[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5512-S5519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent
resolution.
Amendment No. 4016
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Simpson-Kerrey
amendment No. 4016.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, how much time do I have to speak on this?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Thirty seconds.
Mr. KERREY. Thirty seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Take it all.
Mr. KERREY. I do not expect to persuade a majority, Mr. President.
This is an amendment that will have a tremendous impact on the future
budget outlays and appropriations of this Congress. As everybody that
has examined the facts knows, unless we make changes in these long-term
entitlement programs, we are simply never either going to get into
balance in 7 years, nor are we going to be able to sustain it out in
the future. We are converting our Government into an ATM machine. The
longer we wait, the sooner the day is going to arrive when there is no
money for defense, no money for anything other than transfer of
payments.
As I said, I do not expect a majority to vote for a majority of these
proposals in here, but I urge my colleagues to give very careful
consideration to this amendment.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I oppose the Kerrey amendment. I do this because it
states the sense of the Senate that the budget resolution assumes a
series of long-term entitlement reforms, including reducing the CPI by
one-half a percentage point each year, which would cut Social Security
spending by about $38 billion over the next 6 years, and it would
increase taxes by about $35 billion over that period.
The amendment also calls for increasing the retirement age for
civilian and military retirees and Social Security and Medicare
beneficiaries, COLA limits for very high civilian and military
pensions, and partial privatization of Social Security.
On behalf of Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee,
I move to table the Kerrey amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table 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 [Mr. Dole] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Pressler
Reid
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--36
Bennett
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
DeWine
Feinstein
Frist
Grams
Gregg
Hatfield
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kerrey
Kohl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Moynihan
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Robb
Santorum
Simon
Simpson
Thomas
Thompson
NOT VOTING--1
Dole
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4016) 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is now amendment No.
4018.
Mr. EXON. Before we start charging time, could we have a little order
here for the information of all the Senators?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order in the Senate. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I say to the chairman of the committee,
according to our scoresheet we have seven amendments left that have
been preagreed to for consideration and votes. Then there are some
others that are still outstanding that we still have on the list. Of
the seven that are still outstanding, waiting for a vote, and since we
are cramped for time--I know there are three sense-of-the-Senate
resolutions, one by Senator McCain, one by Senator Faircloth, another
one by Senator Roth, all sense-of-the-Senate resolutions--and since all
of those Senators voted against considering sense-of-the-Senate
resolutions, I am wondering if they would like to, in good faith,
withdraw their sense-of-the-Senate resolutions so that we can
accomplish what they would like to do in addition to that.
Mr. McCAIN. Since when is consistency a requirement?
Mr. EXON. Senators who have a sense of the Senate outstanding, they,
too, want an expedited procedure. I say this is a good time to do that.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will make a trade with the Senator. We will
reconsider this if you help us and vote for the reconsideration. In the
future there will be no more----
Mr. FORD. No.
Mr. EXON. In the future? I would like to have done it now.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is what it was.
Mr. EXON. If we are going to consider sense-of-the-Senate
resolutions, there are seven amendments that we know about, and three
of those are sense-of-the-Senate resolutions.
Amendment No. 4018
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could we have order? This is an
amendment that has been worked on very hard by a lot of people. They
deserve to be heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could we have order so we can move forward?
This is the amendment, the Chafee-Breaux amendment, and with 5 minutes
of debate equally divided.
Mr. DOMENICI. A 10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten-minute vote.
Mr. CHAFEE. I ask that everybody please give their attention to the
proposal we are making.
[[Page S5513]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could Senators move out of the well, please?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, every Member of this Chamber believes that
running up huge deficits year after year and passing the debt on to our
children is just plain wrong. Every Member of this Chamber knows we
must restrain the entitlement programs.
The proposal I am offering on behalf of myself, Senator Breaux, and
19 of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, balances the budget in
7 years. It makes significant reforms to entitlement programs. It
extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund and provides modest tax
relief for working families.
These are all sound reasons for supporting it. But there is an
additional strong reason I wish to call to your attention. The
President's budget was rejected on nearly a straight party-line vote.
The Republican proposal will pass on a straight party-line vote, I
expect. But the implementing legislation to the Domenici proposal, the
implementing legislation will undoubtedly be vetoed. Thus, its
entitlement reforms will not become law, just like last year. Our
budget, however, has a realistic chance of becoming law. Today with a
``yes'' vote on the alternative, we can transform talk about deficit
reduction into action.
If we pass the Chafee-Breaux alternative, a balanced budget agreement
can be reached this year. If this effort fails, then we will go through
another year without solving our Nation's fiscal problems.
Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my colleagues, Herb Stein, the economist
and sometimes humorist, once said, ``If your horse dies, we suggest you
dismount.'' Mr. President, both parties today are trying to ride a dead
horse. We have both been there and done that before. It did not work
then. It is not going to work now.
If only Democrats vote for the Democratic budget, it will not pass.
If only Republicans vote for the Republican plan, it will pass, but it
is not going to become law. There is another way. Our centrist
coalition of over 20 Senators, half Democrat and half Republicans,
have, in fact, offered a better way. The American people are watching
us today and hoping that just once we can come together, meet in the
middle, and get it done.
Let me be very honest and acknowledge that our one-half of 1 percent
adjustment to the Consumer Price Index is politically difficult for
everyone. But let us all be honest with ourselves and to the American
people and acknowledge that it is the right thing to do.
If we do nothing, by the year 2012, projected outlays for
entitlements will consume 100 percent of all the tax revenues we
collect leaving nothing for any of the other functions of Government.
It is, therefore, very clear which path we must take. The only
question is, will we have the political courage to do the right thing?
I think that together we can do it.
Mr. President, on Monday evening, the senior Senator from Illinois
asked about the effect of the Chafee-Breaux amendment on student loans.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record prior to the vote
on the amendment a letter from June O'Neill, the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office which addresses that subject, as well as a
table comparing the saving levels in the Chafee-Breaux resolution to
the other plans.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 21, 1996.
Hon. John H. Chafee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: At your request, we have reviewed Amendment
No. 4018 to S. Con. Res. 57, the 1997 budget resolution. That
amendment, introduced by yourself and others, includes
reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources, but does not identify any specific
programmatic changes that the committee would be required to
make to the student loan program or to any other program
within its jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill.
Amendment No. 4018--a substitute proposed by: Mr. Chafee,
(for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Brown, Mr. Bryan,
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Conrad, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Gorton, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnston, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr.
Kerrey, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Nunn, Mr. Robb, Mr.
Simpson, Mr. Specter, and Ms. Snowe).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chafee/
Breaux (7- President GOP (6-
year (6-year year
savings) savings) savings)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary.......................... -268 -229 -296
Medicare............................... -154 -116 -167
Medicaid............................... -62 -54 -72
Welfare/EITC........................... -58 -43 -70
CPI.................................... -126 0 0
Net tax cuts........................... 105 8 122
--------------------------------
Total savings...................... -679 -523 -565
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in
opposition?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield Senator Exon half the time.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I join the chairman of the committee in what
I think will be a salute to our colleagues from Rhode Island and
Louisiana for their effort. But I must oppose the amendment. The
Chafee-Breaux budget could cut COLA's, costing a typical Social
Security beneficiary $1,200 over 7 years. Such changes should be done,
in my opinion, if at all, only in the context of a comprehensive Social
Security reform package. These COLA cuts would also hit EITC, SSI, and
retired and disabled veterans.
The amendment goes after Medicare beneficiaries as well
unnecessarily. Finally, the Chafee-Breaux budget cuts taxes far more
than the President and far more than I think is prudent. For these
reasons I urge Senators to oppose it.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want everyone to know that the Senator
from New Mexico thinks those bipartisan Senators that put this package
together deserve our highest accolades, and obviously, in the scheme of
things they performed a very, very important role in providing an
alternative in a way that may some day become the budget of the United
States.
But for any member of that coalition to stand up and say since this
is bipartisan, it is going to become law, let me suggest, sitting over
in the White House is the President of the United States. The President
of the United States has had this presented to him. He is not in favor
of it for the very simple reason that it cuts Social Security. It does
it in a different way by adjusting the CPI, and it may be something
that eventually some commission might say we ought to do that.
But, quite frankly, I urge this amendment be defeated unless those
Senators who vote for it truly want to take on the President of the
United States on the Social Security issue 5 months before an election.
I think it is doomed. Because I think it is doomed, it seems to me we
ought to adopt the underlying bill and not this one. I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand today to support many of the goals
of the Chafee-Breaux amendment to the Budget Act of 1997, but to voice
concern regarding how to pay for those goals.
On the top of the list of essential tax reforms that this amendment
addresses is a reduction in the capital gains tax. This tax is
fundamentally unfair because it is not linked to inflation and taxes
people on phantom income. No other nation in the world has a tax on
capital gains and at least a reduction in this tax is in order. Because
a clear majority of Americans own their own homes this tax relief lifts
a huge burden off the backs of the middle class. It also allows
businesses to buy and sell property and equipment based on their need
and not on the Tax Code. It frees money trapped in deteriorating assets
to be used to invest in new and improved equipment and expand the
economy. This in turn benefits all Americans.
