[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5521-S5551]
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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, as I 
understand it, I believe Senator Domenici would confirm, we have two 
amendments remaining, by Senator McCain and Senator Byrd, and final 
passage. It seems possible to me, because I know some people are trying 
to catch planes, if we expedite this, we could be through voting by 
about 5:20 or something of that nature.
  I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be temporarily set 
aside so Senator Byrd may offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4040

 (Purpose: To improve our water and sewer systems, national parks and 
Everglades, to be offset by closing corporate loopholes and changes in 
                           tax expenditures)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Bingaman, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4040.

  Mr. BYRD. 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:

       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $201,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $408,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $649,000,000.
       On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $946,000,000.
       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $1,068,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $1,142,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $201,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $408,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $649,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $946,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $1,068,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $1,142,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1,011,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $1,049,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $1,089,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $1,131,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $1,068,000.000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1,110,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $201,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $408,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $649,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $946,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $1,068,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,142,000,000.
       On page 15, line 16, increase the amount by $190,000,000.
       On page 15, line 17, increase the amount by $118,000,000.
       On page 15, line 24, increase the amount by $224,000,000.
       On page 15, line 25, increase the amount by $160,000,000.
       On page 16, line 7, increase the amount by $258,000,000.
       On page 16, line 8, increase the amount by $222,000,000.
       On page 16, line 15, increase the amount by $293,000,000.
       On page 16, line 16, increase the amount by $276,000,000.
       On page 16, line 23, increase the amount by $228,000,000.
       On page 16, line 24, increase the amount by $312,000,000.
       On page 17, line 7, increase the amount by $265,000,000.
       On page 17, line 8, increase the amount by $304,000,000.
       On page 23, line 15, increase the amount by $821,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $83,000,000.
       On page 23, line 23, increase the amount by $825,000,000.
       On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $248,000,000.
       On page 24, line 7, increase the amount by $831,000,000.
       On page 24, line 8, increase the amount by $427,000,000.
       On page 24, line 15, increase the amount by $838,000,000.
       On page 24, line 16, increase the amount by $670,000,000.
       On page 24, line 23, increase the amount by $840,000,000.
       On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $756,000,000.
       On page 25, line 7, increase the amount by $845,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $838,000,000.
       On page 52, line 14, increase the amount by $1,011,000,000.
       On page 52, line 15, increase the amount by $201,000,000.
       On page 52, line 21, increase the amount by $1,049,000,000.
       On page 52, line 22, increase the amount by $408,000,000.
       On page 52, line 24, increase the amount by $1,089,000,000.
       On page 52, line 25, increase the amount by $649,000,000.
       On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $1,131,000,000.
       On page 53, line 3, increase the amount by $946,000,000.
       On page 53, line 5, increase the amount by $1,068,000,000.
       On page 53, line 6, increase the amount by $1,068,000,000.
       On page 53, line 8, increase the amount by $1,110,000,000.
       On page 53, line 9, increase the amount by $1,142,000,000.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I voted for the amendment that Mr. Domenici 
offered earlier. It was a good amendment. But, unlike the Domenici 
amendment which scattershots funds for many popular programs, my 
amendment targets $1.5 billion for the safe operation of our parks and 
$5 billion for the cleanup of our water and construction of our sewer 
systems, which are being neglected and run down. Our water is dirty; 
our parks are rundown. This is a

[[Page S5522]]

disgrace. There is a $25 billion backlog in clean water and sewer needs 
alone in this country, and the Domenici amendment does not answer this 
growing crisis.
  Mr. President, this amendment to the budget resolution, which I offer 
on behalf of myself and Senators Bingaman and Lautenberg, will provide 
an additional $5 billion for rural water and sewer programs and $1.5 
billion for our national park system. These funds are critically 
necessary to protect the most basic of services to America.
  All across America, millions of residents in rural communities 
continue to suffer from inadequate water and sewer services. This need 
is a direct link to health, sanitation, and environmental problems in 
all States. This need must be addressed to provide economic vitality to 
these regions, to allow new job opportunities, increase the tax base, 
and improve the quality of life for millions of Americans.
  Water and sewer loan programs have a proven track record because of 
their nearly zero-default rate, the best of all Federal loan programs. 
The grant portion of these programs allows impoverished communities and 
rural areas to provide their citizens the most basic of human services. 
These are services that most Americans take for granted every day.
  A recent Federal study listed my own State of West Virginia among the 
five worst States in the Nation in terms of the availability of safe 
drinking water. There are some places in my State where the condition 
of the water supply is appalling, and where people are relying on water 
supplies from systems operating in violation of safe drinking water 
standards, or wells that have been contaminated. In certain West 
Virginia communities, on some days, tap water runs black, but families, 
with no other water source, are forced to bathe and launder in it.
  As we approach the 21st Century, we must take steps to ensure that 
vast regions of our Nation will not be relegated to the living 
standards of a Third World Nation.
  Mr. President, the estimate is that there are 3 million households in 
the United States in need of safe, clean drinking water. The estimated 
cost to provide this water is about $10 billion. It is estimated that 
$3.5 billion is necessary for drinking water needs deemed ``critical'', 
and the balance for ``serious'' requirements. At current levels, only 
approximately $3.5 billion would be provided over the next six years 
toward providing clean drinking water for our people.
  An equally pressing requirement, Mr. President, is the need to 
provide basic sewer facilities for small communities. Millions of 
Americans in rural areas and small communities live without adequate 
sewer infrastructure. The overall cost estimates to meet these needs 
exceed $20 billion. At least $7.3 billion should be provided over the 
next 6 years to meet some of the most critical needs. My amendment will 
not fund all of these backlogs, but it will help address the critical 
requirement for the most basic of amenities that each of us takes for 
granted every day.
  The second part of this amendment provides an additional $1.5 billion 
for day-to-day operations in our national parks. These funds will be 
used for the services Americans ought to be provided when they visit 
their national parks. Within the amount, $400 million is for 
restoration of the Everglades ecosystem in South Florida. The need to 
protect the fragile and decaying resources of the Everglades has been 
supported in recent years by both sides of the aisle.
  The National Park Service has been entrusted with responsibility for 
368 different historic, cultural, scenic, natural resource, and 
recreation sites. These locations represent a mosaic of the most 
American of resources, from the historic sites of our country's birth--
Independence Hall, Minute Man, Valley Forge, and Yorktown--to the 
celebration of our cultural heritage at places such as Aztec Ruins, 
Fort McHenry, and the Natchez Trace Parkway, to the scenic beauty and 
splendor of places like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Big Bend, the 
Everglades, Crater Lake, Mount Rushmore, Acadia, and Redwood National 
Parks.
  But the fate of these parks is dependent on providing the necessary 
resources to protect the parks--to serve the visitors; to maintain the 
buildings, roads, and campgrounds; and to house the employees who must 
live within the national parks. As dollars are frozen or reduced, the 
parks must still pay for increased costs for people, supplies, 
equipment, and other tools necessary to keep the parks open. Failure to 
provide the funding for these activities means fewer park rangers, 
deferred maintenance, closed facilities and trails, and possibly 
dangerous conditions for park visitors.

  The start of the summer vacation season, is upon us. It is at this 
time of year that Americans load the family into the car and depart for 
a visit to the parks. Providing operating dollars for the National Park 
Service will help keep all sites open, and will contribute to a safer 
experience for all Americans.
  What does it mean to have inadequate resources to maintain the 
facilities which support visitors to the parks? Let me provide an 
example--if the funding isn't available to pay the people who drive the 
trash trucks and clean the restrooms in the park campgrounds, trash and 
unsanitary conditions accumulate. Build-ups of trash can attract bears, 
which then create a safety hazard. The presence of a safety hazard 
would cause the Park Service to close the campground--thereby denying 
visitors the opportunity to camp in a park they might have driven 1,000 
miles in order to visit.
  In fiscal year 1996, Members from both sides of the aisle urged 
adequate funding for our national parks. If the necessary allowances 
are not provided to address our park requirements, the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee will have little choice but to turn to 
other programs in order to find the resources necessary to protect our 
parks. This could mean reductions in programs such as low-income 
weatherization assistance, Forest Service timber sales, Smithsonian and 
other museum operations, payments in lieu of taxes, and operations of 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Mr. President, many Members of Congress have worked on behalf of 
their constituents to see that park facilities are well-maintained and 
taken care of properly. When water and sewer systems fail, they have 
sought money to fix the problem. When visitor facilities were necessary 
for new parks, the Appropriations Committee has provided the resources 
to build campgrounds, visitor centers, and rehabilitate historic 
buildings. But once the construction is over, and the ribbon-cutting 
ceremonies completed, there is still a need to operate these facilities 
on a day-to-day basis.
  In order to pay for its increase in spending, my amendment provides 
for corresponding increases in revenues over the 6-year period of this 
budget resolution. These revenues can be attained by closing corporate 
loopholes and by changes in tax expenditures.
  I encourage the support of Senators for my amendment. A vote against 
this amendment is a vote against the Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone, 
Independence Hall, the Grand Canyon, the Everglades, and all of the 
other 360 plus national park units. A vote against my amendment is a 
vote against the most basic amenities which a civilized country can 
provide for its people, clean, safe drinking water and adequate sewage 
facilities.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. There is 
time in opposition. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, relative to the budget resolution, the 
Byrd amendment would increase taxes and spending by $6.5 billion. I 
remind everyone, there is nothing in the resolution which would cause a 
shutdown of the national parks. Our resolution assumes full funding for 
the parks, for rural water service, and for sewer programs.
  In addition, might I say, even if you think you are voting for the 
specific targeted items, this money will go to the appropriations to be 
used by the Appropriations Committee where it sees fit. We already 
added $5 billion in budget authority and $4 billion in outlays. I think 
that is fair enough for today, and we ought to defeat this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the

[[Page S5523]]

Record certain newspaper articles, together with a breakdown of the 
Domenici amendment, which was at the table when we voted on that 
amendment. I voted for it, as I say. I would like to have a breakdown 
in there to show what those moneys will go for, purported.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Parks Offer More Muck, Less Help--Weather, Budgets Hit National Sites

       Fallen trees are left piled by the sides of roads. 
     Campgrounds are being closed. Beaches are full of debris and 
     river muck. And there aren't as many lectures on how a geyser 
     erupts.
       Tight budgets are bringing hard times to America's national 
     parks and recreational areas, and a severe winter and 
     flooding in many parts of the country are making this spring 
     even worse as park officials prepared for the summer vacation 
     rush.
       Some of the millions of visitors to the national parks this 
     year may be in for a shock as they get reduced services or 
     find fewer park rangers, reduced hours of operation or parks 
     still cluttered with fallen trees and washed-out trails from 
     winter storms and floods.
       ``Historically, we've cut the lawns every week and made the 
     place trim and neat,'' said Bob Kirby, assistant 
     superintendent of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation 
     Area in eastern Pennsylvania. ``Today you see the grass in 
     most places is a foot high. The picnic areas and playgrounds 
     are completely, with one exception, filled with river 
     flotsam, sticks and mud.''
       The park, along 45 miles of the Delaware River, attracts 
     nearly 5 million visitors a year, many of them escaping the 
     urban sprawl from New York to Philadelphia. While costs of 
     operation have jumped 13 percent, the park's budget has 
     stayed the same.
       Federal officials and private watchdog groups say 
     deterioration and money shortages are imperiling parks across 
     the country as superintendents have had to make harsh choices 
     on how to meet expenses. Often it means reducing the number 
     of rangers and other workers.
       ``Everybody likes ribbon cutting. Nobody wants to fix the 
     roof,'' said Roger Kennedy, director of the National Park 
     Service.
       This summer some of those problems will begin to have an 
     impact on park visitors, whose numbers are expected to exceed 
     270 million this year.
       ``Visitors are going to find trails closed. They're going 
     to find portions of parks closed, campgrounds 
     closed.'' Kennedy said. ``They're going to see signs that 
     say `Don't drink the water' in some places. They're going 
     to find there are no ranger talks. The little things that 
     make these places parklike''.
       Problems are everywhere.
       At Yellowstone in Wyoming, tow museums have been closed. A 
     shortage of park rangers means visitors are left largely on 
     their own in the massive park's northern sector. Lectures at 
     the Norris Geyser Basin Museum on how a geyser works are a 
     thing of the past.
       At Delaware Water Gap, workers are struggling to fix the 
     damaged toilets inundated by floodwaters, and only a last-
     minute infusion of $43,000 prevented the firing of the park's 
     lifeguards.
       To save money, 2 of the 10 campsites at the Great Smoky 
     Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee won't 
     open this summer. There are three seasonal rangers instead of 
     10, and 17 fewer maintenance workers.
       Fewer rangers are at the Sequoia National Park in 
     California, and the season has been shortened. At another 
     great northern California park, Yosemite, and at many other 
     parks and recreational areas around the country, trash won't 
     be picked up or toilets cleaned as frequently.
       ``We can no longer do more with less,'' said Mike Finley, 
     Yellowstone's superintendent. Each year, he complained, the 
     park is expected to ``absorb increasing costs and maintain 
     the same levels of . . . services'' for a growing number of 
     visitors.
       Similar sentiments are expressed daily by park officials 
     and rangers across the country.
       With Congress mindful of the parks' popularity, the 
     National Park Service has avoided the deep budget cutting 
     faced by some other Interior Department agencies. The park 
     service received $1.08 billion, about 1 percent more than 
     last year, to operate its parks and will get an additional 
     $46 million for storm and flood damage repairs.
       But park supporters maintain that more money is needed.
       The budget ``doesn't keep up with inflation,'' said Paul 
     Pritchard, president of the National Parks and Conservation 
     Association, a private watchdog group. ``It's not one region. 
     It's the whole national park system that is being neglected.
       The association Tuesday released the findings of a poll it 
     commissioned that showed the public by a 4-to-1 margin would 
     not oppose increasing federal funding for operation of 
     national parks.
       Park superintendents have had to make tough choices. At 
     most parks the number of seasonal workers--both rangers 
     and maintenance workers--has had to be reduced. Many parks 
     have cut back in garbage collection and toilet cleaning. 
     Fewer park rangers are faced with a growing number of 
     visitors and a wider array of law enforcement problems, 
     leaving less time for tours and educational lectures.
       ``All the parks are struggling,'' said Elaine Sevy, 
     National Park Service spokeswoman in Washington. She said 
     more than 900 authorized jobs are unfilled throughout the 
     system because there's no money to pay for them.


                      Parks Hit in the Pocketbook

       A sampling of conditions at national parks, monuments and 
     recreational areas around the country:
       Great Smoky Mountains in North Carolina-Tennessee--Two of 
     10 campsites and adjoining picnic areas are closed and won't 
     open this summer. Both remote, they are the 92-site Look Rock 
     Campground in Tennessee and the 46-site Balsam Mountain 
     Campground in North Carolina. The number of seasonal 
     maintenance workers has been cut from 65 to 48, the number of 
     seasonal rangers from 10 to three. One of the three visitors 
     centers has been turned over to a private group to operate. 
     Cleanup from extensive winter storm damage has been 
     postponed. Some will not be completed this summer, although 
     $1.4 million recently was allocated to the effort.
       Yellowstone in Wyoming--The Norris Campground will be 
     closed in the northern part of the park, eliminating 116 of 
     2,100 campsites. Two museums in the same area--Norris Geyser 
     Basin Museum and the Museum of the National Park Rangers--are 
     closed. Visitors can travel in the northern area but have 
     neither tours nor ranger briefings available. Seasonal 
     employees will work shorter schedules, and garbage collection 
     is less frequent. A four-hour hike to the petrified forest on 
     Specimen Ridge is being discontinued. A ban on overtime has 
     delayed snowplowing, keeping some roads blocked later than 
     normal.
       Yosemite in California--A pothole-spotted road leading to 
     Yosemite's Lower Pines Campground is unlikely to be repaired 
     this year. Work to renovate restrooms and upgrade the park's 
     amphitheater has been put off. Garbage collection and toilet 
     cleaning have been cut back. Officials hope to repair flood 
     damage that closed part of the park. Hours have been cut back 
     for tours and at visitor centers. Fewer rangers patrol 
     mountainous trails, but spokesman Scott Gedlman said 
     essential services--law enforcement, clean drinking water, 
     emergency medical aid--are being maintained.
       Delaware Water Gap Recreation Area in Pennsylvania--The 
     park has been hit by ``a double whammy,'' said Bob Kirby, 
     assistant superintendent--first the budget crunch, then 
     severe floods that put under water much of the 40-mile 
     stretch along the Delaware River in eastern Pennsylvania. Its 
     budget wasn't increased, but the park's costs jumped 13 
     percent. Kirby said extensive storm damage to beaches and 
     trails along the river must be repaired. Grass isn't being 
     cut as often, and flooding left debris and mud on the beaches 
     and inundated public restroom facilities and picnic areas.
       Sequola in California--The tight budget means fewer park 
     rangers and a shorter summer season. Park spokeswoman Malinee 
     Crapsey said many of the recreational facilities may open a 
     week later than usual. Rangers will conduct fewer tours. Park 
     officials also are turning more toward private groups to help 
     sponsor programs.
       Cape Hatteras Seashore in North Carolina--Trash collection 
     has been cut in half, but some slack has been taken up by 
     private volunteer groups. Park spokesman Bob Woody said 
     visitor services are being maintained, and the park has more 
     educational programs than last year. But tourists trying to 
     call the Hatteras ranger station near the famed striped 
     Hatteras Lighthouse often have to talk to an answering 
     machine because rangers are busy elsewhere.
       Acadia in Maine--Eight or nine fewer summer employees are 
     being hired, and fewer nature briefings and tours are being 
     conducted by park rangers. But most visitors ``will not 
     notice any reduction in service,'' said Len Bobinchock, the 
     park's deputy superintendent. ``These programs are so 
     popular, we've had to put a limit on the number of people who 
     can participate anyway.'' Hours are not being changed.
       Crater of the Moon in Idaho--Park officials say they 
     haven't been hit very hard. The area features a broad swath 
     of lava formations from old volcanoes, and some walking 
     trails have buckled and need to be repaired. The monument is 
     building a scenic motoring loop, and some areas may be closed 
     by the construction.
                                                                    ____


                It's a Fact: Rural America Still Exists

                  (By Larry Rader, Program Specialist)

         [From West Virginia Rural Water Magazine--Spring 1996]

       It was a dreary, rainy February day, the kind you only find 
     at the bottom of a deep hollow and I was standing in mud up 
     to my ankles looking at a dilapidated water treatment plant. 
     I had been in this same scene a hundred times over the past 
     ten years, but this time there was something different. I had 
     company and a lot of it. Jim Anderson of RECD (I'mIIA to 
     those of us who can't get used to the name change) had called 
     me the previous week and requested that I take part in a fact 
     finding tour of McDowell County, West Virginia on February 
     22, 1996. Jim is RECD's state project officer for Water 2000. 
     The Water 2000 initiative is a combined effort of federal, 
     state and local agencies committed to providing potable 
     drinking to all

[[Page S5524]]

     rural residents of the United States by the year 2000.
       The McDowell fact finding tour was initiated by Senator 
     Robert C. Byrd and planned by Bobby Lewis, State Director of 
     RECD. Mr. Lewis is from McDowell county and rightly felt that 
     this area of the state typifies many of the problems facing 
     not only West Virginia, but rural areas across the country. 
     Senator Byrd is also from a rural area of Raleigh County and 
     realizes that the view from Washington sometimes becomes a 
     little clearer when taken from the bottom of a hollow in the 
     mud and rain. The tour consisted of both staff members and 
     elected officials federal, state and local. Those who needed 
     help and those who could provide it, all in the same hollow, 
     same rain, same mud and same good spirits. It was an 
     opportunity to reaffirm the existence of rural America and 
     its needs. McDowell County PSD operates a mish-mash of twelve 
     dilapidated systems abandoned by various coal companies over 
     the years. System personnel must travel 120 miles each day 
     just to check the small treatment plants. And forget water 
     loss percentages! Just keeping water in the decaying lines is 
     a triumph. It is a minute by minute struggle most of us could 
     never envision.
       Water quality and quantity in the old systems are 
     inconsistent at best, however, right smack in the middle of 
     this drinking water nightmare sets two water treatment 
     facilities which would be the pride of any community. The new 
     facilities at Coalwood and Caretta, both treatment and 
     distribution, were designed by Stafford Consultants and 
     completed in 1994. Almost overnight 350 households had access 
     to something most people take for granted, a dependable 
     supply of safe drinking water. Although the Coalwood and 
     Caretta systems were funded primarily through RECD in the 
     form of loans and grants, McDowell PSD has applied to ARC, 
     AML, Small Cities Block Grants as well as RECD, all of 
     whom were represented on that wet day in an attempt to 
     upgrade the remaining 12 communities.
       Rural people have always been willing to share in the cost 
     of providing essential services. However, they must have 
     access to agencies, both federal and state, which understand 
     their problems and are sympathetic to the uniqueness of their 
     situation.
       Beginning in the 1950's RECD for instance, has provided 
     over $203,000,000 in low interest loans and grants to over 
     200 water and waste water systems statewide and is either 
     wholly or partially responsible for most of the rural systems 
     built in West Virginia since that time. But you occasionally 
     need to remind other people that not only does the need still 
     exist, so do the possibilities.
       We are very proud that WVRWA was included in the February 
     22, 1996 Fact Finding Tour of McDowell County. We are always 
     ready to plead the case for rural America and it gave me the 
     opportunity to visit with people who can and do make a 
     difference. As always, I am extremely proud of the people at 
     McDowell PSD. Jeannie, Ralph, Bill, Randy, the other 
     employees along with that PSD Board of Directors and the 
     McDowell County Commission are proof that it can work in 
     rural areas. Many of us never doubted it.

