[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.
____________________