that by no 
stretch of the imagination can these people be called rich.
  What I do in the amendment is call on the President to work with us 
to come up with a way of repealing this tax and at the same time 
working together to protect Social Security and Medicare. This is an 
eminently reasonable amendment. I hope we will get a unanimous vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I noted with interest the comment the 
Senator from Texas made. We just debated it a day or so ago. The 
provisions of the 1993 act that have been roundly criticized and are 
again being criticized now, raised taxes on only the top 13 percent--
the top 13 percent--of retirees. By contrast, the 1983 Reagan tax 
increase, which was the first tax increase that ever addressed taxation 
of any kind on Social Security, was supported by the sponsor of this 
amendment. I simply say that will raise taxes for 22 percent of the 
retirees. This amendment would cost over $33 billion.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.


                Amendment No. 4033 to Amendment No. 4009

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4033 to amendment No. 4009.

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

       Strike all after ``SEC.'' and insert the following:

       . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOLVENCY OF THE MEDICARE TRUST 
                   FUND.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that repeal of certain 
     provisions from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 
     would move the insolvency date of the HI (Medicare) Trust 
     Fund forward by a full year.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that no provisions in this Budget Resolution should worsen 
     the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will take my 30 seconds to explain this 
amendment.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that repeal of the 1993 
change, as proposed in the Gramm amendment, will move the insolvency 
date of the Medicare trust fund forward a full year. It is astonishing 
to me that the same Senators who claim to be concerned, even alarmed 
sometimes, about the solvency of the Medicare trust fund would sponsor 
legislation that will have the opposite effect.
  The second-degree amendment, thereby, assures that no action therein, 
as a part of that act, should worsen the solvency of the Medicare trust 
fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Does this amendment 
simply add to mine, or does it substitute for the language of my 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will examine the amendment and make 
a ruling in just a moment.
  Mr. EXON. What the amendment does, simply said, is we can do nothing 
in these considerations that will further weaken or hurt the trust 
fund. That is basically what it does. The amendment of the Senator from 
Texas hurts the solvency of the fund. This amendment corrects that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is advised that it 
strikes all words after the first word and replaces it.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am simply going to offer my amendment as 
a second-degree amendment to all the other amendments that come up 
until we vote on it. Now, if the Senator would like to add his language 
to mine, I made it very clear in my sense-of-the-Senate resolution that 
we wanted to work with the President to repeal the Social Security tax 
in such a way as to protect Medicare. If he wants to add his amendment 
to mine, I will support it, we will adopt it, and that will be the end 
of it.
  Mr. EXON. I will simply say that I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment as offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 4033, offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Exon. The

[[Page S5482]]

yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4033) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                Amendment No. 4034 To Amendment No. 4009

(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Congress that the 1993 income tax 
        increase on Social Security benefits should be repealed)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment on 
behalf of Senator Gramm of Texas to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Gramm 
     proposes amendment numbered 4034 to amendment No. 4009.

  Mr. GRAMM. 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 end of the amendment, add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE 1993 INCOME TAX 
                   INCREASE ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS SHOULD BE 
                   REPEALED.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that the assumptions 
     underlying this resolution include that--
       (1) the Fiscal Year 1994 budget proposal of President 
     Clinton to raise federal income taxes on the Social Security 
     benefits of senior citizens with income as low as $25,000, 
     and those provisions of the Fiscal Year 1994 recommendations 
     of the Budget Resolution and the 1993 Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act in which the 103rd Congress voted to raise 
     federal income taxes on Social Security benefits of senior 
     citizens with income as low as $34,000 should be repealed;
       (2) that the Senate Budget Resolution should reflect 
     President Clinton's statement that he believed he raised 
     federal taxes too much in 1993; and
       (3) that the Budget Resolution should react to President 
     Clinton's Fiscal Year 1997 budget which documents the fact 
     that in the history of the United States, the total tax 
     burden has never been greater than it is today, therefore
       --It is the Sense of the Congress that the assumptions 
     underlying this Resolution include--
       (1) that raising federal income taxes in 1993 on the Social 
     Security benefits of middle-class individuals with income as 
     low as $34,000 was a mistake;
       (2) that the federal income tax hike on Social Security 
     benefits imposed in 1993 by the 103rd Congress and signed 
     into law by President Clinton should be repealed; and
       (3) President Clinton should work with the Congress to 
     repeal the 1993 federal income tax hike on Social Security 
     benefits in a manner that would not adversely affect the 
     Social Security Trust Fund or the Medicare Part A Trust Fund, 
     and should ensure that such repeal is coupled with offsetting 
     reductions in federal spending.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I can save the Senate time. This is the 
same amendment we had pending a moment ago. What the amendment says is 
that it was a mistake to impose a confiscatory tax on Social Security 
recipients that earn $34,000 a year when you count half of their Social 
Security benefits. It simply calls on the President to work with us to 
repeal that tax.
  We already had in the amendment the provision saying that it is the 
sense of the Senate that we do it in a way that would not adversely 
affect the Social Security trust fund or Medicare. The Senator from 
Nebraska added a sense of the Senate resolution saying that nothing we 
do should adversely affect Medicare. I do not strike that provision. In 
fact, I voted for it. But I want this Senate to go on record that it 
was a mistake to raise taxes on Social Security beneficiaries.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I simply point out that this amendment will 
cost over $33 billion and does not say how we will pay for it. Another 
way of saying that is that this is a political amendment to make a 
political statement without saying how we are going to pay for this 
kind of reduction in revenue. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 4034. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Heflin
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 4034) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the underlying amendment, 
as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas 
and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, most of us cannot possibly hear what is 
going on. I cannot hear my friend from the chair very well. Would the 
Chair please repeat the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays having been vitiated, the 
question is on the underlying amendment, as amended.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4009), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S5483]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, might I say that some Members 
have gotten ourselves in trouble because we were planning to meet while 
our spouses were having dinner. We have canceled that radical idea. I 
want everybody to know we are going to go out at 5:30 because a number 
of Senators want, for some reason, to get ready for this event.
  Mr. EXON. May I ask that the Senator not include we in that 
statement, just to clarify the record.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did that on purpose. I did not think anybody would 
object.
  One of the chairmen asked me to make an announcement, if I may have 
30 seconds. Senator Bond asked that I announce that the Small Business 
Committee will hold a short meeting to dispose of two business matters 
that the committee is aware of in room S-214 at approximately 4:40, 
which would probably be after the next vote. In any event, it will be 
around that time. I do not think unanimous consent is required. This is 
permitted. Is that satisfactory?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, it is in the Vice President's office.