 Fact Finding Tour McDowell, County--February 22, 1996 Participant List

       Bobby Lewis, State Director, RECD-WV.
       John Romano, Assistant Administrator, Rural Utilities 
     Service, Washington, DC.
       Galen Fountain, Minority Clerk, Subcommittee on Agriculture 
     & Rural Development, Senate Appropriations Committee Senator 
     Dale Bumpers' (D-AK) Office, Washington, DC.
       Ralph Goolsby, ARC Program Director, WV Development Office, 
     Charleston, WV.
       Jim Anderson, Rural Development Coordinator, RECD WV.
       Terri Smith Legislative Assistant, Senator Robert C. Byrd's 
     Office, Washington, DC.
       Dawn Dunnings, AmeriCorp.
       Sanjay Saxena, Program Coordinator, National Drinking Water 
     Clearinghouse, Morgantown, WV.
                                                                    ____


          State's Drinking Water Supply Worsening, Study Says

                          (By Julie R. Cryser)

       It would take $162.3 million to clean up and provide 
     potable water to approximately 79,000 West Virginians, 
     according to a study conducted by a federal agency.
       It would take another $405.7 million to meet the worsening, 
     but not yet critical, drinking water supply situation of 
     about 476,000 West Virginians.
       And amid all of these problems, the federal government is 
     cutting federal grants and loans for water projects. West 
     Virginia will lose approximately $5 million in loans and $3.2 
     million in grants for water and sewer projects in 1996, 
     according to Bobby Lewis, state director for Rural Economic 
     and Community Development.
       ``The cuts overall are devastating to a state like West 
     Virginia that has always been at the bottom of the list for 
     funding for projects,'' Lewis said.
       These figures come from the West Virginia Water 2000 
     assessment, part of the Clinton administration's high-
     priority Water 2000 initiative. The program is aimed at 
     providing safe drinking water to the 1 million Americans 
     without water piped directly into their homes.
       Clay, Barbour, Boone, Fayette and Lincoln counties are 
     ranked as the counties with the worst drinking-water problems 
     in the state, Lewis said. Most of the problems stem from 
     untreated water or people using wells that are 
     semicontaminated or not treatable, he said.
       The study was conducted by the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture and state and local government agencies. The West 
     Virginia Rural Water Association and the Regional Planning 
     and Development Council helped to develop a list of more than 
     200,000 households with water that is undrinkable.
       ``There are still people out there we didn't get on our 
     list,'' Lewis said.
       He estimates that at least half of West Virginians have 
     water systems that pump out water that should not be 
     consumed.
       ``Some places you can hardly bathe in it,'' he said.
       Lewis said the study will help draw attention to deplorable 
     water conditions in the state. The project could also help 
     qualify some areas for USDA-funded projects under the Water 
     2000 project guidelines.
       ``There is a serious need for some type of assistance for 
     these small communities in rural West Virginia,'' he said, 
     ``If you don't have water, you can't attract industry or 
     people.''
                                                                    ____


Where the Commonplace Is Prized--Quarter of West Virginians Lack Access 
                           to Municipal Water

                         (By Michael Janofsky)

       For nearly a century, most residents of this tumbledown 
     mountain hamlet have been drawing their drinking water from a 
     common well on a hillside just above the town's 70 houses.
       Three years ago state officials found that the water was 
     contaminated with pollutants, and issued an order to boil it 
     before drinking.
       Like most other people in Campbelltown, Carroll Barlow says 
     it is high time that she and her neighbors are finally hooked 
     up to the municipal water system in Marlinton, less than a 
     mile away. But neither the state nor the local governments 
     can afford to pay for the pipes or the pumps to carry the 
     water up the valley.
       ``I hope I live long enough to get safe water in this 
     house,'' said Ms. Barlow, 55, who says she has to clean her 
     sinks and toilet twice a day to deal with rust-colored stains 
     that the water from the well leaves behind.
       State officials say no medical problems can be traced to 
     the water, but Ms. Barlos is not taking any chances. She uses 
     the well water only for washing and buys drinking water in 
     69-cent gallon jugs at the Foodland grocery store in 
     Marlinton.
       From small communities like Campbelltown to isolated 
     hollows with no names, access to reliable supplies of clean 
     drinking water has long been a problem in West Virginia. The 
     state's rugged geography, coupled with the endemic poverty of 
     rural Appalachia, has strictly limited the ability of both 
     local and state government to extend water lines everywhere. 
     Neither the state nor the Federal Government is required to 
     connect isolated residents to existing water systems, and, 
     given the nation's tight-budget environment, money to build 
     water or sewage systems to our spur economic development in 
     rural areas is likely to become increasingly scarce.
       ``We just can't do everything,'' said W.D. Smith, a 
     director of the Appalachian Regional Commission, a Federal 
     agency that helps promote economic development but is a 
     perennial target of budget-cutters in Congress.
       Mr. Smith said that with so many communities seeking 
     financing for new systems, only those that can demonstrate an 
     unusually urgent need or immediate economic benefit will 
     succeed.
       ``We've got a third-world situation here,'' he said. ``I've 
     seen human suffering, old people, people coming to me in 
     tears. But I always have to ask them, `What's so unusual 
     about your situation?' It's not enough anymore just to say 
     they don't have any water.''
       A recent study by the Agriculture Department concluded that 
     more than a million people living in rural sections around 
     the country, including large parts of the Mississippi Delta 
     and areas along the Mexican border, did not have clean 
     drinking water piped into their homes. But experts say no 
     other state has so large a percentage of its population 
     unserved by municipal systems as West Virginia. By the 
     state's own estimate, almost a quarter of its 1.8 million 
     people have no access to municipal water, and 40 percent are 
     not served by public sewerage.
       West Virginians who do not get municipal water rely mostly 
     on wells; in places, a single well serves an entire 
     community. Water drawn from these wells must in some cases be 
     boiled or chemically treated to remove impurities like 
     contaminants that seep into underground water reservoirs from 
     abandoned coal mines. People living near active mines are 
     especially vulnerable to pollution; even subtle shifts in 
     rock formations can unloose new contaminants into the 
     aquifers that supply well water, or even destroy the 
     aquifers.
       Despite Senator Robert C. Byrd's legendary ability to 
     funnel Federal money home for West Virginia's highway system 
     and other programs, officials say state agencies have only 
     recently focused on water and sewerage needs to bolster 
     economic development. Last year, voters approved a $300 
     million bond issue for water and sewerage.
       ``More people are being served now,'' said Amy Swann, a 
     division director at West Virginia's Public Service 
     Commission. ``But there will always be people who won't be 
     served. It's just too expensive to spend $1

[[Page S5525]]

     million to construct a water line to hollows where 12 people 
     live.''
       State officials say water problems exist in all 55 of West 
     Virginia's counties but most acutely in the rugged eastern 
     half of the state. Here, amid thick forests of maple, elm and 
     oak trees, gurgling rivers and dazzling scenic overlooks, 
     dozens of small communities, some with fewer than 100 
     residences, straddle narrow mountain roads that once served 
     rich coal mines and timber fields.
       The coal and timber industries are long past their peak, 
     but many of the children and grandchildren of the workers 
     remain, drawing from the same wells or roadside springs, some 
     in use for more than 60 years. Most of the people are now too 
     old, too poor or too proud to move.
       In Marlinton itself, the latest problem is that officials 
     do not have the $3 million needed to carry water from the 
     town's water plant to the new hospital, which was built on a 
     hill to keep it high and dry above the flood-prone banks of 
     the Greenbrier River.
       For now, the hospital, scheduled to open this summer, will 
     draw its water from the well that serves the local school, 
     across the street. ``We're struggling to find the funding,'' 
     said Douglas Dunbrack, the Marlinton Mayor, who doubts that 
     the well water supply will be adequate for the hospital, 
     intended to serve some 9,000 people in eastern West Virginia. 
     ``We need a big-time grant, but there's just no money 
     available.''
                                                                    ____


              Water Supply Unsafe for Many West Virginians

       The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through its 
     Rural Economic and Community Development (RECD) offices in 
     West Virginia, has completed a four-month assessment of the 
     state's most pressing safe drinking water system investment 
     needs. The assessment is part of the Clinton administration's 
     high priority Water 2000 initiative, which, according to RECD 
     state Director Bobby Lewis, ``aims to deliver safe drinking 
     water to the estimated one million rural Americans currently 
     living without water piped directly into their homes.''
       In a related development, the U.S. Congress recently sent 
     to President Clinton a 1996 appropriations bill that produces 
     a 30 percent funding cut below 1995 levels for safe drinking 
     water and sanitary sewer project construction.
       West Virginia's Water 2000 assessment results show that the 
     state's rural towns have come a long way in solving their 
     safe drinking water problems over the past quarter century, 
     but still have a lot of gaps to fill. According to the 
     results, the 50 West Virginia communities with the most 
     pressing needs require a combined investment of $162.3 
     million to serve approximately 79,000 people who now have 
     serious drinking water quality or quantity problems. 
     Additionally, some $405.7 million will be required to meet 
     the worsening but not yet critical drinking water supply 
     situation of some 476,000 West Virginians in 443 communities.
       The Water 2000 assessment was conducted by USDA's West 
     Virginia-based personnel, together with state and local 
     government agencies, and representatives of two non-profit 
     organizations--the West Virginia Rural Water Association and 
     the Regional Planning and Development councils.
       Historically, the USDA's water and sewer loan and grant 
     program has been the primary funding source for rural 
     communities seeking to improve their public health, job 
     development and fire protection situations by constructing 
     and improving water and sewer systems. The USDA's Rural 
     Utilities Service (RUS), as part of Water 2000, has begun 
     to better target its loans and grants to lower income, 
     remote rural communities with the nation's most pressing 
     drinking water quality and quantity problems. The USDA's 
     water and sewer loan program, in its 55-year history, has 
     loaned out $14 billion, and lost only $14 million--a loss 
     rate of one-tenth of one percent.
       Wally Beyer, Washington-based administrator of the RUS, 
     said that West Virginia water and sewer projects received 
     $16.8 million in loans and $10.5 million in grants in fiscal 
     year (FY) 1995 from this federal source. Approximately 60 
     percent of those funds were invested in safe drinking water 
     projects. According to Beyer, based on funding cuts recently 
     approved by Congress and signed into law, West Virginia will 
     lose approximately $5 million in loans and $3.2 million in 
     grants for such projects in FY 1996, which started on October 
     1.
       ``These cuts will hurt rural West Virginia towns that need 
     to invest in very basic community drinking water improvements 
     for their residents.'' Beyer said. ``At the level of funding 
     the Congress has provided for 1996, it will take at least 14 
     years to solve West Virginia's most critical rural drinking 
     water problems, and at least 35 years to make all of the 
     improvements identified in the just-completed Water 2000 
     assessment.''
                                                                    ____


                   Rural Water Needs To Be Addressed

       A U.S. Department of Agriculture official will be in 
     McDowell County today, examining rural drinking water needs, 
     Sen. Robert C. Byrd's office reported.
       John Romano, USDA assistant administrator for rural 
     utilities service, will be joined in his tour by local 
     leaders including Bobby Lewis, the USDA's state director for 
     Rural Economic and Community Development.
       ``In follow-up to a recent study conducted by the USDA on 
     the nation's water needs, which ranked West Virginia among 
     the five states in greatest need of safe drinking water, I 
     urged Agriculture Department officials to take a fact-finding 
     trip to West Virginia,'' Byrd said in a prepared statement.
       Byrd said current funding for the rural development portion 
     of the USDA cannot keep up with the demand for safe drinking 
     water, yet it is one of the programs suffering in the battle 
     for a balanced federal budget.
       ``It is important for federal officials to understand the 
     challenge we are certain to face if our nation continues to 
     neglect our infrastructure investment deficit,'' Byrd said.
                                                                    ____


                           Domenici Amendment

       Increase non-defense discretionary spending limits in FY 
     1997 by: $5 billion in budget authority, $4.1 billion in 
     outlays.
       Changes (in millions) the following areas in FY 1997:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Budget           
                                                     Authority   Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science, Space.....................................        200       100
Energy.............................................        900       200
Agriculture........................................        300       200
Commerce and Housing...............................        400       300
Transportation.....................................      1,500       700
Comm. and Reg. Dev.................................      1,100       100
Services...........................................      1,700       800
Health.............................................        300       600
Medicare...........................................        200       200
Income Security....................................        400       200
Net Interest.......................................        100       100
Allowances.........................................     -2,100       900
                                                    --------------------
    Total adds.....................................      5,000     4,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. EXON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Bumpers] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 155 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     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
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     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
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bumpers
       
  The amendment (No. 4040) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I cannot support this budget resolution for 
1997 fiscal year.
  While I am encouraged that the majority was able to moderate their 
balanced budget plan from last year because of stronger economic 
estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, this budget resolution 
still falls short. It cuts Medicare and Medicaid more than is necessary 
to achieve a balanced budget. And it cuts education and environment 
funding while increasing defense spending--which is unacceptable in 
today's post-cold war world.
  This Republican budget cuts Medicare by $167 billion, $50 billion 
more than the President's budget over the next 6 years. These cuts 
would reduce Medicare spending growth per-beneficiary far below 
projected private sector growth rates. I am disappointed that the 
majority persists in cutting a program that is vital to 83,000 
Vermonters, 12 percent of whom live below the poverty level.

[[Page S5526]]

  The Senate Republican budget resolution ignores the fact that it is 
not just Medicare costs that are rising. All health care costs are 
rising. And by just cutting Medicare--and Medicaid for that matter--a 
huge cost-shift of medical expenses will result and make sure that all 
Vermonters pay more for health care.
  The Republican Medicare cuts are short sighted. Simply cutting 
Medicare does not make its problems go away. To reduce Medicare costs, 
we must reduce health care costs throughout the system, which can only 
be achieved by true health care reform. I look forward to sitting down 
at a table with Members from both sides of the aisle and hammering out 
a plan to deal with the issue of comprehensive health care reform. But 
in the meantime, simply cutting Medicare is not the answer.
  This Republican budget includes $72 billion in Medicaid cuts, $18 
billion more in cuts than the President's budget over the next 6 years. 
The resolution does not describe how these savings would be achieved, 
but it appears the Republicans still intend to block grant Medicaid. 
This will simply blow a hole in the safety net for our most neediest 
citizens.
  This Republican budget also proposes capping the Federal direct 
student loan program at 20 percent of loan volume. Since schools 
participating in the direct loan program currently handle 40 percent of 
loan volume, many will be forced out of the program. The resolution 
only increases overall education funding by $3 billion over a freeze 
baseline over the next 6 years--hardly an investment in the one of the 
Nation's most important resources.
  Unfortunately, the majority refused to moderate its cuts in 
protecting the environment during debate on this resolution. Compared 
to the President, the Republican budget cuts overall funding for 
environment and natural resources programs by 16 percent in the year 
2002. The Republicans cut National Park Service operations by 20 
percent. Compared to President, the Republican budget cuts funding for 
EPA's enforcement and operations by 23 percent in the year 2002.
  The people of the United States never voted to gut environmental 
spending in the last election. They overwhelmingly want to make sure 
Government provides basic safeguards for a clean environment. This is a 
job that Government can do and needs to do.
  The environment will not take care of itself. We have to step up and 
be responsible about the future we pass to our children. We must not 
step back from the bipartisan commitments made in the past 25 years to 
protect our air, water, streams, and natural resources.
  Moreover, this budget ignores corporate welfare. President Clinton 
proposed that $40 billion be raised from corporate reforms and loophole 
closing legislation. But the majority has caved to special interests, 
and its budget remains silent on corporate welfare. Closing tax 
loopholes should be part of any fair balanced budget plan.
  Finally, the Republican plan includes $17 billion in cuts to the 
earned income tax credit, which helps low-income working families stay 
off welfare and out of poverty. The President's budget proposes only $5 
million in reforms to cut down on earned income tax credit fraud.
  This Federal tax increase will raise taxes in seven States that have 
a State earned income tax credit tied to the Federal credit, including 
my home State of Vermont. The resolution could raise both State and 
Federal taxes on 27,000 Vermont working families earning less than 
$28,500 a year. It is very doubtful that the Vermont General Assembly 
can afford to increase the State earned income tax credit to make up 
this loss, with even more Federal cuts on the way.
  At a time when many working Americans are struggling to make ends 
meet, the Senate Republican budget would hike Federal taxes on low and 
moderate-income working families. It would also raise some State taxes 
on these same working families. This is a double whammy on working 
families.
  Mr. President, this budget resolution is better than last year's 
extreme budget, but it still cuts programs for elderly, young, and low-
income Vermonters more than is necessary to balance the budget. We can 
do better than this budget.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, on April 23, 1996, the Senate, by a 
vote of 100 to 0, passed the Health Insurance Reform Act, a bill that 
will make health insurance more available to more Americans, end job 
lock, and end concerns regarding pre-existing conditions. That same 
bipartisan approach is what is needed now if this Senate is to do what 
the American people expect us to do--restore real, lasting discipline 
to the Federal budget.
  In the last Congress, I served on the Bipartisan Commission on 
Entitlement and Tax Reform. The first finding in that Commission's 
interim report to the President, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by 
both the Democratic and Republican members of the Commission, stated:

       To ensure that today's debt and spending commitments do not 
     unfairly burden America's children, the Government must act 
     now. A bipartisan coalition of Congress, led by the 
     President, must resolve the long-term imbalance between the 
     Government's entitlement promises and the funds it will have 
     available to pay for them.

  The Commission, however, did much more than simply make a rhetorical 
case for bi-partisan cooperation to address our budget problems. It 
also did extensive work to document the nature of the budget problem we 
face, because no consensus solution to our budget problems is possible 
unless there is first a consensus on what our real budget problems are.
  The Commission laid out the kind of budget future we face, and the 
underlying causes of our budget problems, in considerable detail. 
Perhaps the Commission's most important finding was that, unless we 
begin to act now, the portion of the gross domestic product of the 
United States consumed by the Federal Government will rise from 
approximately 21.4 percent of GDP in 1995 to over 37 per cent of GDP by 
the year 2030.
  Now, thinking about percentages of GDP is not very meaningful to most 
Americans. It might be useful, therefore, to think about what that 
figure might mean for the Federal Government and Federal deficits if we 
translate those percentages into the fiscal year 1995 Federal budget.
  In fiscal 1995, the Federal Government spent approximately $1.5 
trillion dollars. If that year's budget took up 37 percent of GDP, as 
the Commission forecast for 2030, total fiscal year 1995 spending for 
the Federal Government would have been over $1.15 trillion higher, or 
$2.65 trillion. The Federal deficit would explode from the $163 billion 
actually reported in fiscal 1995 to over $1.3 trillion. The Federal 
deficit, under this scenario, would amount to almost 87 percent of the 
total amount the Federal Government actually spent in fiscal 1995.
  Domestic discretionary spending would not account for a single penny 
of that increase; It would consume only $252 billion of that 
theoretical budget, or approximately 11 percent of total Federal 
spending. Nor would defense spending account for any part of that 
increase. It would continue to account for only $273 billion of the 
total $2.65 trillion budget.
  What would increase is interest on the national debt, which would 
more than triple from the $232 billion the Federal Government actually 
spent on interest expense in fiscal 1995 to almost $700 billion. Social 
Security would double from the roughly $330 billion actually spent in 
fiscal 1995 to well over $650 billion. Medicare would also double, from 
approximately $150 billion to over $310 billion. And Medicaid would 
double as well, going from $90 billion to $180 billion.
  That kind of budget is impossible. The Federal Government could not 
sell the new Government bonds that would be necessary to support 
deficits of that size. Essentially, the Federal Government would have 
to declare bankruptcy long before the budget ever reached that point. 
The members of the Commission, of course, all knew that. But it was the 
Commission's judgment--one that I fully endorsed--that it was important 
to lay out the budget trends the Federal Government is facing, because 
only then can the President and Congress, working together, do 
something to change those trends.
  The Commission's work, however, did much more than identify the 
trends, though. The Commission went on to clearly lay out the 
underlying causes for those trends--rising health care costs and the 
aging of the baby boomers.

[[Page S5527]]

  The Commission found that Federal health care expenses rose by double 
digit rates in the late 1980's and early 1990's, and it forecast that 
total Federal health care expenses would triple to 11 percent of GDP by 
the year 2030, unless appropriate policy changes are made. Even more 
frighteningly, it found that total Federal health care expenses will at 
least double as a percentage of GDP even if health care cost inflation 
is brought under control.
  Changes in the American population are even a more powerful engine, 
one that is driving overall Federal spending ever-higher. Americans are 
now living much longer than they did in 1935 when Social Security 
began. The average life expectancy was 61.4 years then. It is 75.8 
years now, and it is projected to be 78.4 years by 2025. In 1935, the 
life expectancy of a person reaching the age of 65 was 12.6 years. Now 
it is 17.5 years, and by 2025, it will be 18.8 years.
  These figures represent a real triumph for our American community. 
What they tell us is that the American system works. But these figures 
also help explain why that triumph is not cost-free. In 1990, there 
were almost five workers for each Social Security retiree; by the year 
2030, there will be less than three. More and more people are drawing 
Social Security benefits, and drawing them for a longer period. More 
and more people are using Medicare and Medicaid, and using them for a 
longer period of time. And those facts mean higher costs.
  These are the fundamental truths we must all face, Mr. President, if 
we really want to address our budget problems--if we really want to 
balance the budget in a way that makes sense and that will work. We 
have to decide together--on a bipartisan basis--what our priorities 
are, what we think Government can do and must do, and what we are 
willing to pay. The only way to make these decisions is to be honest 
with the American people about what the problems are, and about what 
various options for solution of these problems would entail.
  I would like to be able to say that the resolution now before us is 
based on that kind of bipartisan approach to the budget issue. I would 
like to be able to say that it is based on the bipartisan analysis 
contained in the Commission's report. And I would like to say that it 
is an attempt to present the American people with a set of proposals 
that face the underlying budget trends and their causes, but I cannot.
  The American people want bipartisanship in approaching our budget 
problems. Unfortunately, however, this budget is not a bipartisan 
budget. It does not reflect an agreement between Congress and the 
President, or even between the Democrats and Republicans here in the 
Senate. Instead, as the straight party line vote in the Budget 
Committee on this resolution demonstrated, it is instead based on the 
partisan approach to the budget that was so in evidence last year--an 
approach that gave us three Government shutdowns, 13 continuing 
resolutions funding the Government for as little as a day at a time, 
and, in the end, no real progress toward dealing with our most 
significant budget problems.

  This is a large budget resolution, and it covers six fiscal years, 
but it is easy to tell it is not based on the Bipartisan Commission's 
analysis of our budget problems. This budget resolution, for example, 
obtains fully half of its deficit reduction from domestic discretionary 
spending.
  Mandatory spending--principally Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
federal retirement, and interest on the national debt--has risen from 
32.4 percent of the total Federal budget in 1963 to 64.1 percent now, 
and it will account for fully 72 percent of the Federal budget in the 
year 2003. Domestic discretionary spending, on the other hand, has been 
shrinking as a percentage of the total Federal budget, and it has been 
generally stable as a percentage of GDP. It is not the primary source 
of our budget problem. At roughly 17 percent of the overall Federal 
budget, it certainly does not account for 50 percent of our budget 
problem.
  Perhaps the most compelling way to demonstrate that fact is to go 
back to the Entitlement Commission's report. The Commission found that 
after the year 2012, even if every single domestic discretionary 
spending program is cut to zero, and even if the Defense Department's 
budget is cut to zero, the Federal Government would still run deficits 
every year thereafter, unless we act to address our core budget issues.
  The American people do not want that to happen, Mr. President. They 
do not want the Federal Government to be without resources to address 
important national priorities like education and the environment. They 
know that Federal investment in education is a public good. They know 
that Federal investment in highways and mass transit and aviation 
safety is a public good. They know that Federal investment in health 
research is a public good. They know that Federal stewardship of our 
national parks, including such national treasures as Yellowstone and 
the Grand Canyon, represents a public good. And they know that Federal 
action to protect our environment and clean up our air, our water, and 
toxic waste sites is a public good.
  When American communities experience floods, or hurricanes, or 
tornados or earthquakes, they want the Federal Government to be able to 
act. What they don't want is a situation where the Federal Government 
is unable to act because of our failure to address the Federal 
Govenment's budget problems. Yet, if deficit reduction efforts continue 
to focus in such a disproportionate way on this already shrinking of 
the Federal budget, while avoiding coming to grips with the real budget 
problems in the mandatory spending part of the budget, that will be the 
inevitable result.
  Domestic discretionary spending is not the only area where this 
budget resolution falls short. In Medicare, it proposes reductions in 
spending that total $167 billion, cuts that are, at the same time, too 
large and too small.
  That may seem like a contradiction, but it's not. And the reason it 
is not goes back to the underlying forces driving up federal spending--
health care inflation and demographics.
  We need to sit down together on a bipartisan basis, and to work 
together to develop an approach to Medicare--and for that matter, 
Medicaid--that will actually reduce the Federal health care cost 
inflation rate. Then, based on what we believe we can actually achieve, 
we should include those savings in the budget resolution. This 
resolution does exactly the opposite. It sets an arbitrary amount of 
budget savings, and essentially caps Medicare spending, without knowing 
what those arbitrary caps will do to quality of care, access to care, 
affordability of care, or choice of provider. And while it does not 
increase direct costs to beneficiaries, it does assume major cuts in 
payments to hospitals and home health providers that serve 
beneficiaries, which will clearly have an impact on quality and access.

  Moreover, the figures in the resolution are not based on any real 
analysis of how much health care inflation can be reduced, and how much 
time it will take to accomplish. Instead, the resolution is like an old 
Soviet 5-year plan--except it covers 6 years. It simply says this shall 
happen. Like the old Soviet 5-year plans, therefore, it has only the 
vaguest connection with economic--and in this case, health care--
reality.
  At the same time, however, the proposals assumed in the budget 
resolution do not in any way come to grips with the underlying 
demographic trends, which is why they are both too large and too small. 
They start at levels higher than can be justified based on reining in 
health care inflation, but they do not even attempt to begin to 
anticipate what needs to be done to handle the retirement of the baby 
boomer generation. We have to do better than that.
  This resolution also contains a tax cut. It is a smaller tax cut than 
in last year's resolution, but it suffers from the same flaws. I am the 
first to agree that Americans ought to have more money in their 
pockets. More and more Americans are being priced out of the American 
dream. More and more Americans are losing their ability to purchase a 
home, a new car, or to provide a college education for their children. 
It is clear that more and more Americans are being priced out of the 
dream market. Between 1980 and 1995, for example:

       the average price of a home increased from about $76,000 to 
     over $150,000, an increase of more than 100 percent; the 
     average price of a car went from about $7,000 to about 
     $20,000, an increase of over 285 percent, and the number of 
     weeks an American had to work to pay

[[Page S5528]]

     for the average car increased from about 18 weeks to over 27 
     weeks, an increase of about 150 percent; and the cost of a 
     year's tuition at a publicly supported college increased from 
     $635 to $2,860, an increase of almost 450 percent, and a 
     year's tuition at a private college increased from an average 
     of $3,498 to $12,432, an increase of 355 percent.