Another essential tax reform is eliminating the estate and
inheritance tax. These taxes are very destructive to the family. It
forces family businesses to be sold and increases the pain already felt
by the loss of a loved one. The ability for each generation to pass on
it's family heritage should not be blocked by the Federal Government's
grab for money. These taxes must be eliminated.
Middle class tax relief was promised by the President in 1992 and by
the Congress in 1994. The President vetoed it repeatedly last year, but
it is just as important now as it was then. It is
[[Page S5514]]
time to cut taxes for families with children. In the last 30 years it
has become increasingly more expensive to raise children. The typical
child costs upwards of a quarter of a million dollars to raise and send
to college. A $250 per child family tax credit would go a long way to
relieving some of the stress of raising children in the typical
American family. Since the average family pays 38.2 percent of its
income toward taxes, surely we can agree to give some of it back to
those that need it the most.
All of these reforms are needed and necessary and I support them
without reservation. However, I am concerned about the way the Breaux-
Chafee amendment pays for these reforms. By tinkering with Federal
employees retirement plans, we are in essense breaking our word to
them. I believe that the Government should keep its commitment to these
hard-working folks and not change the rules this late in the game. For
this reason, I will cast my vote in opposition to the Breaux-Chafee
amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend Senators Chafee and Breaux for
the work they did in putting together a true budget compromise. These
two distinguished Senators successfully coordinated a group of 11
Democrats and 11 Republicans in a good-faith effort to balance our
Nation's budget in a fair and responsible way. And, their work should
not go unnoticed.
As the people of this country know all too well, Congress has been
wrangling with the budget issue for more than a year. The debate has
been bitter and, at times, downright rancorous. But, if we step back
and look beyond all the huffing and puffing, we find that Congress and
the President have learned we can balance the budget. It is not an
impossible mission. And it is not an idea that must get bogged down
along party lines.
We all agree the budget must be balanced. We all understand the need
to get our fiscal house in order. The difficult part, however, is
making sure the budget plan uses good common sense and reflects
America's core values--the belief we should ensure our quality of life,
educate our children, and maintain adequate health security for our
parents and disabled.
Unfortunately, the Senate rejected the centrist budget today.
However, the awareness of this plan is just building, and I am pleased
to note support is growing for this plan. I believe the Chafee-Breaux
budget lays the groundwork and sets out the parameters that could be
used to strike a final compromise on a comprehensive 6-year balanced
budget plan.
The centrist budget plan is not perfect. It requires serious savings
in programs I believe in and my friends and family depend on. It asks
each and every one of us to give a little in order balance the budget.
It cuts Medicare, Medicaid; it curtails welfare programs; and it cuts
taxes all a little bit more than I would like. But the proposals in
this plan are workable. It calls for realistic savings. Savings that
can be achieved without risking the safety and security of our friends
and families--without stripping away the safety net that catches our
most needy.
Mr. President, let me just say, last year I was opposed to cutting
back Medicaid because it provides health care for our poorest children
and it ensures quality nursing home standards for our parents. But,
after talking to health care experts in Washington State, I concluded
my home State could still serve our most vulnerable populations as long
as we do not have drastic cuts to Medicaid. I am willing to concede
that point, and I know now that if we all give a little, we can reach
compromise.
The key to any balanced budget proposal is making sure the numbers
fit the policy decisions. In other words, we cannot just arbitrarily
slash important programs simply to balance the budget. We need to make
sure we can reform the programs in a way that saves money while still
serving the public. The Chafee-Breaux plan will accomplish that goal--
it proposes realistic numbers that can be achieved.
Given this, let me say that I will work to make sure the Chafee-
Breaux plan is balanced and reflects America's priorities. While I
support the overall effort to put aside partisan differences and find
common ground, there are very important matters we cannot afford to
overlook.
I just want to remind my colleagues and our State legislators who
seem to be clamoring for more State control of Medicaid and Welfare,
that our children's needs do not change with shifting political winds.
We need a balanced budget. Saying that is the easy part. But we must
compromise to get one, and that is the hard part. The American people
clearly are willing to sacrifice to make this happen. And, I voted
today in support of a bipartisan budget agreement that asks for shared
sacrifice. The numbers in the Breaux-Chafee proposal are reasonable.
How the proposal gets to the numbers still raises large concerns for
me, and should for all of us.