                    Amendment No. 4019, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration of the Dole amendment No. 4019. I have 
cleared this both with Senator Exon and the minority leader.
  Mr. EXON. That is true. When the 30 seconds on the Dole amendment 
comes up on our side, I will yield 15 seconds to the two Senators from 
California, in any order they choose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending question is amendment No. 4019.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up Senator Dole's amendment No. 
4019, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, an L.A. Times newsstory gave rise to this 
amendment. I think a report by the AG is in order. I will vote ``yes.'' 
I think that report will show vigorous support of law enforcement. I 
thank Senators Domenici and Dole for deleting certain provisions.
  I yield to Senator Feinstein.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I echo the statement of my colleague, 
Senator Boxer, and only add to it that in a discussion with an editor 
of the Los Angeles Times on this matter yesterday, I think there is 
conflicting data as to whether there are certain guidelines or 
thresholds below which there is not prosecution. I believe this needs 
to be cleared up.
  I thank the majority leader and Senator Domenici for their 
understanding in this matter. I think it is important that there be an 
investigation on what prosecutorial guidelines, thresholds, any other 
provisions for prosecution of across border crime there may be.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Dole amendment expresses the sense 
of the Senate that the Attorney General should investigate whether drug 
smugglers are avoiding prosecution in the United States because of the 
policies of the Department of Justice and report to the chairman of the 
House and Senate Judiciary Committees on that matter within 30 days.
  The amendment also expresses the sense of the Senate that the 
Attorney General should change the policy in order to ensure the 
vigorous prosecution of drug smugglers and direct all U.S. attorneys to 
vigorously prosecute them.
  That is Senator Dole's interpretation of his amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dole amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coverdell be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I voted for the amendment offered by the 
majority leader on the subject of drug prosecutions in the Southern 
District of California, but I wish to take a moment to clarify any 
misperceptions that the amendment may have prompted. Some have implied 
that the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California is weak 
on drug prosecutions. This implication is false and unfair.
  The facts are that the U.S. attorney's aggressive policies have led 
to more drug prosecutions, more prosecutions of border drug smugglers, 
more criminal alien prosecutions, and more alien smuggling 
prosecutions. This is a record to be proud of.
  Let us take a look at the facts. Total prosecutions by the U.S. 
attorney have more than doubled over the past 5 years. Let me say that 
again, the U.S. attorney is prosecuting more than twice as many 
felonies as his predecessor.
  The U.S. attorney initiated a formal cooperative agreement on drug 
prosecutions with the San Diego District Attorney. In the past, the DA 
did not prosecute border-related drug cases at all. Last year, the 
local DA prosecuted more than 1,000. As a result of this unprecedented 
Federal-county cooperation, total border-related drug prosecutions have 
more than tripled over the past 5 years.
  This cooperative Federal-county relationship is credited by the San 
Diego District Attorney with making a positive impact on San Diego's 
overall crime rate.
  In January 1995, the U.S. attorney revised its criminal alien 
prosecution guidelines for the first time in more than 10 years. As a 
result, 1,334 criminal aliens were prosecuted in 1995, compared to only 
179 in 1992--a 745 increase.
  The U.S. attorney has led a major effort to prosecute alien 
smugglers. Nearly three times as many alien smugglers were prosecuted 
in 1995 as were prosecuted in 1994. And more will be prosecuted in 1996 
than last year.
  The Dole amendment implies that the U.S. attorney refuses to 
prosecute cases involving less than 125 pounds of marijuana. This is 
absolutely false. In fact, of the 184 felony marijuana cases prosecuted 
this year, 50 percent involve less than 125 pounds.
  I ask unanimous consent that additional material detailing the U.S. 
attorney's record be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letter of May 14, 
     1996, concerning a recent Los Angeles Times article on the 
     drug prosecution policies in the Southern District of 
     California. That article provided an incomplete and 
     inaccurate picture of felony drug prosecutions in the 
     Southern District.
       The most serious inaccuracy in the L.A. Times article is 
     the suggestion that the United States Attorney's Office 
     (``USAO'') is ignoring narcotics cases involving less than a 
     predetermined quantity of drugs. The United States Attorney, 
     in conjunction with the San Diego County District Attorney, 
     pursues all drug cases on the border in which prosecutors 
     believe charges are warranted, regardless of the quantity of 
     drugs involved.
       Upon taking office in November 1993, United States Attorney 
     Bersin revised the Southern District's prosecution policies 
     in order to make more effective use of sanctions available 
     under the immigration laws. Those revisions have resulted in 
     a 58 percent increase in the total number of felony 
     prosecutions brought by the USAO from 1993 to 1995.
       Prior to the change in policy, the USAO retained 
     jurisdiction over every defendant arrested for illegal 
     activity at the border, regardless of the seriousness of the 
     offense. As a result of the volume of cases, the USAO treated 
     as misdemeanor possession cases many drug cases that could 
     have been prosecuted as felonies based on the quantities of 
     controlled substance seized.
       United States Attorney Bersin worked with the District 
     Attorney to change that system. They agreed that the District 
     Attorney would prosecute border-related cases with a San 
     Diego nexus (i.e., the defendant is a resident of or the car 
     is registered in San Diego, or the drugs are destined for San 
     Diego). The District Attorney now prosecutors as felonies 
     many border-related drug cases that would have been brought 
     by the USAO as misdemenaors, if at all, prior to 1994.
       As a result of this agreement, the number of federal felony 
     drug prosecutions, combined with the District Attorney's 
     felony border drug prosecutions, rose from 764 in 1994 to 
     1,406 in 1995. The agreement has also permitted the United 
     States Attorney's Office to redirect prosecutorial resources 
     from minor drug cases to major narcotics investigations such 
     as those arising from the Department's Southwest Border 
     Initiative. Moreover, the increase in felony dispositions--
     followed inevitably by deportation--