  These cost increases have continued into the 1990's, but income 
growth has not kept pace. Economic stagnation and rising income 
disparity are now facts of life. Just last month, for example, it was 
reported that Americans now have to work a record number of weeks--27, 
as I stated earlier--to purchase a new car. What that fact means, of 
course, is that more and more Americans are being pushed out of the new 
car market altogether.
  Given these cost trends, Americans justifiably want to see higher 
take-home pay. Government can make an important contribution that can 
help Americans achieve that goal by helping to create a climate where 
productivity can increase, because increases in productivity lead to 
increases in wealth, and because in our country, it is private markets, 
and not Government fiat, that determines people's incomes.
  Some people may assume that tax cuts automatically increase 
productivity, but it is worth remembering that, Federal taxes took are 
lower now than they were in 1969--one full percentage point of GDP 
lower. In 1969, the top Federal income tax rate was 77 percent; now 
it's 39 percent. Since 1969, the amount raised by Federal income tax on 
individuals has dropped by almost 11 percent, and the amount raised by 
the corporate income tax has been cut almost in half, as a percentage 
of GDP. Yet, the U.S. economy generally, and the standard of living of 
the average American, grew more quickly then.

  The truth is that, if we want to increase national savings, and 
thereby help increase the pool of capital that is necessary to support 
productivity growth, the most efficient way to do that is to address 
our core budget problems, and not to cut taxes now. The most important 
reason not to do a tax cut now, however, has nothing to do with tax 
policy, national savings rates, or productivity. The most important 
reason not to do a tax cut now is that a tax cut sends a totally wrong 
message to the American people about the scope and extent of our budget 
problem.
  A tax cut now is like President Johnson's guns and butter policy in 
the 1960's. It says that our budget problems are easy to solve, so easy 
that we can afford tax cuts while we balance the budget with one hand 
tied behind our backs. But that's not the case. We can continue to 
ignore the facts for a few more years if we want, but ignoring the 
truth will not make it go away. It will only make the day of reckoning 
that much worse.
  It need not be so. While tough steps will be needed, and while 
serious costs are involved, if we work together on a bipartisan basis, 
if we think about the long-term, and if we keep our focus on the 
priorities of the American people, we can address our budget problems 
in a way that will allow this great Nation to protect the retirement 
security of Americans--now and in the future. We can do so in a way 
that will allow the United States to meet the health care priorities of 
Americans--now and in the future. And we can do so in a way that 
retains resources for other essential investments--like education and 
the environment.
  The budget resolution now before this Senate cannot accomplish these 
goals because it is not bipartisan and because it is not based on the 
budget realities we are facing. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to 
join me in voting to put this resolution aside. And much more 
importantly, I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan way 
to begin the process of putting together the kind of budget the 
American people expect of us.


               THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE [ANWR]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the ranking member of the Budget Committee on the issue of ANWR?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would be happy to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It has come to my attention that the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee has been instructed to achieve close to $1 billion 
in savings that are not highlighted as part of the mandatory 
assumptions section of the environment and natural resources function 
of the committee report on the budget resolution. Can the Senator from 
Nebraska confirm that this is true?
  Mr. EXON. The Senator from Montana is correct. in fact, this billion 
dollars of savings amounts to almost 75 percent of the required savings 
the Energy and Natural Resources must produce in order to comply with 
the Republican budget resolution.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It also has come to my attention that the latest CBO 
savings estimate for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
[ANWR] for oil drilling is just under $1 billion. Does the Senator from 
Nebraska find it odd that there is no mention of ANWR in this year's 
budget resolution?
  Mr. EXON. Yes, I do find that strange. The committee report for last 
year's budget resolution cited ANWR as the major mandatory savings 
assumption for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. indeed, it's 
inclusion in the final reconciliation bill was one of the major reasons 
why the President vetoed that bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of Senator Exon, 
is it fair for me to assume that in order for the Energy and Natural 
Resource Committee to meet its reconciliation instructions this year, 
the Republican majority is planning to include drilling in ANWR?
  Mr. EXON. Yes, I do believe that the Senator from Montana is correct 
in making that assumption. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
has a limited amount of mandatory programs under its jurisdiction to 
target for savings as part of a reconciliation bill. With the exception 
of privatizing the Power Marketing Administrations, a proposal that was 
soundly rejected during last year's debate, I might add with the 
Senator Montana's leadership. I can think of no other policy under 
their jurisdiction that could generate a $1 billion in savings.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Since this is indeed the case, I wonder why our friends 
on the Republican side were not willing to highlight their proposal to 
drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge as the leading assumption in their 
report, given the fact that it accounts for 75 percent of the savings 
for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee?
  Mr. EXON. It might be due to the fact that a clear majority of the 
American people do not support opening up the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge for oil and gas exploration. It appears to me that the 
Republicans are trying to find a clever way to cover up all the damage 
their budget will do to the environment.
  Senator BAUCUS. I believe that the Senator from Nebraska is correct. 
The American people, by a two to one margin, oppose opening up ANWR for 
oil and gas drilling. No wonder that proponents of drilling do not want 
to confront the issue head-on.
  Our citizens understand, even if some members of this body may not, 
that leasing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge risks serious harm to 
one of our national treasures. It squanders the natural resources that 
we should be leaving for future generations. And it is another example 
of public lands policies that favor special interests over the 
interests of ordinary families.
  The irony is that we do not need to take these risks to ensure 
adequate supplies of energy. There are new oil fields being developed 
in the Gulf of Mexico right now, in very deep water, that can produce 
oil without the environmental disruptions that would surely accompany 
drilling in ANWR.
  Last year, the Office of Management and Budget, hardly an 
environmentally zealous group, stated that:

       Exploration and development activities would bring physical 
     disturbances to the area, unacceptable risks of oil spills 
     and pollution, and long-term effects that would harm wildlife 
     for decades.

  That is not the kind of legacy we should be leaving for our children. 
Yet that is what could well be in store for this country if the 
reconciliation instructions in this budget are carried out as the 
Senator from Nebraska has indicated. I thank the Senator for his 
observations.


              Wellstone Education Tax Deduction Amendment

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I voted for the amendment of my colleague 
from Minnesota because I support providing a tax deduction to parents 
to

[[Page S5529]]

help defray the costs of a higher education for their kids. Senator 
Wellstone's amendment would also permit taxpayers who pursue additional 
education to deduct all or a portion of the related costs. This is 
important for taxpayers who lose their job and need additional skills 
to get reemployed or who want to advance to a higher paying job. In 
fact, Mr. President, I introduced S. 1312 earlier this year to provide 
a $5,000 deduction for higher education costs.
  I do have one concern with Senator Wellstone's amendment. The only 
tax cuts permitted under its language are a child tax credit and the 
deduction for higher education costs. There are a number of other tax 
cuts that merit consideration Mr. President, and I hope we can get to 
them this year. For example, an increase in section 179 expensing for 
small businesses, expansion of IRA's to encourage savings, and estate 
and gift tax relief for family-owned businesses.
  I look forward to working with my distinguished colleague from 
Minnesota on the child tax credit and the higher education deduction as 
well as a number of other tax cuts that will benefit taxpayers in 
Minnesota and Montana as well as the entire Nation.


         kyl amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Sense of the Senate amendment of my 
colleague from Arizona notes that the current tax system is overly 
complex and burdensome and that action must be taken to produce a tax 
system that is fairer, flatter and simpler. I couldn't agree more and I 
look forward to working with him and the rest of my colleagues to 
reform a tax system that is badly in need of repair.
  I was unable however, Mr. President, to vote for Senator Kyl's 
amendment because of the provision requiring a supermajority vote to 
raise taxes. Ironically, I believe this proposal could impeded 
meaningful tax reform. It could have the effect of locking in existing 
loopholes unless those of us who want real tax reform could muster a 
supermajority. Congress may ultimately determine that in fact more than 
a simple majority of its members should be required to increase taxes. 
However, a number of questions need to be addressed before we take such 
action.
  What is a supermajority? Two thirds of the members, or perhaps three-
fourths?
  Can the supermajority requirement be waived in the event of a 
national emergency? How would we define a national emergency?
  And how do we define what it means to ``raise'' taxes? Does closing a 
corporate loophole--which would increase the taxes paid by the 
companies benefitting from the loophole--require a supermajority? If it 
does, Congress will be hard pressed to close corporate loopholes.
  I do agree with the language in my distinguished colleague's 
amendment calling for tax reform, and I may agree in time with the need 
for a ``supermajority'' before taxes can be ``raised,'' but cannot at 
this time vote for his amendment calling for that supermajority.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the debate surrounding this year's 
budget resolution is tame compared to the debate we heard last year at 
this time. But we should not be lulled by this relative quiet. This 
year's model is not much different from the one produced last year.
  In one key regard, it may be worse.
  The warnings many of us made last year have come true. Rather than 
focusing on eliminating the deficit and finally balancing the Federal 
budget, this year's budget resolution has one overarching goal, namely 
to provide an election year tax cut.
  Mr. President, on this issue, the hands of both parties are dirty. 
Republicans and Democrats both have engaged in this tax cut bidding 
war. Even the so-called bipartisan budget proposal revolves around a 
$130 billion tax cut.
  Mr. President, we have lost a real opportunity.
  After the debate of the last year, one might have thought that we had 
reached a consensus that balancing the Federal budget was our most 
important task. The negotiations that took place between the Republican 
Congressional leadership and the White House appeared to be moving the 
parties closer together. Each side had agreed to similar ground rules 
and a timetable for a balanced budget; each side had offered a budget 
plan that actually reached balance.
  Sadly, negotiations broke off, and there was no agreement reached on 
a plan to balance the budget.
  Mr. President, a central reason for the failure of those negotiations 
was that the shared goal of deficit reduction was weighed down with 
other competing agendas--the structure of Medicare, whether Medicaid 
should be a block grant, welfare reform, and the amount and structure 
of the tax cut. All of a sudden, it wasn't enough to balance the 
budget. Eliminating the deficit took a back seat to those other 
priorities.
  Mr. President, of course these other matters have an impact on our 
ability to achieve and maintain a balanced budget. I support reforms to 
Medicare and Medicaid not only for their own sake but for the very 
reason that such reforms are needed if we are to achieve a balanced 
budget.
  But we cannot afford to divert our attention from what must be the 
immediate business of Congress--balancing the budget.
  Of all the distractions, Mr. President, by far the most dangerous is 
the promise of a major tax cut. It is already difficult to get 
agreement on the spending cuts needed to eliminate the deficit. The 
work of balancing the budget is not pleasant, and it is all too easy to 
find excuses not to do that work.
  Proposals to cut taxes make it even more difficult to stay focused on 
that unpleasant but necessary task. How much easier it is to speak 
about how one might cut taxes, and by how much.
  Mr. President, as I noted earlier in this debate, we are now obsessed 
with enacting tax cuts, no matter what the cost to the integrity of the 
budget. Every time you turn around you bump into another proposal for 
some tax cut. Some come clothed as tax reform, such as the so-called 
flat tax. Others are less subtle. The Wall Street Journal recently 
reported that a ``trendier'' tax cut plan is a 15 percent across-the-
board cut in income tax rates, phased in over 3 years. And I have no 
doubt that the nominees of both parties will each have their own tax 
cut plan to tout this summer.
  We've just spent 2 weeks debating the issue of a 4.3 cent gas tax 
cut, and the other body has sent us a 1.7 billion dollar special 
adoption tax credit and is working on another 7 billion dollar tax cut 
for small businesses.
  Everyone is eager to float a tax cut plan. Mr. President, would that 
they were equally as eager to offer plans to cut spending and balance 
the budget.
  This budget resolution aids and abets this fiscally reckless and 
irresponsible agenda. Its structure of consecutive reconciliation 
bills, finishing with a tax cut extravaganza just a few weeks before 
the election, is a guarantee that it cannot hope to lead to a balanced 
budget, only political posturing.
  The budget resolution has other flaws as well. The Medicare and 
Medicaid programs are underfunded, the direct result of the need to 
fund the tax cut and to add even more funding to a Defense Department 
that instead should be asked for significantly more cuts. And as with 
last year's budget resolution, there is no effort to limit some of the 
corporate welfare that responsible members of both parties have 
identified as a top priority for cutting.
  Mr. President, I suspect that some of this year's budget resolution 
is the result of the special political dynamics of presidential 
election year politics. If that is the case, I earnestly hope that once 
that election is behind us, both parties will seize the opportunity and 
reach out for a bipartisan plan to balance the budget. I am confident 
that a majority of the Senate and the other body would support such a 
plan.
  Until that time, Mr. President, I will continue working with members 
form both sides of the aisle to identify areas where we can find 
savings that will move us closer to completely eliminating our Federal 
budget deficit.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we conclude debate, I cannot help but be 
struck by the futility of this Republican budget. It is a tragic repeat 
of last year's Republican budget fiasco. It is a fool's errand twice 
over.
  A year ago, many of us stood on the Senate floor imploring our 
Republican colleagues to temper their harsh views and to join with us 
to create a bipartisan balanced budget. We predicted a

[[Page S5530]]

train wreck otherwise. We got not one, but two train wrecks, including 
the longest Federal Government shutdown in the history of our Nation.
  We will soon vote on this so-called new Republican budget. But no one 
should be fooled as to its novelty. It is at best a hybrid of the old 
Republican budget grafted onto some slick parliamentary procedures. It 
will spin out not one, but three, reconciliation bills, because the 
Republican Majority wants to create a web of budgetary intrigue in 
which to trap the President. They want to amplify partisan 
confrontation over the summer and into the fall elections.
  Some call this the silly season. It would be silly, if it were not so 
sad for our Nation.
  Once again, the congressional majority is squandering an opportunity 
to balance the budget. Last year, all the Republicans wanted was for 
President Clinton to submit a 7-year, CBO-certified, balanced budget. 
President Clinton delivered with a fair and reasonable balanced budget. 
But no, the Republicans claimed that it was not good enough for them--
even though it was good enough for the Republican-selected CBO 
Director.
  Perhaps this debate did serve one larger purpose. With amendments 
from this side of the aisle, the American people could see that there 
is another vision for the future of our Nation. There is a way to 
balance the budget, but without jeopardizing quality health care for 
our seniors, without fouling the environment, without limiting the 
learning horizons of our children. But on this floor, the American 
people saw the Republican majority oppose moderation time and time 
again.
  It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same 
thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This budget 
would be insane, except that no one expects a different result. This is 
a senseless repetition of a failed budget. Because of its extremism, it 
deserves to fail. I urge my colleagues to reject it once again.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the Republican 
Federal budget proposal. This budget is nearly the same as the one 
proposed last year by Republicans, and I feel that the interests of the 
Nation continue to be poorly served by the guidelines specified in this 
sort of ideologically driven legislation.
  Both last year's Republican budget proposal and the one we are voting 
on today represent a misguided set of priorities for the next century 
by cutting resources for education, job training, the environment, and 
Medicaid in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and unneeded 
defense programs.
  Over 7 years, the Republican proposal slashes Medicare by $226.8 
billion, a number only slightly different from their proposal last year 
to cut Medicare by $228.2 billion. Reductions in the earned income tax 
credit will result in increasing taxes on lower income working families 
by $21 billion over 7 years, compared to the $20-billion tax increase 
proposed last year.
  I am also very concerned about proposals in this legislation that 
would allow States to make significant cuts in their own contributions 
to Medicaid in the rules governing block grants from the Federal to 
State governments. These policies threaten guarantees of coverage for 
children, people with disabilities, and older Americans. This series of 
proposals represents an alarming trend away from providing the most 
rudimentary safety net for those in need toward further enriching those 
who are the most prosperous in our country.
  The President's budget proposal as well as a centrist alternative 
budget crafted primarily by Senators Breaux and Chafee do a far better 
job of balancing the needs of the most disadvantaged in our society 
with the objective of reaching a balanced budget by 2002. The 
President's budget secures the integrity of the Medicare trust fund 
through 2005, and it does so without ravaging this important program. 
In contrast, the Republican budget cuts Medicare by $50 billion more 
than the President's plan.
  Education and job training--Head Start, Basic Education Assistance-- 
title 1--School-to-Work, and Job Training for Dislocated Workers--
remain high priorities of our Government, as they should be, in the 
President's budget. In contrast, the Republicans slash more than $60 
billion from these programs.

  The President does not raise taxes on low-income working Americans. 
In contrast, the Republicans, by cutting EITC by $21 billion over the 
next 7 years, intend to raise taxes for between 6 to 10 million 
Americans.
  I think it is possible to balance the budget by 2002 without 
abandoning America's priorities--and without abandoning those most in 
need. We can clearly preserve paycheck security, health security and 
retirement security for America's working families without abandoning 
our commitment to a balanced budget.
  Mr. President, I must also add that I am impressed with the efforts 
of Senator John Breaux and Senator John Chafee in leading the way on 
yet another alternative budget to that proposed by the Republican 
majority. This 7-year bipartisan alternative budget proposal, which I 
have voted to support, is a conscientious, bipartisan effort that does 
a much better job of maintaining the right priorities for our country. 
I do have concerns about whether cutting the CPI by \1/2\ percent is 
the best approach to dealing with the question of getting a better, 
more accurate inflation indicator, and I think that any adjustment in 
our cost growth measure must be progressive in its application.
  While the Breaux-Chafee alternative does not contain everything I 
would want in a budget, the process of bringing both Democrats and 
Republicans together to seriously confront the problem of achieving a 
fair yet balanced budget is much better than what we ended up with--
namely, the Republicans trying to force the same old budget down our 
throats.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 1997. Quite simply, 
this budget resolution does not reflect the priorities and values held 
by most Americans--the belief that we need to ensure our quality of 
life, educate our children, and care for our elderly and disabled.
  I regret that this vote will not be bipartisan, because I believe we 
have made great progress over the past year. Unfortunately, this 
Republican budget falls short. It fails to meet us halfway, and it 
proposes deep cuts in Medicare, education, Medicaid, and the 
environment while increasing defense spending. These cuts are not 
necessary to balance the budget; rather, they are punitive and unwise.
  Mr. President, when discussing the budget, we must step back and look 
at where we were just a year ago. A year ago, the President's budget 
was not balanced and the Republican budget called for even deeper cuts 
in important programs--cuts as big as $250 billion out of Medicare. 
Since that time, however, the President has submitted a CBO-certified 
balanced-budget that includes modest, but realistic, cuts in Medicare 
and Medicaid. And Republicans have acknowledged the need to increase 
funding for Medicare, education, the environment, Cops on the Street 
and Americorps.
  A year ago, 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. After working with health care 
experts in Washington State, I concluded my home State could still 
serve our most vulnerable populations as long as we don't have drastic 
cuts to Medicaid. I'm willing to concede that point, and I know now 
that if we all give a little, we can reach compromise. But Republican 
cuts still go too far.
  Republican Medicaid cuts appear to be shrinking, but, unfortunately 
you are not seeing the whole story. The $72 billion cut mentioned in 
the bill, by itself, would force changes in eligibility and services 
for Americans on Medicaid. But in addition, this bill would allow 
States to walk away from paying their fair share in this successful 
State and Federal partnership. Between State and Federal share 
reductions, over $250 billion would be cut from health care coverage 
for poor and working families.
  The majority party contends their Medicaid provisions would be 
endorsed by the National Governor's Association. They would not. Among 
other problems, this bill is a block grant, with no way for States to 
be reimbursed for extra costs resulting from

[[Page S5531]]

natural disaster or economic downturn. Even if their were no problems, 
and there are many, I could not support these cuts. States need 
flexibility, and the types of flexibility sought by my State are 
reasonable. But we in Congress are here to assure that every child in 
this country can get basic health services, no matter which State they 
live in.
  On welfare, Republicans cut $53 billion and removes the guarantee to 
public assistance, but they are not very clear about where the money 
comes from. We can only assume they will do the same as last year--deep 
cuts in food aid and nutrition programs. I am interested in real 
welfare reform--reform that gives people alternatives and assistance to 
move people off of public assistance in a way that allows them to 
support themselves. This Republican budget is an attack on poor 
families, and I cannot support it.
  Mr. President, let us remember exactly where we are on this road to 
ending the deficit. Since 1993, we have made great progress toward 
reducing this Nation's deficit. CBO estimates the 1996 deficit will 
fall to $130 billion--the fourth straight year the deficit has 
declined. We have cut the budget deficit in half in less than 4 years, 
and today's annual deficit stands as the lowest percentage of our gross 
domestic product since 1980. I'm proud of this fact. I am proud to have 
been involved in crafting the budget package of 1993. That deficit 
reduction package has us on the right track.
  Our need to do more, however, spawned a bipartisan group of Senators, 
who have come together and formulated a well-reasoned, well-balanced 
budget proposal. I commend Senators Chafee and Breaux for their 
leadership and hard work on this matter. I voted for their budget 
alternative because it is exactly the kind of bipartisan teamwork 
Congress needs to see more of. Certainly, I would like to see less 
savings come out of discretionary accounts that include education, job 
training, trade promotion, and the environment. And the tax cuts may be 
too generous. The Chafee-Breaux plan may not be perfect, but I believe 
it is probably the most realistic compromise one could craft. I am 
hopeful this Centrist plan will become the framework for future budget 
negotiations.
  Mr. President, this past year has taught us we can reach a balanced 
budget. We learned we can formulate a budget that uses common sense and 
reflects America's values and priorities. That is why Senator Kerry and 
I offered an amendment to restore education and job training funds in 
the Republican budget. As my colleagues know, this amendment failed 
despite the fact that the Republican budget will cut education spending 
20 percent from current levels.
  Americans understand how important education and job training 
investments are for our children, and the future success of this 
Nation. A recent USA Today poll found that education has become the 
most important issue for Americans--ranking above crime, the economy 
and the quality of one's job.
  As a former teacher, mother, and PTA member, I know from personal 
experience the value and importance of Head Start, vocational education 
and education, technology programs. I have seen these programs work, 
and I have seen the satisfaction on the faces of children who are 
finally getting a chance to excel and succeed.
  And, Mr. President, this Republican budget takes a serious step 
backwards in our efforts to preserve our environment and ensure our 
quality of life. Unfortunately, the Senate rejected several amendments 
that would have softened this budget's impact on the environment. 
First, I oppose a change in the way sales of Federal assets are treated 
in this resolution. For the last decade, Congress has recognized that 
our public lands and other Federal assets were too precious to sell or 
lease unless Congress or the administration decided that so doing was 
in the best interest of the public. That is good policy and one that 
traditionally has enjoyed strong bi-partisan support. I cosponsored the 
Bumpers-Bradley amendment which would have preserved our national 
heritage for generations to come, and would have rejected this approach 
to the disposition of our Federal assets.

  I also supported the amendment offered by Senators Lautenberg and 
Kerry that would have increased funding by $7.3 billion over 6 years 
for Function 300, which funds the National Park Service, the 
Environmental Protection Agency and other environmental programs. This 
amendment would have restored balance to the budget. It would have 
provided a stable, strong level of funding to protect our national 
treasures and clean up our environment.
  Senator Wyden's Sense of the Senate amendment would have eliminated 
tax deductions for fines, penalties, and damages arising from a failure 
to comply with Federal and State environmental or health protection 
laws. That common sense approach to balancing the budget would have 
raised up to $100 million annually. The amendment provided an excellent 
opportunity to express our support for law-abiding companies who do not 
break environmental and safety laws by closing a tax loophole enjoyed 
by those who do break our laws.
  Mr. President, last year's budget debate was painful for all of us. 
It was especially painful for our constituents--our hard-working 
friends and neighbors. They didn't know why the budget debate forced 
the Government to shut down twice--one time for three straight weeks. 
They didn't see that as progress. Instead, they saw it as just another 
example of what is wrong with Congress and the Government today.
  It is my hope this year's budget and appropriations process will be 
more orderly. It is my hope the American people will not be used as 
pawns during our budget negotiations. And it is my hope that my 
colleagues will remember the budget debate requires compromise if we 
hope to really serve the people. In the end last year, we learned our 
Government is truly a democracy. We learned any successful budget 
agreement will need to be as broad and bipartisan as possible.
  We have a lot of work to do if we are going to reach a balanced 
budget. But the truth of the matter is that both parties have agreed to 
enough savings that we could balance the budget today if we really want 
to. When considering the entire budget, the difference between the two 
parties amounts to less than 1 percent of the Federal Government's 
spending. A balanced budget plan is possible. All we need is the 
courage to find compromise.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations 
and Budget Committees in order to make sure this Congress' spending 
priorities are balanced and in line with our constituents' wishes. 
Unfortunately, today's budget resolution fails to strike a balance. 
It's simply a replay of last year's failed Republican budget. And I 
will be fighting to make sure this Congress does not lose sight of what 
is truly important to our friends and families.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me make a simple observation on the 
Republican budget resolution before the Senate: it does not reflect the 
priorities of the American people. For that reason, I will oppose this 
budget.
  Mr. President, as you know, I attempted throughout the past several 
days to amend this Republican budget so it meets the needs of working 
Americans. I attempted to ensure that the violent crime reduction trust 
fund will be fully funded and that sufficient funds will be allocated 
to the community policing initiative. But this amendment was rejected 
along party lines.
  I tried to add back some of the cuts the Republicans have made to 
environmental protection and conservation efforts. But the amendment 
was rejected along party lines. I attempted to add back funds for 
education that the Republicans cut from the budget --the largest 
education cut in history. But the amendment was rejected along party 
lines.
  Time and again, the Republican party moved in lockstep to prevent us 
from providing services that the American people urgently need.
  The President of the United States has proposed a budget that 
balances in 6 years. It protects the environment. It secures our 
neighborhoods by putting more cops on the beat. It gives assistance to 
families trying to care for elderly parents and educate their children. 
I voted for that budget, Mr. President.

