[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.
____________________