[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 69 (Thursday, May 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4944-S4994]
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 Kansas is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Budget Committee.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the overall balanced budget plan 
and rise expressing some reservations in regard to many of the 
amendments that we are considering, the pending amendments; some 45 of 
them, as a matter of fact.
  If nothing else, I wanted to pay a personal tribute in behalf of the 
taxpayers of Kansas and thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for 
his leadership, his perseverance, his patience. He has the patience of 
Job. I must confess, having come from the lower body, as described by 
Senator Byrd, and being the chairman of the House Agriculture 
Committee, I am not sure I had the patience of Senator Domenici. We now 
spell ``persevere'' D-o-m-e-n-i-c-i.
  How many hours, I ask of the chairman, if he could respond, how many 
days, even years, have been involved? Does he have any estimate in 
regard to the hours he has spent late, early--he and Chairman Kasich of 
the House? If he gives me an estimate, what is it? 10,000?
  Mr. DOMENICI. On this agreement itself, just this year, I would 
estimate 1,000 hours.
  Mr. ROBERTS. 1,000 hours. I said hours and minutes; even years.
  This has been the third year on this particular budget plan. This is 
the culmination of 3 years of hard work that the Senator from New 
Mexico has put in, all members of the Budget Committee, as well as the 
staff. This has been a Lonesome Dove Trail ride. I hope we get through 
the tall grass and balanced budget with all of our body parts intact. 
If we do, the chairman will get most of the credit.

  In the last session of the Congress we had two balanced budgets. We 
worked very hard and very diligently. They were vetoed by the 
President. We even came to a Government shutdown. Nobody wants to 
repeat that. I understand that when you are doing a budget for the U.S. 
Government, you have many, many strong differences of opinion. After 
all, for better or worse, the Congress of the United States reflects 
the diversity we have in this country and the strong difference of 
opinions. Goodness knows, we have good diversity and strong differences 
of opinion. The House, the other body, just the other night stayed 
until 3 a.m., and, finally, by a two-vote margin, succeeded in 
defeating an amendment that was a deal breaker. It involved highways. 
As a matter of fact, it involved transportation, the very issue we are 
discussing on the floor at this very moment other than my comments. Two 
votes was the difference. Goodness knows, everybody in the House of the 
Representatives, everybody in the Senate cares about transportation and 
cares about highways and the infrastructure.
  We came within five votes of a deal breaker on the floor of the 
Senate. I think it was five votes in regard to health care for 
children. Who can be opposed to additional funds for health care for 
children? As a matter of fact, the chairman has worked very hard to 
provide $16 billion in regard to that goal.
  So we had highways, health care, and we had a situation in regard to 
the construction of our schools, to fix the infrastructure of the 
Nation's schools--$5 billion--with a $100 billion price tag, which set 
a very unique precedent.
  I don't question the intent. I don't question the purpose nor the 
integrity of any Senator, nor, for that matter, anyone who would like 
to propose an amendment or a better idea in regard to the budget. But I 
would suggest that the high road of humility and responsibility is not 
bothered by heavy traffic in this instance.
  Most of the amendments--I have them all here. Here is the stack, 45 
of them. Most of the pending amendments right here are either sense of 
the Senate or they have been rejected outright as deal breakers.
  Sense of the Senate means it is the sense of the Senate. It has no 
legal standing, has no legislative standing. It is just a Senator 
saying this would be a good idea in terms of my intent, my purpose, 
what I think we ought to do. And there are a few that are agreed to 
that obviously will be very helpful.
  But here are the 45. Most of them are simply not going anywhere but 
raises the point. I took a little counting here. There are 8 Democrats 
and 11 Republicans--11 Republicans who have decided that they will take 
the time of the Senate, take the time of the American people, take the 
time of the chairman of the Budget Committee and staff and go over and 
repeat their priority concerns in regard to the budget.
  There is nothing wrong with that. I understand that. Each Senator is 
an island in terms of their own ideas and their own purpose and their 
integrity. I do not really question that but in terms of time, I mean 
after 3 years of debate, after hours and hours and hours of careful 
deliberation between the President and the Republican leadership and 45 
pending amendments.
  I have my own amendments. I have my own amendments. I should have had 
some sense of the Senate amendments. I feel a bit left out. I thought 
we had a budget deal. I thought we were going to vote on it. I thought 
that we were going to conclude. And then during the regular 
appropriations process, during the regular order, if you will, of the 
rest of the session, why, perhaps we could address these things that I 
care very deeply about.
  Maybe we ought to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution introduced by 
Senator Roberts that all wheat in Kansas should be sold at $6. That is 
a little facetious, to say the least, but I do have concerns about crop 
insurance, a child care bill I have introduced, along with a capital 
gains bill, capital gains and estate tax. I think capital gains should 
be across the board. I think estate tax should be at least $1 million. 
I want a sense-of-the-Senate resolution or amendment declaring that. Or 
maybe an amendment--I tell you what we ought to have, if the chairman 
would agree. I think you ought to make a unanimous consent request to 
consider an amendment that all Senators who offer an amendment on the 
budget process must be required to serve 6 months on the Budget 
Committee. Why not? Perhaps in the interest of time, since all of the 
time that is being spent by the 11 Republicans and the 8 Democrats--oh, 
I forgot my sense-of-the-Senate resolution on defense. I do not think 
we have enough money committed to our national defense with the 
obligations we hear from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
Defense, the administration and everything else. So add that one in 
Roberts' sense of the Senate.
  Maybe we ought to have a unanimous consent request, to save time, to 
get

[[Page S4945]]

this business done, to accept the responsibility for the budget, I 
could just ask unanimous consent that all amendments pending be laid on 
the table and considered en bloc and ask for the yeas and nays and we 
could get the budget deal and go home. I have not made that unanimous 
consent request. That would be untoward. That is the mildest word I 
could use for it because it would violate agreements the distinguished 
chairman has made with other Senators.
  So let me say this to all the Senators who introduced all these 
sense-of-the-Senate amendments, fell asleep, issued a lot of press 
releases back home and got a lot of credit. And I laud their intent, 
laud their purpose. What about breaking the deal? What about the law of 
unintended or intended effects? What about the responsibility of 
delaying the Senate and possibly delaying 3 years of work, 3 years of 
work to get to a balanced budget?
  As you can see by the tone of my remarks, perhaps my patience as a 
new Member of the Senate is not near the patience of Chairman Job, 
Chairman Job Domenici, in regard to the Budget Committee.
  Now, I had intended on reading the names of all the Senators, their 
amendments and lauding their intent in behalf of all the things that we 
would like to see done. As I say, I have them all here. They range from 
everything from highways to education to defense to making sure that we 
have proper tax relief across the board. I will not do that. But I 
would at least ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider the job and 
the mission and what our distinguished chairman and members of the 
Budget Committee have brought to the floor of the Senate. And if we 
could, if we could plead for a little bit of expeditious consideration, 
because you know what is going to happen. Time will run out and then we 
will engage in what the Senate calls a votearama, and the votearama is 
like ``Jeopardy'' or any other game you play on television. You will 
not even hear what the amendment is. We will just hear an amendment by 
X, Y, or Z, Senator X, Y, or Z and then we will vote on it and 
obviously that will make a good statement back home and we can consider 
that very serious bill, that serious legislative intent during the 
regular order which should have been considered that way from the 
first.

  Again, I thank the chairman so much.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to yield.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. When the Senator 
holds the stack of amendments, is he suggesting there should be no 
amendments or is he just focused on sense-of-the-Senate amendments?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I think if I could further clarify that, of the 45 
amendments there are about 6 deal breakers, if my conversation with the 
chairman is correct. Most of them are sense of Senate. And there are 
others that have been agreed to. But my basic premise is--and goodness 
knows, this new Member of the Senate is not about to say that we should 
change the process of the Senate. And this Member of the Senate is not 
about to preclude any Member from offering any amendment.
  The point that I am trying to make is that every amendment, every 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment, every deal-breaking amendment also to 
some degree interferes with the process and the conclusion of a 
balanced budget which has taken us 3 years. And I know because I have 
been sitting in the chair presiding, listening to the same speeches 
that are made today in the Chamber during morning business, and people 
can make them in their districts; they can make them on the steps of 
the Capitol; they can make them here, and that is quite proper of the 
Senate and is advisable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Could I have an additional minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator seeks an additional minute. Who 
yields him time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. ROBERTS. One additional minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield it.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I find it rather untoward or awkward after talking 10 
minutes and expressing concern of the time here I would go on and on 
about this. I think the point is well taken. I know the Senator from 
Missouri has a very laudable amendment in regards to something I would 
agree with and I would not deny him that opportunity. But can we not 
get on with it after 3 years?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 311

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me make it very clear to everyone in 
the Senate, first of all, I have nothing but the highest respect and 
admiration for both the sponsors of this amendment, the distinguished 
Senator from Virginia, who has worked diligently to try to create the 
transportation programs in the committee he serves and do it in the 
best interests of our whole country, and believe you me, he has had a 
tough job, and so has Senator Baucus in doing a great job, whether 
working on the committee or with transportation infrastructure.
  Their job is very difficult because they have to balance frequently 
the interests of all 50 States or those that are rural versus those 
that are very dense in terms of population and thus roadway needs are 
very different in his State or mine as compared with New Jersey, if you 
just take into account how much gasoline tax is taken in because we are 
small, with small populations, but we cannot get from one place to 
another without roads, so we are in a different category. And over the 
decades we have all worked very hard to figure out how to do that 
balancing act. And then it turns out when it is all finished, the House 
does it differently than the Senate because the Senate is represented 
two Senators to each State. So Senator Baucus and his co-Senator 
represent a very small population but they are two. In the House, they 
always load the bills with the heavy populated States and over here we 
try to do it with a little more fairness, more fair play.
  They have had to be referees over that. In fact, I might tell the 
Senators, they probably do not remember, but I was a referee on that 
once as a conferee, and that was pretty interesting, how we found a 
formula that year.
  I might say, in spite of these accolades, this is a very, very 
strange amendment, to say the least. Here we have been for all these 
days discussing a balanced budget, and as a matter of fact even those 
who would break this budget did not unbalance the budget. Or even those 
who had deal breakers because they would take the principal components 
of the budget and change them, as our leader said yesterday, pulling 
the wheels out from under the cart so it would break down. This 
amendment makes no effort to try to offset the $12 billion that they 
add to this budget.
  In other words, Mr. President and fellow Senators, this amendment is 
bold enough to say it just does not matter about a balanced budget. We 
just want to put in $12 billion more for highways. Frankly, I am sorry 
we do not have the money in this budget for that. But we did in fact, 
we did in fact increase the President's proposal by $10.4 billion. That 
is $10.4 billion more than the President had in mind, and we balanced 
the budget. We offset it somewhere or in some way reduced the amount of 
tax cut we were going to have in the overall sense of putting the 
package together.

  But this amendment just comes along and says, well, we just want this 
additional money spent on highways, and we will wait until another day 
to worry about the balance. Frankly, we had a very meager surplus in 
the year 2002. This particular amendment costs $4.5 billion in the year 
2002, and that will bring us out of balance by over $2.5 billion.
  So I urge the Senators who want to support this amendment or this 
concept, they ought to come down to the floor and cut $12 billion out 
of this budget so it is still in balance. Then we would understand what 
would be hit--education and everything else we have been trying to 
fund.
  So I must say on this one the administration supports us. We were not 
so

[[Page S4946]]

sure yesterday morning, I say to my good friend from Kentucky, but they 
support us. They sent a letter up here saying they do not support this 
amendment. They support our efforts to see that it does not pass.
  Frankly, I would be less than honest and less than fair with the 
cosponsors--it is clear we are going to have to do something when the 
ISTEA Program comes along in the not too distant future. We are going 
to have to make some serious, serious adjustments. And I think those 
are going to happen. Perhaps the Senators will help expedite that a bit 
today by calling to the attention of the Senate the situation as you 
see it.
  But essentially, we have many trust funds in the United States, many 
trust funds. I used to know how many. But I think it is probably fair 
to say we have 100 trust funds. I think that is low by 50. I think we 
have 150. But let us just say we have 100 of them.
  Frankly, we do not spend every penny that comes into those trust 
funds every year, nor do we take them and set them out on the side and 
say whatever comes in goes out. We have put them in the unified budget. 
I am not sure--people argue on both sides of that concept. Should you 
break Government up into 150 pieces and then find some more pieces and 
have no central government running things, no unified budget, I should 
say. Forget who runs it, just a budget representing them all. And I 
have come down on the side of putting them all in and leaving them in, 
and if there is surpluses take credit for the surpluses. As a matter of 
fact, it is pretty clear that at some point we are going to have to 
change the way we are doing business, not perhaps spend more. But I 
would urge Senators not to vote for this amendment today. I will move 
to table it. I think it breaks the budget. It unbalances the budget. 
The intentions are very, very good, but this is not quite the way to do 
it.
  Now I yield to Senator Lautenberg--
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank him for the courtesy. Let's clarify a little bit 
just how the Senator as chairman of the Budget Committee--and certainly 
we commend him for the hard work he has done. What is the meaning of a 
trust fund?
  Let's be honest. You are keeping $26 billion, according to my 
calculation, holding it back, of the revenues paid at the gas tank, as 
if it were poker chips to play where you so desire elsewhere in the 
budget. We specifically did not put in offsets because the offset is 
there in a trust fund established 42 years ago with a legislative 
history which clearly said that it belongs to the people and should be 
returned to the people. That is why we did not have an offset. The 
offset is there in the form of the money in the highway trust fund. 
Shall we rename that budget deficit fund?