[[Page S5484]]

     has made more defendants eligible for prosecution under the 
     stiff provisions of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1326 should they reenter 
     illegally. During 1995, the USAO prosecuted 1,334 such 
     criminal aliens, more than were prosecuted during the entire 
     nine years prior to 1994.
       Nor was the L.A. Times correct that the USAO automatically 
     declines cases involving less than 125 pounds of marijuana. 
     In the first four months of this year, fully half (92 out of 
     184) of the felony drug cases filed by the USAO were in that 
     category. More important, most of the 2,000 cases referred to 
     the District Attorney since 1994 involved less than 125 
     pounds of marijuana.
       There are certain cases in which USAO declines prosecution 
     in favor of immigration proceedings. Where proof of knowledge 
     and criminal intent is lacking, and where the defendant is 
     not a U.S. citizen, has no criminal record, has little or no 
     information about organized drug smuggling, and is found with 
     less than 125 pounds of marijuana, prosecution is deferred 
     and the case is sent to the Immigration Court for an 
     exclusion hearing. All five factors must be present to 
     warrant deferral.
       At the time of such deferral, the alien's immigration green 
     card or border crossing card is confiscated, he is ejected 
     from the country, and after a hearing can be formally 
     excluded. Under the previous policy, when these cases were 
     prosecuted as misdemeanors, green cards were not confiscated. 
     Moreover, a person who has been excluded, and who reenters 
     the United States with illegal drugs within five years, may 
     be prosecuted for both the new and prior drug offenses.
       Contrary to the assertion in the L.A. Times article, the 
     policy of deferring prosecution of certain cases is not a 
     ``free pass'' for those who transport less than 125 pounds of 
     marijuana. Seizure of a green card or border crossing card is 
     a serious and immediate sanction and has a far greater effect 
     on drug trafficking than misdemeanor prosecution. Indeed, 
     Peter Nunez, who served as United States Attorney under 
     President Reagan and as the Assistant Secretary of Treasury 
     for Enforcement, has endorsed the use of exclusion 
     proceedings. Former Bush Administration U.S. Attorney William 
     Braniff expressed similar views, as reported in the L.A. 
     Times on May 18, 1996:
       ``If I had the option that [U.S. Attorney Bersin] has today 
     of immediately ejecting and taking the green card, I would 
     have used that rather than misdemeanor prosecutions. * * * I 
     think in most cases it is a greater deterrent * * *''
       Finally, the L.A. Times article mischaracterized the eight 
     specific cases that it cited as examples of the U.S. 
     Attorney's Office's purportedly lax prosecution policy. Based 
     on available information, felony charges were, in fact, filed 
     in four of the eight cases. Three of those defendants are in 
     custody; the fourth is a federal fugitive. Of the remaining 
     four cases, the San Diego District Attorney declined to 
     prosecute one because of insufficient evidence to support 
     criminal charges; two were declined by the USAO on the same 
     ground. In the eighth case, prosecution was delayed as the 
     government attempted to secure the cooperation of the 
     suspect. That failed and investigation of the case continues.
       In sum, the primary implication of the L.A. Times article 
     is misleading and the case-related facts are largely 
     inaccurate. The United States Attorney for the Southern 
     District of California and the District Attorney for San 
     Diego County have vigorously prosecuted drug smugglers at our 
     borders and their efforts should serve as a model for 
     cooperation between law enforcement agencies at the federal 
     and state levels. A careful and responsible analysis of the 
     District's prosecution policies and case statistics can lead 
     to no other conclusion.
       If I can be of further assistance on this matter, please do 
     not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
     Janet Reno.
                                                                    ____

                                            The District Attorney,


                                          County of San Diego,

                                      San Diego, CA, May 15, 1996.
     Attorney General Janet Reno,
     Main Justice Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Reno: A recent Los Angeles Times article suggested 
     that drug smugglers crossing the border into California are 
     not being prosecuted. Specifically, it was claimed that 
     criminals who smuggle less than 125 pounds at the border are 
     not charged. Since my office files over 160 marijuana border 
     drug cases every month, I want to correct any misapprehension 
     on this point.
       Here are the facts:
       1. The San Diego District Attorney's Office prosecutes 
     border drug cases referred to us by the federal government. 
     This is part of a cooperative effort between the U.S. 
     Attorney and local law enforcement to control border crime. 
     Since 1994 this office has prosecuted approximately 2000 of 
     these cases.
       2. There is no ``weight limit'' on these cases. The notion 
     that the only marijuana smuggling cases prosecuted are over 
     125 pounds is false. In fact, the average weight is 901 
     pounds and of the 180 cases currently pending all but 25 of 
     them involve less than 125 pounds. I should note that some 
     cases referred to my office are declined. That percentage 
     (about 23 percent) is consistent with the rejection rate for 
     cases generally and is based solely on the sufficiency of 
     evidence. Those cases that are rejected are still handled by 
     the immigration court.
       3. Border drug cases are prosecuted successfully. Of the 
     cases referred to our office 85% have been convicted, 9% are 
     pending, and 6% failed to appear for court. There have been 
     no acquittals.
       Finally, I will note that the success of this cooperative 
     effort has freed resources for major narcotic investigations 
     and has made a positive impact on San Diego's overall crime 
     rate.
       I am attaching our current list of pending border drug 
     cases which includes by name, date and offense the border 
     drug cases currently being prosecuted. The report should 
     dispel any false impressions about border drug prosecutions. 
     The cases are prosecuted--routinely and successfully.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Paul J. Pfingst,
     District Attorney.
                                                                    ____

                                       Department of the Treasury,


                                         U.S. Customs Service,

                                      San Diego, CA, May 17, 1996.