On welfare, there will be cuts. People will see reduced services from
their Government. There will be new requirements on adults to do more
in order to get help, and if this breaks down the disincentives in our
current welfare system, then I support it. That is one reason I voted
for this amendment.
But how we achieve savings is a very important question, as is
whether we want to penalize people. And I think this amendment and
every other welfare proposal goes the wrong way when it comes to
removing national standards for a basic guarantee of service.
According to CBO, removing entitlement status for cash assistance
does not save money in this proposal. I can understand saving money and
making programs run more efficiently. I can see why people in this
country want to impose work requirements on those getting public
assistance. I just do not understand why children have to suffer
because their parents are poor.
The Breaux-Chafee proposal cuts food stamps, SSI eligibility, and
many other things that will make our children's lives harder, day to
day. I do not think this is wise. But in the interest of getting a
budget agreement, and in the spirit of shared sacrifice, some of these
proposals are reasonable.
But, block-granting and capping welfare payments to States is not
reasonable. When the economy in Wisconsin or Washington turns sour, we
will see how fast the States want help from the Federal Treasury.
Removing the guarantee to a basic hand-up in need--this is not
reasonable, and Congress should not be doing it in this budget or any
other.
On Medicaid, the Breaux-Chafee plan will change early health
treatment for kids under EPSDT, which will hinder our long-term
preventative health efforts for children. We will be less likely to
stop easy ailments before they become serious and costly illnesses. We
know this is going in. The trick will be to find a way to make sure
that does not happen.
There are many other concerns I have with this section of the budget.
The overall funding level looks reasonable, but we need to watch
Medicaid for its impact on children.
I am also deeply concerned about the proposals included in this
budget that would target our federal and postal employees. These people
who serve our country have already been hit hard through Government
shutdowns and delayed COLA's. This budget also adjusts contributions
and collections from the CSRS and FERS retirement plans, and it
increase retirement ages--improperly placing a large burden on the
backs of Federal workers. We must end the continued 3-month delay in
retiree COLA's and honor the contract our Nation formed with our valued
Federal workers.
Mr. President, I will not forget the concerns I just raised. As we
reform these programs, we must remember what works and what needs to be
changed. Last year, we learned the American people do not want reckless
changes. They want wise decisionmaking. They want us to craft budgets
that reflect their priorities. And I am confident that with good common
sense we can meet their expectations.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will oppose the Breaux-Chafee substitute.
I want to commend those who have been involved in that effort and
support the objective they seek. Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux
deserve our praise for showing the country that we do not need partisan
bickering to reach a budget agreement. I would very much like to have
been able to join their ranks and pass a budget on a bipartisan basis.
[[Page S5515]]
I wish more of our Republican friends would have joined me in
supporting the President's balanced budget. It is a sad commentary that
not one Member of the other party could work with us on a plan which
has proven to cut the deficit in half while keeping our economy moving
at a robust clip. The President and the Democrats have crafted a budget
which eliminates the deficit and works for middle-class Americans.
Mr. President, I wish I could join my friends. I have discussed this
proposal with a number of its proponents, but Mr. President, I cannot
sign on to a plan at this time which arbitrarily changes the Consumer
Price Index or its application to benefits that are by law adjusted for
inflation.
As you know, the CPI is one of the country's most widely watched
economic indices. The CPI, which measures the changes in the cost of
living, is determined by economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
These analysts are continually adjusting the CPI and the methodology
they employ to ascertain it.
There are a number of prominent economists--including Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan--who tell us the CPI overstates the actual cost
of living and is therefore an inaccurate estimate for the rate of
inflation. They call for the CPI to be adjusted downward. I know the
proponents of this budget are responding to these calls when they
arbitrarily lower the CPI and derive more than $100 billion to spend on
tax breaks or to apply to deficit reduction.
Mr. President, I think this action--which will affect millions of
American taxpayers, Social Security beneficiaries, and other retirees--
is premature.
As changing the CPI will affect millions of Americans, we should
study it carefully before we enact any change in the way it is
calculated as part of a deficit reduction plan. Perhaps at some point
in the future, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will determine that the
CPI exaggerates the cost of living and adjust the index downward. Or
perhaps the Congress, after rigorous study, will thoroughly debate a
legislative change in the CPI and subsequently enact a change. As you
know, Mr. President, the Finance Committee has established a
nonpartisan commission to study the accuracy and methodology of the
Consumer Price Index. This Commission is due to release its final
report this summer. We should wait at least until the Commission has
reported its findings before legislating changes to this index.