[[Page S5532]]

  The President s budget continues the sound economic and fiscal policy 
put in place in 1993 which has halved the deficit, kept interest rates 
and inflation low and created more than 8 million jobs. This is the 
right way to balance the budget.
  The Republicans' budget continues the smoke-and-mirror gimmicks 
vetoed by the President and rejected by the American people. It slashes 
Medicare, cripples education programs and opens tax loopholes for big 
corporations. This is the wrong way.
  Mr. President, let me give you an example of why I am wary of the 
budget the Republicans have presented this year despite all the pleas 
that they have learned their lesson and corrected their past mistakes. 
Last year, the Senate voted that 90 percent of any tax cut should go to 
people making less than $100,000 per year. Yet, the Republican budget, 
which the President wisely vetoed, devoted almost 48 percent of the tax 
cuts to people earning more than $100,000. So, Mr. President, here we 
go again. My parents taught me an old saying which guides me in my 
decision to reject the Republican plan before us: ``once bitten, twice 
shy.'' The Republican plan--then as now--raises Medicare premiums on 
our seniors, makes our environment vulnerable to the whims of 
polluters, denies Medicaid coverage to veterans who would have been 
ineligible for VA medical care, and prevents children of many middle 
income Americans from getting a loan to go to college.
  That is the wrong set of priorities for our Nation, for our economy 
and for hard-working American families, Mr. President. I reject this 
budget as I rejected the Republican plan last year, as the President 
rejected the Republican plan last year, and as the American people 
rejected the Republican plan last year.
  I hope my colleagues oppose the Republican plan.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 57, the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1997. While I support the committee's efforts to balance 
the budget, I cannot agree with the means by which that balance is 
achieved.
  It is ironic that the committee's proposed budget resolution appears 
to soften the hard edge of many of the funding cuts proposed in last 
year's vetoed reconciliation legislation. The committee recognized the 
need to make the cuts look less draconian, yet, cuts similar to those 
from last year's failed attempt remain.
  The committee's budget resolution merely pays lipservice to the fact 
that it could not garner the support it needed to succeed last year, 
because it tries to include similar cuts by disguising them in a 6-year 
rather than a 7-year program, by rescoring the cuts to make them look 
smaller, and, in the instance of Medicaid, by reformulating the way the 
cut is made so that the true cut can be made at the State level rather 
than at the Federal level.
  I guess we are to chalk it up to election year politics, but the 
budget resolution before us asks us to ignore our experience last year 
when we witnessed the so-called train wreck that caused the Government 
to shut down twice.
  And, we are to ignore the progress, albeit, limited in some areas, 
made in negotiations between the congressional leadership and the White 
House. This budget resolution, in many instances, marks a disavowal of 
the last offer made in January by the majority in the ongoing budget 
negotiations. Instead, particularly in the case of welfare and other 
nondefense discretionary spending, we are asked to support a return to 
the kinds of funding decisions that closed the Government twice last 
year.
  When you make an apples-to-apples comparison with last year's failed 
welfare measure, the combined cuts to welfare programs, like aid to 
families with dependent children, supplemental security income and food 
stamps, are essentially the same.
  The cuts in nondefense discretionary funding are deeper than the 
January offer made to the President but not quite as deep as the vetoed 
reconciliation bill. However, since the House adopted the deepest cuts 
yet proposed in nondefense discretionary funding, it seems an almost 
certainty that we are headed back to the levels contemplated in last 
year's failed reconciliation bill when we get to conference.
  The Republican budget continues its attack on education and training. 
The budget resolution caps the direct student loan program at 20 
percent and, to use the majority's convenient euphemism, it freezes 
funding for Pell grants work study programs. Further, the budget 
resolution terminates funding for the AmericaCorps National Service 
Program.
  Mr. President, these changes to higher education would continue the 
majority's efforts to make it harder for working families and their 
children to finance a college education. If these proposed cuts and 
changes are to become law, many students will see the doors closed to 
the opportunities and choices a college education can open up for them. 
Other students and their families will see their options for financing 
an education narrowed. OMB estimates that the student loan cap would 
eliminate 1,100 schools and 1.6 million students from participation, 
just in the upcoming academic year. When extended over the life of the 
budget program, this cap would deny direct lending opportunities to 7 
million borrowers.
  Mr. President, that's not what this country stands for. We must 
ensure that working middle-income families will be able to afford to 
provide higher educational opportunities to their children.
  The Republican budget again proposes to cut all funding for the first 
major new education reform bill passed by Congress in the past two 
decades. Goals 2000 is a comprehensive national attempt to help our 
schools achieve their goals of producing informed citizens and a 
skilled, competitive work force for the future. I believe it is 
extremely shortsighted for the Republicans to continue to propose 
eliminating this important program.
  The budget resolution freezes funding--again, there's that euphemism 
for what amounts to a cut--for Head Start and chapter 1, the most 
successful programs designed to get our children ready for school and 
for teaching basic skills, hampering our efforts to reform public 
education in this country. I cannot support these proposals which will 
scale back our commitment to public education in this country.
  In another critical area in nondefense discretionary funding, Mr. 
President, the budget resolution uses funding cuts to weaken 
environmental protection and to decrease the Government's ability to 
improve public health and safety.
  While targeting environmental programs for particularly harsh cuts, 
this budget resolution also effectively makes policy changes that 
should be enacted through regular legislative means. This measure 
assumes revenues from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for 
oil exploration and development. The Coastal Plain of this wildlife 
refuge is one of our few remaining ecological treasures, containing 18 
major rivers, and providing a habitat for 36 species of land mammals 
and over 30 fish species. The wilderness and environmental values of 
this area are irreplaceable. The environmental values of this area are 
far greater than any short-term economic gain from oil and gas 
development.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, these are the kinds of tradeoffs, 
taking away educational opportunities at all levels, from preschool 
through postsecondary education, gutting environmental programs, and 
ruining ecological treasures, all in order to make a politically 
expedient tax cut and, as we'll see when we move to the defense 
authorization bill, to waste billions of dollars in the defense 
accounts on programs we don't need. I can't agree to this, Mr. 
President. But, sadly, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

  Let's take a look at the proposed cut to the earned income tax 
credit, a tax credit designed to assist low-income working families 
stay off the welfare rolls. It's true that the proposed cut is less 
than last year's failed reconciliation package, but it is significantly 
deeper than that proposed by the majority in January during the budget 
negotiations. Moreover, it is almost twice as large as the cut proposed 
by the National Governor's Association. And, curiously, it seems to be 
at odds with a proposal made during the minimum wage debate in the 
House that the earned income tax credit should be expanded as an 
alternative to raising the

[[Page S5533]]

minimum wage. The majority party says it is offering a tax cut. With 
the proposed cuts in the earned income tax credit, never mind the 
advertised tax cut, the best some working families can hope for is that 
their taxes won't go up.
  A similar sleight of hand occurs with respect to Medicaid. The amount 
of Federal funding proposed to be cut is less than the latest budget 
offer made in January. The hitch is, the budget resolution changes the 
contribution that States are required to make. This change allows 80 
percent of the cuts proposed last year to be made.
  Moreover, not only does the budget resolution cut Federal Medicaid 
payments to the States by $72 billion, it does not specify how the cuts 
would be made. I assume that the Republicans still support block 
granting Medicaid funds. I am opposed to this proposal because of the 
adverse impact it would have on children in low-income families, the 
disabled, and the elderly who require nursing home care.
  When you get to Medicare, again, you have to pay attention to the 
fine print. The size of the cut, $168 billion, is the same as that 
proposed in the last offer but the difference here is the cut is taken 
in a shorter period of time, over a 6-year program rather than a 7-year 
program. So, the majority again greatly reduces Medicare funding for 
the elderly in order to provide a tax cut for wealthy Americans. The 
budget resolution's reduction of $168 billion in Medicare means that 
the growth in spending per beneficiary will be less than the projected 
growth in spending in the private sector which insures a younger, 
healthier population. I am concerned that these cuts and the proposed 
changes in the structure of the Medicare Program will adversely impact 
the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries and will make it more 
expensive to individuals.
  Mr. President, we have debated this budget resolution over the course 
of several days and have had vigorous debate over a series of 
amendments which would have restored necessary funding in areas such as 
health care, education, job training, and environmental protection. 
Regrettably, these efforts did not succeed. But, the votes really have 
been just a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is clear that the majority 
isn't looking to compromise or learn from our painful experience last 
year. This legislation was never designed to engender my support and I 
certainly will not lend my support to it.
  In addition to the funding issues I have described, Mr. President, I 
feel compelled to discuss the unusual instruction contained in the 
budget resolution concerning the reporting out of three separate 
reconciliation bills. This instruction is objectionable because it 
unnecessarily expands the role of reconciliation in the budgeting 
process. Perhaps, more importantly, it is objectionable because it goes 
so far as to instruct the reporting out of a reconciliation bill that 
not only will not lower the deficit but undoubtedly will raise the 
deficit.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4022

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is now 
the McCain amendment No. 4022.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator who has the amendment, Senator 
McCain.
  Mr. McCAIN. Doesn't the opposition speak first, Mr. President, the 
other side?
  Mr. EXON. I yield Senator Hollings the 30 seconds on our side on the 
McCain amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona and I are agreed substantially with his sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. In every one of the auctions, Mr. President, what we 
do on them is not to maximize the revenues but to protect the public 
interest. We want to increase the efficiency and enhance the 
competition.
  So I welcome this particular sense-of-the-Senate resolution. But I 
have to add, of course, the fundamental of the public interest, which I 
am sure the Senator from Arizona is interested in, is stipulated in the 
Communications Act of 1934, section 309, and now in the new 
Telecommunications Act it is also to be adhered to. So I move the 
adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the resolution.
  Mr. EXON. We have no objection.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
offered by my friend from Arizona encourages the Federal Communications 
Commission [FCC] to move forward expeditiously on a number of pending 
proceedings. In doing so, would the Senator from Arizona agree that 
section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, is the 
provision of law that authorizes the FCC's use of auctions as a 
licensing procedure?
  Mr. McCAIN. I agree.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Would the Senator further agree that the FCC should 
follow the statute in conducting auctions?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes, I agree that the FCC should follow the law.
  I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.


                Amendment No. 4041 to Amendment No. 4022

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Parliamentary inquiry. Did we adopt the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have not adopted the amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending second-degree amendment 
that has not been read.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, Mr. McCain, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Smith, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4041 to amendment No. 4022.
       Strike all after the word ``Sec.'' and insert:
       The Congress finds that--
       (1) The Founding Fathers were committed to the principle of 
     civilian control of the military;
       (2) Every President since George Washington has affirmed 
     the principle of civilian control of the military;
       (3) Twenty-six Presidents of the United States served in 
     the United States Armed Forces prior to their inauguration 
     and none of them claimed the Presidency represented a 
     continuation of their military service;
       (4) No President of the United States prior to May 15, 1996 
     has ever sought relief from legal action on the basis of 
     serving as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed 
     Forces;
       (5) President Clinton is the subject of a sexual harassment 
     lawsuit filed on May 6, 1994 in Federal District Court in 
     Little Rock, Arkansas involving allegations about his conduct 
     in May, 1991;
       (6) On May 15, 1996, a legal brief filed on behalf of the 
     President of the United States in the United States Supreme 
     Court asserted the President of the United States may be 
     entitled to the protections afforded members of the United 
     States Armed Forces under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief 
     Act of 1940 (50 U.S.C. 501 et. al); and
       (7) The purpose of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief 
     Act of 1940 is to enable members of the military services 
     ``to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the 
     nation.''
       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this resolution include that the President of the 
     United States should state unequivocally that he is not 
     entitled to and will not seek relief from legal action under 
     the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, and that 
     he will direct removal from his legal brief any reference to 
     the protections of the Act.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each side gets 30 seconds. The Senator from 
Alaska has 30 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. I asked for a quorum.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. President, along with 
Senators Warner, Chafee and McCain, who are cosponsors, I believe what 
we have here is an assertion without precedent. The President of the 
United States claims in a brief filed in the Supreme Court that a 
pending sexual harassment lawsuit against him should be delayed 
indefinitely. He claims he is entitled to the protection afforded 
members of the military under the Soldiers and Sailors Act of 1940.
  For the President to make the claim that he is a member of the Armed 
Forces is simply beyond comprehension.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, regular order.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It flies in the face of the 207-year-old tradition 
established by George Washington that the U.S. military should be under 
civilian control.

[[Page S5534]]

  Mr. FORD. Regular order.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. As the commander of the American Legion said: ``We've 
had plenty of great Americans take off a military uniform to assume the 
Presidency. None has ever put on a uniform after Inauguration Day.''
  As a former member of the U.S. Coast Guard, I respectfully request 
that the President should immediately direct his attorney to drop this 
absurd claim.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 30 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. My apologies to those I told we would be out of here by 
5:10.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is obvious that we are not going to be 
able to work out an agreement as to how a vote can be obtained on this 
issue this afternoon. The budget resolution is very important to the 
American people. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be withdrawn following 4 minutes of debate equally divided between the 
amendment sponsor and the Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I wonder 
if our leader will further say, when that is done what will happen, so 
we all know.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe, Mr. President, from the chairman, we have one 
amendment left that will be voice voted, and we will be prepared to go 
to final passage immediately after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the unanimous-consent request include the last 
statement about the sequencing?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the sequence 
after this exchange be, we have a voice vote on the pending McCain 
amendment and we go immediately to final passage of the budget 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the revised unanimous 
consent request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in the interest of moving the budget 
process along, I am withdrawing my amendment, but I want to assure my 
colleagues, until our President orders his legal counsel to drop this 
argument in court, I will be raising this issue on every bill.

  As we go out for this Memorial Day recess, I urge all of us to 
reflect on the significance of this particular issue.
  I yield the remaining time split between Senator McCain and Senator 
Warner.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to read from the 
Congressional Record, October 7, 1940, referring to this act. It reads:

       The term ``person in military service'' and the term 
     ``persons in the military service of the United States,'' as 
     used in this Act, shall include the following persons and no 
     others: All members of the Army of the United States, the 
     United States Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard and all 
     officers of the Public Health Service detailed by proper 
     authority for duty either with the Army or the Navy. The term 
     ``military service,'' as used in this Act, shall signify 
     Federal service on active duty with any branch of service. * 
     * *

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not know if the President of the 
United States knew that this was part of the defense prepared by his 
lawyers. I hope very strongly that he will have this taken from it. It 
is an issue which is very emotional to a lot of Americans, and I hope 
that by us raising this issue that the issue will be dispensed with 
very quickly by the President of the United States.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me read a statement, first of all, by 
Robert Bennett, the attorney representing the President:

       * * * my petition on the President's behalf references the 
     Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act as one of five 
     illustrative examples of the types of stays that can 
     temporarily defer lawsuits. The President does not rely on 
     the Act, and has no intention of doing so, as the basis for 
     requesting relief in this case. Our petition does not rely on 
     the Act, but is based instead on important constitutional 
     principles. We have no intention of changing our approach in 
     the future.

  Mr. President, I submit for the Record the brief submitted on behalf 
of the President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the brief was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

    [In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1995]

    William Jefferson Clinton, Petitioner, vs. Paula Corbin Jones, 
                               Respondent

       On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States 
     Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit.


                   petition for a writ of certiorari

                          Questions Presented

       1. Whether the litigation of a private civil damages action 
     against an incumbent President must in all but the most 
     exceptional cases be deferred until the President leaves 
     office.
       2. Whether a district court, as a proper exercise of 
     judicial discretion, may stay such litigation until the 
     President leaves office.


                       parties to the proceeding

       Petitioner. President William Jefferson Clinton, was a 
     defendant in the district court and appellant in the court of 
     appeals. Respondent Paula Corbin Jones was the plaintiff in 
     the district court and cross-appellant in the court of 
     appeals. Danny Ferguson was a defendant in the district 
     court.
       Petitioner William Jefferson Clinton respectfully requests 
     that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment of the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit entered 
     in this case on January 9, 1996.


                             opinions below

       The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1) is 
     reported at 72 F.3d 1354. The court of appeals' order denying 
     the petition for rehearing (Pet. App. 32) is reported at 81 
     F.3d 78. The principal opinion of the district court (Pet. 
     App. 54) is reported at 869 F. Supp. 690. Other published 
     opinions of the district court (Pet. App. at 40 and 74) 
     appear at 858 F. Supp. 902 and 879 F. Supp. 86.


                              JURISDICTION

       The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Eighth Circuit was entered on January 9, 1996. A petition for 
     rehearing was filed on January 23, 1996, and denied on March 
     28, 1996. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1254(l) (1994).


                 LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

       U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 1.
       U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. Sec. 2-4.
       U.S. Const. amend. XXV.
       42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1994).
       42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 (1994).
       50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 510 (1988).
       50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 521 (1988).
       50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 525 (Supp. V 1993).
       Fed. R. Civ. P. 40.
       These provisions are set forth at pages App. 79-85 of the 
     Petitioner's Appendix.


                         STATEMENT OF THE CASE

       Petitioner William Jefferson Clinton is President of the 
     United States. On May 6, 1994, respondent Paula Corbin Jones 
     filed this civil damages action against the President in the 
     United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
     Arkansas. The complaint was premised in substantial part on 
     conduct alleged to have occurred three years earlier, before 
     the President took office. The complaint included two claims 
     arising under the federal civil rights statues and two 
     arising under common law, and sought $175,000 in actual and 
     punitive damages for each of the four counts.\1\ Jurisdiction 
     was asserted under 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1331, 1332 and 1343 
     (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Footnotes at end of brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The President moved to stay the litigation or to dismiss it 
     without prejudice to its reinstatement when he left office, 
     asserting that such a course was required by the singular 
     nature of the President's Article II duties and by principles 
     of separation of powers. The district court stayed trial 
     until the President's service in office expired, but held 
     that discovery could proceed immediately ``as to all persons 
     including the President himself.'' Pet. App. 71.
       The district court reasoned that ``the case most applicable 
     to this one is Nixon v. Fitzgerald, [457 U.S. 731 (1982)],'' 
     (Pet. App. 67) which held that a President is absolutely 
     immune from any civil litigation challenging his official 
     acts as President. While the holding of Fitzgerald did not 
     apply to this case because President Clinton was sued 
     primarily for actions taken before he became President, the 
     court stated that ``[t]he language of the majority opinion'' 
     in Fitzgerald
       ``is sweeping and quite firm in the view that to disturb 
     the President with defending civil litigation that does not 
     demand immediate attention . . . would be to interfere with 
     the conduct of the duties of the office.''
       Pet. App. 68-69. The district court further found that 
     these concerns ``are not lessened

[[Page S5535]]

     by the fact that [the conduct alleged] preceded his 
     Presidency.'' Id. Invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 40 
     and the court's equitable power to manage its own docket, the 
     district judge stayed the trial ``[t]o protect the Office of 
     President . . . from unfettered civil litigation, and to give 
     effect to the policy of separation of powers.'' Pet. App. 
     72.\2\
       The trial court, observing that the plaintiff had filed 
     suit three years after the alleged events, further concluded 
     that the plaintiff would not be significantly inconvenienced 
     by delay of trial. Pet. App. 70. However, it found ``no 
     reason why the discovery and deposition process could not 
     proceed,'' and said that this would avoid the possible loss 
     of evidence with the passage of time. Pet. App. 71.
       The President and respondent both appealed.\3\ A divided 
     panel of the court of appeals reversed the district court's 
     order staying trial, and affirmed its decision allowing 
     discovery to proceed. The panel issued three opinions.
       Judge Bowman found the reasoning in Fitzgerald ``inapposite 
     where only personal, private conduct by a President is at 
     issue,'' (Pet. App. 11), and determined that ``the 
     Constitution does not confer upon an incumbent President any 
     immunity from civil actions that arise from his unofficial 
     acts.'' Pet. App. 16. He also wrote that
       ``[t]he Court's struggle in Fitzgerald to establish 
     presidential immunity for acts within the outer perimeter of 
     official responsibility belies the notion . . . that beyond 
     this outer perimeter there is still more immunity waiting to 
     be discovered.''

     Pet. App. 9.
       Judge Bowman further concluded that it would be an abuse of 
     discretion to stay all proceedings against an incumbent 
     President, asserting that the President ``is entitled to 
     immunity, if at all, only because the Constitution ordains 
     it. Presidential immunity thus cannot be granted or denied by 
     the courts as an exercise of discretion.'' Pet. App. 16. 
     Ruling that the court of appeals had ``pendent appellate 
     jurisdiction'' to entertain respondent's challenge to the 
     stay of trial issued by the district court, (Pet. App. 5 n.4) 
     (citing Kincade v. City of Blue Springs, Mo., 64 F.3d 389, 
     394 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 1996 WL 26287 (Apr. 29, 
     1996)), Judge Bowman accordingly reversed that stay as an 
     abuse of discretion. Pet. App. 13 n.9.
       In reaching these conclusions, Judge Bowman put aside 
     concerns that the separation of powers could be jeopardized 
     by a trial court's exercising control over the President's 
     time and priorities, through the supervision of discovery and 
     trial. He stated that any separation of powers problems could 
     be avoided by ``judicial case management sensitive to the 
     burdens of the presidency and the demands of the President's 
     schedule.'' Pet. App. 13.
       Judge Beam ``concur[red] in the conclusions reached by 
     Judge Bowman.'' Pet. App. 17. He stated that the issues 
     presented ``raise matters of substantial concern given the 
     constitutional obligations of the office'' of the Presidency. 
     Pet. App. 17. He also acknowledged that ``judicial branch 
     interference with the functioning of the presidency should 
     this suit be allowed to go forward'' is a matter of ``major 
     concern.'' Pet. App. 21. He expressed his belief, however, 
     that this litigation could be managed with a ``minimum of 
     impact on the President's schedule.'' Pet. App. 23. This 
     could be accomplished, he suggested, by the President's 
     choosing to forgo attending his own trial or becoming 
     involved in discovery, or by limiting the number of pre-trial 
     encounters between the President and respondent's counsel. 
     Pet. App. 23-24. Judge Beam stated that he was concurring 
     ``[w]ith [the] understanding'' that the trial judge would 
     have substantial latitude to manage the litigation in a way 
     that would accommodate the interests of the Presidency. Pet. 
     App. 25.
       Judge Ross dissented, stating that the ``language, logic 
     and intent'' of Fitzgerald
       ``directs a conclusion here that, unless exigent 
     circumstances can be shown, private actions for damages 
     against a sitting President of the United States, even though 
     based on unofficial acts, must be stayed until the completion 
     of the President's term.''
       Pet. App. 25. Judge Ross observed that ``[n]o other branch 
     of government is entrusted to a single person,'' and 
     determined that
       ``[t]he burdens and demands of civil litigation can be 
     expected * * * to divert [the President's] energy and 
     attention from the rigorous demands of his office to the task 
     of protecting himself against personal liability. That result 
     * * * would impair the integrity of the role assigned to the 
     President by Article II of the Constitution.''
       Pet. App. 26.
       Judge Ross also stated that private civil suits against 
     sitting Presidents
       ``create opportunities for the judiciary to intrude upon 
     the Executive's authority, set the stage for potential 
     constitutional confrontations between courts and a President, 
     and permit the civil justice system to be used for partisan 
     political purposes.''
       Pet. App. 28. At the same time, he reasoned, postponing 
     litigation ``will rarely defeat a plaintiff's ability to 
     ultimately obtain meaningful relief.'' Pet. App. 30. Judge 
     Ross concluded that litigation should proceed against a 
     sitting President only if a plaintiff can ``demonstrate 
     convincingly both that delay will seriously prejudice the 
     plaintiff's interests and that * * * [it] will not 
     significantly impair the president's ability to attend to the 
     duties of his office.'' Pet. App. 31.
       The court of appeals denied the President's request for a 
     rehearing en banc, with three judges not participating and 
     Judge McMillian dissenting. Judge McMillian said the 
     majority's holding had ``demean[ed] the Office of the 
     President of the United States.'' Pet. App. 32. He wrote that 
     the panel majority ``would put all the problems of our nation 
     on pilot control and treat as more urgent a private lawsuit 
     that even the [respondent] delayed filing for at least three 
     years,'' and would ``allow judicial interference with, and 
     control of, the President's time.'' Pet. App. 33.