  Statement of P. Jeffrey Casey, Deputy Special Agent in Charge, U.S. 
                    Customs Office of Investigations

       The quote attributed to me in the May 12, 1996, Los Angeles 
     Times article concerning border drug prosecutions is 
     inaccurate. My ``quote'' was made in the context of 
     describing one component of a three tiered prosecution system 
     in place here in San Diego.
       I explained to Mr. Reza the three mechanisms in place to 
     prosecute Port of Entry Border drug smugglers apprehended in 
     San Diego County. I told Mr. Reza that one mechanism is 
     Federal prosecution, a second mechanism is County prosecution 
     and the third mechanism is deferred prosecution which is used 
     in those cases where there is insufficient evidence to 
     establish criminal knowledge and intent.
       The assertion that cases involving 125 pounds of marijuana 
     or less are not prosecuted in San Diego is false. I never 
     made any such statement, nor could I since our U.S. Customs 
     Special Agents present literally hundreds of such cases 
     annually for prosecution as the County and Federal level.
                                                 P. Jeffrey Casey.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, last week the distinguished majority 
leader, Mr. Dole, reacted with justifiable indignation to a May 12 Los 
Angles Times report indicating that the Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney 
in San Diego is failing to prosecute some of the drug smugglers 
detected and reported to him. In fact, more than 1,000 suspected 
traffickers have been sent back to Mexico since 1994 with scarcely more 
than a slap on the wrist--if that.
   The U.S. attorney's office in San Diego reportedly has virtually 
discontinued filing charges or prosecuting drug smugglers. Instead they 
are merely deported. The Los Angeles paper estimates that 25 percent of 
all detected drug smugglers in the southern district of California are 
sent back to Mexico where they are free to renew attempts to smuggle 
drugs into the United States.
  Senator Dole's concerns are well-founded, Mr. President: Consider 
these cases: Two U.S. citizens were arrested when found to have 150 
pounds of marijuana, in their possession. Another had 386 pounds. All 
three were released without jail or prosecution.
  Two Mexican women, transporting 24 pounds of marijuana and 32 pounds 
of narcotics across the border to California, were handed tickets back 
across the border, where they no doubt reloaded for another trip to 
California.
  Customs inspectors are working hard on the borders, but hundreds of 
traffickers are avoiding prosecution. One Customs inspector told the 
Los Angeles Times: ``Lack of enforcement is not because inspectors are 
not trying. It's because of the policy coming from upstairs.''
  Mr. President, the pending sense of the Senate amendment calls on the 
U.S. Attorney General to investigate this situation immediately and 
report promptly to the respective chairmen of the Judiciary Committees 
of the House and Senate.
  International drug trafficking is fundamentally a matter of national 
security, Mr. President. The drug trade is one of the gravest threats 
to the security of U.S. today. Smugglers are crossing our southern 
borders with impunity, selling illicit drugs in our communities and 
poisoning our children. Senator Dole refers to these drug smuggling 
thugs as ``merchants of death.'' The distinguished Senator has that 
right--and the problem is getting worse by the day.
  There's been a resurgence in illegal drug usage among our youth. 
Since 1992, the number of high school seniors using drugs on a monthly 
basis has jumped 52 percent. And during the current administration, the 
price of illegal drugs have fallen significantly, suggesting that the 
flow and the availability of illegal drugs are increasing.

[[Page S5485]]

  The Clinton administration's record on illicit drug use has been 
described by a Senate Judiciary Committee report as ``benign neglect.'' 
It is worse than that--it is an abdication of duty.
  The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts states that there was a 
12 percent decline in drug prosecutions between 1992 and 1994. 
Furthermore, the Clinton administration's budget request for fiscal 
year 1995 would have resulted in a cut of 621 drug enforcement 
positions from the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, and other Federal agencies. Fortunately, Congress 
restored many of these proposed cuts in law enforcement manpower.
  At a time when drug use is skyrocketing, there should be an urgent 
increase in aggressive prosecution of the criminals who transport 
illicit drugs across our borders. This is a national problem, Mr. 
President, yet the administration has reduced drug prosecutions at the 
very time that drug use is soaring. It's time for the administration to 
rejoin the war on drugs and the vigorous enforcement of our Federal 
drug laws.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Kansas. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4019), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 4010 offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I will not ask for a rollcall vote on this. 
I think it can be voice voted. It is very direct. It speaks to the 
problem that we have which the Entitlement Commission pointed out that 
says they were not going to have the money to pay people their 
entitlements--retirement funds--when they come due. It says that in the 
future the COLA--the cost-of-living adjustment--that occurs 
automatically will only apply to the first $75,000 of retirement pay. I 
have checked. The Defense Department tells me no military personnel 
come under this. OMB tells me that something like one-tenth of 1 
percent of total retirees would have this applied to them. But 30 years 
from now, after people who joined the military service or joined civil 
service under these rules come to retirement, it will have an impact. 
It is one way in the future prospectively to make sure we have money to 
pay the retirements that we promised.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds of our time to my friend 
and colleague from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I disagree strongly with this. I think it 
unfairly limits people in the future. It is an arbitrary attempt to 
attack the earned pension benefits of the more highly compensated 
Federal employees, both military and civilian. The higher paid 
employees receive higher pension benefits, and I think it is unfair to 
penalize some Federal employees because they were good at their job, 
because they were promoted and because they make a better salary in 
their retirement.
  Now, the amendment was defeated in the Budget Committee. It is 
brought up again here. It is, in effect, a future income cut for these 
people. Once again, we are trying to make our senior military and our 
civilians the whipping boys because of our failure on other budget 
matters. I think it is drastically unfair.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, did somebody ask for the yeas and nays?
  Mr. EXON. The Senator from Ohio did.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Even though he is willing to go by voice?
  Mr. GLENN. Yes, because I disagree strongly with the amendment for 
reasons I just gave.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We can vote it down by voice, and then the Senator 
could still get the yeas and nays after.
  Mr. GLENN. I certainly want to know what the ruling would be in that 
case. I am not going to do it because I know what the decision would 
probably be.
  Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GLENN. I yield.
  Mr. BROWN. I certainly would not object to the request for a vote 
after he hears the ruling of the Chair if he wishes to do that. My only 
thought was a voice vote would expedite procedures. I am happy to go 
along with either procedure you prefer.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He is just suggesting that if he happens to lose on a 
voice vote, he can then have a rollcall vote.
  Mr. GLENN. OK, I agree with that, if we have the agreement that if we 
lose on the voice vote, we will then have a record rollcall vote. That 
is fine. I trust all the people on our side will be in good voice.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There are a lot of people in the Chamber. Only Senators 
make their voices heard now. None of the staff votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the yeas and nays 
are vitiated. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4010) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 4011