  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you will be writing the new ISTEA law. If you 
will care to rename it, it will be renamed under your direction, not 
under mine. But I would say, from what I can find out, this $26 billion 
trust fund surplus--we spend about $20 billion each year and they have 
done that for a long time. This $26 billion that is referred to is made 
up of two things: $20.6 billion of it is compounded interest, and $5.9 
is committed to projects. Frankly, that does not mean we have an awful 
lot of money to spend. As a matter of fact, we probably do not have 
very much. But, from my standpoint, this trust fund balance is a very 
reasonable balance to keep in the fund. If at some point we can get to 
a better plan and do it over a period of time, you are going to find 
this Senator on your side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did Senator Lautenberg want to speak now?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes 
left; the other side has 12 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all deeply appreciate the amount of 
work the Senator from New Mexico has made to try to put this together. 
It is an almost impossible task. He made an interesting statement, 
though, that I would just like to follow up on a little bit. He turned 
to the Senator from Virginia a few minutes ago--if I heard you 
correctly; I do not want to put words in your mouth--and said something 
to the effect: Yes, you are right. At some future time when we take up 
ISTEA we are going to have to deal with deficiencies that are otherwise 
going to be available to be spent on the highway bill, ISTEA.
  If I heard him correctly, if that is what he meant, I would just like 
to explore with the chairman where we might find some of those 
additional dollars if it's not in the context of this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you did not quote me so incorrectly that I 
would say you didn't quote me right. But, in essence I am just 
expressing the notion that is pretty rampant, that outside of this 
budget resolution, at a later date, that in various committees we will 
be working on what do we do with this highway trust fund and what do we 
do with the new formula, where there will be a new formula.
  All I am suggesting is at some point that debate is going to occur, 
but I don't believe it should occur here on the floor of the Senate, 
taking $12 billion and just adding it to this budget and saying we are 
just going to go in the red because we have not figured out any other 
way. There is going to be another way to look at this situation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. But again I ask you, at what time, at what point would we 
begin to find the additional dollars that we all know we need for 
transportation?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, look, the committees in the U.S. Senate are 
marvelous institutions, and how you work out problems that are 
complicated and difficult and frequently of longstanding--the Senate is 
historic in its wise ways of doing this.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I understand.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All I am suggesting is there is going to be a way.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I understand, but I bow to the mighty power of the Budget 
Committee, when we see the limitations that otherwise are incumbent 
upon us--
  Mr. DOMENICI. I might suggest, I served on that committee for a long 
time, Senator Warner. In fact, I would have been chairman three times 
over with the longevity I would have if I would have been there.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we want the Senator where he is. Please 
stay. By the way, I volunteered three times to serve on the Budget 
Committee, and my name will be on there one of these days.

  Mr. DOMENICI. All right. Now, how much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 17 minutes 
left.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to yield to Senator Lautenberg, who is my ally 
here on the floor on this issue, and then find a little time of mine 
out of it to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not going to take that much time, Mr. President. 
I think the chairman of the Budget Committee has fairly directly and 
succinctly made the arguments. The fact of the matter is that none of 
us are happy with the level of funding that we have for our investments 
in highways and our transportation needs. We are more deficient, in 
many ways, than countries down the Third World list. I think we rank 
about 55th in per capita spending for infrastructure.
  So, one would not disagree with the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia or the distinguished Senator from Montana in terms of the 
need, the need to correct the situation. But unfortunately, and it is 
unfortunate for me because I have long been an advocate of more 
spending on transportation in this country. I think it is common 
knowledge that the Senator from New Jersey has been an advocate of mass 
transit, of rail transportation, improving our highway system, of 
fixing our deficient bridges, which number in the thousands. But we 
have a proposal in hand that takes a priority, unfortunately, for the 
moment. That is, to complete the work we started on a balanced budget. 
We are committed to it.

  Believe me, this is not a place I enjoy being, because I do not agree 
with everything that is in the budget resolution. But I agree with it 
enough to say that there is a consensus that we fulfilled an obligation 
that we talked about to children, children's health, to the senior 
citizens, to try to make

[[Page S4947]]

Medicare solvent, to try to not further burden the impoverished in 
terms of Medicare, to try to take care of those who are in this country 
legally and become disabled. We fulfilled those obligations.
  The economy is moving along at a very good rate and we are still 
running the risk, in my view, with some of the tax cuts that have been 
proposed, of taking us away from the direction that we are moving in, 
which is to continue to reduce the budget deficit until the year 2002, 
when there will be none.
  So we have an imperfect, but pretty good, solution in front us. And, 
now what we are discussing, in terms of transportation--and this is 
like me talking against motherhood--but the transportation funds that 
are there are inadequate because of the structure of our budgeting 
structure, the budgeting arrangement that we have in our Government. 
The fact is that we have unified budgets. If one wants to start, as has 
been claimed here several times, establishing truth in budgeting, under 
that nomenclature I think one would have to start with Social Security.
  Are we prepared today to say we are going to add $70 billion to our 
deficit each year? We certainly are not. Yet I think, when you talk 
about a trust fund, there is no more sanctified trust fund than Social 
Security, something people paid in, they are relying on for their 
future, for their ability to get along. But we nevertheless still have 
the unified budget. That problem, I assure you, is going to get intense 
scrutiny over the next several years.
  Senator Roberts said something--I don't know whether you were here, 
Senator Domenici, when he said: Everybody, in order to have the budget 
fully understood, every Senator should be sentenced to 6 months on the 
Budget Committee. I thought immediately, there is a constitutional 
prohibition against cruel and inhuman punishment, so we could not do 
that, even if we wanted to. I am on the Budget Committee by a quirk of 
circumstance. When I came here, a fellow I had known who was a Senator 
said that he would do me a favor and that he would vacate his seat on 
the Budget Committee for me. And I will get even.
  The fact of the matter is, we complain and we gripe, but the money is 
where the policy is, the money is where the direction is. We take this 
assignment with a degree of relish, because we want to do the right 
thing. None of us want to throw the taxpayers' money away. But we are 
where we are.
  It is with reluctance that I am opposing this amendment because both 
Senators, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, have been very actively 
involved in highway funding and highway legislation as a result of our 
mutual service on the Environment and Public Works Committee. But we 
are spending more than we did last year. We are spending more than the 
budget resolution of just 2 years ago.

  I was able, with a lot of hard work and with the support of the 
chairman of the committee, to get an $8.7 billion increase over the 
President's budget request for transportation. I had asked that 
transportation be included as one of the top priorities in the budget. 
Unfortunately it is not there. But there is a plan, that we expect to 
be fulfilled, to have a reserve fund that would allow significantly 
more funding for some of the transportation needs.
  But I want to point out one thing about the trust fund. That is, 
there is a slow payout in highway projects. I think everybody is aware 
of that--5, 7 years on many of these things. If we shut down the 
revenue source now, interest alone would not carry the obligations that 
are already out there. The obligation ceiling as contrasted with the 
contract authority are quite different things. We have these 
obligations that have to be fulfilled, they are there and one day must 
be met. The balances in the fund, I think, will start coming down with 
the adjustments that are expected to occur in ISTEA. We have the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the floor. 
That will be opportunity to make some of the changes that are being 
contemplated here.
  I just think it is a terrible time to say we ought to burden the 
budget deficit by $12 billion, roughly, right now, when everybody has 
worked so hard, and this budget has been scrubbed, reviewed, rewashed, 
rehashed--you name it. We are where we are, in a fairly delicate 
balance, I point out to my colleagues. There are very delicate 
opportunities that will, I think, upset the balance that has been 
achieved. So, again, I repeat myself when I say with reluctance I am 
going to vote against it.
  Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield for a brief question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, a member of our 
committee, Environment and Public Works, is, according to my records, a 
cosponsor of a piece of legislation called ISTEA--NEXTEA. Am I not 
correct?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. In that, it is interesting, there are three bills put in 
by Members of the Senate. I am coauthor--Senator Baucus, Senator Graham 
of Florida; STEP 21, Senator Baucus is 2000, you are with Senator 
Chafee.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right.
  Mr. WARNER. ISTEA. Look into that bill. Right in there is a provision 
saying we want $26 billion each year, far more than what the Senator 
from Virginia is asking. I build up to $26 billion in the fifth year. 
You want it beginning this year. In other words, you are saying to the 
Senate, in a cosponsored piece of legislation together with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, you want $26 billion. Now you 
stand on this floor and talk in direct opposite. That is what leaves me 
at a loss. So the question is, you are a cosponsor and----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the question, before 
the speech, I would say this--yes, I sponsored that legislation.
  My heart is in more funding for transportation, and no one here can 
say differently. The problem is that we are in a different point in 
time, and if you want to take it out of highways and say forget the 
children's health care bill, if you want to take it out of highways and 
forget the pledge we made to the senior citizens, or take it out of 
this bill and forget the pledge that we made to those who might be 
disabled, let's do it, let's talk about that. Let's talk about 
balancing the budget, because I know the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia has been a proponent of a balanced budget almost from the day 
the words were invented around here.
  So now we have a different occasion. We are not talking about 
transportation; we all agree that transportation is definitely 
underfunded. What we are talking about is at what price do we make this 
change, and the price is at, again, children's health or otherwise, 
because we are committed to balancing this budget. And this is strange 
talk for a fellow like me.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think it is right on, and I hope you make it about 
five or six times in the remaining couple hours. I look forward to 
hearing it more times than one.
  Mr. President, I wonder, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes; the 
Senator from Virginia has 10 minutes, almost 11 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the full Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, Senator Chafee.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the 
bill.
  I rise in opposition today to the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Virginia and the Senator from Montana. I might say, these are two 
Senators for whom I have tremendous respect. I have worked with them. 
The Senator from Virginia, I think we first started our association in 
1969, and the Senator from Montana, I started working with him the 
first year he came to the Senate, which I think was 1978, 1979, and we 
have been closely associated ever since.
  However, this amendment, which would increase outlays for 
transportation spending above the levels provided in the resolution 
before us, I find to be inconsistent with the achievement of a balanced 
budget by the year 2002.
  The Senator from Virginia just said it went beyond the bill, the so-
called NEXTEA bill that goes beyond this, and that is absolutely right, 
but that was before we had a target from the Budget Committee. I 
believe strongly in the budgetary process we have set up. I voted for 
it, and I support it.

[[Page S4948]]

  I think we all can agree that the Nation's roads and bridges are in 
need of repair. No one argues with that. Transportation plays a 
critical role in our Nation's economy. We recognize that. In the United 
States, more than 12 million people, more than 11 percent of the gross 
national product, is involved in transportation.
  Earlier this year, I cosponsored a measure to increase, within the 
context of a unified budget, the level of transportation spending from 
the highway trust fund. I am pleased that the budget agreement, crafted 
by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New Jersey, 
increases the spending levels implicit in that proposal, the so-
called Bond-Chafee proposal. It is $13 billion over a freeze baseline. 
That is pretty good.

