[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.

                          ____________________