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to amendment No. 4011 of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Harkin is up.
  Mr. EXON. I am not sure the Senator from Iowa heard. I think the 
Chair was asking him to proceed. The next amendment up is No. 23 on my 
list, which is No. 4011 by Senator Harkin. The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This is Senator Harkin's amendment now.
  Mr. HARKIN. What happened to the vote on the other one?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are finished. We have done it.
  Mr. EXON. To answer the Senator's question, it was turned down by 
voice vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I see.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment divides the first 
reconciliation bill. All this amendment does is it takes welfare reform 
and separates it from Medicaid reform. It puts welfare reform in the 
first reconciliation bill. It leaves Medicaid reform in the second 
reconciliation bill so that we can have a straight vote on welfare 
reform. We should pass welfare reform in this Congress. We should and 
we can. It is not likely to be signed if it has a controversial 
Medicaid bill attached to it. So I call this the let-real-welfare-
reform-become-law amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will move to table the amendment 
shortly. But let me just say the budget resolution has a first 
reconciliation bill that will include welfare reform and Medicaid. This 
amendment strikes the Medicaid from that reconciliation bill and puts 
it into one with Medicare and other entitlements. I do not believe we 
ought to do that. We have thought it

[[Page S5486]]

through and we want it in two pieces. The first one should be welfare 
reform and Medicaid.
  Therefore, I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table 
amendment No. 4011, offered by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. EXON. May I suggest the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4011) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Bumpers will be 
willing to proceed with his second of sequential amendments--the one on 
the firewalls--now, and then we will proceed immediately to the other 
amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Which one do you want to do first?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Firewalls.
  Mr. BUMPERS. You want to do firewalls first?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask it be in order for Senator Bumpers 
to proceed to the Bumpers-Simon amendment No. 4014.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I have been preparing for the amendment on asset sales. 
We are not really quite ready to go to firewalls. Is there any 
objection to going ahead with the asset sales?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have a second-degree amendment to yours, and we are 
now checking that amendment to make sure that it is not subject to a 
parliamentary impediment. If it is, we will try to repair it, and we do 
not have enough time to repair it in 30 seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I think it is irreparable.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will set it aside and take firewalls. If 
you want, I can explain the firewalls amendment for you.
  Mr. BUMPERS. We would rather like to offer the asset sales first and 
then get the second one disposed of one way or the other.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment NO. 4013

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment is one that we have voted 
on a number of times. We voted twice last year. It got 47 votes the 
first time, it got 49 votes the second time. It simply says, you cannot 
sell assets of the Federal Government and score those assets on the 
budget deficit. If you sold $130 billion worth of Government property 
today, you could balance the budget this year, but next year you are 
going to have the same budget deficit you had. Rudolph Penner, Bob 
Reischauer both say it is bad policy. It is dishonest budgeting. We 
ought not to be doing it. From 1987 to 1995 we specifically provided in 
the budget resolution that we would not score asset sales.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that at least we can get this body to vote 
for honest budgeting. I am not suggesting that you not sell assets. I 
have voted one asset sale this year. I am saying, do not score it. It 
reminds me of the guy that came home from the office and told his wife 
he had a great day at the office. She said, ``What happened?'' He said 
he sold his desk. That is what we are doing when we sell the assets and 
put it on the deficit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator McCain has an amendment for himself and the 
Senator from New Mexico.


                Amendment No. 4035 To Amendment No. 4013

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding corporate 
  subsidies and to provide a rule that would prohibit the scoring of 
 proceeds from asset sales that would lead to a financial loss by the 
                          Federal Government)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 4035 to amendment 
     No. 4013.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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:

       In amendment No. 4013, strike all after the first word and 
     insert the following:

     .   CORPORATE SUBSIDIES AND SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

       (a) Corporate Subsidies.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional levels and aggregates in this budget 
     resolution assume that:
       (1) the federal budget contains tens of billions of dollars 
     in payments, benefits and programs that primarily assist 
     profit-making enterprises and industries rather than provide 
     a clear and compelling public interest;
       (2) corporate subsidies can provide unfair competitive 
     advantages to certain industries and industry segments;
       (3) at a time when millions of Americans are being asked to 
     sacrifice in order to balance the budget, the corporate 
     sector should bear its share of the burden.
       (4) federal payments, benefits, and programs which 
     predominantly benefit a particular industry or segment of an 
     industry, rather than provide a clear and compelling public 
     benefit, should be reformed or terminated in order to provide 
     additional tax relief, deficit reduction, or to achieve the 
     savings necessary to meet this resolution's instructions and 
     levels.
       (b) Sale of Government Assets.--
       (1) Budgetary Treatment.--
       (A) In general.--For the purposes of any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, no amounts realized from the sale of an asset shall be 
     scored with respect to the level of budget authority, 
     outlays, or revenues if such sale would cause an increase in 
     the deficit as calculated pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       (B) Calculation of net present value.--The deficit estimate 
     of an asset sale shall be the net present value of the cash 
     flow from:
       (i) proceeds from the asset sale;
       (ii) future receipts that would be expected from continued 
     ownership of the asset by the Government; and,
       (iii) expected future spending by the Government at a level 
     necessary to operate and maintain the asset to generate the 
     receipts estimated pursuant to clause (ii).
       (2) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `sale of an asset' shall have the same meaning as under 
     section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (3) Treatment of loan assets.--For the purpose of this 
     subsection, the sale of loan assets or the prepayment of a 
     loan shall be governed by the terms of the Federal Credit 
     Reform Act of 1990.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the 
Senate on an issue of profound importance to the American people--the 
reform and elimination of undue corporate subsidies in the Federal 
budget.
  The amendment finds that the Federal budget contains billions of 
dollars in payments, benefits and programs that predominantly assist 
profitmaking enterprises rather than provide