At least until then, Mr. President, legislation to change the CPI is
not needed and would be extremely unwise. We can and should balance the
budget without changing the CPI. The President has shown us that it is
possible to balance the budget by the year 2002 without changing the
CPI. I voted for his balanced budget proposal as did many of the
proponents of this change in the CPI.
I also have considerable concerns about the level and impact of cuts
in the Breaux-Chafee budget from the level needed to maintain current
Medicare and Medicaid services, as well as the discretionary programs
that are so vital to investment in our future, ranging from education
to infrastructure, from environmental protection to high-technology
research and development.
I am also very concerned about the size of the Medicare cuts in the
Chafee-Breaux proposal which would reduce this essential program by
$154 billion by 2002. These cuts will result in inadequate health care,
more expensive health care, or no care at all. Although cuts this large
could be implemented in a number of ways, and all of those would have a
considerable negative impact because of the magnitude, the Chafee-
Breaux proponents have advocated doubling Medicare premiums for middle
and upper income seniors, requiring most participants to bear the
burden of paying 31.5 percent of the part B program's costs. Forcing
the elderly to pay an unfair share of deficit reduction is the wrong
approach.
And all for those reasons, I regretfully concluded I cannot join in
supporting this budget alternative, and I must oppose the Chafee-Breaux
substitute.
I do hold out hope, however, Mr. President, that those of us who
supported the President's budget, which balances the budget by the year
2002, will be able to work with the proponents of this budget
alternative to secure final Senate action that will be far preferable
for our Nation's sake than the budget the Republican majority will ram
through both Houses of Congress this week.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Chafee-Breaux amendment as a
substitute for the underlying budget offered by the majority.
The Chafee-Breaux amendment is a bipartisan effort to find a
compromise to the budget dilemma. It provides a more moderate reduction
in discretionary spending and includes a national guarantee of coverage
in Medicaid for the elderly, the disabled, and disadvantaged children
and pregnant women.
I do not agree with all aspects of the Chafee-Breaux amendment,
however. I do not agree with the 0.5-percent adjustment to the Consumer
Price Index--0.3 percent in the outyears. I do not believe that such a
change should be made in the calculation of the CPI without careful
study and analysis showing a disparity between the CPI and the rate of
inflation and a resulting recommendation from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics that Congress make such a change. Also, I do not agree with
the Chafee-Breaux defense discretionary spending level which is $11
billion more than the President requested. I am also concerned by the
Chafee-Breaux's assumption of a 40-percent cap on direct student loans.
While I support the Chafee-Breaux amendment as a substitute for the
majority's budget, I would need to see these concerns addressed before
voting for it on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
4018. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Bennett
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
D'Amato
DeWine
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kerrey
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Santorum
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
NAYS--53
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Biden
Bond
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Coverdell
Craig
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Harkin
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Lautenberg
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Dole
The amendment (No. 4018) was rejected.
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. 3969
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 3969.
Senator Feingold is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, our amendment offers a clear choice: tax
cuts or deficit reduction. It strikes the $122 billion tax cut and
applies every penny to deficit reduction. I think that is our highest
economic priority. This is not just a partisan issue. The Republican
and Democratic plans have had this flaw. The bipartisan plan has this
flaw. This has been endorsed by the Concord Coalition.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Feingold amendment strikes $122
billion in family tax credit from this resolution. Therefore, it will
be a bill without any special emphasis for the families across America.
I believe this
[[Page S5516]]
should be tabled, and we should proceed through and have a budget that
does something for American families, along with reducing the deficit.
I believe it should be tabled.
Therefore, 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 the motion to table the
amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--43
Akaka
Bingaman
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3969) was agreed
to.
Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate Democratic leader has appealed the
decision of the Chair. The question before the Senate is, Shall the
decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
There is 1 minute of debate equally divided.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this resolution abuses reconciliation--
extending use in an entirely inappropriate way. In sanctioning that
abuse, the Chair has made a faulty judgment that could have a vast
impact on the Senate.
The Chair has ruled that reconciliation can be used solely to
increase spending, solely to cut taxes, solely to increase the deficit.
That is an absolutely unacceptable distortion of the reconciliation
process; expanded use threatens all Senators' rights to debate and
amend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President and fellow Senators, I think the Chair's
ruling should be sustained. Senator Daschle's point of order was based
on his view that the budget resolution cannot contain separate
reconciliation instructions, that there can be just one. The
Parliamentarian ruled that you could have multiple reconciliation bills
directed by a budget resolution.
I think the Parliamentarian is right and we should support him.