  Would we like more? Sure we would. But I think it is terribly 
important to recognize that any proposal that boosts highway spending 
or transportation spending without corresponding offsets is something I 
personally cannot support. So, I agree with Senators Warner and Baucus 
that transportation spending should be increased, but not in a manner 
that would undermine the careful agreement reached by the Budget 
Committee.
  Do we like everything in this budget? No, but it is the best we can 
get. I am supporting that agreement. It seems to me we simply cannot 
afford to retreat from our efforts to eliminate the Federal deficit.
  So that, Mr. President, is the reason I cannot support this amendment 
that is before us today. I thank the Chair and thank the manager and 
thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that deals with 
these matters. He has worked on them, and I know his heart is in this. 
As always, he argues his case with vigor and considerable force.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I ask a question on my time of my 
distinguished chairman?
  There are three bills pending before the Senate relating to the 
reauthorization of ISTEA. I mentioned that. Seventy-four colleagues 
have signed one of those three bills. Each one of those bills has the 
higher level of $26 billion. I say to my colleague, he also is a 
cosponsor of the Bond-Chafee/Chafee-Bond legislation. The principle 
that Senator Baucus and I are arguing today precisely is the Chafee-
Bond bill. I ask the Senator, does he feel there is any difference in 
principle?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. First of all, I am pleased to call it the Chafee-
Bond proposal.
  Mr. WARNER. Call it what you want.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We call it that in Rhode Island. What the Chafee-Bond 
proposal does is it says that what came in in the previous year--we do 
not deal with the interest, we do not deal with----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not need an explanation. In 
principle, pay it in, take it out, isn't that right, in simple English?
  Mr. CHAFEE. That's right.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine, that's all I need to say.
  Mr. CHAFEE. What comes in this year goes out next year, and that 
principle is in this budget.
  Mr. WARNER. That principle is in this amendment. I thank the 
distinguished Senator. That is all we are asking. But it is interesting 
we are asking for less than what is paid in to come out, recognizing 
the challenge before the Budget Committee.
  So I say, once again, 74 colleagues have signed on to legislation. We 
are going to have to answer to our constituents, Mr. President, on this 
vote. You say one thing in sponsoring the bills, and we will see how 
consistent you are. I will put a letter on the desk signed by 56 
Senators as to how they spoke to this. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a few minutes?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield all but a minute and a half, 2 
minutes I have reserved.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we heard today from both the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Budget Committee that we need to address this 
problem; the problem that there is a deficiency in highway-mass 
transit-infrastructure spending that must be dealt with at sometime. 
But they are also saying they feel constrained to say they cannot deal 
with it here because they feel constrained by the budget resolution, a 
resolution agreed to principally between the White House and the 
leadership.
  They talk about an $8 billion increase. That does not include 
interest. And because the country is growing, because of additional 
needs we have and the crumbling bridges, if this resolution is adopted, 
Senators should know that they will receive less in dollars than they 
will need for their State's infrastructure.
  The Senators, the chairman and ranking member, say, ``Well, we will 
deal with it in the future at sometime,'' acknowledging that there is a 
problem and we need more transportation dollars. I must remind Senators 
that we have a difficult problem ahead of us. When we in the 
Environment and Public Works Committee in the coming weeks write a bill 
dealing with CMAQ, dealing with formulas, donor States, donee States, 
so on and so forth, what do we look at? We look at the number that the 
Budget Committee sends to us. We are constrained by that number. We 
must then write a 5- or 6-year bill which locks in the spending limits 
that the Budget Committee prescribes for us. We are locked in for 5 or 
6 years.
  Those lower levels cannot be changed next year by a new budget 
resolution, cannot be changed until or unless this Congress writes a 
new highway bill. I am not so sure this Congress is going to want to 
write a new highway bill every year. So I am saying that this is the 
time to deal with this problem. It is now. Otherwise, we are locked in 
for 6 years to inadequate numbers.
  We want to make an adjustment of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of 
our Federal budget, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal 
budget, which I am fully confident can be dealt with in conference. It 
is critical that this amendment be adopted so that we are not locked in 
over the next 6 years to inadequate numbers. We will be locked into 
these numbers if this resolution is adopted. We can make adjustments in 
all the other accounts and still maintain the core provisions of the 
bipartisan agreement.
  So I urge Senators to, therefore, vote for this so we can do what we 
know is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes 2 minutes remain for the 
Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is that all the time that is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from New Mexico 
has 2 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 2 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague. He, 
in his concluding remarks, gave the clarion call: When we cast the 
vote, we simply cast a vote to say to the Budget Committee, ``Go back 
and look for that very small fraction so we can avoid this flat green 
line which is correctly represented on this chart, and allow our 
several States to build that infrastructure necessary to compete in 
this world market.''
  What we have left out, my distinguished colleague and myself, are 
pages and pages of added requests by our colleagues. I totaled over $7 
billion in addition to what is to be allocated under the formulation 
for superb programs that are badly needed by the country: Appalachian 
highway system; for the Indian reservation roads; for expansion of the 
intelligent transportation system; for innovative financing 
initiatives; for new funding to meet infrastructure--on and on it goes.
  We want to, Senator Baucus and I together with other members of our 
subcommittee and full committee, try and do this, but those we haven't 
even discussed today. We will never get to one nickel of this unless we 
are given some additional flexibility.
  So we say, with all due respect, we are simply asking a voice mandate 
in support of our constituents to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and 
reexamine the desperate need of America for these dollars.''
  I thank the Chair. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have 2 minutes and that is it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest, again, to Senators who 
might be listening or those who might be listening in their stead, in 
this budget, we

[[Page S4949]]

have tried to do many things. We have tried to cut taxes for the 
American people; we have tried to cover little children who are 
uninsured with $16 billion; we have tried to cover the National 
Institutes of Health with a 3.5-percent increase.
  We heard from people what America had to be doing, and, in each 
instance, we had to get rid of something. In fact, I have not said it 
yet, but the President gave up 50 percent of his initiatives in the 
compromise that was made, and every time we did it, we said, ``Let's 
balance the budget; let's balance the budget.'' We would come back and 
say, ``Well, we want to add this, what do we take out?'' And we would 
take something out. What we have here today is $12 billion as if it 
just flopped out of the sky; no effort to balance the budget, no effort 
to offset it with expenditures so we can all see where do you pick up 
the $12 billion that is needed for highways?
  Everybody understands that highways are very much needed in America, 
but this budget, for the first time, will permit us to spend every cent 
of new taxes that comes into that fund every single year. We are moving 
in the right direction. Every cent of new gasoline tax that goes into 
this fund under this budget agreement will be spent in that year that 
it comes in, obligated during that year. That is a giant stride in the 
direction that we have been asked to go by many people in our country.
  Frankly, every Governor in America sends a letter in. They want more 
money. And then some of them get up and criticize that we do not 
balance the budget right. The lead Governor in America, the head of the 
association, he wants every penny of highway funds, but this budget 
resolution just does not get the job done right.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). All time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the balance of my time, and move to table 
the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Allard
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thompson

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 311) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. History was made with this vote, by two votes, and two 
votes in the House--that resonates all across this land. It is a wake-
up call to all those entrusted with the responsibility of keeping 
America's infrastructure modernized and safe so we can compete in this 
one-world market. This is but the first of a series of battles that 
will be waged on this floor on behalf of America's transportation 
system. It is my privilege to be a part of that team.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to 
compliment those who offered the amendment for the way they have 
handled matters and to tell the same American people that were 
listening to the distinguished Senator from Virginia that there will be 
additional highway funding in years to come, there is no doubt about 
it, but it will not be done at the expense of unbalancing the budget. 
It will not be done at the expense of just saying we will spend some 
money even if the deficit goes up. I look forward to the day we do it 
in such a way that it is balanced and that, as a matter of fact, if we 
increase, we cut some things to make up for the difference so we stay 
in balance.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Stevens.
  Mr. STEVENS. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to 
tell the Senate that those of us who are voting against some of these 
amendments are doing it because there is no money to fund these sense-
of-the-Senate resolutions. I say to any of you that want to offer 
amendments that change this budget, that authorize additional funds--
show me the money. Show me where the money is when you offer amendments 
that change the budget plan agreed to with the President.
  I have discussed this with the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia. We will have the obligation to allot money within the budget 
among 13 subcommittees. A sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not give 
us any more money but it gives us the problem that you have sent a 
message to America that there is money in this budget to do something 
the Senate votes for in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  When the budget resolution, just before, was voted I asked for a 
chance to come to the floor again, and I ask for you to reserve some 
time and we will show where a commitment has been made by the Senate to 
fund items where there is no money. I urge the Senate to wake up. We 
are voting against these matters not because we are against highways or 
aid for children who need insurance. We are voting--the Senators from 
New Mexico and New Jersey have brought us a resolution. We had a budget 
that has been worked out with the President and we have a chance to 
vote for a balanced budget. I do not want to be accused of being a 
tightwad when we allocate the money under 602(b) of the budget act and 
then we do not cover the sense-of-the-Senate Resolutions.
  Again, if anyone is going to accuse us of being tightwads and not 
following the sense of the Senate, I tell you, if you vote for one of 
these things, you show us where the money is and we will allocate it. 
We will not be misled by these attempts to gain publicity and to gain 
some credit at home on a bill like this. This is a very serious bill. 
The two of us are going to have a horrendous job trying to meet our 
duties even within this budget, so do not give us any more of this 
funny money. You show me real money and I will allocate it to your 
function.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself in considerable 
measure with the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]. We 
have been voting for a lot of sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. I think 
we had one yesterday, 99-0. We know it is not going to be paid for.
  On this business about infrastructure, we hear it said that there is 
no money. I am from a State that needs infrastructure. We say there is 
no money. I shall state why I supported the Warner-Baucus amendment. We 
do not need a tax cut in this country right now. We do not need a tax 
cut. I say that with respect to the Republican tax cut and with respect 
to the tax cut that is supported by the Administration. We do not need 
a tax cut. When we see what we are doing in this budget resolution with 
respect to cutting taxes--cutting taxes at a time when we are within 
reach of balancing the budget, if we were to use that money that is 
going for the tax cut, we would balance this budget much earlier than 
it is expected to be balanced now and we could also use some of that 
money for infrastructure. If we want to know where we

[[Page S4950]]

can get the money, that is where it can be found. Let's vote against 
the tax cut.
  I am going to vote against this resolution if we have the tax cut 
tied with it.
  I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself 2 minutes off the resolution.
  Mr. President, I don't like being put in the position that appears to 
be developing here, that I am against investment in infrastructure. I 
stand on my record of having fought as hard as anyone in this body to 
invest more money in highways, in mass transit, in rail and aviation, 
whatever was called for. I never met a transportation project I didn't 
like if it was a well-founded and well-thought-out project. But the 
insinuation by our distinguished friend from Virginia to caution us and 
to lay down the scare that we will be counted upon or we will be looked 
upon by the Record and by the voters, I want to say this: The Senator 
from Virginia took the liberty yesterday of voting against the funds 
for crumbling schools, against schools that are tattered and falling 
apart, where children can't possibly learn. That was OK to vote 
against. And the appeal wasn't made, and there was no threat that if 
you vote against this, you are committing those kids to an even more 
difficult assignment to try and lift themselves up.
  I have defended investments in transportation as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation of the Appropriations Committee. Without 
fail, I have defended investing more. But the onerous comparison is 
that we neglected our responsibility. It is almost as if you are 
unpatriotic.
  I don't really like everything in this budget resolution. But I am 
committed by my constitutional responsibilities. If I take the 
assignment, I have to work on it. We negotiated in good faith, and I 
don't like some of the tax concessions we have in there. But I think 
middle-class people in this country are entitled to some tax relief. I 
think those who want to send their kids to college are entitled to some 
help to get them the first step up on the economic ladder.
  No, I don't like it all. But I have my duty to do, and I did it. It 
wasn't pleasant. It wasn't pleasant when I went into the Army in World 
War II, either, but I did it. And the insinuation that somehow or other 
I have deserted my responsibility is one that really offends me.
  We did what we thought was best, each one of us, whatever the vote 
was.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I was to be 
able to call up an amendment at this time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is in the order. That is true.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before I use any of that time, just as a 
matter of courtesy and parliamentary process, my distinguished 
colleague is also standing for recognition.
  If I could ask the Chair what the Senator's intent might be, we might 
be able to work out an arrangement.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my intention, having talked to the ranking 
Member, was to seek 10 minutes for debate on the resolution. Whatever 
fits with the schedule of the Senator from Massachusetts will be fine 
with me.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a commitment that was made, I say to the 
Senator from North Dakota. But the Senator from Massachusetts did have 
a priority and was on record as being next in line. If an accommodation 
can be made between the two--if not, the Senator from Massachusetts has 
an opportunity to offer an amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from North Dakota be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes, and 
subsequently, when he completes, that I be recognized for the purposes 
of calling up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for 
his courtesy. I wanted to speak for a couple of minutes on the 
resolution itself that is brought to the floor of the Senate. I want to 
talk just for a moment about what it is and what it is not.
  This piece of legislation is a budget agreement that I intend to vote 
for on final passage. I think a substantial amount of work has been 
done by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member, and 
many others in the House and the Senate and in the White House. They 
have negotiated in very difficult circumstances the terms of a budget 
agreement. But, as I said, I want to talk about what this is and what 
it is not.
  This is a budget agreement that provides a balanced budget of the 
unified budget. Is that something that has merit? Yes, it is. Is that 
something that moves in the right direction? Yes, it does. But it is 
not a balanced budget amendment that balances the budget without the 
use of trust funds, such as the Social Security fund. I want everybody 
to be clear about that.
  On page 4 of this budget resolution, which is on the desks of all 
Senators, it says ``deficit.'' On line 24, it says ``deficit'' in the 
year 2002, ``$108 billion.'' Why does it say that?
  It says that because this piece of legislation balances what is 
called the unified budget. Many of us believe there is another step to 
be taken after that. That is to balance the budget without the use of 
trust funds, especially without the use of Social Security trust funds.
  For that reason, I voted for the initiative offered yesterday by the 
Senator from South Carolina. It got very few votes, I might say. But he 
said, let us balance the budget and not do tax cuts and not do added 
investments at the start so that we balance the budget completely 
without using the trust fund, and then, as the economy strengthens and 
as we have extra money, let us provide for the tax cuts and let us 
provide for the added investments. Obviously, that proposal failed.
  I will vote for this budget agreement. But it is not truly a balanced 
budget. It moves in the direction, and it moves the right way. But it 
will leave this country, still, with a deficit. That must be the next 
step following action on this document.
  There are several steps here in climbing a flight of stairs to get to 
the point where we make real progress. One step we took in 1993. I was 
one who voted for the budget in 1993. I am glad I did. I said at the 
time it was a very controversial vote. It passed by one vote in the 
U.S. Senate--a budget agreement to substantially reduce the Federal 
budget deficit. It passed by one vote, the vote of the Vice President 
of the United States.
  Some paid a very heavy price for that vote because it was 
controversial. It cut spending. And, yes, it raised some taxes. But 
what was the result of that vote in 1993? The result was a dramatically 
reduced budget deficit.
  In that year, the unified budget deficit was close to $290 billion. 
Again, using the unified budget, the Congressional Budget Office now 
says the unified budget deficit is going to be, at the end of year, $67 
billion.
  What has caused all of that? Well, a good economy and a 1993 budget 
act that a lot of people here had the courage to vote for, that passed 
by one vote, that says, let's put us moving in the right direction; 
let's move us in the right direction to substantially reduce the budget 
deficit. And only with that vote, and only with the progress that came 
from that vote, are we now able to take another very large step in 
moving toward a balanced budget.
  What was the result of that vote? It was interesting. We had people 
in 1993 on the floor of the Senate who said, if you cast a ``yes'' vote 
and pass this budget, the economy will collapse; the country will go 
into a recession; it means higher deficits and a higher debt; it means 
the economy goes into a tailspin.
  It passed with my vote--and, yes, the votes of some of my colleagues 
who decided to say to this country that we are serious, that we are 
going to move this country in the right direction even if the choice is 
painful for us to cast this vote.
  What happened? What happened was 4 years of sustained economic 
growth, inflation coming down, down, down, and down, and unemployment 
coming down and down for 4 years in a row. We have more people working. 
This country now has 12 million more people on