                   REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

       This case presents a question of extraordinary national 
     importance, which was resolved erroneously by the court of 
     appeals. For the first time in our history, a court has 
     ordered a sitting President to submit, as a defendant, to a 
     civil damages action directed at him personally. We believe 
     that absent exceptional circumstances, an incumbent President 
     should never be placed in this position. And surely a 
     President should not be placed in this position for the first 
     time in our history on the basis of a decision by a 
     fragmented panel of a court of appeals, without this Court's 
     review.
       The decision of the court below is erroneous in several 
     respects. It is inconsistent with the reasoning of Nixon v. 
     Fitzgerald and with established separation of powers 
     principles. The panel majority's suggested cure for the 
     separation of powers problems--``judicial case management 
     sensitive to . . . the demands of the President's schedule'' 
     (Pet. App. 13)--is worse than the disease: it gives a trial 
     court a general power to set priorities for the President's 
     time and energies. The panel majority also grossly overstated 
     the supposedly extraordinary character of the relief that the 
     President seeks. The deferral of litigation for a specified, 
     limited period is far from unknown in our judicial system, 
     and it is routinely afforded in order to protect interests 
     that are not comparable in importance to the interests the 
     President advances here.
       Now is the appropriate time for the Court to address these 
     issues. If review is declined, the President would have to 
     undergo discovery and trial while in office, which would 
     eviscerate the very interests he seeks to vindicate. 
     Moreover, if the decision below is allowed to stand, federal 
     and state courts could be confronted with more private civil 
     damage complaints against incumbent Presidents. Such 
     complaints increasingly would enmesh Presidents in the 
     judicial process, and the courts in the political arena, to 
     the detriment of both.

 A. The Decision Below Is Inconsistent With This Court's Decisions And 
                  Jeopardizes The Separation Of Powers

       1. The President ``occupies a unique position in the 
     constitutional scheme.'' Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457. 731, 749 
     (1982). Unlike the power of the other two branches, the 
     entire ``executive Power'' is vested in a single individual, 
     ``a President,'' who is indispensable to the execution of 
     that authority. U.S. CONST. art. II, Sec. 1. The President is 
     never off duty, and any significant demand on his time 
     necessarily imposes on his capacity to carry out his 
     constitutional responsibilities.
       Accordingly, ``[c]ourts traditionally have recognized the 
     President's constitutional responsibilities and status as 
     factors counseling judicial deference and restraint.'' 
     Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 753. Indeed, ``[t]his tradition can be 
     traced far back into our constitutional history.'' Id, at 753 
     n.34. The form of ``judicial deference and restraint'' that 
     the President seeks here--merely postponing the suit against 
     him until he leaves office--is modest. It is far more 
     limited, for example, than the absolute immunity that 
     Fitzgerald accorded all Presidents for action taken within 
     the scope of their presidential duties.
       The panel majority concluded that because the Fitzgerald 
     holding was limited to civil damages claims challenging 
     official acts, the President should receive no form of 
     protection from any other civil suits. This conclusion is 
     flatly inconsistent with the reasoning of Fitzgerald. The 
     Court in Fitzgerald determined that the President was 
     entitled to absolute immunity not only because the threat of 
     liability for official acts might inhibit him in the exercise 
     of his authority (id. at 752 & n.32), but also because, in 
     the Court's words, ``the singular importance of the 
     President's duties'' means that ``diversion of his energies 
     by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to 
     the effective functioning of government.'' Id. at 751,
       The panel majority ignored this second basis for the 
     holding of Fitzgerald. The first basis of Fitzgerald--that 
     the threat of liability might chill official Presidential 
     decision making--is, of course, largely not present here, and 
     accordingly, the President does not seek immunity from 
     liability.\4\ But the second danger to the Presidency 
     emphasized by Fitzgerald--the burdens inevitably attendant 
     upon being a defendant in a lawsuit--clearly exists here. the 
     court of appeals simply disregarded this ``unique risk[] to 
     the effective functioning of government.''
       2. As the Fitzgerald Court demonstrated, the principle that 
     a siting President may not be subjected to private civil 
     lawsuits has deep roots in our traditions. See 457 U.S. at 
     751 n.31. Justice Story stated that
       ``[t]he president cannot . . . be liable to arrest, 
     imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of 
     the duties of his office; and for this purpose his person 
     must be

[[Page S5536]]

     deemed, in civil cases at least, to possess an official 
     inviolability.''
       3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the 
     United States Sec. 1563, pp. 418-19 (1st ed. 1833) (emphasis 
     added), quoted in Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 749. Senator Oliver 
     Ellsworth and then-Vice President John Adams, both delegates 
     to the Constitutional Convention, also agreed that
       ``the President, personally, was not . . . subject to any 
     process whatever . . . For [that] would . . . put it in the 
     power of a common justice to exercise any authority over him 
     and stop the whole machine of Government.''
       Journal of William Maclay 167 (E. Maclay ed., 1890), quoted 
     in Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 751 n.31.
       President Jefferson was even more emphatic:
       ``The leading principle of our Constitution is the 
     independence of the Legislature, executive and judiciary of 
     each other. . . . But would the executive be independent of 
     the judiciary, if he were subject to the commands of the 
     latter, & to imprisonment for disobedience; if the several 
     courts could bandy him from pillar to post, keep him 
     constantly trudging from north to south & east to west, and 
     withdraw him entirely from his constitutional duties?''
       10 The Works of Thomas Jefferson 404 n. (Paul L. Ford ed., 
     1905), quoted in Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 751 n.31. As the 
     Court said in Fitzgerald, ``nothing in [the Framers'] debates 
     suggests an expectation that the President would be subjected 
     to the distraction of suits by disappointed private 
     citizens.'' 457 U.S. 751 n.31.
       3. The panel majority minimized the separation of powers 
     concerns that so troubled the Framers. It ruled that these 
     problems can never be addressed by postponing litigation 
     against the President until the end of his term. Pet. App. 
     16. Instead, the panel majority's solution was ``judicial 
     case management sensitive to the burdens of the presidency 
     and the demands of the President's schedule.'' Pet. App. 13. 
     Rather than solving the separation of powers problems raised 
     by allowing a suit to go forward against a sitting President, 
     the panel's approach only exacerbates them.
       The panel majority envisioned that, throughout the course 
     of litigation against him, a President could ``pursue motions 
     for rescheduling, additional time, or continuances'' if he 
     could show that the proceedings ``interfer[ed] with specific, 
     particularized, clearly articulated presidential duties.'' 
     Pet. App. 16. If the President disagreed with a decision of 
     the trial court, he could ``petition [the court of appeals] 
     for a writ of mandamus or prohibition.'' Pet. App. 16. In 
     other words, under the panel's approach, a trial court could 
     insist, before considering a request by the President for 
     adjustment in the litigation schedule, that the President 
     provide a ``specific, particularized'' explanation of why he 
     believed his official duties prevented him from devoting his 
     attention to the litigation at that time. The court would 
     then be in the position of repeatedly evaluating the 
     President's official priorities--precisely what Jefferson so 
     feared.
       This approach is an obvious affront to the complex and 
     delicate relationship between the Judiciary and the 
     Presidency. Neither branch should be in a position where it 
     must approach the other for approval to carry out its day-to-
     day responsibilities. Even if a trial court discharged this 
     mission with the greatest judiciousness, it is difficult to 
     think of anything more inconsistent with the separation of 
     powers than to put a court in the position of continually 
     passing judgment on whether the President is spending time in 
     a way the court finds acceptable.
       4. The panel majority similarly attempted to downplay the 
     demands that defending private civil litigation would impose 
     on the President's time and energies. Pet. App. 13-15. The 
     concurring opinion in particular likened the defense of a 
     personal damages suit to the few instances when Presidents 
     have testified as witnesses in judicial or legislative 
     proceedings. Pet. App. 22-23. This notion is implausible on 
     its face; there is no comparison between being a defendant in 
     a civil damages action and merely being a witness. Even so, 
     Presidents have been called as witnesses only in cases of 
     exigent need, and only under carefully controlled 
     circumstances designed to minimize intrusions on the 
     President's ability to carry out his duties.
       A sitting President has never been compelled to testify in 
     civil proceedings. Presidents occasionally have been called 
     upon to testify in criminal proceedings, in order to preserve 
     the public's interest in criminal law enforcement 
     (Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754) and the defendant's 
     Constitutional right to compulsory process (U.S. Const. 
     amend. VI; United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 33 
     (C.C.D. Va 1807) (No. 14,692d))--factors that are, of 
     course, not present here. But even in those compelling 
     cases, as Chief Justice Marshall recognized, courts are 
     not ``required to proceed against the president as against 
     an ordinary individual.'' United States v. Burr, 25 F. 
     Cas. 187, 192 (C.C.D. Va. 1807) (No. 14,694). Instead, 
     courts have required a heightened showing of need for the 
     President's testimony, and have permitted it to be 
     obtained only in a manner that limits the disruption of 
     his official functions, such as by videotaped 
     deposition.\5\
       In any event, there is an enormous difference between being 
     a third-party witness and being a defendant threatened with 
     financially ruinous personal liability. This is true even for 
     a person with only the normal business and personal 
     responsibilities of everyday life--which are, of course, 
     incalculably less demanding than those of the President. A 
     President as a practical matter could never wholly ignore a 
     suit such as the present one, which seeks to impugn the 
     President's character and to obtain $700,000 in putative 
     damages from the President personally. ``The need to defend 
     damages suits would have the serious effect of diverting the 
     attention of a President from his executive duties since 
     defending a lawsuit today--even a lawsuit ultimately found to 
     be frivolous--often requires significant expenditures of time 
     and money, as many former public officials have learned to 
     their sorrow,'' Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 763 (Burger, C.J., 
     concurring).
       Judge Learned Hand once commented that as a litigant, he 
     would ``dread a lawsuit beyond anything else short of 
     sickness and death.'' \6\ In this regard the President is 
     like any other litigant, except that a President's 
     litigation, like a President's illness, becomes the nation's 
     problem.

   B. The Court of Appeals Erred in Viewing the Relief Sought by the 
                       President As Extraordinary

       The court below appears to have viewed the President's 
     claim in this case as exceptional, both in the relief that it 
     sought and in the burden that it imposed on respondent.\7\ In 
     fact, far from seeking a ``degree of protection from suit for 
     his private wrongs enjoyed by no other public official (much 
     less ordinary citizens)'' (Pet. App. 13), the relief that the 
     President seeks--the temporary deferral of litigation--is far 
     from unknown in our system, and the burdens it would impose 
     on plaintiffs are not extraordinary.
       There are numerous instances where civil plaintiffs are 
     required to accept the temporary postponement of litigation 
     so that important institutional or public interests can be 
     protected. For example, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil 
     Relief Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C. app. Sec. Sec. 501-25 (1988 & 
     Supp. V 1993), provides that civil claims by or against 
     military personnel are to be tolled and stayed while they are 
     on active duty.\8\ Such relief is deemed necessary to enable 
     members of the armed forces ``to devote their entire energy 
     to the defense needs of the Nation.'' 50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 510 
     (1988). President Clinton here thus seeks relief similar to 
     that to which he may be entitled as Commander-In-Chief of the 
     Armed Forces, and which is routinely available to service 
     members under his command.
       The so-called automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy 
     Code similarly provides that litigation against a debtor is 
     to be stayed as soon as a party files a bankruptcy petition. 
     That stay affects all litigation that ``was or could have 
     been commenced'' prior to the filing of that petition, 11 
     U.S.C. Sec. 362 (1994), and ordinarily will remain in effect 
     until the bankruptcy proceeding is completed. Id. \9\ Thus, 
     if respondent had sued a party who entered bankruptcy, 
     respondent would automatically find herself in the same 
     position she will be in if the President prevails before the 
     Court--except that the bankruptcy stay is indefinite, while 
     the stay in this case has a definite term, circumscribed by 
     the constitutional limit on a President's tenure in office.
       It is well established that courts, in appropriate 
     circumstances, may put off civil litigation until the 
     conclusion of a related criminal prosecution against the same 
     defendant.\10\ That process may, of course, take several 
     years, and affords the civil plaintiff no relief. The 
     doctrine of primary jurisdiction, where it applies, compels 
     plaintiffs to postpone the litigation of their civil claims 
     while they pursue administrative proceedings, even though the 
     administrative proceedings may not provide the relief they 
     seek. This process too can take several years. See, e.g., 
     Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exch., 409 U.S. 289, 306-07 
     (1973). And public officials who unsuccessfully raise a 
     qualified immunity defense in a trial court are entitled, in 
     the usual case, to a stay of discovery while they pursue an 
     interlocutory appeal. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 
     (1982). Such appeals can routinely delay litigation for a 
     substantial period.
       We do not suggest that all of these doctrines operate in 
     exactly the same way as the relief that the President seeks 
     here. But these examples thoroughly dispel any suggestion 
     that the President, in asking that this litigation be 
     deferred, is somehow placing himself ``above the law,'' or 
     that holding this litigation in abeyance would impermissibly 
     violate a plaintiff's entitlement to access to the courts. 
     More specifically, these examples demonstrate that what the 
     President is seeking--the temporary deferral of litigation--
     is relief that our judicial system routinely provides when 
     significant institutional or public interests are at stake, 
     as they manifestly are here.

    C. The Panel Majority Erred In Asserting Jurisdiction Over, And 
  Reversing, The District Court's Discretionary Decision To Stay The 
           Trial Until After President Clinton Leaves Office

       1. Respondent cross-appealed to challenge the district 
     court's order to stay trial. Ordinarily, a decision by a 
     district court to stay proceedings is not a final decision 
     for purposes of appeal. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. 
     Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 10 n.11 (1983). Such 
     orders may be reviewed on an interlocutory basis only by writ 
     of mandamus. See U.S.C. Sec. 651 (1994).\11\ Inserting that 
     jurisdiction existed for her cross-appeal, the respondent did 
     not seek such a writ or contend that the stay was 
     appealable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1994) as a final 
     order, or as a collateral

[[Page S5537]]

     order under Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 
     U.S. 541, 546 (1949). Instead respondent asserted, and the 
     panel majority found, that the Court of Appeals had 
     ``pendent appellate jurisdiction'' over respondent's 
     cross-appeal. Pet. App. 5 n.4.
       In Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n, 115 S. Ct. 1203 (1995), 
     this Court ruled that the notion of ``pendent appellate 
     jurisdiction,'' if viable at all, is extremely narrow in 
     scope (see id. at 1212), and is not to be used ``to parlay 
     Cohen-type collateral orders into multi-issue interlocutory 
     appeal tickets.'' Id. at 1211. The panel majority sought to 
     avoid Swint by declaring that respondent's cross-appeal was 
     ``inextricably intertwined'' with the President's appeal. 
     Pet. App. 5 n.4. This conclusion is incorrect.
       The question of whether the President is entitled, as a 
     matter of law, to defer this litigation is analytically 
     distinct from the question of whether a district court may 
     exercise its discretion to stay all or part of the 
     litigation. The former question raises an issue of law, to be 
     decided based on the President's constitutional role and the 
     separation of powers principles we have discussed; the latter 
     is a discretionary determination to be made on the basis of 
     the particular facts of the case. Moreover, the legal 
     question of whether a President is entitled to defer 
     litigation is one on which the district court's determination 
     is entitled to no special deference; a court's exercise of 
     discretion to stay proceedings is a determination that can be 
     overturned only for abuse of that discretion.
       The district court, in deciding to postpone trial in this 
     case, explicitly invoked its discretionary powers over 
     scheduling (Pet. App. 71 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 40 and ``the 
     equity powers of the Court'')), and based its decision not 
     only on the defendant's status as President--certainly a 
     relevant and valid factor--but also on a detailed discussion 
     of the particular circumstances of this case:
       ``This is not a case in which any necessity exists to rush 
     to trial. It is not a situation, for example, in which 
     someone has been terribly injured in an accident . . . and 
     desperately needs to recover . . . damages. . . . It is not a 
     divorce action, or a child custody or child support case, in 
     which immediate personal needs of other parties are at stake. 
     Neither is this a case that would likely be tried with few 
     demands on Presidential time, such as an in rem foreclosure 
     by a lending institution.''
       ``The situation here is that the Plaintiff filed this 
     action two days before the three-year statute of limitations 
     expired. Obviously, Plaintiff Jones was in no rush to get her 
     case to court. . . . Consequently, the possibility that Ms. 
     Jones may obtain a judgment and damages in this matter does 
     not appear to be of urgent nature for her, and a delay in 
     trial of the case will not harm her right to recover or cause 
     her undue inconvenience.''
       Pet App. 70.
       Review of the district court's discretionary decision to 
     postpone the trial--unlike review of its decision to reject 
     the President's position that the entire case should be 
     deferred as a matter of law--must address these particular 
     facts of this case. Thus the respondent's cross-appeal raised 
     issues that, far from being ``inextricably intertwined'' with 
     the President's submission, can be resolved separately from 
     it. The panel majority's expansion of the court of appeals' 
     jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal was in error.
       2. The decision to reverse the district court also was 
     incorrect on the merits. As Justice Cardozo explained for 
     this Court in Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), a 
     trial judge's decision to stay proceedings should not be 
     lightly overturned:
       ``[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the 
     power inherent in every court to control the disposition of 
     the causes on its docket. . . . How this can best be done 
     calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh 
     competing interests and maintain an even balance.''
       Id. at 254-55. Indeed, the Court in Landis specifically 
     stated that
       ``[e]specially in cases extraordinary public moment, the 
     [plaintiff] may be required to submit to delay not immoderate 
     in extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the 
     public welfare or convenience will thereby be promoted.''
       Id. at 256.
       The panel majority justified its reversal of the district 
     court with a single sentence in a footnote: ``Such an order, 
     delaying the trial until Mr. Clinton is no longer President, 
     is the functional equivalent of a grant of temporary immunity 
     to which, as we hold today, Mr. Clinton is not 
     constitutionally entitled.'' Pet. App. 13 n.9. It is unclear 
     what the panel meant by labeling the district court's order 
     the ``functional equivalent'' of ``temporary immunity'', 
     inasmuch as the district court held that the litigation could 
     go forward through all steps short of trial. But it is 
     entirely clear that the panel majority, in its sweeping and 
     conclusory ruling, did not begin to conduct the kind of 
     careful weighing of the particular facts and circumstances 
     that might warrant a conclusion that the trial court here 
     abused its discretion.

 D. The Court Should Grant Review Now To Protect The Interests Of The 
                               Presidency

       This is the only opportunity for the Court to review the 
     President's claim and grant adequate relief. If review is 
     declined at this point, the case will proceed in the trial 
     court, and the interests the President seeks to preserve by 
     having the litigation deferred--interests ``rooted in the 
     constitutional tradition of the separation of powers''--will 
     be irretrievably lost. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 743, 749. 
     Should the President prevail on the merits below, this Court 
     will not even have the opportunity to provide guidance for 
     future cases.
       Now, a court for the first time in history has held that a 
     sitting President is required to defend a private civil 
     damages action. This holding breaches historical 
     understandings that are as appropriate today as ever 
     before.\12\ The court in Fitzgerald specifically anticipated 
     the threat posed by suits of this kind. Because of ``the 
     sheer prominence of the President's office,'' the Court 
     noted, the President ``would be an easily identifiable target 
     for suits for civil damages.'' 457 U.S. at 752-53. Chief 
     Justice Burger added: ``When litigation processes are not 
     tightly controlled . . . they can be and are used as 
     mechanisms of extortion. Ultimate vindication on the merits 
     does not repair the damage.'' Id. at 763 (concurring 
     opinion). In these circumstances, the fact that there is ``no 
     historical record of numerous suits against the President''--
     as there was no comparable record before Fitzgerald (id. 
     at 753 n.33)--provides no reassurance at all that this 
     case will be an isolated one.
       There is no question that the issues raised by this case 
     will have profound consequences for both the Presidency and 
     the Judiciary. The last word on issues of this importance 
     should not be a decision by a splintered panel of a court of 
     appeals--a decision that is inconsistent with the precedents 
     of this Court and with the constitutional tradition of 
     separation of powers. The Court has recognized that a 
     ``special solicitude [is] due to claims alleging a threatened 
     breach of essential Presidential prerogatives under the 
     separation of powers.'' Id. at 743. The Court should grant 
     review now, to protect those prerogatives.


                               conclusion

       For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the 
     President's petition for writ of certiorari be granted.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                                 Robert S. Bennett
                                                Counsel of Record.
       Carl S. Rauh, Alan Kriegel, Amy R. Sabrin, Stephen P. 
     Vaughn, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 1440 New York 
     Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. 20005.
       Of Counsel:
       David A. Strauss, Geoffrey R. Stone, 1111 East 60th Street, 
     Chicago, Illinois 60637. May 15, 1996.
       Attorneys for the Petitioner President William Jefferson 
     Clinton.