Therefore, I urge that you vote ``no'' on this appeal--vote ``aye'' on
this appeal. Excuse me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? On this question, 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 53, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]
YEAS--53
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
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--47
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
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
The ruling of the Chair was sustained as the judgment of the Senate.
Amendment No. 4022
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 4022
offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
Mr. DOMENICI. We want to set that aside to do some other things we
want to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
The Senate will please come to order.
Amendment No. 4023
Mr. DOMENICI. Senators Faircloth and Moynihan have an amendment, No.
4023. It has been cleared on both sides. There is no need for a
rollcall vote.
I yield any time I might have in opposition.
Mr. EXON. We yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the Senate will now
proceed to consider amendment No. 4023.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Moynihan be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, let me say how pleased I am to offer
this amendment along with the senior Senator from New York. It was
Senator Moynihan's ground-breaking research 30 years ago that first
drew attention to a situation that has gone from a developing trend to
what I consider to be a real crisis.
This amendment simply states that it is the sense of the Senate that
if welfare reform is included in balanced budget legislation, that
those provisions contain a strategy to reduce the incidence of out of
wedlock births as well as encourage family formation.
I strongly believe that welfare reform that does not seek to reverse
the rising rate of out-of-wedlock births, will not break the cycle of
welfare dependency that is consuming more and more of our young people.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4023) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4037
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, for Senator Biden, I send an amendment to
the desk and ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered, agreed
to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. This has been
cleared on both sides.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand Senator Hatch is a
cosponsor of that amendment.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Hatch is a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Biden, for
himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl and Mr. Hatch proposes an
amendment numbered 4037.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. . A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE SENATE'S SUPPORT FOR
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that:
(1) Our Federal, State and local law enforcement officers
provide essential services that preserve and protect our
freedoms and security;
[[Page S5517]]
(2) Law enforcement officers deserve our appreciation and
support;
(3) Law enforcement officers and agencies are under
increasing attacks, both to their physical safety and to
their reputations;
(4) Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts need
increased financial commitment from the Federal Government
for funding and financial assistance and not the slashing of
our commitment to law enforcement if they are to carry out
their efforts to combat violent crime;
(5) The President's Fiscal Year 1996 budget requested an
increase of 14.8% for the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
10% for United States Attorneys, and $4 milllion for
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces; while this
Congress has increased funding for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation by 10.8%, 8.4% for United States Attorneys, and
a cut of $15 million for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
Task Forces;
(6) On May 16, 1996, the House of Representatives has
nonetheless voted to slash $300 million from the President's
$5 billion budget request for the Violent Crime Reduction
Trust Fund for Fiscal Year 1997 in H. Con. Res. 178; and
(7) The Violent Crime reduction Trust Fund as adopted by
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
fully funds the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 without adding to the federal budget deficit.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that the provisions and the functional totals underlying this
resolution assume the Federal Government's commitment to fund
Federal law enforcement programs and programs to assist State
and local efforts shall be maintained and funding for the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund shall not be cut as the
resolution adopted by the House of Representatives would
require.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it seems to be ``deja vu all over again''
to quote Yogi Berra--last year we had to fight an effort on the House
side to slash funds for the crime law trust fund, and it looks like we
are going to have to do the same this year.
The amendment which I propose today gives the entire Senate the
opportunity to express its support for full funding of the violent
crime control trust fund enacted in the 1994 crime law. Let me point
out that the Senate budget resolution offered by Chairman Domenici does
the right thing on the trust fund--Chairman Domenici fully funds the
President's $5 billion request for the trust fund for 1997. This
recognizes that the $5 billion for the trust fund is already paid for
by the reduction of the Federal work force by 272,000 employees.
The problem is that the budget resolution proposed by the Republican
leadership of the House of Representatives which passed just last week
by a narrow, partisan vote of 226 to 195--221 Republicans voted for it,
4 against; 190 Democrats voted against, 5 voted for it--cut the
President's $5 billion request for the trust fund by $300 million.
This is less than the $900 million cut that had been proposed by the
Republican leadership of the House--but this is still a significant cut
that I must oppose.
If the House proposed cut of $300 million is allowed to stand there
can be only one result--fewer Federal dollars will be available to
combat crime. As my colleagues know, the general numbers of the budget
resolution do not specify which programs will be cut--but it is clear
that some programs must be cut.