[[Page S5487]]

a clear and compelling public benefit. Such largess can provide unfair 
competitive advantage to certain industries and industry segments and 
has become an enormous drain on the Treasury.
  And, the amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the 
Congress should reform or terminate such programs in order to provide 
additional tax relief, deficit reductions, or achieve the savings 
necessary to meet the resolution's budget instruction.
  Mr. President, we are asking millions of Americans--from families who 
receive food stamps to our men and women in uniform--to sacrifice in 
order to stop the Nation's fiscal bleeding.
  As a matter of simple fairness, we have a moral obligation to ensure 
that corporate interests share the burden. The Cato and Progressive 
Policy Institutes, have identified 125 Federal programs that subsidize 
industry to the tune of $85 billion every year, and PPI found an 
additional $30 billion in tax loopholes to powerful industries.
  The public cannot understand why we continue to shell out billions of 
dollars in subsidies to powerful corporate interests, when we simply 
cannot afford such largess, and at a time when many corporate CEO's are 
earning bonuses that resemble the budgets of many school districts.
  Corporate pork cannot be justified in such an environment and it has 
no place in a diminishing Federal budget.
  Some believe that corporate pork is a thing of the past. Sadly that 
is not so. While some gains were made this year in trimming the fat, 
the effort was been disappointingly anemic.
  We still subsidize the overseas advertising of multimillion dollar 
companies through the Marketing Promotion Program; hundreds of millions 
are earmarked for unrequested hometown military construction projects; 
we still coddle wealthy peanut and sugar growers with anachronistic 
production quotas and tariff restrictions; billions remain in the 
pipeline for highway demonstration projects which are not even 
considered priorities in the States where they will be built;
  And the biggest and most obscene example, we still plan to give away 
billions of dollars in publicly owned electromagnetic spectrum to 
affluent communications companies; and that list goes on and on.
  Last November, I offered an amendment along with Senator Thompson and 
others to eliminate and reform 12 of the most celebrated and egregious 
forms of corporate pork identified by CATO and PPI. The fact that 74 
Senators voted against the amendment is ample testimony to the problem.
  Mr. President, corporate pork wastes resources, increases the 
deficit, distorts markets and has no place either in a free market 
economy or in a budget where we are asking millions of Americans to 
sacrifice for the good of future generations.
  As the Public Policy Institute observed, ``The President and Congress 
can break the current impasse and substantially reduce both spending 
and projected deficits * * * if they are willing to eliminate or reform 
scores of special spending programs and tax provisions narrowly 
targeted to subsidize influential industries.''
  ``If we are willing''? That's the million dollar question, Mr. 
President. This amendment will determine where the Senate stands on 
corporate subsidies, and will serve as a springboard to make the 
changes necessary to regain control of the budget and restore the 
public's confidence in the budget process.
  Mr. President, a portion of this amendment crafted by Senator 
Domenici addresses the question of how asset sales should be treated in 
regard to budget scoring. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico 
will explain that particular language in his remarks.
  I thank Senator Domenici and I urge all Senators to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. President, to summarize, this amendment makes two changes to the 
Bumpers asset sales amendment. First, it would add language expressing 
the sense of the Senate that corporate subsidies should be reduced. The 
language states we should eliminate any unjustified corporate subsidies 
in the budget and use the savings for deficit reduction and tax relief. 
Second, in lieu of the Bumpers amendment, it would prohibit using asset 
sales to balance the budget. This amendment would prohibit the scoring 
of proceeds from asset sales that would lead to a financial loss by the 
Federal Government over the long run.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona's amendment is 
not the worst amendment in the world. But it simply does not address 
the problem. It essentially says that if we are going to sell an asset, 
let us get fair market value. That is not the problem, even though in 
cases it has a tendency to be the problem.
  But the problem is that we have been proposing around here to sell 
the PMA's. If you have a power marketing system in your State, there 
has been a proposal to sell it. We sold one in Alaska, just voted to 
sell the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. There have been proposals to 
sell Elk Hills. It is now on the block. I am not suggesting we are not 
going to get fair market value for it, even though we will not because 
it is money--as the Senator from Arizona says, the amount of money 
coming in over the next 30 years is more than we are going to get. All 
I am saying is, sell it if you want to, put it on infrastructure; but 
do not put it on the deficit when you have to come back next year and 
redress it.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for at least 
recognizing that our amendment is not the worst amendment in the world. 
We greatly appreciate that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. It is close.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is obvious this amendment is a good amendment. It 
says asset sales cannot cost the Government over time, present value 
cannot cost the Treasury any money. We think that is a good rule. We 
hope we adopt it. I ask for the yeas and nays on the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
McCain second-degree amendment No. 4035. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] and 
the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
  


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

  


                                YEAS--98

  

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  


                             NOT VOTING--2

  

     Dodd
     Lieberman
       
  

  The amendment (No. 4035) was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 4036 to Amendment No. 4013, as Amended

(Purpose: To restore common sense to the budget rules by reversing the 
               rule change on the scoring of asset sales)

  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S5488]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Bradley, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 4036 
     to amendment No. 4013, as amended.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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:

       The pending amendment, as amended, is amended by adding the 
     following:
       Not withstanding subsection (1) of this amendment regarding 
     the sale of government assets, the sale of assets shall be 
     treated as follows:
       (1) Budgetary treatment.--For purposes of any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, no amounts realized from sales of assets shall be 
     scored with respect to the level of budget authority, 
     outlays, or revenues.
       (2) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``sale of an asset'' shall have the same meaning as under 
     section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (3) Treatment of loan assets.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the sale of loan assets or the prepayment of a loan 
     shall be governed by the terms of the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I would like to 
announce for the Senate--and I hope Senators will listen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. When we finish this second-degree amendment by Senator 
Bumpers, which we will start very shortly, there will be no further 
votes tonight. When we wrap up business today, we will indicate in the 
unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. in the morning we will begin a series 
of rollcall votes on the budget resolution. We believe we have 11 of 
them. We will work until 1 o'clock and have a recess for 1 hour, return 
at 2 o'clock and we will be finished sometime shortly thereafter. By 
that time, we will probably be down to three or four amendments.
  That is what we have agreed to. I am not putting it before the Senate 
in a consent, but I thought you would like to know.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be happy to yield to the Senator for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator has yielded for a question of the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator if the 
McCain amendment we have adopted has any application to the Bonneville 
power administration as it relates to its corporate status.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The corporate subsidies and all matters related thereto 
were never intended to relate to Bonneville.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And/or similar projects to Bonneville.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senate for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I know everybody wants to get to the 
party. This amendment, the second-degree amendment, is precisely the 
same amendment as my first-degree amendment which was taken down by the 
McCain amendment. The McCain amendment does one thing that is good. It 
says that you cannot sell an asset for less than its net present value, 
but that does not affect an asset like a national park that has no 
income stream. And second, let me repeat, Rudolph Penner and Bob 
Reischauer, two of the most respected directors of the Congressional 
Budget Office we have ever had, said it is terrible policy to score 
asset sales on the budget deficit.
  Please vote yea on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senate overwhelmingly voted to substitute this 
amendment. We voted for it. There is no use going back and undoing what 
we have done by another amendment. So I move to table the Bumpers 
amendment and ask for yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Bumpers amendment No. 4036. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] and 
the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Lieberman
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4036) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 4013, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 4013, 
as amended.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the underlying amendment, 
as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4013), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we continue our important quest to 
free the children of this country from an enormous burden of debt; we 
can start to free up the Federal Government from the compounding 
interest payments that threaten our fiscal future. The vote today is a 
very important one. It shows whether we are determined to balance the 
budget in a meaningful and attainable way, or whether we want to see 
business as usual in the Federal Government.
  Mr. President, the problem of lowering the deficit is not a new one. 
We got to this point over a period of 40 years. Over the last 30 years, 
we have seen a clear and uninterrupted trend of increasing deficits. 
During the 1960's, deficits averaged $6 billion per year. In the 
1970's, deficits averaged $36 billion per year. In the 1980's, they 
climbed to $156 billion per year. It doesn't stop there, in the 1990's, 
so far, deficits have averaged $259 billion per year.
  I think there is plenty of blame to share among all the Members of 
Congress and all the U.S. Presidents during these decades of debt 
buildup. The Vietnam war, the rise in entitlements, the creation of new 
agencies and roles of Government--all of these and other factors 
contributed to the budget mess we are in today.
  But, today, Mr. President, the question is not so much how we got in 
the hole, but how we get out.
  Today, Mr. President, we can only lay blame on those who do not 
support a plan to balance the budget by the year 2002 and utilizing 
real numbers. Today, we have an opportunity to begin the process of 
addressing our deficit head-on and setting our country on the road to a 
balanced budget.

[[Page S5489]]

  Mr. President, the taxpayers pay for the deficits the Federal 
Government keeps running up. Every year the hard-working Americans work 
to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility. But, the hurt from our spending 
does not stop there. The ones who are going to bear the brunt of this 
debt are our children and grandchildren. A child born today will pay 
$187,000 in taxes throughout his or her lifetime just to pay the 
interest on the debt our annual deficit spending has amassed.
  This debt amounts to roughly $18,500 per person today with annual 
interest charges exceeding $2,575 per taxpayer. This is not right.
  Mr. President, balancing the budget will help to lighten this burden 
on our families, and most importantly, on our children and 
grandchildren. It will take a long time to pay off a $4.9 trillion 
debt. But, by voting on a resolution to balance the budget by 2002, we 
can at least begin the process. And, we can face the dawn of a new 
century with a renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. President, I think that almost all of us theoretically agree that 
we must balance the budget. And, clearly, the debate involves setting 
priorities. But, the real test is one of political will. Not one of us 
is going to get his or her own way on everything in this budget 
resolution. But, the larger issue still looms. Are we determined to 
balance the budget? Are we willing to compromise a little here and 
there for achievement of a goal that has been eluding us for decades?
  We must use reliable data. Using rosy estimates and forecasts may 
make the job of Federal budgeting easier for us and for the President, 
but it won't work. When I commute to the Hill in the morning, I can 
estimate that it will take me 5 minutes. But, that estimate won't make 
me on time.
  We need to use conservative, real-life estimates of what the economy 
is going to look like in the future so we adopt reasonable policies to 
efficiently react to the economic environment of the future.
  The difference between the Republican budget resolution and the 
budget submitted by President Clinton is what it gives to the American 
people. The Republican bill lowers the cost of Government, keeps the 
Medicare trust fund solvent longer, contains attainable spending 
control, and allows the American people to keep more of their hard-
earned money.
  Many of my colleagues have complained about the control we put on 
spending in this legislation. I can only say to them that if we do not 
do it now, the pain will be even greater later on. What will we tell 
seniors when their savings are devoured by inflation? What will we tell 
our kids in just a few years when a greater share of our annual budget 
is allocated to debt service than to domestic programs such as 
education or public health?
  Mr. President, this is where the rubber meets the road. Do we 
continue to hide behind business as usual, using rosy estimates and 
gimmicks? Do we front-load spending on all the popular programs in the 
first few years and back-end all the serious reductions into the last 2 
years? That strategy obviously appeals to President Clinton since that 
is the basic idea in his budget. Personally, I see no virtue in 
postponing the inevitable. The deficit cancer will not cure itself if 
we ignore it longer.
  I, for one, am not willing to leave the future of this country to the 
status quo. I believe that the most important thing we can do is 
continue to move down the road to fiscal responsibility. I want to 
commend Senator Domenici and my colleagues on the Budget Committee. 
Having served on the Budget Committee, I am well aware of the 
difficulty in bringing a budget resolution to the Senate floor, let 
alone one that is honest, straightforward, and gets the job done. I 
join in supporting this budget resolution.