[[Page S4951]]

the payrolls that we did in 1993. We have an economy that is moving 
ahead, a deficit that is moving down, and inflation that is at a 30-
year low.
  I wonder if those who predicted doom from that vote now won't join us 
and say, ``You did the right thing. It wasn't easy to do. But because 
you did it, we stand here today now able to take the next step.'' The 
next step is a step in which we now try to choose priorities.
  What do we make investments on in our country, and where do we cut 
real levels of spending?
  That is what this document is about. It is a compromise between 
Republicans and Democrats, between a President and Congress, that tries 
to establish priorities. Frankly, while it reduces spending in some 
areas, it cuts out entire classes of spending in others. It also 
increases some investment in spending in yet other areas.
  What are those? Education: It makes a lot of sense for us even as we 
attempt to move toward solving this country's fiscal problems to say 
that we don't solve the problems of the future by retreating on things 
like educating our kids.
  So this piece of legislation says education is a priority--more Pell 
grants, more Head Start, more investing in education, from young kids 
to college age and beyond. It says we are going to invest in education.
  Then it says the environment and health care. It says these areas are 
priorities. They are areas that make this country strong, and we will 
continue to invest in those areas even as we move to reconcile our 
books so that we are not spending more than we take in.
  That is why this is important, and it is why it is successful. I am 
pleased, frankly, after all of these years, to be on the floor of the 
Senate saying this is something that is bipartisan. Finally, 
Republicans and Democrats, rather than exerting all of their energy to 
fight each other and beat each other, are deciding there are ways that 
we can join each other and pass a piece of legislation that moves this 
country in the right direction. I think the American people probably 
think it is a pretty good thing that bipartisanship comes to the floor 
of the Senate in the form of this budget resolution.
  I started by saying I would talk about what this is and what it 
isn't. I am going to vote for this. It moves this country in the right 
direction. It preserves priorities that are important to preserve, and 
investment in this country's future. It represents a compromise. Many 
of us would have written it differently. We didn't get all we wanted. 
But it moves this country in the right direction while preserving the 
kinds of things most of us think are important as investments in our 
country's future.
  This is not a balanced budget, not truly a balanced budget. It 
balances something called the unified budget. But it is a major step in 
the right direction. I hope we will take the next step beyond this to 
say that, on page 4 of the next budget resolution, line 24, we will say 
``zero'' in a future year. That is when we will truly have completed 
the job.
  But the choices here are not always choices we would like. The choice 
that we now ask ourselves is, does this move us in the right direction 
with respect to the things I care a great deal about--one, fiscal 
discipline; a more deficit reduction; investment in education, health 
care, the environment--things that make this country a better place? 
The answer, unequivocally, is yes. This moves America in the right 
direction.
  Is it an exercise between the President and Congress, between 
Democrats and Republicans, that will give this country some confidence 
that the past is over, that the reckless, the irresponsible fiscal 
policy of saying let's spend money we don't have on things we don't 
need and run up trillions and trillions of dollars of debt for our kids 
and our grandkids to assume? Is it a message to the American people 
that we are beyond that period and have moved on to a new day of 
bipartisanship to decide together we can plot a better course and move 
this country toward a brighter future? The answer to that is yes.
  If the past is any experience, since 1993, the vote we took then to 
put us on the road to balancing this budget is a proud vote and one 
that I am glad I cast. I will be glad I cast this vote as well, because 
this is the next major segment of the journey to do what the American 
people want us to do on their behalf and on behalf of so many children 
who will inherit this country. They will inherit a better country 
because of what we will have done in this Chamber this week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have under 
normal regular order an amount of time at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time. The Senator hasn't 
called up his amendment.


                           Amendment No. 309

  Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 309.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Wellstone, 
     Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 309.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Minnesota 4 
minutes.
  Mr. President, before I yield let me just take 1 minute to explain. 
This is an amendment to hold out a possibility--I yield myself such 
time as I may use--to hold out the possibility that when we come back 
in the appropriating process, we may be able to find some money to deal 
with the issue of early child development. We do not spend money now. 
We do not trade money. We do not have an offset. We do not spend. We 
simply want to be able to reserve the capacity to come back at a later 
time to deal with this issue. I will explain why I feel that is so 
important, as do the other Senators joining me. This is an amendment 
that is cosponsored by Senators Kohl, Moseley-Braun, Wellstone, 
Rockefeller, Mikulski, Murray, and Bingaman.
  I now yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
  I see the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time is the Senator going to use in total? I 
am trying to be accommodating. Use as much time as you like. Do we have 
any idea?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I cannot tell the Senator precisely, but I 
can absolutely tell you I am going to yield back time. I think it will 
be somewhere in the vicinity of a half-hour.
  Mr. DOMENICI. My problem is, Mr. President, I have to go to an 
important meeting with the minority and the majority leaders, and I 
have not had a chance to speak to the Senator about this amendment. I 
want to speak to him about it. I am wondering, if the Senator does use 
his whole half-hour, could we then get another amendment ready and call 
it up and set the amendment aside?
  Mr. KERRY. I will be delighted to set this aside for whatever period 
of time the manager would like. I do want to engage in a dialog on it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator agree when he is finished----
  Mr. KERRY. I will agree to request that this be set aside.
  Mr. DOMENICI. When the Senator is finished, will he suggest the 
absence of a quorum and I will return as soon as I can?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will be happy to agree with the Senator 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Then I ask unanimous consent that when they are 
finished with the argument, the quorum call be called for and I will 
then attend the meeting and return as quickly as I can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We cannot do that. We all understand.

[[Page S4952]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will have an opportunity to have an 
amendment and speak on it a little later this afternoon, so let me be 
very brief.
  I rise to support this amendment that Senator Kerry has introduced. I 
think more than anything else it is an amendment that almost asks us to 
engage in some reflection. It does not call for spending any additional 
money. It asks us to pause and think deeply about our priorities and at 
least consider the possibility that we might eventually be able as we 
go through this reconciliation process to make some significant 
investment in these very critical and very important early years.
  As a former college teacher, and I think more importantly as a parent 
and grandparent, I am absolutely convinced from my own experience and 
from spending time in a school in Minnesota about every 2 or 3 weeks 
during the school year we have to get to the point where every child 
who comes to kindergarten has been read to widely, that we have to get 
to the point where every child who comes to kindergarten knows the 
alphabet and knows how to spell his or her name, knows colors, shapes, 
and sizes. And we have to get to the point where every child who comes 
to kindergarten comes with that sort of wonderful readiness to learn.
  The critical challenge for all of us, which kind of speaks to what we 
are really about, speaks to what our goodness is, is to make sure that 
each and every child enters kindergarten with this wonderful readiness 
to learn. The problem is that for all too many children this does not 
happen. I am sure that Senator Kerry has referenced so much the 
neuroscience evidence that is coming out now. I think we know what to 
do. I do not think it is true we do not know what to do. And we just 
have to get it right. There is sort of an interconnection of the 
nutrition part and the health care part and the intellectual 
development and child care part and we have to do much better for 
children in this country.
  Hopefully this amendment will be an amendment that will generate 
bipartisan support. I think it is a plea. I think it is a call upon all 
of us to reflect. It is an effort to say to all of us, think deeply and 
let us, at least, hold out the possibility as we move through this 
reconciliation process we can invest in these children and their 
opportunities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota not just 
for his support for this but especially for his long-term commitment to 
it and his enormous understanding as a former teacher of how important 
these ingredients are.
  Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, I rise today as a supporter of this budget and as a 
cosponsor of the Kerry amendment.
  This budget deserves the support of the Senate for several reasons. 
It is bipartisan and it is centrist. It funds priorities like education 
and child health that transcend party lines. It includes reasonable tax 
relief targeted toward families and economic growth. It balances the 
budget by the year 2002 and it produces surpluses to reduce the debt in 
the years after that.
  This good deal will be made better by adopting the Kerry amendment 
which makes clear the Senate's commitment to very young children. A 
compelling amount of research on the brain has confirmed what 
scientists have long talked about for years, that the most significant 
period in a child's development is between the years of zero to 3. 
Unfortunately, the Federal commitment to early childhood education has 
not caught up with our understanding of how important the first 3 years 
of life are. Early education and child care receive fewer resources for 
teacher training, salary, and even respect than the rest of the 
education system.
  According to data compiled by the Rand Corp., while 90 percent of 
human brain growth occurs by the age of 3, public spending on children 
in that age range equals only 8 percent of spending on all children.
  And so, Mr. President, we are clearly missing a unique opportunity. A 
look at the current Department of Education budget shows the stark 
funding disparity against early childhood education. Of $29.4 billion 
in current estimated education expenditures, only $1.5 billion or 5 
percent is spent on children from birth to age 5. A new commitment to 
quality child care is a necessary response to the fact that children 
between the ages of zero and 3 are spending more time in care away from 
their homes. Almost 60 percent of women in the work force have children 
under the age of 3 requiring care. Many of these working families will 
not be able to find quality child care for their young children. And 
while Federal, State, and local governments have helped build a strong 
education system for 5- to 25-year-olds, care and education for zero to 
5-year-olds is largely unstructured, undervalued, and scarce. Resolving 
this inequity will require solutions through the public and private 
sector.
  I proposed legislation to encourage the private sector to invest in 
child care for their employees through a new tax credit. I intend to 
work with Senator Hatch who is the primary cosponsor of my bill to see 
to it that this important child care incentive is included in the 
overall tax provisions of the budget.
  The amendment before us now would give us the opportunity under this 
budget to enhance innovative early childhood programs focused on the 
educational needs of children in the zero to 3 age group. This 
initiative does not earmark a specific amount of money. It does not 
create any new bureaucracy and it does not threaten this budget. So, 
Mr. President, a solid and sensible commitment to early childhood 
education specifically focused on children from zero to age 3 is long 
overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am particularly grateful to the Senator 
from Wisconsin for his support because as a supporter of the budget--
and he has long been an advocate of balancing the budget and reducing 
the deficit--he has taken some tough votes in the Senate in an effort 
to do that, sometimes separating himself from colleagues on this side 
of the fence, but he is supportive of this amendment.
  My hope is that colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not 
see this amendment as a threat but, rather, see it as an opportunity 
for us to simply reserve the possibility that as we go into the process 
of reconciliation we may find that revenue expectations are better or 
that we are in a better position to take money from some other program 
that people have thought differently about and invest some of it in 
early childhood development and education.
  I have been working to try to develop a way to do that with Senator 
Coats from Indiana, Senator McCain, Senator Bond, and Senator DeWine. 
We have not yet resolved exactly the methodology by which we would want 
to do it, but I think it would be a mistake were the Senate to preclude 
the opportunity, to have potential points of order and all kinds of 
parliamentary gobbledygook restrain us from coming back to this if 
Senators on both sides of the aisle can find a good means of coming 
together on this. I think there are enough people on both sides of the 
aisle who recognize why this is important and why we ought to do it, 
but my principal objection to this current budget that is in front of 
us is the absence of a sufficient commitment to our children.
  We hear an enormous amount of talk in and out of the Senate, all 
around the country, properly so, about the implosion of family, about 
the absence of family values, the absence of community in many cases in 
our life.
  If you look at the statistics with respect to the increase of 
juvenile violence and you look at the statistics with respect to the 
condition of some of our education system and schools, if you look at 
the absence of after-school programs, the absence of sufficient drug 
treatment and other problems, it is clear that in many ways what we are 
doing is running a national farm system for the trouble spots. We are 
running a national farm system for young people to move up the ladder 
of difficulty, ultimately to become $50,000- or $80,000-a-year wards of 
the State.