What specifically might this mean? Let us just review the law
enforcement efforts funded by the crime law trust fund:
Federal prosecutors, $55 million;
FBI, $40 million; DEA, $200 million; border enforcement and deporting
aliens who break the law, $525 million; violence against women efforts
including more police and prosecutors and more shelters for battered
women, $254 million; $1 billion for constructing prisons and
reimbursing States for imprisoning criminal aliens; and an additional
$2.6 billion to aid State and local law enforcement--whether it is
through the 100,000 Cops Program I favor or the block grant favored by
the other side, I do not believe that any Senator favors a smaller
total for State and local law enforcement.
We all know there is no free lunch--so if there is a cut in the total
for the trust fund, at least some of the pieces of the trust fund must
be cut. For that reason, I call upon the entire Senate to go on record
as opposing the House cut to the President's $5 billion request for the
crime law trust fund.
But, let me also point out that even if we pass the resolution I am
offering today, and even if the House Republican majority ultimately
agrees to fully fund the President's request for the trust fund--even
if all that happens, a massive shortfall in the President's request for
crime fighting resources will still have been made by the budget
resolutions adopted by the Republican majority.
To quickly review the facts on the total ``administration of
justice'' account--compare what the Senate and House budget resolutions
offer for the non-trust fund portion of the ``administration of
justice'' account that pays for the entire Justice Department--FBI,
DEA, prisons, everything--and the courts:
Billion
President request.................................................$18.5
House budget resolution............................................17,4
Senate budget resolution...........................................16.7
These are massive cuts--the House proposes to slash the President's
request for crime fighting dollars by $1.1 billion; the Senate proposes
a cut $1.8 billion.
What happened to all this ``tough on crime'' rhetoric we have been
hearing from all sides? It seems that the President held up his end of
the bargain--requesting the largest-ever annual budget for the FBI,
DEA, U.S. attorneys, and help for State and local prisons and police.
But, the Congress controlled by the other party has been ``AWOL--absent
without law enforcement.''
Unless there is a major change to restore these funds when the House
and Senate budget conferees meet--we can expect but one result when the
appropriators develop their bills later this year. Massive cuts in
Federal law enforcement because the appropriators will have no choice--
if we shrink the budget pie for law enforcement, there is no way to
provide all the slices. It is just that simple.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment I am
offering on behalf of myself, and Senators Leahy, Kohl, and Hatch.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join as a sponsor in this amendment to
the budget resolution. Last year I offered a similar amendment that was
adopted by the Senate. Unfortunately, Congress did not follow through
on our commitment. Last year the budget for fighting crime was never
finalized. It was only recently that we arrived at a budget resolution
for a fiscal year now more than half over. This had a devastating
impact on anticrime grant programs and should not be repeated.
I am glad to join with Senator Biden in this resolution to preserve
the violent crime reduction trust fund. Our purpose is to reaffirm our
commitment and appreciation for Federal, State, and local law
enforcement and the outstanding job that they do under the most
difficult and dangerous circumstances, and to reject the House's
attempts drastically to cut our financial support for their efforts.
Over the last few years there has been a lot of public debate and
comment about the activities of law enforcement and the rhetoric that
has been used to disparage and malign these dedicated public servants
and the law enforcement agencies in which they serve. I submit that law
enforcement deserves better. We owe these men and women our respect,
appreciation and public, moral and financial support.
The gruesome fact is that there are increasing threats against the
safety and lives of law enforcement officers--the bombing of offices in
Texas only yesterday, the Oklahoma City bombing, reports of attacks
against park rangers, Forest Service employees, Treasury employees and
others. The dedicated men and women in Federal, State, and local
government and law enforcement work long hours for limited financial
reward in order to serve the public, protect us and preserve our
freedom.
It is in this context that I am concerned that the House of
Representatives has again voted to cut law enforcement resources. The
House voted on May 16 to cut $300 million from the President's request
for the violent crime reduction trust fund for fiscal year 1997. Last
year the House voted to offset certain tax reduction proposals by
cutting $5 billion from the violent crime reduction trust fund.
Invading the violent crime reduction trust fund makes it impossible to
pay for the law enforcement and crime prevention programs of the
Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. This is bad policy and will
[[Page S5518]]
lead to weakened law enforcement. I hope and trust that our Senate
colleagues will reject this cut in funding to Federal law enforcement
and Federal assistance to State and local efforts.
When we passed the Violet Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in
1994, we paid for its programs. A trust fund was established from the
downsizing of the Federal Government by some 250,000 jobs. The violent
crime reduction trust fund contains funds dedicated to law enforcement
and crime prevention programs, and is intended in large part to provide
Federal financial assistance to critical Federal, State and local
needs. Since passage of the Violent Crime Control Act, the U.S.