                               footnotes

     \1\ The first two counts allege that in 1991, when the 
     President was Governor of Arkansas and respondent a state 
     employee, he subjected respondent to sexual harassment and 
     thereby deprived her of her civil rights in violation of 42 
     U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1983, 1985 (1994). A third claim alleges 
     that the President thereby inflicted emotional distress upon 
     respondent. Finally, the complaint alleges that in 1994, 
     while he was President, petitioner defamed respondent through 
     statements attributed to the White House Press Secretary and 
     his lawyer, denying her much-publicized allegations against 
     the President.
     Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson was named as 
     codefendant in two counts. Respondent alleges that Trooper 
     Ferguson approached her on the President's behalf, thereby 
     conspiring with the President to deprive the respondent of 
     her civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985. 
     Respondent also alleges that Mr. Ferguson defamed her in 
     statements about a woman identified only as ``Paula,'' which 
     were attributed to an anonymous trooper in an article about 
     President Clinton's personal conduct published in The 
     American Spectator magazine. Neither the publication nor the 
     author was named as a defendant in the suit.
     \2\ The stay of trial encompassed the claims against Trooper 
     Ferguson as well, because the court found that there was 
     ``too much interdependency of events and testimony to proceed 
     piecemeal,'' and that ``it would not be possible to try the 
     Trooper adequately without testimony from the President.'' 
     Pet. App. 71.
     \3\ Jurisdiction for the President's appeal was founded on 28 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1994) and the collateral order doctrine, as 
     articulated in Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) 
     and Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 743 (1982). In our 
     view, however, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to 
     entertain respondent Jones' cross-appeal. See infra pp. 16-
     19. The district court stayed the litigation as to both 
     defendants pending appellate review. Pet. App. 74.
     \4\ The President reserved the right below to assert at the 
     appropriate time, along with certain common law immunities, 
     the defense of absolute immunity to the defamation claim that 
     arose during his Presidency.
     \5\ See e.g., United States v. McDougal, No. LR-CR-95-173 
     (E.D. Ark. Mar. 20, 1996) (videotaped deposition at the White 
     House); United States v. Poindexter, 732 F. Supp. 142, 146-47 
     (D.C.C. 1990) (videotaped deposition); United States v. 
     North, 713 F. Supp. 1448, 1449 (D.D.C. 1989) (quashing 
     subpoena because defendant failed to show that President's 
     testimony would support his defense), aff'd, 910 F.2d 843 
     (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 941 (1991); United 
     States v. Fromme, 405 F. Supp. 578, 583 (E.D. Cal. 1975) 
     (videotaped deposition).
     \6\ 3 Lectures on Legal Topics, Assn. of the Bar of the City 
     of New York 105 (1926), quoted in Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 763 
     n.6 (Burger, C.J., concurring).
     \7\ For example, the panel majority declared that Article II 
     ``did not create a monarchy'' and that the President is 
     ``cloaked with none of the attributes of sovereign 
     immunity.'' Pet. App. 6.
     \8\ Specifically, a lawsuit against an active-duty service 
     member is to be stayed unless it can be shown that the 
     defendant's ``ability . . . To conduct his defense is not 
     materially affected by reason of his military service.'' 50 
     U.S.C. app. Sec. 521 (1988).
     \9\ Indeed, a bankruptcy judge's discretion has been held 
     sufficient to authorize a stay of third-party litigation in 
     other courts that conceivably could have an effect on the 
     bankruptcy estate, even if the debtor is not a party to the 
     litigation and the automatic stay is not triggered. See 11 
     U.S.C. Sec. 105 (1994); 2 Collier on Bankruptcy para.105.02 
     (Lawrence P. King ed., 15th ed. 1994), and cases cited 
     therein.
     \10\ See, e.g., Koester v. American Republic Invs., 11 F.3d 
     818, 823 (8th Cir. 1993); Wehling v. Columbia

[[Page S5538]]

     Broadcasting Sys., 608 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1979); United 
     States v. Mellon Bank, N.A., 545 F.2d 869 (3d Cir. 1976).
     \11\ Some courts recognize that exceptions may exist in cases 
     in which a stay is ``tantamount to a dismissal'' because it 
     ``effectively ends the litigation.'' See, e.g., Boushel v. 
     Toro Co., 985 F.2d 406, 408 (8th Cir. 1993); Cheyney State 
     College Faculty v. Hufstedler, 703 F.2d 732, 735 (3d Cir. 
     1983). Even assuming that this exception should be allowed, 
     it is not applicable here, where the district court's order 
     clearly contemplated further proceedings in federal court. 
     See Boushel, 985 F.2d at 408-09.
     \12\ Heretofore, there have been no private civil damage 
     suits initiated or actively litigated while defendant was 
     serving as President. While there are recorded private civil 
     suits against Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. 
     Kennedy, all were underway before the defendant assumed 
     office. The first two were dismissed by the time the 
     defendant became President; after each took office, the 
     dismissal as confirmed on appeal. See New York ex rel. Hurley 
     v. Roosevelt, 179 N.Y. 544 (1904); DeVault v. Truman, 194 
     S.W.2d 29 (Mo. 1946). The Kennedy case was filed while he was 
     a candidate, and was settled after President Kennedy's 
     inauguration, without any discovery against the Chief 
     Executive. See, Bailey v. Kennedy, No. 757200, and Hills v. 
     Kennedy, No. 757201 (Los Angeles County Superior Court, both 
     filed Oct. 27, 1960).

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we all ought to recognize this for what 
it is. This is politics; this is an effort to embarrass the President 
of the United States. We all understand that. We all fully appreciate 
what is going on here.
  The fact is, the President has said over and over that the 
Constitution is his source on all that he does. And certainly in this 
case, that principle is again articulated in the statement made by Mr. 
Bennett.
  The brief refers to five illustrative examples. That is all. They are 
illustrative, they are analogous. In no way does the President rely on 
the Soldiers' and Sailors' Act for any defense or any exemption from 
legal action. So this resolution is based on a completely false premise 
and is totally misdirected.
  We look forward to the opportunity of having many of these debates in 
the coming months, because if we are going to be devoting our attention 
to this kind of minutiae and this kind of politicization of our debate 
in the coming months, as our colleagues apparently plan to do, we will 
get nothing done in this Senate. But that may be their choice.
  The fact is, the President clearly has made his case. This amendment 
is in error, and we will have more opportunities to talk about it in 
the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment of the 
Senator from Alaska is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 4041) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 4022

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the McCain amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4022) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar Order No. 413, House 
Concurrent Resolution 178, the House budget resolution; further, that 
all after the resolving clause be stricken, the text of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 57, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, the 
Senate then proceed to vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution, 
and immediately thereafter, the Senate insist on its amendment, request 
a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate, and that all of this occur without 
any intervening debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 178) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to change my vote 
on rollcall vote No. 153, the Domenici second-degree amendment No. 
4027, from ``nay'' to ``aye.''
  The amendment was overwhelmingly approved by a vote of 75 to 25, so a 
change in my vote will make no difference in the outcome of the 
legislation.
  I understand that amendment 4027 would add $5 billion in 
discretionary spending authority, much of which will go to medical 
research and education, and that there is no impact on the Department 
of Defense as proposed in the underlying Specter-Harkin amendment No. 
4012.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to House 
Concurrent Resolution 178, as amended. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 156 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--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bumpers
       
  The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 178), as amended, was agreed 
to; as follows:

       Resolved, That the resolution from the House of 
     Representatives (H. Con. Res. 178) entitled ``Concurrent 
     resolution establishing the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for the fiscal years 1998, 
     1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.'', do pass with the following 
     amendment:
  Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1997.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 1997, including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, as 
     required by section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, and including the appropriate levels for fiscal year 
     2002.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1997.

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Debt increase.
Sec. 103. Social Security.
Sec. 104. Major functional categories.
Sec. 105. Reconciliation.

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 202. Tax reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 203. Superfund reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 204. Scoring of emergency legislation.
Sec. 205. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

 TITLE III--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND SENATE

Sec. 301. Sense of the Congress on sale of Government assets.
Sec. 302. Sense of the Congress that tax reductions should benefit 
              working families.
Sec. 303. Sense of the Congress on a Bipartisan Commission on the 
              Solvency of Medicare.
Sec. 304. Sense of the Senate on considering a change in the minimum 
              wage in the Senate.
Sec. 305. Sense of the Senate on long term projections in budget 
              estimates.
Sec. 306. Sense of the Congress on medicare transfers.
Sec. 307. Sense of the Senate on repeal of the gas tax.
Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate on medicare trustees report.
Sec. 309. Sense of the Congress regarding changes in the medicare 
              program.

[[Page S5539]]

Sec. 310. Sense of the Senate on funding to assist youth at risk.
Sec. 311. Sense of the Senate regarding the use of budgetary savings.
Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate regarding the transfer of excess 
              Government computers to public schools.
Sec. 313. Sense of the Senate on Federal retreats.
Sec. 314. Sense of the Senate regarding the essential air service 
              program of the Department of Transportation.
Sec. 315. Sense of the Senate regarding equal retirement savings for 
              homemakers.
Sec. 316. Sense of the Senate regarding the National Institute of Drug 
              Abuse.
Sec. 317. Sense of the Senate regarding the extension of the employer 
              education assistance exclusion under section 127 of the 
              Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Sec. 318. Sense of the Senate regarding the Economic Development 
              Administration placing high priority on maintaining 
              field-based economic development representatives.
Sec. 319. Sense of the Senate regarding revenue assumptions.
Sec. 320. Sense of the Senate regarding domestic violence.
Sec. 321. Sense of the Senate regarding student loans.
Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate regarding reduction of the national debt.
Sec. 323. Sense of the Senate regarding hungry or homeless children.
Sec. 324. Sense of the Senate on LIHEAP.
Sec. 325. Sense of the Congress regarding additional charges under the 
              medicare program.
Sec. 326. Sense of the Congress regarding nursing home standards.
Sec. 327. Sense of the Congress concerning nursing home care.
Sec. 328. Sense of the Congress regarding requirements that welfare 
              recipients be drug-free.
Sec. 329. Sense of the Senate on Davis-Bacon.
Sec. 330. Sense of the Senate on Davis-Bacon.
Sec. 331. Sense of Congress on reimbursement of the United States for 
              Operations Southern Watch and Provide Comfort.
Sec. 332. Accurate index for inflation.
Sec. 333. Sense of the Senate on solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.
Sec. 334. Sense of the Congress that the 1993 income tax increase on 
              social security benefits should be repealed.
Sec. 335. Sense of the Senate regarding the Administration's practice 
              regarding the prosecution of drug smugglers.
Sec. 336. Corporate subsidies and sale of Government assets.
Sec. 337. Sense of the Senate on the Presidential Election Campaign 
              Fund.
Sec. 338. Sense of the Senate regarding welfare reform.
Sec. 339. A resolution regarding the Senate's support for Federal, 
              State, and local law enforcement.
Sec. 340. Sense of the Senate regarding the funding of Amtrak.
Sec. 341. Sense of the Senate--Truth in Budgeting.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,086,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,129,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,176,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,229,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,289,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,359,100,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: -$14,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: -$18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: -$22,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: -$21,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: -$21,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$14,800,000,000.
       (C) The amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $108,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $113,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $119,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $125,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $131,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $137,700,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,323,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,361,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,392,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,433,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,454,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,499,100,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,318,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,353,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,382,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,415,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,433,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,467,400,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $232,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $223,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $206,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $185,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $143,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $108,300,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,449,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,722,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,975,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,207,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,398,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,550,500,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $41,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $36,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $36,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $36,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $36,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $36,600,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $267,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $267,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $268,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $269,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $270,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $271,300,000,000.

     SEC. 102. DEBT INCREASE.

       The amounts of the increase in the public debt subject to 
     limitation are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $290,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $277,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $256,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $236,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $193,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $155,400,000,000.

     SEC. 103. SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302, 602, and 311 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of 
     the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $384,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $401,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $422,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $444,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $463,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $485,700,000,000.
       (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302, 602, and 311 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of 
     the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $310,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $323,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $335,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $349,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $363,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $378,800,000,000.

     SEC. 104. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,700,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $262,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $185,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $183,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,333,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,342,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,262,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,358,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,311,000,000.

[[Page S5540]]

       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,346,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,395,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,387,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,409,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,033,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,039,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,045,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,036,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,031,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,500,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $37,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $41,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $38,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $7,794,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,346,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,743,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,736,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,595,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,641,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,570,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,709,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,856,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $197,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,787,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $196,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,763,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $196,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,759,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $195,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,745,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $195,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,740,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $194,875,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,222,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,242,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,265,000,000.

[[Page S5541]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,288,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,317,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,343,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,202,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,469,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $19,040,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,781,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,854,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,884,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $23,978,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $25,127,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,085,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $131,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $132,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $94,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $152,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $160,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $167,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $166,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $193,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $204,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $216,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $214,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $227,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $237,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $251,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $232,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $241,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $245,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $246,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $264,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $264,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $281,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $935,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $962,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $987,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $24,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,189,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $24,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,194,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $23,668,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
     Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,400,000,000.

[[Page S5542]]

       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
     Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $293,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $294,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $294,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) The corresponding levels of gross interest on the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1997: $348,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $351,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $348,465,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $349,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $351,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $352,756,000,000.
       (20) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$43,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$43,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$35,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$40,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$40,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

     SEC. 105. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) First Reconciliation of Spending Reductions.--
       (1) Senate committees.--Not later than June 14, 1996, the 
     committees named in this subsection shall submit their 
     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate. 
     After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (A) Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry.--The 
     Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985) to reduce outlays $1,994,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 
     and $29,376,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002.
       (B) Committee on finance.--The Senate Committee on Finance 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985) to reduce outlays $95,402,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (b) Final Reconciliation of Spending Reductions.--
       (1) Senate committees.--If legislation is enacted pursuant 
     to subsection (a), then no later than July 12, 1996, the 
     committees named in this subsection shall submit their 
     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate. 
     After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (A) Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry.--The 
     Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985) to reduce outlays $86,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 
     and $251,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002.
       (B) Committee on armed services.--The Senate Committee on 
     Armed Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays 
     $79,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and $649,000,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (C) Committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs.--The 
     Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to 
     reduce outlays $3,628,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and 
     $3,605,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (D) Committee on commerce, science, and transportation.--
     The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985) to reduce outlays $0 in fiscal year 1997 and 
     $19,396,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002.
       (E) Committee on energy and natural resources.--The Senate 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce 
     outlays $84,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and $1,433,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (F) Committee on environment and public works.--The Senate 
     Committee on Environment

[[Page S5543]]

     and Public Works shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $87,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1997 and $2,212,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2002.
       (G) Committee on Finance.--The Senate Committee on Finance 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985) to reduce outlays $6,716,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 
     and $169,707,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002.
       (H) Committee on governmental affairs.--The Senate 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit 
     $955,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and $8,789,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (I) Committee on the judiciary.--The Senate Committee on 
     the Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $0 in fiscal 
     year 1997 and $476,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     1997 through 2002.
       (J) Committee on labor and human resources.--The Senate 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays 
     $725,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and $3,097,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (K) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The Senate Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $175,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1997 and $5,198,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
       (c) Reconciliation of Revenue Reductions.--
       (1) Senate committee.--If the legislation is enacted 
     pursuant to subsections (a) and (b), then no later than 
     September 18, 1996, the Committee on Finance shall report to 
     the Senate a reconciliation bill proposing changes in laws 
     within its jurisdiction necessary to reduce revenues by not 
     more than $15,359,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and 
     $116,104,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 
     2002 and reduce outlays $1,692,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 
     and $11,524,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002.
       (d) Treatment of Reconciliation Bills for Prior Surplus.--
     For purposes of section 202 of House Concurrent Resolution 67 
     (104th Congress), legislation which reduces revenues pursuant 
     to a reconciliation instruction contained in subsection (c) 
     shall be taken together with all other legislation enacted 
     pursuant to the reconciliation instructions contained in this 
     resolution when determining the deficit effect of such 
     legislation.
             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

     SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Definition.--As used in this section and for the 
     purposes of allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) or 
     602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the 
     discretionary category, the term ``discretionary spending 
     limit'' means--
       (1) with respect to fiscal year 1997--
       (A) for the defense category $266,362,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $264,568,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $227,845,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $270,923,000,000 in outlays;
       (2) with respect to fiscal year 1998--
       (A) for the defense category $267,831,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $262,962,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $221,322,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $258,698,000,000 in outlays;
       (3) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the discretionary 
     category $493,221,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $525,742,000,000 in outlays;
       (4) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary 
     category $500,037,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $525,071,000,000 in outlays;
       (5) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary 
     category $492,468,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $517,708,000,000 in outlays; and
       (6) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary 
     category $501,177,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $515,979,000,000 in outlays;

     as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and 
     emergency appropriations.
       (b) Point of Order in the Senate.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider--
       (A) a revision of this resolution or any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998 (or amendment, 
     motion, or conference report on such a resolution) that 
     provides discretionary spending in excess of the sum of the 
     defense and nondefense discretionary spending limits for such 
     fiscal year;
       (B) any concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or amendment, motion, or 
     conference report on such a resolution) that provides 
     discretionary spending in excess of the discretionary 
     spending limit for such fiscal year; or
       (C) any appropriations bill or resolution (or amendment, 
     motion, or conference report on such appropriations bill or 
     resolution) for fiscal year 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 
     2002 that would exceed any of the discretionary spending 
     limits in this section or suballocations of those limits made 
     pursuant to section 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
       (2) Exception.--
       (A) In general.--This section shall not apply if a 
     declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a joint 
     resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has been enacted.
       (B) Enforcement of discretionary limits in fy 1997.--Until 
     the enactment of reconciliation legislation pursuant to 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 105 of this resolution and 
     for purposes of the application of paragraph (1), only 
     subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) shall apply to fiscal year 
     1997.
       (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case 
     may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of 
     the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.
       (e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new 
     entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the Senate.

     SEC. 202. TAX RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be reduced and allocations may be revised for 
     legislation that reduces revenues by providing family tax 
     relief, fuel tax relief, and incentives to stimulate savings, 
     investment, job creation, and economic growth if such 
     legislation will not increase the deficit for--
       (1) fiscal year 1997;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2001; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
       (b) Revised Allocations.--Upon the consideration of 
     legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the 
     Senate appropriately revised allocations under sections 
     302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and 
     revised functional levels and aggregates to carry out this 
     section. These revised allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional 
     levels, and aggregates contained in this resolution.
       (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee shall report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 203. SUPERFUND RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

       (a) In General.--After the enactment of legislation that 
     reforms the Superfund program and extends Superfund taxes, in 
     the Senate, budget authority and outlays allocated to the 
     Committee on Appropriations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     functional levels, the appropriate budget aggregates, and the 
     discretionary spending limits in section 201 of this 
     resolution may be revised to provide additional budget 
     authority and the outlays flowing from that budget authority 
     for the Superfund program, pursuant to this section.
       (b) Deficit Neutral Adjustments.--
       (1) Allocations.--
       (A) Committee allocations.--In the Senate, upon reporting 
     of an appropriations measure, or when a conference committee 
     submits a conference report thereon, that appropriates funds 
     for the Superfund program in excess of $1,302,000,000, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may 
     submit revised allocations, functional levels, budget 
     aggregates, and discretionary spending limits to carry out 
     this section that adds to such allocations, levels, 
     aggregates, and limits an amount that is equal to such 
     excess. These revised allocations, levels, aggregates, and 
     limits shall be considered for the purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the allocations, levels, 
     aggregates, and limits contained in this resolution.
       (B) Committee suballocations.--The Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate may report appropriately revised 
     suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 following the 
     revision of the allocations pursuant to subparagraph (A).
       (2) Limitations.--The adjustments under this subsection 
     shall not exceed--
       (A) the net revenue increase for a fiscal year resulting 
     from the enactment of legislation that extends Superfund 
     taxes; and
       (B) $898,000,000 in budget authority for a fiscal year and 
     the outlays flowing from such budget authority in all fiscal 
     years.

     SEC. 204. SCORING OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

       Notwithstanding section 606(d)(2) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the determinations under sections 302, 
     303, 311, and 602 of such Act shall take into account any new 
     budget authority, new entitlement authority, outlays, 
     receipts, or deficit effects as a consequence of the 
     provisions of sections 251(b)(2)(D) and 252(e) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

     SEC. 205. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       The Congress adopts the provisions of this title--

[[Page S5544]]

       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
     they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, 
     or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such 
     rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that 
     they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change those rules (so far as they relate to 
     that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
 TITLE III--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND SENATE

     SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

       (a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the prohibition on scoring asset sales has discouraged 
     the sale of assets that can be better managed by the private 
     sector and generate receipts to reduce the Federal budget 
     deficit;
       (2) the President's fiscal year 1997 budget included 
     $3,900,000,000 in receipts from asset sales and proposed a 
     change in the asset sale scoring rule to allow the proceeds 
     from these sales to be scored;
       (3) assets should not be sold if such sale would increase 
     the budget deficit over the long run; and
       (4) the asset sale scoring prohibition should be repealed 
     and consideration should be given to replacing it with a 
     methodology that takes into account the long-term budgetary 
     impact of asset sales.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``sale of an asset'' shall have the same meaning as under 
     section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.

     SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT TAX REDUCTIONS SHOULD 
                   BENEFIT WORKING FAMILIES.

       It is the sense of the Congress that this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget assumes any reductions in taxes 
     should be structured to benefit working families by providing 
     family tax relief and incentives to stimulate savings, 
     investment, job creation, and economic growth.

     SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON A BIPARTISAN COMMISSION ON 
                   THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Trustees of medicare have concluded that ``the 
     medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its present 
     form'';
       (2) the Trustees of medicare concluded in 1995 that ``the 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which pays inpatient hospital 
     expenses, will be able to pay benefits for only about 7 years 
     and is severely out of financial balance in the long range'';
       (3) preliminary data made available to the Congress 
     indicate that the Hospital Trust Fund will go bankrupt in the 
     year 2001, rather than the year 2002, as predicted last year;
       (4) the Public Trustees of medicare have concluded that 
     ``the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund shows a rate 
     of growth of costs which is clearly unsustainable'';
       (5) the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform 
     concluded that, absent long-term changes in medicare, 
     projected medicare outlays will increase from about 4 percent 
     of the payroll tax base today to over 15 percent of the 
     payroll tax base by the year 2030;
       (6) the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform 
     recommended, by a vote of 30 to 1, that spending and revenues 
     available for medicare must be brought into long-term 
     balance; and
       (7) in the most recent Trustees' report, the Public 
     Trustees of medicare ``strongly recommend that the crisis 
     presented by the financial condition of the medicare trust 
     funds be urgently addressed on a comprehensive basis, 
     including a review of the program's financing methods, 
     benefit provisions, and delivery mechanisms.''.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that in order to meet the aggregates and levels in this 
     budget resolution--
       (1) a special bipartisan commission should be established 
     immediately to make recommendations concerning the most 
     appropriate response to the short-term solvency and long-term 
     sustainability issues facing the medicare program; and
       (2) the commission should report to Congress its 
     recommendations prior to the adoption of a concurrent budget 
     resolution for fiscal year 1998 in order that the committees 
     of jurisdiction may consider these recommendations in 
     fashioning an appropriate congressional response.

     SEC. 304. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CONSIDERING A CHANGE IN THE 
                   MINIMUM WAGE IN THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) proposals to increase the minimum wage have important 
     economic and budgetary consequences, as there are about 
     3,600,000 workers at or below the minimum wage under current 
     law, according to the Congressional Budget Office (``CBO'');
       (2) S. 413, a bill to increase the minimum wage, would 
     increase costs for State and local governments by 
     $1,030,000,000 over the period 1996 to 2000, according to the 
     CBO, and would, therefore, violate section 425(a)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 regarding unfunded 
     intergovernmental mandates;
       (3) S. 413 would increase costs for the private sector by 
     $12,300,000,000 over the period 1996 to 2000 and would reduce 
     jobs by between 100,000 and 500,000, according to the CBO;
       (4) increasing the minimum wage would have significant 
     interactions with other Federal spending and tax programs, 
     including welfare programs and the earned income credit;
       (5) States have the authority to increase the minimum wage 
     in their States, and, as of February 1996, 10 States, plus 
     Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., had minimum wages above the 
     Federal minimum wage;
       (6) although raising the minimum wage will increase incomes 
     for some workers, it is a poorly targeted approach to helping 
     poor and low-income families because--
       (A) it will eliminate jobs for some minimum- and low-wage 
     workers;
       (B) 85 percent of workers in poor families are paid more 
     than the minimum wage, and nearly 60 percent are paid more 
     than $5.25 per hour, according to the CBO;
       (C) most minimum wage workers are not poor, with some 70 
     percent in households with incomes above 150 percent of the 
     poverty line, according to the CBO; and
       (D) most minimum wage workers do not stay at the minimum 
     wage very long, with two-thirds getting a pay raise within 
     the first year, according to the CBO;
       (7) the best approach to increasing wages and incomes for 
     working families is to promote policies that enhance economic 
     growth and job creation, such as increasing net national 
     savings and investment by balancing the Federal budget and 
     promoting private savings and investment through fundamental 
     tax reform;
       (8) legislation to change the minimum wage should be 
     considered in the Senate in an orderly manner as part of the 
     regular consideration of matters related to the budget and 
     the economy and not as an unscheduled amendment to unrelated 
     legislation;
       (9) there are important issues which should be considered 
     in the same legislation and in conjunction with proposals to 
     raise the minimum wage, such as allowing for improvements in 
     the workplace by enabling cooperative efforts between labor 
     and management as provided for in S. 295, the Team Work for 
     Employees and Management Act of 1995, and maintaining a 
     training wage to minimize job loss for new entrants into the 
     job market; and
       (10) the Senate should schedule consideration of 
     legislation that addresses in the same bill, as a single 
     proposal, the minimum wage and the provisions of S. 295 no 
     later than the month of June 1996.

     SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LONG-TERM PROJECTIONS IN 
                   BUDGET ESTIMATES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the report accompanying a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget should include an analysis, prepared after 
     consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office, of the concurrent resolution's impact on revenues and 
     outlays for entitlements for the period of 30 fiscal years; 
     and
       (2) the President should include in his budget each year, 
     an analysis of the budget's impact on revenues and outlays 
     for entitlements for the period of 30 fiscal years, and that 
     the President should also include generational accounting 
     information each year in the President's budget.