[[Page S4953]]

  Now, that is not an exaggeration. That is a reality that is 
documented by facts, implacable facts that none of us can deny. The 
truth is that since 1969, the gross domestic product of the United 
States has doubled, but in that same span of time child poverty has 
increased in the United States of America by 50 percent. As I stand 
here today in this Chamber, all of us know that there is a huge problem 
in America with births out of wedlock. Some people may say all right, 
what does that have to do with this budget and where we are heading?
  We are living in an age where 33 percent of all the children in 
America are born out of wedlock. One-third of America's children are 
born into a single parenting situation. And in a world where 60 percent 
of the mothers of children from 6 on down are at work in the workplace, 
we have got to stop and think about what is the availability of 
surrogate parenting, of care for those children when they are away. 
What you know is that if 33 percent of your children are being born out 
of wedlock without even measuring the difficulty that many two-parent 
families have, you know that the vast majority of that one-third are 
born into a state of crisis, a very difficult structure for parents to 
adequately be able to teach and adequately be able to instill those 
children with the values we talk about.
  Now, some people may say, well, that is going to happen 
automatically. The fact is it does not happen automatically. I just 
share with you the results of that.
  In our country, while the stock market is at the rate of 7,290 or so 
points, while chief executives of our corporations are earning a record 
200-plus times the average worker, while we have a record level of 
employment and a record level of control of inflation at least for some 
30 years, we find that an American child drops out of school every 8 
seconds; an American child is reported neglected or abused every 10 
seconds, is arrested every 15 seconds, is born with a low birthweight 
every 2 minutes, born into poverty every 34 seconds, is killed by 
gunfire--an American child is killed by gunfire every hour and a half 
and commits suicide every 4 hours.
  The costs to our society of these children who are being raised 
without adequate supervision, without adequate input, are simply 
enormous. Business Week estimated, in a study that it released 
recently, that we are spending $425 billion a year annually on crime in 
the United States. The total annual economic cost to society of drug 
abuse is $67 billion. So we are just losing $67 billion out the door as 
the cost of people who wind up being part of the drug culture, largely 
as a consequence of their lack of capacity to make a better choice.
  We have learned a lot in the last years. I used to be a prosecutor 
and I spent a lot of time, and I still spend a lot of time, talking to 
young kids, 14 and 15 years old, or 16 years old, who are in trouble. 
Almost every kid I have ever talked to, once they finally get into some 
kind of mentoring program, once they finally have some kind of adult 
supervision in their lives, has said to me: Senator, this is the first 
time in my life that somebody has provided a structure for me. This is 
the first time in my life that somebody has told me I am valuable. This 
is the first time in my life somebody said I can be somebody, I can do 
something. It is the first time in my life I had to get up in the 
morning and do chores and be responsible for myself.
  Inevitably, anybody of good sense is going to stand back from that 
and say, wait a minute, why are we waiting until they are 15 or 16 
years old for kids to be able to say this is the first time these 
experiences, which hopefully most normal kids get all through their 
lives, are experienced?
  I have sat with my friends on the other side of the aisle and we talk 
about this. We talk about, what do you do if 33 percent of your kids 
are born into a situation where it is almost predictable that they are 
going to have trouble? I respectfully suggest it is not enough to 
simply say, oh, it's individual responsibility. Oh, it's up to the 
parents. Because, obviously, these are situations where the parents 
have already failed and where there is no individual capacity to make a 
difference.
  The question for all of us here is, who is going to make a 
difference? Or, are we going to be so blind, and even sometimes so 
stupid, that all we are going to do is wait until they come down that 
track, get into trouble, and we are finally going to make great 
speeches and say, throw the book at them, send them away.
  We have learned a lot in the last years about the science of brain 
development and of children. It is not altogether new to all of us, 
because the fact is that pediatricians and people of good sense, child 
psychologists and others, have been telling us a lot of this for a long 
period of time. But what we now know scientifically is that the brain 
of a baby develops almost fully in the first 3 years--almost fully. The 
brain of a child, when it is born, has about 100 billion neurons in it 
and those neurons are rushing around, making the connections that 
empower that brain to be able ultimately to create the capacity to 
relate to people, to do certain tasks, to learn.
  Mr. President, this is a CAT scan of two brains. These brains were 
originally shown to doctors and the doctors were asked, ``What do you 
see there?'' The doctors said, ``Well, those are the two brains; one is 
an adult's brain fully developed, and the other is the brain of an 
adult with Alzheimer's disease.''
  They were wrong. These are both the CAT scans of 3-year-old brains, 
both of them. One is the 3-year-old brain fully developed, with the 
area of red, yellow and green which represents the full development of 
that brain. Here in the dark areas of this brain there is nothing. It 
is blank. The scientists now tell us that the brain of a 3-year-old, 
properly stimulated so those neurons properly make connections, will be 
25- to 30-percent larger than the brain of a child that does not 
receive that kind of stimulation.
  I want to read to you what that is all about. This is from 
``Nightline.'' Ted Koppel did an interview with the doctors who were 
involved in this. I want to share with you what Dr. Stanley Greenspan 
at George Washington University says. He said:

       Well, what we've learned is that a lot of commonsense makes 
     common sense, but we've added a few little twists onto 
     common sense. For example, we've identified the six kinds 
     of experiences in the early years that will help promote 
     not just our intelligence, but our morality and our sense 
     of self. It starts with a baby learning to pay attention. 
     We figured out that babies attend differently. Some babies 
     like high pitched sounds, some low pitched sounds, some 
     bright lights, some dull lights. So now we can cater the 
     experiences to the baby's senses.
       We've also learned that babies fall in love, the second 
     step, differently. Some babies need to be wooed. We need to 
     pull them in. We need to smile a lot. Other babies reach 
     right out and charm us.
       The third step in the building of our intelligence and our 
     morality and sense of self, learning to be logical. By eight 
     months, babies are capable of give and take games with smiles 
     and smirks and head nods and back and forth, but some babies 
     we need to woo into these interactions.

  He goes on to say that, later on, at toddler stage, babies learn to 
be problem solvers and that one can develop the intelligence much 
further by encouraging that child in that problem solving, and so 
forth.
  Unfortunately, when so many of our children are born into this state 
of crisis, when so many of our children are even the sons and daughters 
of children, of 15- and 16- and 17-year-olds, they do not have a clue 
about these interactions. They don't understand what parenting is at 
that stage.
  And if we are not going to inherit a significant number of those 
children as children with learning disabilities, children with health 
problems, children with sociopathic problems, with the inability to 
adjust, the inability to relate--then somehow, if we are going to come 
back from this precipice, I respectfully suggest to my colleagues we 
need intervention in the place of that incapacitated parent. In the 
absence of the parent, who is going to provide the structure for that 
child to have the values that all of us want that child to have?
  I am not here to suggest it should be the Government. I don't want 
the Government to do it. We've learned a lot about the downside of 
that. I am not here to suggest that it ought to be another big Federal 
program. We've learned a lot about that. I am here to suggest that we 
have to create a new model, a new way to think about this.
  I think Senator Coats and Congressman Kasich and some others have

[[Page S4954]]

thought about that a lot. But I do not happen to agree with their 
methodology of how they get the resources for it. I do agree with the 
notion that there are thousands of efforts out there in this country, 
Boys Clubs, Girls Clubs, YWCA, YMCA, the Youth Build, the ABC mentor 
programs, Success by Six, Smart Start--North Carolina, by Governor 
Hunt--a host of efforts that are proving their capacity to provide 
grassroots, local, home-grown efforts that make a difference in the 
lives of these children.
  But every single one of them is drowning in the demand, and there 
isn't a sufficient supply. I was in an early infant toddler care center 
in Boston the other day, the Castle Square Child Development Center. 
There are about 67 children in there, early infant toddlers, getting 
this kind of input. But for the 67 that are in there, there are 400 on 
the waiting list. And those 400 will never cross the threshold of that 
place because they will be 6 years old before there is room for them.
  What I am respectfully suggesting is that there is an ability for us 
to reduce these costs that we are spending on drug abuse, on 
imprisonment, on the violence in our streets, on the back end, and 
rescue a whole generation from this problem of lack of sufficient input 
at the early stage, if we would think about how to empower those local 
entities directly; not with big Federal bureaucracy, but directly.
  Mr. President, in the last 10 years, we have taken our prison 
population in America from about 450,000 to 1.5 million. So we are 
filling up our prisons, and we are building more prisons. There has 
been, I think it is, a 248-percent increase in prison spending in the 
last few years. I want to show you the spending on children, because it 
is absolutely inverse.
  This blue line represents the line of brain development. It goes up, 
obviously, dramatically in the first 3 years. It grows a little bit as 
you go on from there, and when you reach about 14 years old, it 
flattens out, regrettably, and then for all of us who are getting 
older, at the back end, it starts to tail down.
  Mr. President, a 15-year-old's brain versus the brain of a child, a 
baby, the brain of the baby is growing 1,000 times faster than the 15-
year-old. The brain of a baby is growing 10,000 times faster than the 
brain of a 50-year-old.
  Here is the line of expenditure of the United States. We are spending 
exactly inversely to the most important years of brain development. We 
spend the most money at the very tail end; we spend the least amount of 
money up front.
  I want to underscore what we are trying to do here. This is not 
coming to the floor with a specific program. It is not coming to the 
floor saying money will go to early Head Start or money will go to the 
charitable institutions I talked about, although I would like to see 
that happen. We are merely trying to reserve the capacity to be able to 
agree in the course of the next months that we will do something to 
address this vital issue. I am confident that we will be able to find a 
bipartisan place to begin in order to be able to focus on what really 
works.
  I would like to see us at least have some pilot projects that invest 
in the capacity to put some leverage directly into those charitable 
institutions so we can see the grassroots do a better job at the local 
level of being able to reach out and intervene. It is my hope that 
colleagues will recognize the wisdom of at least reserving a place in 
line so that we can argue about this at a later time.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and I 
thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I was listening to his speech. It 
was very interesting.
  Mr. President, I should say at the beginning, I am an original 
cosponsor, of Senator Kerry's bill, and proud to be the second on a 
distinguished list. I think there is a tendency in this body, when we 
do something for children--let's say we do a tax credit or we do 
something in Head Start or where we do something in health care--to say 
that we made a dent and we can go on the next issue in the next year. I 
think of all the areas of life that we deal with in the Senate, that is 
the most inaccurate assessment and approach. When it comes to what our 
children need to prepare for their futures and what they are going to 
be like as adults, we need to follow through. And we must begin in the 
earliest years.
  I spent a number of years in Japan. In Japan, when a baby is born, 
and while the baby is growing to a certain age, they do not have cribs. 
They do not have cribs, because in Japan the baby sleeps between the 
mother and the father. Why is that so? That is so because they, as a 
matter of culture and history and instinct, know that bonding has to 
start at the beginning. That is about the clearest form of bonding that 
there can be.
  But even before that, there is a Japanese word called taikeo, in 
which the pregnant mother talks to--and this is standard in Japan--they 
talk to the baby in the womb on a regular basis. That would make a 
fairly strange sight, I guess, walking down the streets of Washington, 
DC, or West Virginia. But the Japanese understand something that 
Senator Kerry showed with his graphics there about the two brains, that 
we clearly don't. They understand when you are looking at the raising 
of children and their future, you have to take a holistic approach. You 
have to start with early childhood development. You have to follow 
through, and keep providing the support, education and development 
support. And you must keep at it. That is both enormously frustrating, 
but, in a nation which purports to care about its children, it is 
absolutely essential that we understand that helping children and 
strengthening families is an unending job. The work on behalf of 
children is never finished, no matter how much we do. In the private 
sector, as individual parents, it is not good enough. No matter what we 
do in the public sector, there will be more that could and should be 
done if we are serious about the real definition of children's future--
and we must be for their sake, and the sake of our society.
  I spent, as I have said before, as this Senator said before on this 
floor, 4 years as the chairman of the National Commission on Children. 
We took a comprehensive look at children's needs--income security, 
health care, education, values, and the effects of media. We did 
everything, and we came out of it with a unanimous report. I picked the 
name for the publication that we put out. I liked it. It was called 
Beyond Rhetoric. That is what we have to come to terms with in this 
body, that we are very good at the rhetoric. In fact, on children--our 
rhetoric tends to be more bipartisan than other subjects which is good. 
And we actually do some good things, insofar as the public has any role 
in that, as apart from parental responsibility and even children's 
responsibility to themselves.
  But we are in a huge new world of responsibilities as parents, which 
I am as a private citizen and concerned father. I am also public 
citizen and a Member of the Senate. I have obligations to children as 
both a private citizen and member of my community, and as a public 
official as well. We are just not going to get off easily if we accept 
the challenge to move beyond rhetoric and really do something for 
children.
  So I think on this floor, we are going to have to start thinking 
about those graphs, about those two brains. They are studies of 
contrasts--both kids' brains, one kid getting attention, one kid not 
getting attention. What a difference it makes.
  I will say another final thing. We do not purport or believe that we 
are doing everything for the future now with this amendment. What we 
are trying to do here is a reserve clause to capture the attention of 
the people. An argument that gets used here often, but not very 
effectively, is extremely compelling in this case--we need to take 
action because of the children, but we also need to act to save money 
for the taxpayers in the future.
  We hear that a lot. People discount it. They say, ``That's nice that 
for Head Start, you save $10 for every dollar you put in now.'' But, we 
have to spend the money now, to save the long-term costs of neglecting 
our children's early development. That is what our problem is. We are 
in a budget resolution here.
  But in the case of children, we are talking about spending billions 
and billions of dollars more on crime and remedial education, if we do 
not do the right thing in the early years for children.
  Senator Kerry has focused on the zero-through-6 period. He is doing 
that