     maintaining economic development agency field representatives

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has adopted 
my amendment on the Economic Development Administration. This amendment 
calls for the EDA to place high priority on maintaining field-based 
economic development representatives and requests reconsideration of 
those staff and offices that are now slated to be terminated and closed 
as part of the EDA's recent reduction in force.
  Mr. President, I support the Economic Development Administration's 
efforts over the last 30 years in New Mexico. Recently, New Mexico has 
moved from 48th to 47th place in the Nation in terms of per capita 
personal income. New Mexico, in terms of export sector growth, has been 
first in the Nation for the last 5 years. While I don't wish to imply 
that the EDA has directly caused all of these changes, I do believe 
that the EDA has played a vital role in helping to nurture economic 
activity in areas of New Mexico that might not otherwise have made the 
sort of efforts that are now underway.
  The Economic Development Administration is not designed to help urban 
areas further develop. Rather, EDA's mission is to nurture economic 
competence and help seed economic activity in nonurban regions of the 
Nation, particularly in economically disadvantaged communities. The EDA 
does a great many things that have been important in New Mexico and 
around the Nation including the promotion of industrial park 
development, business incubators, water and sewer system improvements, 
vocational and technical training facilities, technical assistance and 
capacity building for local governments, economic adjustment 
strategies, revolving loan funds and other projects which the private 
sector has nor generated or will not generate without some assistance 
from the Government.
  The Economic Development Administration maintains six regional 
offices which oversee staff that are designated field-based 
representatives. These regional offices are located in the urban areas 
of Austin, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Chicago, but 
most of the field representatives are located in the States that they 
cover.
  The budget that Congress finally approved for the EDA in 1996 capped 
salaries and expenses at $20 million, which represents a 37-percent 
reduction from fiscal year 1995 levels. The new Assistant Secretary of 
Economic Development, Dr. Phillip Singerman, has certainly had very 
difficult staffing decisions to make in leading a reduction-in-force 
process to bring the staffing level down to what the budget would 
allow. I know that this has been a painful, difficult process, and I 
appreciate the letter from Dr. Singerman on May 6 announcing the 
termination of our New Mexico-based economic development representative 
in which he wrote that New Mexico would continue to get his personal 
attention.
  My problem today is not with Dr. Singerman's intent. I know that he 
has tried to cut staff from all parts of EDA--including approximately 
18 positions from the Washington headquarters. My concern is that while 
Dr. Singerman and the EDA might have every intent of covering New 
Mexico, they will not be on the ground working on a regular basis with 
communities that do need and have benefited from contact with a field-
based economic development representative.

  The Washington headquarters of EDA is about 2,000 miles from New 
Mexico, and the Austin regional office which oversees New Mexico is 
approximately 700 miles from Santa Fe. There is no doubt that the 
communities of New Mexico that have been pulling themselves together 
and generating much needed economic infrastructure are losing a very 
important resource because of the EDA's decision to shut down our local 
office.
  The States that are losing field representative coverage include New 
Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, 
Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Mississippi, and North Carolina. 
Among these, New Mexico ranks 47th in per capita personal income in the 
Nation. Oklahoma ranks 46th. Mississippi is about 49th. North Dakota is 
42d, Arizona 35th, Maine 34th, and North Carolina 33d.
  In Dr. Singerman's letter to me, as well as to some of my other 
Senate colleagues, he stated that the decision to cut these positions 
or to not replace retiring personnel was based on such criteria as 
``local need.'' The States I have mentioned certainly rank high in the 
need category.
  While the EDA was closing down the New Mexico EDA office, it was 
bolstering the Austin Regional Office with personnel from Washington, 
DC. To make matters worse, Texas is one of the few States in the Nation 
with two

[[Page S5490]]

field-based representatives, both of whom work out of the Austin 
office, and neither of these positions was cut. Oklahoma and New Mexico 
both lost their field representatives in this process, and I think that 
this just runs counter to Economic Development Administration's 
mission.
  Many of the most recognizable places in New Mexico, and many of our 
most ambitious efforts to improve our economy have been brought to life 
through the efforts of Jim Swearingen and the Santa Fe EDA office. 
During the 30 years of EDA operation in New Mexico, the EDA office has 
provided millions of dollars of Federal assistance toward economic 
development projects including Albuquerque's KIMO Theater, the Sweeney 
Convention Center in Santa Fe, the Mesilla Plaza, the Taos Plaza, the 
UNM Technology Commercialization Center, the Carlsbad Advanced 
Manufacturing Training Center, the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, and 
numerous other projects. So far this year, EDA has provided $400,000 
for infrastructure supporting Fort Sumner's Cheese Factory Project, $1 
million for a business incubator in Farmington, and $4.5 million for 
the Crownpoint Institute of Technology in Crownpoint. Jim Swearingen 
has served New Mexico for 24 years--and is a person widely respected in 
my State. He has made a great difference.
  I strongly believe that the EDA needs to keep its field 
representatives out with the people and communities it serves. I am 
pleased that there was strong bipartisan agreement in the Senate that 
the EDA should reconsider the nature of its current reduction-in-force 
and should make field representation one of its highest priorities.

                          ____________________