     SEC. 306. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON MEDICARE TRANSFERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) home health care provides a broad spectrum of health 
     and social services to approximately 3,500,000 medicare 
     beneficiaries in the comfort of their homes;
       (2) the President has proposed reimbursing the first 100 
     home health care visits after a hospital stay through 
     medicare part A and reimbursing all other visits through 
     medicare part B, shifting responsibility for $55,000,000,000 
     of spending from the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to the 
     general revenues that pay for medicare part B;
       (3) such a transfer does nothing to control medicare 
     spending, and is merely a bookkeeping change which 
     artificially extends the solvency of the Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund;
       (4) this transfer of funds camouflages the need to make 
     changes in the medicare program to ensure the long-term 
     solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which the 
     Congressional Budget Office now states will become bankrupt 
     in the year 2001, a year earlier than projected in the 1995 
     report by the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare 
     Trust Funds;
       (5) Congress will be breaking a commitment to the American 
     people if it does not act to ensure the solvency of the 
     entire medicare program in both the short- and long-term;
       (6) the President's proposal would force those in need of 
     chronic care services to rely upon the availability of 
     general revenues to provide financing for these services, 
     making them more vulnerable to benefits changes than under 
     current law; and
       (7) according to the National Association of Home Care, 
     shifting medicare home care payments from part A to part B 
     would deemphasize the importance of home care by eliminating 
     its status as part of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, 
     thereby undermining access to the less costly form of care.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that in 
     meeting the spending targets specified in the budget 
     resolution, Congress should not accept the President's 
     proposal to transfer spending from one part of medicare to 
     another in its efforts to preserve, protect, and improve the 
     medicare program.

     SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REPEAL OF THE GAS TAX.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the President originally proposed a $72,000,000,000 
     energy excise tax (the so-called BTU tax) as part of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93) which 
     included a new tax on transportation fuels;
       (2) in response to opposition in the Senate to the BTU tax, 
     the President and the Congress adopted instead a new 4.3 
     cents per gallon transportation fuels tax as part of OBRA 93, 
     which represented a 30 percent increase in the existing motor 
     fuels tax;

[[Page S5545]]

       (3) the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax has cost American 
     motorists an estimated $14,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,000 
     since it went into effect on October 1, 1993;
       (4) the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax is regressive, 
     creating a larger financial impact on lower and middle income 
     motorists than on upper income motorists;
       (5) the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax imposes a 
     disproportionate burden on rural citizens who do not have 
     access to public transportation services, and who must rely 
     on their automobiles and drive long distances, to work, to 
     shop, and to receive medical care;
       (6) the average American faces a substantial tax burden, 
     and the increase of this tax burden through the OBRA 93 
     transportation fuels tax represented and continues to 
     represent an inappropriate and unwarranted means of reducing 
     the Nation's budget deficit;
       (7) retail gasoline prices in the United States have 
     increased an average of 19 cents per gallon since the 
     beginning of the year to the highest level since the Persian 
     Gulf War, and the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax 
     exacerbates the impact of this price increase on consumers;
       (8) continuation of the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax 
     will exacerbate the impact on consumers of any future 
     gasoline price spikes that result from market conditions; and
       (9) the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution will assume a 
     net tax cut totaling $122,000,000,000 over six years, which 
     exceeds the revenue impact of a repeal of the OBRA 93 
     transportation fuels tax, and will establish a reserve fund 
     which may be used to provide other forms of tax relief, 
     including relief from the OBRA 93 transportation fuels tax, 
     on a deficit neutral basis.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the revenue levels and procedures in this resolution 
     provide that--
       (1) the Congress and the President should immediately 
     approve legislation to repeal the 4.3 cents per gallon 
     transportation fuels tax contained in the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993 through the end of 1996;
       (2) the Congress and the President should approve, through 
     the fiscal year 1997 budget process, legislation to 
     permanently repeal the 4.3 cents per gallon transportation 
     fuels tax contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
     of 1993; and
       (3) the savings generated by the repeal of the 4.3 cents 
     per gallon transportation fuels tax contained in OBRA 93 
     should be fully passed on to consumers.

     SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MEDICARE TRUSTEES REPORT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Trustees of the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) 
     Trust Fund serve as fiduciaries for one of the Federal 
     Government's most important programs, and as fiduciaries 
     provide critically important information each year to the 
     Congress and the public on the financial status of the 
     Medicare HI Fund;
       (2) the Trustees are required to issue a report on the 
     financial status of the medicare HI Trust Fund by April 1 of 
     each year;
       (3) the April 1995 Trustees Report stated that the Medicare 
     HI Trust Fund would go bankrupt in the year 2002, but in 1995 
     the Congress and the President could not agree on a plan to 
     extend the solvency of the medicare program;
       (4) in 1996, the Congress and the public require timely 
     information on the full and exact nature of medicare's 
     financial condition in order to understand what actions must 
     be taken to extend the solvency of the of the Medicare HI 
     Trust Fund; and
       (5) despite the April 1 deadline, the 1996 Medicare 
     Trustees Report has not yet been issued, and each day of 
     delay further jeopardizes Congress' ability to respond 
     appropriately to forestall the program's bankruptcy.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this budget resolution assume that--
       (1) the Medicare Trustees should discharge their fiduciary 
     and statutory responsibilities and issue their 1996 report as 
     soon as possible; and
       (2) in light of the Trustees' delay thus far, the Chief 
     Actuary of the Medicare Trust Fund should share with Congress 
     immediately any preliminary information on the current 
     financial status of the Trust Fund.

     SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING CHANGES IN THE 
                   MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that, in achieving the 
     spending levels specified in this resolution--
       (1) the public trustees of medicare have concluded that 
     ``the medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its 
     present form'';
       (2) the President has said his goal is to keep the medicare 
     hospital insurance trust fund solvent for more than a decade, 
     but his budget transfers $55,000,000,000 of home health 
     spending from medicare part A to medicare part B;
       (3) the transfer of home health spending threatens the 
     delivery of home health services to 3.5 million medicare 
     beneficiaries;
       (4) such a transfer increases the burden on general 
     revenues, including income taxes paid by working Americans, 
     by $55,000,000,000;
       (5) such a transfer artificially inflates the solvency of 
     the medicare hospital insurance trust fund, misleading the 
     Congress, medicare beneficiaries, and working taxpayers;
       (6) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office has 
     certified that, without such a transfer, the President's 
     budget extends the solvency of the hospital insurance trust 
     fund for only one additional year; and
       (7) without misleading transfers, the President's budget 
     therefore fails to achieve his own stated goal for the 
     medicare hospital insurance trust fund.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, in achieving the spending levels specified in this 
     resolution, the Congress assumes that the Congress would--
       (1) keep the medicare hospital insurance trust fund solvent 
     for more than a decade, as recommended by the President; and
       (2) accept the President's proposed level of medicare part 
     B savings of $44,100,000,000 over the period 1997 through 
     2002; but would
       (3) reject the President's proposal to transfer home health 
     spending from one part of medicare to another, which 
     threatens the delivery of home health care services to 3.5 
     million medicare beneficiaries, artificially inflates the 
     solvency of the medicare hospital insurance trust fund, and 
     increases the burden on general revenues, including income 
     taxes paid by working Americans, by $55,000,000,000.

     SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING TO ASSIST YOUTH AT 
                   RISK.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) there is an increasing prevalence of violence and drug 
     use among this country's youth;
       (2) recognizing the magnitude of this problem the Federal 
     Government must continue to maximize efforts in addressing 
     the increasing prevalence of violence and drug use among this 
     country's youth, with necessary adherence to budget 
     guidelines;
       (3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that 
     between 1985 and 1994, juvenile arrests for violent crime 
     increased by 75 percent nationwide;
       (4) the United States Attorney General reports that 20 
     years ago, fewer than half our cities reported gang activity 
     and now, a generation later, reasonable estimates indicate 
     that there are more than 500,000 gang members in more than 
     16,000 gangs on the streets of our cities resulting in more 
     than 580,000 gang-related crimes in 1993;
       (5) the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention reports that in 1994, law enforcement 
     agencies made over 2,700,000 arrests of persons under age 18, 
     with juveniles accounting for 19 percent of all violent crime 
     arrests across the country;
       (6) the Congressional Task Force on National Drug Policy 
     recently set forth a series of recommendations for 
     strengthening the criminal justice and law enforcement 
     effort, including domestic prevention efforts reinforcing the 
     idea that prevention begins at home;
       (7) the Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that 
     between 1991 and 1995, marijuana use among 8th, 10th, and 
     12th graders has increased and is continuing to spiral 
     upward; and
       (8) the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention reports that 
     in 1993, substance abuse played a role in over 70 percent of 
     rapes, over 60 percent of incidents of child abuse, and 
     almost 60 percent of murders nationwide.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals underlying this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget assume that--
       (1) sufficient funding should be provided to programs which 
     assist youth at risk to reduce illegal drug use and the 
     incidence of youth crime and violence;
       (2) priority should be given to determine ``what works'' 
     through scientifically recognized, independent evaluations of 
     existing  programs to maximize the Federal investment; and
       (3) efforts should be made to ensure coordination and 
     eliminate duplication among federally supported at-risk youth 
     programs. 

     SEC. 311. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE USE OF BUDGETARY 
                   SAVINGS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) in August of 1994, the Bipartisan Commission on 
     Entitlement and Tax Reform issued an Interim Report to the 
     President, which found that, ``To ensure that today's debt 
     and spending commitments do not unfairly burden America's 
     children, the Government must act now. A bipartisan coalition 
     of Congress, led by the President, must resolve the long-term 
     imbalance between the Government's entitlement promises and 
     the funds it will have available to pay for them'';
       (2) unless the Congress and the President act together in a 
     bipartisan way, overall Federal spending is projected by the 
     Commission to rise from the current level of slightly over 22 
     percent of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States 
     (hereafter in this section referred as ``GDP'') to over 37 
     percent of GDP by the year 2030;
       (3) the source of that growth is not domestic discretionary 
     spending, which is approximately the same portion of GDP now 
     as it was in 1969, the last time at which the Federal budget 
     was in balance;
       (4) mandatory spending was only 29.6 percent of the Federal 
     budget in 1963, but is estimated to account for 72 percent of 
     the Federal budget in the year 2003;
       (5) social security, medicare and medicaid, together with 
     interest on the national debt, are the largest sources of the 
     growth of mandatory spending;
       (6) ensuring the long-term future of the social security 
     system is essential to protecting the retirement security of 
     the American people;
       (7) the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to begin 
     spending more than it takes in by approximately the year 
     2013, with Federal budget deficits rising rapidly thereafter 
     unless appropriate policy changes are made;
       (8) ensuring the future of medicare and medicaid is 
     essential to protecting access to high-quality health care 
     for senior citizens and poor women and children;
       (9) Federal health care expenses have been rising at double 
     digit rates, and are projected to triple to 11 percent of GDP 
     by the year 2030 unless appropriate policy changes are made; 
     and
       (10) due to demographic factors, Federal health care 
     expenses are projected to double by the year 2030, even if 
     health care cost inflation is restrained after 1999, so that 
     costs for each person of a given age grow no faster than the 
     economy.

[[Page S5546]]

       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that budget savings in the mandatory spending area should be 
     used--
       (1) to protect and enhance the retirement security of the 
     American people by ensuring the long-term future of the 
     social security system;
       (2) to protect and enhance the health care security of 
     senior citizens and poor Americans by ensuring the long-term 
     future of medicare and medicaid; and
       (3) to restore and maintain Federal budget discipline, to 
     ensure that the level of private investment necessary for 
     long-term economic growth and prosperity is available.

     SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF 
                   EXCESS GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       (a) Assumptions.--The figures contained in this resolution 
     are based on the following assumptions:
       (1) America's children must obtain the necessary skills and 
     tools needed to succeed in the technologically advanced 21st 
     century;
       (2) Executive Order 12999 outlines the need to make modern 
     computer technology an integral part of every classroom, 
     provide teachers with the professional development they need 
     to use new technologies effectively, connect classrooms to 
     the National Information Infrastructure, and encourage the 
     creation of excellent education software;
       (3) many private corporations have donated educational 
     software to schools, which are lacking the necessary computer 
     hardware to utilize this equipment;
       (4) current inventories of excess Federal Government 
     computers are being conducted in each Federal agency; and
       (5) there is no current communication being made between 
     Federal agencies with this excess equipment and the schools 
     in need of these computers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals and reconciliation instructions in 
     this budget resolution assume that the General Services 
     Administration should place a high priority on facilitating 
     direct transfer of excess Federal Government computers to 
     public schools and community-based educational organizations.

     SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FEDERAL RETREATS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
     that all Federal agencies will refrain from using Federal 
     funds for expenses incurred during training sessions or 
     retreats off of Federal property, unless Federal property is 
     not available.

     SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ESSENTIAL AIR 
                   SERVICE PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the essential air service program of the Department of 
     Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 
     49, United States Code--
       (A) provides essential airline access to isolated rural 
     communities across the United States;
       (B) is necessary for the economic growth and development of 
     rural communities;
       (C) connects small rural communities to the national air 
     transportation system of the United States;
       (D) is a critical component of the national transportation 
     system of the United States; and
       (E) provides air service to 108 communities in 30 States; 
     and
       (2) the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive 
     Airline Industry established under section 204 of the Airport 
     and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and 
     Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992 recommended maintaining 
     the essential air service program with a sufficient level of 
     funding to continue to provide air service to small 
     communities.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the essential air service program of the Department of 
     Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 
     49, United States Code, should receive a sufficient level of 
     funding to continue to provide air service to small rural 
     communities that qualify for assistance under the program.

     SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EQUAL RETIREMENT 
                   SAVINGS FOR HOMEMAKERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that the assumptions of 
     this budget resolution take into account that--
       (1) by teaching and feeding our children and caring for our 
     elderly, American homemakers are an important, vital part of 
     our society;
       (2) homemakers retirement needs are the same as all 
     Americans, and thus they need every opportunity to save and 
     invest for retirement;
       (3) because they are living on a single income, homemakers 
     and their spouses often have less income for savings;
       (4) individual retirement accounts are provided by the 
     Congress in the Internal Revenue Code to assist Americans for 
     retirement savings;
       (5) currently, individual retirement accounts permit 
     workers other than homemakers to make deductible 
     contributions of $2,000 a year, but limit homemakers to 
     deductible contributions of $250 a year;
       (6) limiting homemakers individual retirement account 
     contributions to an amount less than the contributions of 
     other workers discriminates against homemakers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the revenue level assumed in this budget resolution 
     provides for legislation to make individual retirement 
     account deductible contribution limits for homemakers equal 
     to the individual retirement account deductible contribution 
     limits for all other American workers, and that the Congress 
     and the President should immediately approve such legislation 
     in the appropriate reconciliation vehicle.

     SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NATIONAL 
                   INSTITUTE OF DRUG ABUSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The National Institute on Drug Abuse (hereafter 
     referred to in this section as ``NIDA'') a part of the 
     National Institutes of Health (hereafter referred to in this 
     section as ``NIH'') supports over 85 percent of the world's 
     drug abuse research that has totally revolutionized our 
     understanding of addiction.
       (2) One of NIDA's most significant areas of research has 
     been the identification of the neurobiological bases of all 
     aspects of addiction, including craving.
       (3) In 1993, NIDA announced that approval had been granted 
     by the Food and Drug Administration of a new medication for 
     the treatment of heroin and other opiate addiction which 
     breaks the addict of daily drug-seeking behavior and allows 
     for greater compliance because the patient does not need to 
     report to a clinic each day to have the medication 
     administered.
       (4) Among NIDA's most remarkable accomplishments of the 
     past year is the successful immunization of animals against 
     the psycho-stimulant effects of cocaine.
       (5) NIDA has also recently announced that it is making 
     substantial progress that is critical in directing their 
     efforts to identify potential anti-cocaine medications. For 
     example, NIDA researchers have recently shown that activation 
     in the brain of one type of dopamine receptor suppresses 
     drug-seeking behavior and relapse, whereas activation of 
     another, triggers drug-seeking behavior.
       (6) NIDA's efforts to speed up research to stem the tide of 
     drug addition is in the best interest of all Americans.
       (7) State and local governments spend billions of dollars 
     to incarcerate persons who commit drug related offenses.
       (8) A 1992 National Report by the Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics revealed that more than 3 out of 4 jail inmates 
     reported drug use in their lifetime, more than 40 percent had 
     used drugs in the month before their offense with 27 percent 
     under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense. A 
     significant number said they were trying to get money for 
     drugs when they committed their crime.
       (9) More than 60 percent of juveniles and young adults in 
     State-operated juvenile institutions reported using drugs 
     once a week or more for at least a month some time in the 
     past, and almost 40 percent reported being under the 
     influence of drugs at the time of their offense.
       (10) This concurrent resolution proposes that budget 
     authority for the NIH (including NIDA) be held constant at 
     the fiscal year 1996 level of $11,950,000,000 through fiscal 
     year 2002.
       (11) At such appropriation level, it would be impossible 
     for NIH and NIDA to maintain research momentum through 
     research project grants.
       (12) Level funding for NIH in fiscal year 1997 would reduce 
     the number of competing research project grants by nearly 
     500, from 6,620 in fiscal year 1996 to approximately 6,120 
     competing research project grants, reducing NIH's ability to 
     maintain research momentum and to explore new ideas in 
     research.
       (13) NIH is the world's preeminent research institution 
     dedicated to the support of science inspired by and focused 
     on the challenges of human illness and health.
       (14) NIH programs are instrumental in improving the quality 
     of life for Americans through improving health and reducing 
     monetary and personal costs of illnesses.
       (15) The discovery of an anti-addiction drug to block the 
     craving of illicit addictive substances will benefit all of 
     American society.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that amounts appropriated for the National Institutes of 
     Health--
       (1) for fiscal year 1997 should be increased by a minimum 
     of $33,000,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 1998 should be increased by a minimum 
     of $67,000,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 1999 should be increased by a minimum 
     of $100,000,000;
       (4) for fiscal year 2000 should be increased by a minimum 
     of $100,000,000;
       (5) for fiscal year 2001 should be increased by a minimum 
     of $100,000,000; and
       (6) for fiscal year 2002 should be increased by a minimum 
     of $100,000,000;

     above its fiscal year 1996 appropriation for additional 
     research into an anti-addiction drug to block the craving of 
     illicit addictive substances.

     SEC. 317. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF THE 
                   EMPLOYER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE EXCLUSION UNDER 
                   SECTION 127 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 
                   1986.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) since 1978, over 7,000,000 American workers have 
     benefited from the employer education assistance exclusion 
     under section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by 
     being able to improve their education and acquire new skills 
     without having to pay taxes on the benefit;
       (2) American companies have benefited by improving the 
     education and skills of their employees who in turn can 
     contribute more to their company;
       (3) the American economy becomes more globally competitive 
     because an educated workforce is able to produce more and to 
     adapt more rapidly to changing technologies;
       (4) American companies are experiencing unprecedented 
     global competition and the value and necessity of life-long 
     education for their employees has increased;
       (5) the employer education assistance exclusion was first 
     enacted in 1978;
       (6) the exclusion has been extended 7 previous times;
       (7) the last extension expired December 31, 1994; and
       (8) the exclusion has received broad bipartisan support.

[[Page S5547]]

       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the revenue level assumed in the Budget Resolution 
     accommodate an extension of the employer education assistance 
     exclusion under section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1996.

     SEC. 318. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ECONOMIC 
                   DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION PLACING HIGH 
                   PRIORITY ON MAINTAINING FIELD-BASED ECONOMIC 
                   DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Economic Development Administration plays a crucial 
     role in helping economically disadvantaged regions of the 
     United States develop infrastructure that supports and 
     promotes greater economic activity and growth, particularly 
     in nonurban regions.
       (2) The Economic Development Administration helps to 
     promote industrial park development, business incubators, 
     water and sewer system improvements, vocational and technical 
     training facilities, tourism development strategies, 
     technical assistance and capacity building for local 
     governments, economic adjustment strategies, revolving loan 
     funds, and other projects which the private sector has not 
     generated or will not generate without some assistance from 
     the Government through the Economic Development 
     Administration.
       (3) The Economic Development Administration maintains 6 
     regional offices which oversee staff that are designated 
     field-based representatives of the Economic Development 
     Administration, and these field-based representatives provide 
     valuable expertise and counseling on economic planning and 
     development to nonurban communities.
       (4) The Economic Development Administration Regional 
     Centers are located in the urban areas of Austin, Seattle, 
     Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
       (5) Because of a 37-percent reduction in approved funding 
     for salaries and expenses from fiscal year 1995, the Economic 
     Development Administration has initiated staff reductions 
     requiring the elimination of 8 field-based positions. The 
     field-based economic development representative positions 
     that are either being eliminated or not replaced after 
     voluntary retirement and which currently interact with 
     nonurban communities on economic development efforts cover 
     the States of New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, North Dakota, 
     Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode 
     Island, and North Carolina.
       (6) These staff cutbacks will adversely affect States with 
     very low per-capita personal income, including New Mexico 
     which ranks 47th in the Nation in per-capita personal income, 
     Oklahoma ranking 46th, North Dakota ranking 42nd, Arizona 
     ranking 35th, Maine ranking 34th, and North Carolina ranking 
     33rd.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals and reconciliations instructions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that--
       (1) it is regrettable that the Economic Development 
     Administration has elected to reduce field-based economic 
     development representatives who are fulfilling the Economic 
     Development Administration's mission of interacting with and 
     counseling nonurban communities in economically disadvantaged 
     regions of the United States;
       (2) the Economic Development Administration should take all 
     necessary and appropriate actions to ensure that field-based 
     economic development representation receives high priority; 
     and
       (3) the Economic Development Administration should 
     reconsider the planned termination of field-based economic 
     development representatives responsible for States that are 
     economically disadvantaged, and that this reconsideration 
     take place without delay.

     SEC. 319. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Corporations and individuals have clear responsibility 
     to adhere to environmental laws. When they do not, and 
     environmental damage results, the Federal and State 
     governments may impose fines and penalties, and assess 
     polluters for the cost of remediation.
       (2) Assessment of these costs is important in the 
     enforcement process. They appropriately penalize wrongdoing. 
     They discourage future environmental damage. They ensure that 
     taxpayers do not bear the financial brunt of cleaning up 
     after damages done by polluters.
       (3) In the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster in 
     Prince William Sound, Alaska, for example, the corporate 
     settlement with the Federal Government totaled $900,000,000.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that assumptions in this resolution assume an appropriate 
     amount of revenues per year through legislation that will not 
     allow deductions for fines and penalties arising from a 
     failure to comply with Federal or State environmental or 
     health protection laws.

     SEC. 320. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

       The assumptions underlying functional totals and 
     reconciliation instructions in this budget resolution 
     include:
       (1) Findings.--The Senate finds that:
       (A) Violence against women is the leading cause of physical 
     injury to women. The Department of Justice estimates that 
     over 1 million violent crimes against women are committed by 
     domestic partners annually.
       (B) Domestic violence dramatically affects the victim's 
     ability to participate in the workforce. A University of 
     Minnesota survey reported that one-quarter of battered women 
     surveyed had lost a job partly because of being abused and 
     that over half of these women had been harassed by their 
     abuser at work.
       (C) Domestic violence is often intensified as women seek to 
     gain economic independence through attending school or job 
     training programs. Batterers have been reported to prevent 
     women from attending such programs or sabotage their efforts 
     at self-improvement.
       (D) Nationwide surveys of service providers prepared by the 
     Taylor Institute of Chicago, Document, for the first time, 
     the interrelationship between domestic violence and welfare 
     by showing that between 50 percent and 80 percent of women in 
     welfare to work programs are current or past victims of 
     domestic violence.
       (E) The American Psychological Association has reported 
     that violence against women is usually witnessed by their 
     children, who as a result can suffer severe psychological, 
     cognitive and physical damage and some studies have found 
     that children who witness violence in their homes have a 
     greater propensity to commit violent acts in their homes and 
     communities when they become adults.
       (F) Over half of the women surveyed by the Taylor Institute 
     stayed with their batterers because they lacked the resources 
     to support themselves and their children. The surveys also 
     found that the availability of economic support is a critical 
     factor in women's ability to leave abusive situations that 
     threaten themselves and their children.
       (G) Proposals to restructure the welfare programs may 
     impact the availability of the economic support and the 
     safety net necessary to enable poor women to flee abuse 
     without risking homelessness and starvation for their 
     families.
       (2) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that:
       (A) No welfare reform provision should be enacted by 
     Congress unless and until Congress considers whether such 
     welfare reform provisions would exacerbate violence against 
     women and their children, further endanger women's lives, 
     make it more difficult for women to escape domestic violence, 
     or further punish women victimized by violence.
       (B) Any welfare reform measure enacted by Congress should 
     require that any welfare to work, education, or job placement 
     programs implemented by the States address the impact of 
     domestic violence on welfare recipients.