[[Page S4955]]

with an intensity, with a passion which is absolutely unmatched and 
which attracted me. I tend to be a Member who votes against amendments 
on this floor to protect the integrity of this budget deal, which I 
think we have to adopt. But I feel so strongly that he is on the right 
track and he is doing the right thing and that I support the Kerry 
amendment. We have to learn to discipline ourselves to exempt children 
from the way we ordinarily look at problems: Pass legislation, get the 
private sector to do something, and then go on to the next thing. 
Children, their problems, their growth, their development are vital and 
with us forever. The time to start thinking about children and their 
futures is right now.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am particularly grateful to the Senator 
from West Virginia. His work as the head of the National Commission on 
Children was absolutely extraordinary. It was way ahead of its time. I 
am very honored to have him working as part of this effort.
  I just say to him that the example about Japan that he raised, that 
in 1965, when Pat Moynihan first talked about 27 percent then known as 
illegitimacy in America, the rate of illegitimacy in Japan was 1 
percent. It is now 33 percent overall in America; that is up from 27 
percent. He was referencing only African-Americans. It is now 69 
percent among African-Americans in America; 49 percent among the 
Hispanics; and 27 percent among the whites. It is still 1 percent in 
Japan--1 percent.
  What is interesting is the Japanese have an adage that the Senator is 
obviously familiar with. They say that the soul of a 3-year-old will be 
with you for 100 years. They have been way ahead of us; they have 
understood that. I am particularly grateful to Senator Rockefeller for 
his participation and effort in this.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a topic which 
significantly affects every citizen in America. An issue that has 
consequences for every child and parent, and tremendous bearing on our 
Nation's economic status and welfare--early childhood development.
  Recent research has proven that an infant's brain initially holds 
approximately 100 billion neurons. However, without the proper care, 
nurturing, love, stimulation, and involvement of adults--which most of 
us were lucky enough to receive--these neurons will not make 
connections essential for healthy development. The amount of brain 
development which occurs between the ages of zero and 3 has enormous 
consequences later in a child's life. Children who are rarely touched 
develop brains 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal for their age. The 
2-year-old girl whose mother is too preoccupied with her job to provide 
the proper care will not be as likely to develop to her potential. This 
child might feel deprived and angry. The good news is that if parents 
are given up-to-date information on how to promote brain development, 
they will be able to raise healthy children. The result will be more 
productive young adults.
  Clearly, we must do something as a nation to provide help when help 
is needed. The most practical, ethical, and cost-effective way to solve 
such problems as a nation is to increase funding for early childhood 
development.
  Mr. President, a person's brain develops the most rapidly between the 
ages of zero and 3, by 350 percent. Ironically, we spend the least 
amount of Federal money on children during this period, only 20 percent 
of the public expenditures from which they will benefit prior to 
adulthood. Between the ages of 3 and 18, however, while the brain 
develops by another 50 percent, public spending on children increases 
by 800 percent. We need to change this discrepancy. Parents need more 
and better information about how to best care for their infants. They 
need the tools to provide this care most easily.
  With greater attention to early childhood development, we will spend 
less money on children later in their lives. National studies have 
found increased violence and crime among youth when they do not receive 
adequate developmental care as young children. Furthermore, greater 
attention to early childhood development will help children avoid 
falling through the cracks. It will help them succeed. They will make 
important contributions to our country--instead of possibly ending up 
in jail, institutions, or on welfare. The Early Childhood Development 
Act makes investments now that will benefit our society later by saving 
money, keeping us competitive, and preventing needless suffering.
  I personally know that this is a worthwhile investment. As a 
preschool teacher 15 years ago, I saw children in need of nurturing. 
For some children, I was their only source of such care. I knew that my 
assistance was helping these 2- and 3-year-olds to lead productive 
adult lives. As a parent educator, I had information to give parents 
the tools they needed to provide the best possible environment for 
their children. All parents have something to gain from learning these 
skills--we just need to make the tools available to everybody.

  Senator Kerry's early childhood development amendment puts us on the 
road toward this goal. The amendment gives grants to States to 
establish State Early Learning Coordinating Boards. These boards give 
grant funds to community projects for child care improvement, including 
parent education and involvement in schools. The amendment establishes 
forgiveable loans for child care workers, who earn a degree in early 
childhood development and agree to work in early childhood development 
for 2 years. This will not only increase general awareness for early 
child care, but it will empower individuals to access quality care. 
This amendment also expands currently successful programs. The Family 
and Medical Leave Act is expanded to grant parents time to become 
involved with school. Early Head Start will also have increased 
funding, which will improve health and nutrition services for low-
income infants and toddlers. In addition, this amendment will fully 
fund WIC, ensuring that every mother has adequate nutrition--and a 
healthy baby. This will save taxpayers tremendous amounts of money in 
health care expenditures avoided.
  A child learns more from its experiences in the first 3 years of life 
than at any other time, and the dollars we invest in early childhood 
now save billions later in welfare, emergency room, and court costs. I 
have seen a tremendous amount of commitment to children, by many caring 
adults, in my own experiences teaching preschool. But in order to make 
a real difference, we need a widespread sense of commitment to improve 
early childhood development services everywhere. We need a national 
strategy for informing parents, so they can send their children to the 
right child care providers, and take an active role in their 
development.
  This amendment is a catalyst for all of these desperately-needed 
improvements. As policymakers, we must encourage and allow America's 
children to grow into healthy adults. We need to positively influence 
the lives of young people right now. Let us change the message we are 
sending to children, by investing in their futures.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be charged equally off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
be temporarily set aside and that the time remain as it is on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S4956]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 331

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 331.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 331.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple, and I will 
not belabor the Senate's time. It will just take me 4 or 5 minutes to 
explain it.
  I have two amendments, incidentally, 331 and 332. I hope we can 
dispose of both of them right now.
  Under this budget agreement, we assume $135 billion in tax cuts over 
the first 5 years of this budget. And of that $135 billion, $115 
billion is in Medicare cuts.
  Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished floor manager.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Bumpers, I 
inadvertently made a mistake. Our understanding was that we would just 
consider a Democratic amendment, and Senator Specter from the 
Republican side was entitled to make the next amendment, and then 
Senator Bumpers was next. I think we knew that. It has been very 
difficult. Senator Specter has waited around a long time. I wonder if 
you would consider----
  Mr. BUMPERS. Certainly I will accommodate the Senator any way I can.
  Is Senator Specter here ready to go?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will send out word that if Senator Specter is ready, 
he should come down.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I hope to dispose of mine before he even gets here.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Maybe we can do that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will proceed. If he comes, I will lay my amendment 
aside.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BUMPERS. So anyway, Mr. President, the budget resolution calls 
for a $115 billion cut in Medicare, ostensibly to provide some solvency 
in the Medicare trust fund.
  The Finance Committee, in my opinion--in my opinion, we should not go 
forward with this budget and allow the people in this country who 
depend on Medicare for their very lives, we should not allow them to 
believe, as they have a perfect right to believe, that we are cutting 
$115 billion out of Medicare and, make no mistake about it, they will 
suffer.
  We say we are going to take it out of providers', hospitals', and 
doctors' hides. They are going to take it out of the patients' hides 
and the patients are going to get fewer services.

  So I do not want to go home and face my constituents and have them 
say, ``You cut $115 billion out of Medicare, and that's all laudable as 
long as it goes into the trust fund to make the thing more solvent. But 
did you do that, did you put this on the deficit?'' ``No.'' ``Did you 
put it on child health care?'' ``No.'' ``Did you put it into 
education?'' ``No.'' ``What did you do with it?'' ``We gave it to the 
wealthiest people in America in tax cuts.''
  That is the accusation that every Senator should be prepared to face 
up to when he goes home this fall and in the election year next year.
  So what I am saying is, it is a laudable thing to try to make the 
Medicare trust fund solvent, but what we are doing here is using that 
$115 billion to provide $135 billion in tax cuts. We say, ``Well, we're 
going to make up $50 billion of that; the net tax cuts will only be $85 
billion.'' What I am saying in my amendment is we require the Finance 
Committee to come up with a total of $115 billion in offsets to offset 
what we are cutting Social Security by. Otherwise, we stand fairly 
accused of using Medicare funds to cut taxes for the wealthiest people 
in America.
  Look at this chart. Here is the Medicare savings--$115 billion. That 
is the cut in Medicare. What we are going to do is we are going to use 
that as an offset to accommodate $135 billion in tax cuts. That is 
undeniable, unarguable, unassailable. We are using $115 billion of 
Medicare cuts to provide tax cuts.
  So what I am saying is, let us instruct the Finance Committee not 
just to put the airline ticket tax in at $32 billion over the next 5 
years, but come up with enough additional offsets to offset the entire 
$115 billion in Medicare savings. That is not hard to understand, Mr. 
President. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. If nobody wishes to debate that amendment further, I 
would like to call up amendment No. 330. I do not want to do this while 
the chairman's attention is diverted.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am sorry, I say to the Senator.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I say to Senator Domenici, I will follow up with my 
other amendment and debate it right now unless you wish to speak on the 
one I just offered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator wants to offer another one?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator reserve any time on the one he 
offered?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to have 10 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. On this one?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am finished on this one.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You must have great confidence in it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am hoping we can get back home and tell people how 
great it is.
  Mr. DOMENICI. When Senator Specter comes, we will call on him.
  I ask unanimous consent that we further set aside both the Kerry 
amendment and the Bumpers amendment No. 331 while Senator Bumpers 
offers his second amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 330

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 330.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, my second amendment is one I feel 
strongly about--both of these--but I want you to listen to this.
  It would delay the tax cuts that are provided in this budget 
resolution. We are going to face all of this later on in the 
reconciliation bill. I know that. But what we ought to do is delay the 
tax cuts until the year 2002. All I do in this amendment is I strike 
the first $63.3 billion of tax cuts over the years 1998 to 2001.
  You know what that does, Mr. President? It does not balance the 
budget in the year 2002. It balances the budget in the year 2001. Now, 
why would we not, after reading the paper this morning and seeing that 
the Treasury Department reaped a gold mine in April--the surplus in 
April of income versus expenditures was $97 billion.
  CBO has now said that the deficit could be as low as $65 billion come 
September 30. That is a remarkable achievement.
  On this floor in August 1993, we passed a bill called the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. I regret, Mr. President, not one 
single Republican voted for it. You know what the effect of that was? I 
told the President as far as I am concerned that is going to be his 
legacy. All these other things he is trying to accomplish, they are all 
laudable. I have no quarrel with them. But 5 solid straight years of 
real budget deficit reduction is going to be his legacy.
  But I will tell you how that legacy can be destroyed. That is to 
proceed with a budget that we have right here which cuts taxes by $135 
billion for the wealthiest people in America, and revenues go down 
every single year--every single year. If we were to postpone these tax 
cuts until the year 2002, we could balance the budget in the year 2001.
  Let me tell you something else. If we do not strike while the iron is 
hot, we are going to regret it. I promise you, the assumptions in this 
bill that our economy is going to be as hot as these assumptions say it 
will be over the next 5 years is a very dicey situation. We have 
already had an unbelievable prosperity for the past 6 years. Nothing 
looks like it since Eisenhower was President. To assume it is going to 
continue another 5 years is the height of folly. You cannot depend on 
this budget to balance anything unless you agree with those economic 
assumptions, and I do not.

[[Page S4957]]

  I have spent 22 years in the Senate standing in this aisle, screaming 
my head off about budget deficits. In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was 
riding the crest the likes of which has never been seen since Franklin 
Roosevelt, the herd instinct swept through this body and all my 
screaming was for naught. It did not do a bit of good.
  I said--and I will send anybody a copy of the speech that would like 
to see it--you pass this budget and you are going to create deficits 
big enough to choke a mule. You cannot cut taxes, increase defense 
spending and balance the budget any more than you can lose weight on 
five chocolate sundaes a day. That is the five-chocolate-sundaes-a-day 
diet. And that is exactly what we are coming back to.