Department of Justice has been doing a tremendous job getting these
resources to the field. I commend the Associate Attorney General John
Schmidt and Chief Joe Brann, who direct the community policing
programs, for their quick work. I know that funding to assist local law
enforcement to hire additional officers went out almost immediately
based on a simple, one-page application. Vermont received commitments
of over $3 million toward 64 new officers in 34 jurisdictions, for
example.
The House would have us turn our backs on law enforcement and
prevention programs and the commitments we made in the Violent Crime
Control Act. Law enforcement and community-based programs cannot be
kept on a string like a yo-yo if they are to plan and implement crime
control and prevention programs. Funding for important programs
implementing the Violence Against Women Act and our rural crime
initiatives should not be delayed or cut again. What we need to do is
to follow through on our commitments, not to breach them and violate
our pledge to law enforcement, State and local government and the
American people. Invading trust funds dedicated to crime control
purposes is no way to proceed and no way to restore people's trust and
respect for government and the commitments that it makes.
I will continue to work with the Attorney General and my Senate
colleagues to reject the ill-advised House action. I will work to
preserve the violent crime reduction trust fund so that we can fulfil
the promise of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and
our commitment to do all that we can to reduce violent crime in our
local communities. This is not the time to undercut our support for
Federal law enforcement or the assistance provided State and local law
enforcement. We offer this amendment as an embodiment of the Senate's
resolve against the House-passed cuts to the violent crime reduction
trust fund and reductions in funding of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement. The House-passed cuts to law enforcement funding are not
the way to show our support for those women and men whom we ask to
protect public safety and preserve our precious freedoms.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4037) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4027 to amendment No. 4012
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up the second-degree amendment
No. 4027 to the Harkin-Specter amendment 4012.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, then, the question
is on agreeing to amendment 4027 as an amendment to 4012.
Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will take my 30 seconds in support of
the amendment. This would take the place of the Specter-Harkin
amendment which had added $2.7 billion, more or less, to one function
of the Government. Instead of doing that, the Senator from New Mexico
adds $4 billion to the overall budget and it can be used for education
and the other purposes within it. This can amount to a nondefense
discretionary freeze spending level and we have arrived at that as a
freeze off the 1996 consolidated rescissions bill. Once one had it all
figured out, this is the amount of money required to make it a freeze.
Mr. EXON. I will yield our 30 seconds to the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Senator Domenici is proposing a second-degree amendment
which increases funding for education, job training and health by $2
billion and funding for nondefense discretionary programs by $5 billion
overall. The Domenici amendment is not all the funding we need for the
programs including title I and Head Start and I would propose the
options in my amendment; however I do support this amendment and its
modification because it is an important step in the right direction. I
do support the amendment.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, is there time available in opposition to
the amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. There should have been. I yield 30 seconds to the
Senator to speak in opposition.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am strongly opposed to this amendment. I
want my colleagues to look at some simple numbers. Last year in the
budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 we adopted a budget that called
for spending on discretionary nondefense accounts in fiscal year 1997
of $255 billion. The budget before us now calls for discretionary
spending for the same year of $267 billion, so that we have increased
nondefense discretionary in this budget $12 billion above last year's
budget resolution. If we adopt this amendment we will be at $271
billion, and we will have increased nondefense discretionary spending
by $16.7 billion above the level we called for in last year's budget
resolution.
Either we are serious about controlling spending or we are not. It is
something we are capable of controlling. I strongly oppose it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be granted 30
seconds. The Senator from Texas spoke for a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think he would give it to me anyway. I should not say
that about how long he took.
Fellow Republicans, I want to speak to you first. The estimates on
tax receipts are up $15 billion over what is in this budget resolution.
What I am trying to do, so you will all know, is to make sure we do not
end up like we did last year. I have talked to John Kasich, chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, and they want us to pass this so we can
figure out exactly where we are, rather than end up precisely where we
were last year. If you want to end up that way, you vote with Senator
Gramm. If you want to give us a chance to get by without last year, you
vote for my amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds for
the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senate will please
come to order.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, all I want to say is this is still below
the CBO freeze. Period.
Mr. EXON. 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
No. 4027. 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 75, nays 25, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]
YEAS--75
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
[[Page S5519]]
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--25
Abraham
Ashcroft
Brown
Coats
Coverdell
Craig
Faircloth
Feingold
Gramm
Grams
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Nickles
Roth
Santorum
Smith
Thomas
Warner
The amendment (No. 4027) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on Amendment No. 4012
as amended.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
____________________