     SEC. 321. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING STUDENT LOANS

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) over the last 60 years, education and advancements in 
     knowledge have accounted for 37 percent of our nation's 
     economic growth;
       (2) a college degree significantly increases job stability, 
     resulting in an unemployment rate among college graduates 
     less than half that of those with high school diplomas;
       (3) a person with a bachelor's degree will average 50-55 
     percent more in lifetime earnings than a person with a high 
     school diploma;
       (4) education is a key to providing alternatives to crime 
     and violence, and is a cost-effective strategy for breaking 
     cycles of poverty and moving welfare recipients to work;
       (5) a highly educated populace is necessary to the 
     effective functioning of democracy and to a growing economy, 
     and the opportunity to gain a college education helps advance 
     the American ideals of progress and social equality;
       (6) a highly educated and flexible work force is an 
     essential component of economic growth and competitiveness;
       (7) for many families, Federal Student Aid Programs make 
     the difference in the ability of students to attend college;
       (8) in 1994, nearly 6 million postsecondary students 
     received some kind of financial assistance to help them pay 
     for the costs of schooling;
       (9) since 1988, college costs have risen by 54 percent, and 
     student borrowing has increased by 219 percent; and
       (10) in fiscal year 1996, the Balanced Budget Act achieved 
     savings without reducing student loan limits or increasing 
     fees to students or parents.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the aggregates and functional levels included in this budget 
     resolution assume that savings in student loans can be 
     achieved without any program change that would increase costs 
     to students and parents or decrease accessibility to student 
     loans.

     SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REDUCTION OF THE 
                   NATIONAL DEBT.

       (a) The Senate finds that--
       (1) S. Con. Res. 57 projects a public debt in fiscal year 
     1997 of $5,400,000,000,000;
       (2) S. Con. Res. 57 projects that the public debt will be 
     $6,500,000,000,000 in the fiscal year 2002 when the budget 
     resolution projects a unified budget surplus; and
       (3) this accumulated debt represents a significant 
     financial burden that will require excessive taxation and 
     lost economic opportunity for future generations of the 
     United States.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that any comprehensive 
     legislation sent to the President that balances the budget by 
     a certain date and that is agreed to by the Congress and the 
     President shall also contain a strategy for reducing the 
     national debt of the United States.

     SEC. 323. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING HUNGRY OR HOMELESS 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions in 
     this budget resolution assume that Congress will not enact or 
     adopt any legislation that would increase the number of 
     children who are hungry or homeless.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the assumptions in 
     this budget resolution assume that in the event legislation 
     enacted to comply with this resolution results in an increase 
     in the number of hungry or homeless children by the end of 
     fiscal year 1997, the Congress would revisit the provisions 
     of said legislation which caused such increase and would, as 
     soon as practicable thereafter, adopt legislation which would 
     halt any continuation of such increase.

[[Page S5548]]

     SEC. 324. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LIHEAP.

       (a) Findings--The Senate finds that:
       (1) Home energy assistance for working and low-income 
     families with children, the elderly on fixed incomes, the 
     disabled, and others who need such aid is a critical part of 
     the social safety net in cold-weather areas during the 
     winter, and a source of necessary cooling aid during the 
     summer;
       (2) LIHEAP is a highly targeted, cost-effective way to help 
     millions of low-income Americans pay their home energy bills. 
     More than two-thirds of LIHEAP-eligible households have 
     annual incomes of less than $8,000, more than one-half have 
     annual incomes below $6,000; and
       (3) LIHEAP funding has been substantially reduced in recent 
     years, and cannot sustain further spending cuts if the 
     program is to remain a viable means of meeting the home 
     heating and other energy-related needs of low-income 
     families, especially those in cold-weather States.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--The assumptions underlying this 
     budget resolution assume that it is the sense of the Senate 
     that the funds made available for LIHEAP for fiscal year 1997 
     will be not less than the actual expenditures made for LIHEAP 
     in fiscal year 1996.

     SEC. 325. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING ADDITIONAL CHARGES 
                   UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) senior citizens must spend more than 1 dollar in 5 of 
     their limited incomes to purchase the health care they need;
       (2) \2/3\ of spending under the medicare program under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act is for senior citizens 
     with annual incomes of less than $15,000;
       (3) senior citizens cannot afford physician fee mark-ups 
     that are not covered under the medicare program or premium 
     overcharges; and
       (4) senior citizens enrolling in private insurance plans 
     receiving medicare capitation payments are currently 
     protected against excess charges by health providers and 
     additional premium charges by the plan for services covered 
     under the medicare program.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It the sense of the Congress 
     that any reconciliation bill considered during the second 
     session of the 104th Congress should maintain the existing 
     prohibitions against additional charges by providers under 
     the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act (``balance billing''), and any premium surcharges for 
     services covered under such program that are levied on senior 
     citizens enrolled in private insurance plans in lieu of 
     conventional medicare.

     SEC. 326. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING NURSING HOME 
                   STANDARDS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) prior to the enactment of subtitle C of title IV of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, deplorable 
     conditions and shocking abuse of senior citizens and the 
     disabled in nursing homes was widespread; and
       (2) the enactment and implementation of such subtitle has 
     brought major improvements in nursing home conditions and 
     substantially reduced abuse of senior citizens.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It the sense of the Congress 
     that any reconciliation bill considered during the second 
     session of the 104th Congress should not include any changes 
     in Federal nursing home quality standards or the Federal 
     enforcement of such standards.

     SEC. 327. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS CONCERNING NURSING HOME CARE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) under current Federal law--
       (A) protections are provided under the medicaid program 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act to prevent the 
     impoverishment of spouses of nursing home residents;
       (B) prohibitions exist under such program to prevent the 
     charging of adult children of nursing home residents for the 
     cost of the care of such residents;
       (C) prohibitions exist under such program to prevent a 
     State from placing a lien against the home of a nursing home 
     resident, if that home was occupied by a spouse or dependent 
     child; and
       (D) prohibitions exist under such program to prevent a 
     nursing home from charging amounts above the medicaid 
     recognized charge for medicaid patients or requiring a 
     commitment to make private payments prior to receiving 
     medicaid coverage as a condition of admission; and
       (2) family members of nursing home residents are generally 
     unable to afford the high cost of nursing home care, which 
     ranges between $30,000 and $60,000 a year.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that provisions of the medicaid program under title XIX of 
     the Social Security Act that protect families of nursing home 
     residents from experiencing financial ruin as the price of 
     securing needed care for their loved ones should be retained, 
     including--
       (1) spousal impoverishment rules;
       (2) prohibitions against charging adult children of nursing 
     home patients for the cost of their care;
       (3) prohibitions against liens on the homes of nursing home 
     residents occupied by a spouse or dependent child; and
       (4) prohibitions against nursing homes requiring private 
     payments prior to medicaid coverage as a condition of 
     admission or allowing charges in addition to medicaid 
     payments for covered patients.

     SEC. 328. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING REQUIREMENTS THAT 
                   WELFARE RECEIPTS BE DRUG-FREE.

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

     SEC. 329. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DAVIS-BACON.

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

     SEC. 330. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON DAVIS-BACON.

       Notwithstanding any provision of the committee report on 
     this resolution, it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     provisions in this resolution assume reform of the Davis-
     Bacon Act.

     SEC. 331. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REIMBURSEMENT OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES FOR OPERATIONS SOUTHERN WATCH AND 
                   PROVIDE COMFORT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) as of May 1996, the United States has spent 
     $2,937,000,000 of United States taxpayer funds since the 
     conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991 for the singular purpose 
     of protecting the Kurdish and Shiite population from Iraqi 
     aggression;
       (2) the President's defense budget request for 1997 
     includes an additional $590,100,000 for Operations Southern 
     Watch and Provide Comfort, both of which are designed to 
     restrict Iraqi military aggression against the Kurdish and 
     Shiite people of Iraq;
       (3) costs for these military operations constitute part of 
     the continued budget deficit of the United States; and
       (4) United Nations Security Council Resolution 986 (1995) 
     (referred to as ``SCR 986'') would allow Iraq to sell up to 
     $1,000,000,000 in petroleum and petroleum products every 90 
     days, for an initial period of 180 days.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that--
       (1) the President should instruct the United States 
     Permanent Representative to the United Nations to ensure any 
     subsequent extension of authority beyond the 180 days 
     originally provided by SCR 986, specifically mandates and 
     authorizes the reimbursement of the United States for costs 
     associated with Operations Southern Watch and Provide Comfort 
     out of revenues generated by any sale of petroleum or 
     petroleum-related products originating from Iraq;
       (2) in the event that the United States Permanent 
     Representative to the United Nations fails to modify the 
     terms of any subsequent resolution extending the authority 
     granted by SCR 986 as called for in paragraph (1), the 
     President should reject any United Nations' action or 
     resolution seeking to extend the terms of the oil sale beyond 
     the 180 days authorized by SCR 986;
       (3) the President should take the necessary steps to ensure 
     that--
       (A) any effort by the United Nations to temporarily lift 
     the trade embargo for humanitarian purposes, specifically the 
     sale of petroleum or petroleum products, restricts all 
     revenues from such sale from being diverted to benefit the 
     Iraqi military; and
       (B) the temporary lifting of the trade embargo does not 
     encourage other countries to take steps to begin promoting 
     commercial relations with the Iraqi military in expectation 
     that sanctions will be permanently lifted; and
       (4) revenues reimbursed to the United States from the oil 
     sale authorized by SCR 986, or any subsequent action or 
     resolution, should be used to reduce the Federal budget 
     deficit.

     SEC. 332. ACCURATE INDEX FOR INFLATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) a significant portion of Federal expenditures and 
     revenues are indexed to measurements of inflation; and
       (2) a variety of inflation indices exist which vary 
     according to the accuracy with which such indices measure 
     increases in the cost of living; and
       (3) Federal Government usage of inflation indices which 
     overstate true inflation has the demonstrated effect of 
     accelerating Federal spending, increasing the Federal budget 
     deficit, increasing Federal borrowing, and thereby enlarging 
     the projected burden on future American taxpayers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying this budget resolution 
     include that all Federal spending and revenues which are 
     indexed for inflation should be calibrated by the most 
     accurate inflation indices which are available to the Federal 
     Government.

     SEC. 333. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOLVENCY OF THE MEDICARE 
                   TRUST FUND.

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

     SEC. 334. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE 1993 INCOME TAX 
                   INCREASE ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS SHOULD BE 
                   REPEALED.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that the assumptions 
     underlying this resolution include that--
       (1) the fiscal year 1994 budget proposal of President 
     Clinton to raise Federal income taxes on the Social Security 
     benefits of senior citizens with income as low as $25,000, 
     and those provisions of the fiscal year 1994 recommendations 
     of the Budget Resolution and the 1993 Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act in which the One Hundred Third Congress 
     voted to raise Federal income taxes on the Social Security 
     benefits of senior citizens with income as low as $34,000 
     should be repealed;
       (2) the Senate Budget Resolution should reflect President 
     Clinton's statement that he believed he raised Federal taxes 
     too much in 1993; and

[[Page S5549]]

       (3) the Budget Resolution should react to President 
     Clinton's fiscal year 1997 budget which documents the fact 
     that in the history of the United States, the total tax 
     burden has never been greater than it is today, therefore
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the assumptions underlying this Resolution include--
       (1) that raising Federal income taxes in 1993 on the Social 
     Security benefits of middle-class individuals with income as 
     low as $34,000 was a mistake;
       (2) that the Federal income tax hike on Social Security 
     benefits imposed in 1993 by the One Hundred Third Congress 
     and signed into law by President Clinton should be repealed; 
     and
       (3) President Clinton should work with the Congress to 
     repeal the 1993 Federal income tax hike on Social Security 
     benefits in a manner that would not adversely affect the 
     Social Security Trust Fund or the Medicare Part A Trust Fund, 
     and should ensure that such repeal is coupled with offsetting 
     reductions in Federal spending.

     SEC. 335. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
                   PRACTICE REGARDING THE PROSECUTION OF DRUG 
                   SMUGGLERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) drug use is devastating to the Nation, particularly 
     among juveniles, and has led juveniles to become involved in 
     interstate gangs and to participate in violent crime;
       (2) drug use has experienced a dramatic resurgence among 
     our youth;
       (3) the number of youths aged 12-17 using marijuana has 
     increased from 1.6 million in 1992 to 2.9 million in 1994, 
     and the category of ``recent marijuana use'' increased a 
     staggering 200 percent among 14- to 15-year-olds over the 
     same period;
       (4) since 1992, there has been a 52 percent jump in the 
     number of high school seniors using drugs on a monthly basis, 
     even as worrisome declines are noted in peer disapproval of 
     drug use;
       (5) 1 in 3 high school students uses marijuana;
       (6) 12- to 17-year-olds who use marijuana are 85 percent 
     more likely to graduate to cocaine than those who abstain 
     from marijuana;
       (7) juveniles who reach 21 without ever having used drugs 
     almost never try them later in life;
       (8) the latest results from the Drug Abuse Warning Network 
     show that marijuana-related episodes jumped 39 percent and 
     are running at 155 percent above the 1990 level, and that 
     methamphetamine cases have risen 256 percent over the 1991 
     level;
       (9) between February 1993 and February 1995 the retail 
     price of a gram of cocaine fell from $172 to $137, and that 
     of a gram of heroin also fell from $2,032 to $1,278;
       (10) it has been reported that the Department of Justice, 
     through the United States Attorney for the Southern District 
     of California, has adopted a policy of allowing certain 
     foreign drug smugglers to avoid prosecution altogether by 
     being released to Mexico;
       (11) it has been reported that in the past year 
     approximately 2,300 suspected narcotics traffickers were 
     taken into custody for bringing illegal drugs across the 
     border, but approximately one in four were returned to their 
     country of origin without being prosecuted;
       (12) it has been reported that the United States Customs 
     Service is operating under guidelines limiting any 
     prosecution in marijuana cases to cases involving 125 pounds 
     of marijuana or more;
       (13) it has been reported that suspects possessing as much 
     as 32 pounds of methamphetamine and 37,000 Quaalude tablets, 
     were not prosecuted but were, instead, allowed to return to 
     their countries of origin after their drugs and vehicles were 
     confiscated;
       (14) it has been reported that after a seizure of 158 
     pounds of cocaine, one defendant was cited and released 
     because there was no room at the Federal jail and charges 
     against here were dropped;
       (15) it has been reported that some smugglers have been 
     caught two or more times--even in the same week--yet still 
     were not prosecuted;
       (16) the number of defendants prosecuted for violations of 
     the Federal drug laws has dropped from 25,033 in 1992 to 
     22,926 in 1995;
       (17) this Congress has increased the funding of the Federal 
     Bureau of Prisons by 11.7 percent over the 1995 
     appropriations level; and
       (18) this Congress has increased the funding of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service by 23.5 percent over 
     the 1995 appropriations level.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
     (1) the functional totals underlying this resolution assume 
     that the Attorney General promptly should investigate this 
     matter and report, within 30 days, to the Chair of the Senate 
     and House Committees on the Judiciary; and
       (2) the Attorney General should ensure that cases involving 
     the smuggling of drugs into the United States are vigorously 
     prosecuted.

     SEC. 336. CORPORATE SUBSIDIES AND SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

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

     SEC. 337. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
                   CAMPAIGN FUND.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume 
     that when the Finance Committee meets its outlay and revenue 
     obligations under this resolution the committee should not 
     make any changes in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund 
     or its funding mechanism and should meet its revenue and 
     outlay targets through other programs within its 
     jurisdiction.

     SEC. 338. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING WELFARE REFORM.

       (a) The Senate finds that--
       (1) S. Con. Res. 57 assumes substantial savings from 
     welfare reform; and
       (2) children born out of wedlock are five times more likely 
     to be poor and about ten times more likely to be extremely 
     poor and therefore are more likely to receive welfare 
     benefits than children from two parent families; and
       (3) high rates of out-of-wedlock births are associated with 
     a host of other social pathologies; for example, children of 
     single mothers are twice as likely to drop out of high 
     school; boys whose fathers are absent are more likely to 
     engage in criminal activities; and girls in single-parent 
     families are three times more likely to have children out of 
     wedlock themselves; therefore
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that any comprehensive 
     legislation sent to the President that balances the budget by 
     a certain date and that includes welfare reform provisions 
     and that is agreed to by the Congress and the President shall 
     also contain to the maximum extent possible a strategy for 
     reducing the rate of out-of-wedlock births and encouraging 
     family formation.

     SEC. 339. 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;
       (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 percent for the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, 10 percent for United States Attorneys, and 
     $4,000,000 for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces; 
     while this Congress has increased funding for the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation by 10.8 percent, 8.4 percent for 
     United States Attorneys, and a cut of $15,000,000 for 
     Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces;
       (6) on May 16, 1996, the House of Representatives has 
     nonetheless voted to slash $300,000,000 from the President's 
     $5,000,000,000 budget request for the Violent Crime Reduction 
     Trust Fund for fiscal year 1997 in House Concurrent 
     Resolution 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.

     SEC. 340. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE FUNDING OF 
                   AMTRAK.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) a capital funding stream is essential to the ability of 
     the National Rail Passenger Corporation (``Amtrak'') to 
     reduce its dependence on Federal operating support; and

[[Page S5550]]

       (2) Amtrak needs a secure source of financing, no less 
     favorable than provided to other modes of transportation, for 
     capital improvements.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) revenues attributable to one-half cent per gallon of 
     the excise taxes imposed on gasoline, special motor fuel, and 
     diesel fuel from the Mass Transit Account should be dedicated 
     to a new Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund during the 
     period January 1, 1997, through September 30, 2001;
       (2) revenues would not be deposited in the Intercity 
     Passenger Rail Trust Fund during any fiscal year to the 
     extent that the deposit is estimated to result in available 
     revenues in the Mass Transit Account being insufficient to 
     satisfy that year's estimated appropriation levels;
       (3) monies in the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund 
     should be generally available to fund, on a reimbursement 
     basis, capital expenditures incurred by Amtrak; and
       (4) amounts to fund capital expenditures related to rail 
     operations should be set aside for each State that has not 
     had Amtrak service in such State for the preceding year.

     SEC. 341. SENSE OF THE SENATE--TRUTH IN BUDGETING.

       It is the sense of the Senate that:
       (1) The Congressional Budget Office has scored revenue 
     expected to be raised from the auction of Federal 
     Communications Commission licenses for various services;
       (2) For budget scoring purposes, the Congress has assumed 
     that such auctions would occur in a prompt and expeditious 
     manner and that revenue raised by such auctions would flow to 
     the Federal treasury;
       (3) The Resolution assumes that the revenue to be raised 
     from auctions totals billions of dollars;
       (4) The Resolution makes assumptions that services would be 
     auctioned where the Federal Communications Commission has not 
     yet conducted auctions for such services, such as Local 
     Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), licenses for paging 
     services, final broadband PCS licenses, narrow band PCS 
     licenses, licenses for unserved cellular, and Digital Audio 
     Radio (DARS), and other subscription services, revenue from 
     which has been assumed in Congressional budgetary 
     calculations and in determining the level of the deficit; and
       (5) The Commission's service rules can dramatically affect 
     license values and auction revenues and therefore the 
     Commission should act expeditiously and without further delay 
     to conduct auctions of licenses in a manner that maximizes 
     revenue, increases efficiency, and enhances competition for 
     any service for which auction revenues have been scored by 
     the Congressional Budget Office and/or counted for budgetary 
     purposes in an Act of Congress.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
Nickles, Mr. Gramm of Texas, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Exon, Mr. 
Hollings, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Lautenberg.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 57, the Senate budget resolution, be put back on 
the calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is getting late and I normally have a 
lot of wrap-up but I will not do that tonight. I believe it is 
imperative that I express my deep appreciation to my friend, the 
ranking member, the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon. This is the 
last resolution after 16 years of service in the Senate and his State 
of Nebraska.
  I am not sure that he would cherish being part of six or eight more 
budgets, the way this one has gone. It has taken a long time and has 
taken a big toll on us. I just thank him for everything he has done and 
for his help during the last 4, 5 days. I thank all my fellow Senators 
on the Budget Committee. They were a great help, great guides, and 
their suggestions permitted us to maneuver our way through all of the 
problems and get this important resolution adopted.
  Mr. President, let me first express my deep appreciation to my friend 
and ranking member Senator Exon. This will be his last budget 
resolution after 16 years of distinguished service to the U.S. Senate 
and his beloved State of Nebraska.
  I would also like to thank my fellow Senators on the Budget Committee 
for their help, guidance, and suggestions this last week as we 
maneuvered our way through this important resolution. Particular thanks 
to Senators Gorton and Abraham for their help here on the floor.
  Mr. President, I would also like to take a moment to thank the staff 
on both sides of the aisle. Bill Dauster and his staff have done an 
excellent job for that side of the aisle. In light of the increasingly 
partisan nature of the budget, I am always impressed by the working 
relationship between our staffs. We spent nearly the entire 50 hours 
and a full 7 days on this budget resolution. We will have considered 
nearly 100 amendments on myriad of topics. I want to thank the staff 
for the long hours and hard work that went into this budget resolution. 
I also want to thank the Republican floor staff and the cloakroom 
staff. Their assistance gets us through this difficult process. Each of 
the Budget Committee staff deserves a great deal of credit for the 
success of this budget resolution.
  I want to publicly express my appreciation to my staff director and 
his two assistants here on the floor this last week, Austin Smythe and 
Beth Felder. There are other staff behind the scenes that have worked 
tirelessly to bring this resolution about. Instead of thanking each of 
my Budget Committee staff individually, I ask unanimous consent that a 
list of the names of the majority staff be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                             majority staff

       Brian Benczkowski; Jim Capretta; Amy Call; Lisa Cieplak; 
     Christy Dunn; Beth Felder; Alice Grant; Jim Hearn; Keith 
     Hennessey; William Hoagland; Carol McQuire; Anne Miller; 
     Mieko Nakabayashi; and Denise G. Ramonas.
       Cheri Reidy; Ricardo Rel; Karen Ricoy; J. Brian Riley; Mike 
     Ruffner; Melissa Sampson; Anrea Shank; Amy Smith; Austin 
     Smythe; Bob Stevenson; Beth Wallis; and Winslow Wheeler.


                          administrative staff

       Diane Bath; Victor Block; Alex Greene; Deena McMullen; 
     Lynne Seymour; and George Woodall.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, before my friend, the chairman of the 
committee, leaves, I want to thank him for his kind remarks. Yes, this 
is my last budget resolution forever. Sometimes I wonder if the 
chairman of the committee might like to say the same without giving up 
the leadership of the organization. But it has been a pleasure for 18 
years to work with Pete Domenici.
  As I said the other day, we do not always agree, but we have always 
been agreeable with each other as we have debated the issues. I thank 
him for all of his courtesies when we were in the majority and now that 
he is in the majority. I appreciate it very much. I wish him well.
  Mr. President, I want to take the time to thank the Democratic staff 
of the Senate Budget Committee for the outstanding job they did during 
consideration of the budget resolution. I would like to extend the 
appreciation of our side to:
  Amy Abraham who is our senior analyst on education and discretionary 
health;
  Ken Colling who is our analyst on justice and general government;
  Tony Dresden who is our communications director;
  Jodi Grant who is our general counsel;
  Matt Greenwald who is our senior analyst on energy, environment, and 
science & technology;
  Joan Huffer who is also a senior analyst covering Medicaid, Social 
Security and income security issues;
  Phil Karsting who is the senior analyst for agriculture and community 
and regional development;
  Jim Klumpner who is our chief economist;
  Soo Jin Kwon who is our analyst on commerce, transportation and 
banking;
  Nell Mays who is the committee's staff assistant;
  Sue Nelson who is both our director of budget review and senior 
analyst on Medicare;
  Jon Rosenwasser who is our analyst on defense and international 
affairs;
  Jerry Slominski who is our deputy chief of staff and senior analyst 
on revenues; and
  Bill Dauster who is the Democratic staff director and chief counsel 
for the Budget Committee.
  Thanks to all of them and those who work with them for a job very 
well done. Without you, it would have been impossible to carry on as we 
have, to uphold what we think are the good points and the bad points of 
this particular budget.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

[[Page S5551]]

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will be very brief. First, I want to 
express my deep appreciation to our esteemed leader of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici of New Mexico, for doing an outstanding 
job. My appreciation also goes to Senator Exon for his steadfastness 
and to the members of the staff, who have done a remarkable job. It has 
been a pleasure and a real treat to work with them. It has been an 
extremely difficult measure, but they did it very well.

                          ____________________