  What does it take to educate this body? If you do not learn from past 
experiences, what are you going to learn from? When Ronald Reagan left 
office 8 years later, the national debt--which at that time was $1 
trillion and took 200 years to get to $1 trillion--when he left, all 
his 8 years later, it was $3 trillion. He had tripled the national debt 
because of the folly, the political folly, the political herd instinct 
that swept across this body in 1981.
  I am proud to tell you, Mr. President--a little self-serving--I did 
not vote for it. There are only 11 Senators who voted against the tax 
cuts. There were only three Senators who voted against the tax cuts and 
for the spending cuts. We could have balanced the budget by 1985 easily 
if everybody had voted the way those three Senators voted.
  So here we are, back at the same old stand: It did not work before, 
but it'll sure work this time. We will cut taxes, are going to cut 
taxes, going to increase spending, and bring you a balanced budget.
  While the deficit goes from $67 billion anticipated this fall, the 
fifth straight year, from $290 billion in 1992--$290 billion--to $67 
billion this year, 5 straight years of deficit reduction, what does 
this budget do? Why, it takes it back up to $97 billion next year and 
$97 billion the following year and $83 billion the following year and 
$50 billion the following year. Then the following year a $1 billion 
surplus.
  I have some great land in the Everglades I would like to sell you if 
you believe that is going to happen.
  Mr. President, all we have to do is vote very simply to postpone the 
tax cuts. I am not saying do not ever cut taxes. But you are either for 
cutting taxes or for balancing the budget, but you cannot be for both 
and be economically sound in the process.
  So I am asking my colleagues to say, postpone the tax cuts until the 
year 2001 and balance the budget at the soonest possible date. Then you 
can argue all the other economic nonsense. But our first priority is to 
balance the budget. You are not going to do it with this budget. If you 
assume that the economy is going to stay like it is right now for the 
next 5 years--I do not know whether I will be here or not. I would just 
like to be around at the end of 5 years so I can say, I told you so. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Bumpers, I wonder if we could ask how 
much time the Senator used, and I would use the same amount of time, 
and then there would be no more time used.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will be happy to reserve 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Two minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Of additional time.
  If I may, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator 
from Virginia [Mr. Robb], as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while I am having a great deal of 
difficulty discerning the difference between the two amendments, let me 
tell the Senate what I believe the sum total of the two amendments are.
  The distinguished Senator from the State of Arkansas does not believe 
in tax cuts. It is just that simple. When you go to work on a budget, 
you ask the American people to let you reform some programs that are 
out of control, and you save some money.
  When you ask the American people to let you reduce spending in some 
other areas, or at least keep it intact, when you do that, you come up 
with a surplus, and you say, we want to give that back to the American 
people. You know that is a tax cut.
  We do not have any other way to give back to the American people what 
is theirs. We give the American people a lot of programs. But when you 
reduce taxes, you are giving them back what is theirs. They already 
earned it.
  No matter how you cut it, both of these amendments--one says in this 
budget resolution you are permanently prohibited from giving any tax 
cuts. That is plain and simple. That is one of them. Now maybe my 
friend will explain it with relation to other things, but that is, 
plain and simple, what it is.

  What we have done in the overall budget, we have restrained 
Government such that there is sufficient funding to give the American 
people a modest tax cut, a net of $85 billion out of a tax take in the 
trillions. It is not like we are giving them a huge tax cut. Well, let 
us give them something. Balance the budget and give them some kind of 
balance. What is the use of having a balanced budget if there is 
nothing in it for the people?
  We are trying to get the economy running better, and to do that we 
want to get a balanced budget and to make sure the American people feel 
better about their day's work and their taking a chance on investing. 
You want to give them some back. To those mothers and fathers raising 
kids under 18 years of age, we would like to say to them, we understand 
your problem and we have enough savings in this budget we will give you 
a tax break. It is not pie in the sky.
  The economic assumptions, and I know we are not supposed to talk 
about technicalities, but the distinguished Senator said he would not 
rely on any of these assumptions. Mr. President, let me tell you, there 
are literally thousands of American businesses who do economic 
planning, thousands of them, and the biggest of them in America rely on 
more generous economic assumptions than are in this budget resolution. 
The Office of Management and Budget has more generous economic 
assumptions. We have the most conservative set of economic assumptions 
you will find from any major institution or business in America. We did 
that because that is a way of saying if you should have a downturn, if 
you should have a downturn you have taken that into consideration by 
using very, very conservative economic assumptions. Nobody does it any 
differently. Nobody comes along and says, well, let's write a 5-year 
budget and in the third year, let's have a recession and plug it in. 
First, nobody wants to do that because they are frightened to death of 
such a concept, but what economists do is build in low economic 
assumptions. That is what we did.
  Frankly, I do not want to be on the side that says there is no room 
in the Federal budget to balance it and give the American taxpayers a 
break. I believe there is. In fact, I believe, absent some untoward 
happening, something untoward happening, I believe we will be balanced 
ahead of 2002 because I believe the economic assumptions are so low 
that we will do better for at least 2 out of the next 4 years than are 
estimated here. I did not choose to put that in. I choose to use 
modest, conservative economic assumptions.
  Now, the Bumpers amendment that tries to allude to Medicare has 
nothing to do with Medicare. The President of the United States joined 
with Democrats and Republicans and said to the senior citizens of 
America, we want to do something for you in this budget that is 
positive and good. Lo and behold, what we have done is make the 
Medicare trust fund solvent for 10 years. That is not bad. It is 
bankrupt in about 3 years if we do not do that. That is No. 1 on the 
positive side, we made it solvent for 10 years. We told the providers 
in America that they will get paid differently, and for the most part 
paid less. We told the Medicare people that run the program, give the 
seniors all kinds of options because there are options to get better 
service at cheaper rates. We also moved part of home health care out of 
the trust fund and said we will take care of it under a more generous 
program, all of which contributes to the senior citizens of America in 
a very mighty way.

[[Page S4958]]

  Now nobody can kid anybody anymore. The tax cuts have nothing to do 
with that. Let me tell you, you wipe out the tax cuts--let's just do 
that. We will think it out here, take out the tax cuts. But also if you 
think through Senator Bumpers's proposal--maybe we ought to wipe out 
all those reform measures that save money for the Medicare fund, or 
what I am saying in another way is that all of the savings for the 
Medicare goes back to Medicare. All of the savings for Medicare go back 
to Medicare. They do not go to taxpayers, they go back to making that 
program solvent. That is pretty logical, it seems to me, when you have 
done that, and balanced the budget and found room for a tax break.
  We relish the idea of voting on these two amendments today. We 
Republicans want to vote on them. We hope a lot of people vote against 
it, but not a single Republican should. I hope they do not. Because 
what we are saying is, the modest tax cut in this budget resolution 
ought to be carried out, and it ought to be carried out in a manner 
prescribed in this budget resolution.
  If I have additional time on the amendment, I reserve it but I do not 
think I will speak more than 1 minute on either of the two amendments. 
If Senator Bumpers wants to use 2 minutes, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I remember a great lesson when I was a boy about Joseph 
having a dream. Everybody in this body knows the rest of the story. 
Joseph dreamed there was going to be 7 years of plenty and 7 years of 
starvation. So he told the King of Egypt, if you want to survive, you 
better start saving everything you can the first 7 years.

  I want to relay that to every Senator in the U.S. Senate. I am 
telling you, if you have the 5 years, if you have the 5 years you are 
talking about here, do not assume that the deficit will continue to go 
down and we will start paying on the national debt, because we have 
never had prosperity for that length of time.
  I give you Joseph's admonition: Strike while the iron is hot and 
while the economy is hot.
  The Senator from New Mexico said I do not believe in tax cuts. I do 
not believe in using Medicare for tax cuts from the most vulnerable 
people in America, our elderly, who go to bed petrified every night 
fearing what their medical bills might be. I do not believe in using 
Medicare and I do not believe in tax cuts at the expense of balancing 
the budget.
  Every poll I have seen has shown overwhelmingly that people will take 
a balanced budget to tax cuts, and that is the option. As far as my 
liking taxes or not liking taxes, the present small business exemption 
for people who invest in small businesses, which the President endorsed 
in 1993, was mine. I am the author of it, trying to help small 
business.
  Right now, I have a bill up here in case we cut capital gains, and we 
are going to, to 19.8 percent--I reduced the capital gains on small 
business investments to half that, 9.8 percent.
  Mr. President, I used to have a little dachshund, a female dachshund. 
Betty and I worshipped that little dog, but we had a problem. We could 
not train her, could not train her to go outside. The only perfect 
analogy to that is the U.S. Senate. We cannot seem to train the U.S. 
Senate that you cannot cut taxes and balance the budget. I do not care 
how many times we do it. We did it in 1981 and paid a disastrous price, 
and we are about to do it again, and we will probably pay another 
disastrous price. We cannot resist the siren song of tax cuts. 
Politically, it is wonderful to go home and say, ``Oh, yes, oh yes, I 
voted to cut your taxes, you bet.''
  ``How did you do it?''
  And then you start obfuscating and trying to confuse the issue. You 
do not want to tell them you did it at the expense of a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. President, this amendment makes eminent good sense and there is 
not a Senator in the U.S. Senate--I take that back, there might be a 
few --who does not know that what I am talking about is pure common 
sense. It makes common sense in your life. It makes economic sense for 
the Nation to save up and to balance the budget, something the people 
in this country have been yearning for as long as anybody can remember.
  I have not announced whether I will run again or not. I do not mind 
telling you that two things that sort of make me want to be around here 
the next few years are that I would like to be here after investing 22 
years in trying to balance the budget. I would like to be here when it 
happens. And the other thing I would like to be here for is when we 
change the way we finance campaigns. Why in the name of all that is 
good and holy we continue to cherish this absolutely outrageous system 
for raising money for campaigns, when every time you take a vote they 
rush and see whether somebody gave you money last year or the last time 
you ran, and how that affected your vote. Why would we not want to get 
rid of a system like that?
  If anybody believes this great Nation, the greatest democracy on 
Earth, with the oldest Constitution on Earth, can continue to survive 
when the people we elect and the laws we pass depend on how much money 
we put in it, is daydreaming. It cannot last forever. Those are two 
things that I would give anything in the world to see happen before I 
leave the U.S. Senate.
  So I plead with my colleagues, I plead with you, vote for common 
sense and vote to postpone these tax cuts and balance the budget in the 
year 2001. What is sacred about 2002? I have been hearing 2002 for I do 
not know how long. What is sacred about 2002? If you have a chance to 
do it in 2001, do it. That is what I am asking you to do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has the time of Senator Bumpers elapsed on the 
amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No formal consent----
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am prepared to yield. I wish Senator Specter was here 
so we could get something going.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will be going, do not worry. We will be ready 
shortly.


                      Amendment No. 332 Withdrawn

  Mr. BUMPERS. I have an additional amendment at the desk, I think 332, 
and I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to withdraw that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 332) was withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The list is down to 70 amendments, I guess. I am just 
kidding.

  Mr. President, I yield to Senator Lautenberg.


                           Amendment No. 330

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, far be it for me to seek an argument 
with our distinguished colleague from Arkansas. I cannot argue the 
other side very effectively.
  Tax cuts at this point in time, I do not think, are the best idea. 
What I think are some good ideas are the facts that we will, by virtue 
of this tax cut, we will be saving the middle-class families, those in 
more modest income circumstance. This will help pay for the insurance 
of your children. If they choose not to go to a 4-year college there is 
a program in here that will give them $1,500 worth of tax relief if 
their child wants to go to a 2-year college or a vocational school.
  I find it hard to disagree totally with my friend from Arkansas. I do 
want to say this, and this may not be the appropriate defense, but I 
have to look at it as a member of the Budget Committee and also as a 
member of the Appropriations Committee as an advance toward something 
that we want to do. We would like to be able to pay down our deficit, 
and I think that one day in the not-too-distant future, half a dozen 
years, which is not much in the lifetime of a country, that we will be 
able to start paying down our debt, starting to relieve ourselves of 
the biggest costs we will soon have in the budget which is the interest 
on the debt. That will happen and it happens because there is a 
compromise that has been fashioned, and as usual, the compromise is a 
consensus of minds but not a consensus of hearts.
  I do not really like everything that I am supporting here but there 
are things that I really love that I am supporting. I love the fact we 
will take care of 5 million children's health needs, and I love the 
fact we are not saying to those that are here legally if some accident 
or sickness befalls you that renders you disabled you will not be 
kicked off the rolls, which was an intent here for some time.

[[Page S4959]]

  There is going to be some relief for the impoverished, up to 150 
percent, approximately, of the poverty level for any increases in the 
part B premium necessary as a result of the switch from part A to part 
B of home health care. That will help make that part A more solvent. I 
think that is a worthwhile objective.
  Meanwhile, we see that the economy is boiling, as you suggested, and 
that there is some hope that it will continue, and the economic 
assumptions, I think, are relatively conservative. So there is room to 
achieve the objectives that we want to without simply saying that the 
tax cuts are the thing that are driving this. That is not the case. The 
tax cuts are part of it. I do not approve of the tax cuts, either, but 
I voted for this bill because I think it is an essential part of 
getting our books in balance and working our way out of debt and not 
leaving our children with ever larger debts to pay off.
  So while I agree with the Senator in principle, the fact of the 
matter is that I think we have a job to do here that robs us of some of 
the things we would like to see. I voted against investments in 
transportation. That was really painful for me. I voted against 
expanding programs for children. That was painful to me. I do not like 
doing those things, but I like doing the job here as conscientiously as 
I can, which is to say at some point we want to reduce our debt, we 
want to reduce our deficits, we want to invest in our society, but we 
do not want to continue to pay the incredible interest rates that we 
are forced to pay, something around $250 billion a year.
  It is an outrageous thing for us to have to be subjected to. But we 
are trying to fix it. That is what this is about.
  I hope that the Senator will try at another opportunity to make the 
adjustments that he is talking about.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are still on our side expecting 
Senator Specter to arrive. I assume Senator Bumpers will not mind if we 
stack some votes, if we have him present his, and in due course we will 
get to his. Then I will have a chance to discuss further with the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts his pending amendment.
  I want to close now on this note. I truly wish Senator Bumpers would 
not have tied Medicare to this tax cut.
  First of all, Mr. President and fellow senior citizens--I can say 
``fellow senior citizens.'' I just turned 65 a few days ago. But the 
truth of the matter is we have far more savings from other accounts 
than the reforms in Medicare to pay for tax cuts. In fact, there are 
almost three times as many savings in the first 5 years from other 
sources--two times from other sources, and from the reform measures 
that are part of Medicare.
  My last remarks are: If you wipe the tax cuts out of here, you still 
have to do all those things for Medicare to keep it solvent. You have 
to do those kinds of things or raise taxes, which nobody has suggested 
we do.
  So, I close by saying I opt for a balanced budget that includes some 
tax relief. I am comfortable and confident we can do both this time. We 
have done much in moderation in this budget, which has caused some of 
our friends who want to do much more, both in cutting the budget and 
cutting taxes, to opt out of this agreement, not wanting us to pass it. 
But I think we have had a moderate approach to both sides. I for one 
hope both of these amendments get defeated overwhelmingly to show the 
American people that they deserve a tax break along with this balanced 
budget.
  I am prepared now to move on to another amendment.
  Did Senator Bond want to proceed?
  Mr. BOND. I am ready.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not aware that the Senator is next in line.
  Is there any commitment on the part of the Senator that he is next in 
line?
  Mr. BOND. That was my understanding.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think the Senator from Missouri was supposed to be 
after Senator Specter and after Senator Ashcroft. But Senator Specter 
is not here.
  How much time does the Senator want on his amendment?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are a couple of people who want to 
speak. I think 20 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Which amendment is the Senator calling up?
  Mr. BOND. Disproportionate share of hospital payments, sense of the 
Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I hope that the Senator will take less time. We will 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. BOND. We would like very much to have a vote on it. If they were 
stacked, that would be acceptable. But this one is a very serious 
matter to the States of Missouri, Texas, and Washington.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I, once again, have put myself between a rock and a 
hard place because I thought Senator Specter would be next. We do not 
know who will follow him. I told Senator Ashcroft he would be next.
  Let's do it this way. I believe Senator Specter will be awhile 
arriving. So will the Senator let us go with Senator Ashcroft, and then 
the senior Senator from Missouri would go next?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. I yield to the senior Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside so that we can proceed to Senator Bond's 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I know 
that this is an extremely difficult time. The analogy of loading frogs 
in a wheelbarrow is very apt when dealing with scheduling budget 
proceedings. The chairman has done an outstanding job.


                           Amendment No. 324

  Mr. BOND. I call up amendment No. 324.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself, Mrs. 
     Murray, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Ashcroft, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 324.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)


                     Amendment No. 324, As Modified

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent that the modification be included.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 324), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF 
                   CHILDREN'S HEALTH.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Today's children and the next generation of children 
     are the prime beneficiaries of a balanced Federal budget. 
     Without a balanced budget, today's children will bear the 
     increasing burden of the Federal debt. Continued deficit 
     spending would doom future generations to slower economic 
     growth, higher taxes, and lower living standards.
       (2) The health of children is essential to the future 
     economic and social well-being of the Nation.
       (3) The medicaid program provides health coverage for over 
     17,000,000 children, or 1 out of every 4 children.
       (4) While children represent \1/2\ of all individuals 
     eligible for medicaid, children account for less than 25 
     percent of expenditures under the medicaid program.
       (5) Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funding under the 
     medicaid program has allowed States to provide health care 
     services to thousands of uninsured pregnant women and 
     children. DSH funding under the medicaid program is critical 
     for these populations.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that the health 
     care needs of low-income pregnant women and children should 
     be a top priority. Careful study must be made of the impact 
     of medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reform 
     proposals on children's health and on vital sources of care, 
     including children's hospitals. Any restrictions on DSH 
     funding under the medicaid program should not harm State 
     medicaid coverage of children and pregnant women.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in addition, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Hutchison of Texas be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss a sense of the 
Senate amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Murray, Gorton, 
Ashcroft, and Hutchison, which simply states that ``careful study must 
be made of the impact of Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, or 
DSH, reform proposals on children's health and on vital sources of care 
including children's hospitals.''

[[Page S4960]]

  It is our strong belief, and the sense of the Senate indicates, that 
any restrictions on DSH funding should not harm Medicaid coverage of 
children and pregnant women.
  While I recognize and strongly support the need to control Federal 
spending, I am deeply concerned about the impact of billions of dollars 
in new Medicaid DSH spending reductions.
  I know that my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee, can point to some States in which there may be disagreements 
about how the DSH payments were used. I don't say that there has been 
the same kind of usage of Medicaid disproportionate share payments in 
other States as there has been in Missouri.
  But I do know from our standpoint that since 1981 the Medicaid DSH 
Program has enabled hospitals who provide care to a disproportionate 
share of low-income people to serve as a safety net for those with 
little or no access to health care.
  In Missouri, the DSH Program has been a key variable in expanding 
health care coverage to thousands of pregnant women and children. More 
than a quarter of a million, more than 250,000, people have been served 
as a result of the DSH payments.
  These payments have enabled my home State to successfully reduce the 
number of uninsured Missourians by enrolling them. It has improved 
access to health care services for those who remain uninsured.
  In addition to using DSH funds appropriately, our State of Missouri 
also uses them efficiently.
  For Federal Medicaid benefits plus DSH payments per beneficiary: The 
national average is $2,454; in Missouri the figure is $2,288 versus the 
national average of $2,454.
  Overall Medicaid spending in Missouri is also below the national 
average. A recent report by the Kaiser Commission illustrates the 
efficiency of the Missouri program. Missouri spends $3,190 annually per 
Medicaid enrollee compared to the national average of $3,290.
  Yet, reductions in the Federal DSH payments would be devastating for 
Missouri, a State which has used its Federal DSH dollars in an 
efficient, effective, and appropriate manner.
  Anywhere from 56,000 to 348,000 Medicaid beneficiaries in Missouri 
could lose health coverage if the DSH reforms that have been publicized 
are enacted, and there is no compensating source of revenue funding for 
them.
  President Clinton's proposal specifically would eliminate Medicaid 
benefits for 162,000 Missourians.
  This is simply the wrong approach. Reducing DSH payments does not 
focus on cutting the fat in the Medicaid Program. Instead, it cuts 
crucial health care benefits for low-income pregnant women and children 
whose lives depend upon this critical coverage.
  Yes, Congress should increase State Medicaid flexibility, as this 
budget resolution calls for. But we should not target DSH funding--
funding which has allowed many States to expand health care coverage to 
our Nation's most vulnerable population.
  Again, I reiterate that this resolution fully recognizes and supports 
the need for a balanced Federal budget. At the same time it guarantees 
that when working out the details of achieving Medicaid savings, 
Congress will have sufficient information to ensure that reforms in 
disproportionate share payments will not threaten low-income pregnant 
women and children, as well as providers of health care such as 
children's hospitals, public hospitals, and other safety net hospitals.
  I look forward to working with the Finance Committee in the coming 
months regarding this issue, and I am confident that we can structure a 
plan that takes into consideration the health of our most vulnerable 
citizens.
  I ask unanimous consent that several statements in support of this 
amendment be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that 
statements by Lawrence McAndrews, president and CEO of the National 
Association of Children's Hospitals; Governor Met Carnahan of the State 
of Missouri; Douglas Reis, president of Cardinal Glennon Children's 
Hospital in St. Louis; Ted Frey, president of St. Louis Children's 
Hospital; and Randall O'Donnell, president and CEO of Children's Mercy 
Hospital in Kansas City be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Statement by Lawrence A. McAndrews, President and CEO, National 
                  Association of Children's Hospitals

       The National Association of Children's Hospitals strongly 
     supports Senator Kit Bond's resolution on children's health 
     and Medicaid.
       He is absolutely right on all three counts. A balanced 
     budget is very important to children. Medicaid is very 
     important to children. And Medicaid disproportionate share 
     payments are very important to children, especially the 
     patients of children's hospitals and other safety net 
     hospitals.
       Medicaid is far more significant to children's health than 
     most of us realize. It pays for the health care of one in 
     every four children and one in three infants.
       Medicaid and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital 
     payments are far more important to children's hospitals than 
     most of us realize. On average, children's hospitals devote 
     nearly half of their care to children who are covered by 
     Medicaid or are uninsured.
       If it weren't for Medicaid disproportionate share payments, 
     some children's hospitals could be in jeopardy. Even with 
     such payments, Medicaid often does not pay enough to cover 
     the full cost of children's health care.
       For example, even with these extra payments, children's 
     hospitals still average only about 80 cents from Medicaid for 
     every dollar of health care they provide. Without them, they 
     would receive closer to 70 cents for every dollar of care.
       As a former CEO of Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas 
     City, I know just how important Medicaid and disproportionate 
     share payments were to our ability to serve all of the 
     children of our community, no matter how poor or sick.
       Senator Bond's resolution fully supports the balanced 
     budget. It simply makes sure that in working out the details 
     of changes in Medicaid spending, Congress will have the 
     information it needs to ensure that changes in 
     disproportionate share payments will not jeopardize children 
     or other safety net hospitals.
                                                                    ____

                                                 Executive Office,


                                            State of Missouri,

                                 Jefferson City, MO, May 19, 1997.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Kit: I write to inform you of my serious concern about 
     the Medicaid provisions in the budget resolution.
       As you know, the resolution calls for savings of around $17 
     billion over five years from the Medicaid program. It is 
     presumed that this savings level would be achieved primarily 
     through reductions in disproportionate share (DSH) payments 
     to states. Such a plan could have a devastating impact on 
     Missouri's Medicaid program, and more importantly, on the 
     citizens of our State who rely on Medicaid to meet their 
     health care needs.
       Missouri runs a very well-managed and fiscally responsible 
     Medicaid program. Our spending is frugal and already below 
     most other states. In fact, Missouri's per capita spending on 
     Medicaid for adults is the lowest in the nation. We are 
     willing to swallow hard and do our share to balance the 
     federal budget. But to disproportionately reduce the DSH 
     program to achieve Medicaid savings, the federal government 
     would merely be using DSH cuts to subsidize the cost of 
     Medicaid in other states, many of which have chosen to 
     develop overly generous and costly programs.
       Medicaid has already made a massive contribution to deficit 
     reduction. In February, the Congressional Budget Office 
     lowered its baseline projections of future Medicaid spending 
     by $86 billion. States are achieving these savings through 
     implementation of a number of innovative measures such as 
     Missouri's Medicaid managed care program, MC+. At the same 
     time, we are considering expanding Medicaid to cover more 
     uninsured. We want to continue making this progress, but we 
     may be unable to do so if our Medicaid funding base is eroded 
     through extensive reductions in the DSH program.
       It is my understanding that a portion of the Medicaid 
     savings called for in the budget resolution may also be 
     achieved through a package of state flexibility initiatives. 
     We will be working with the House Commerce Committee and 
     Senate Finance Committee over the next couple of weeks in 
     hope that they will craft a package of Medicaid savings that 
     is both fair and responsible, and one that does not 
     disproportionately harm the DSH program. I hope you will do 
     all in your power to assist us in this regard.
       Thank you for your attention to this extremely important 
     issue for the State of Missouri. If I can provide you with 
     further information, please don't hesitate to let me know.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     Mel Carnahan,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                       Cardinal Glennon Children's


                                                     Hospital,

                                      St. Louis, MO, May 21, 1997.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: The officers and staff of Cardinal 
     Glennon Children's Hospital support your amendment to express 
     the sense of

[[Page S4961]]

     the Senate regarding the protection of children's health.
       As a provider of tertiary health services to a broad 
     geographic region including metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri 
     and Illinois, the disproportionate share funding under 
     Medicaid is critical to our mission. Your efforts and those 
     of your colleagues to sustain momentum in providing health 
     care coverage to uninsured pregnant women and children is 
     directly dependent on the expanded use of disproportionate 
     share funding.
       Thank you for your continued support for this important 
     funding source.
           Sincerely,
                                           Douglas A. Ries, FACHE,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                St. Louis Children's Hospital,

                                      St. Louis, MO, May 21, 1997.
     Hon. Christopher ``Kit'' Bond,
     U.S. Senator
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: Thank you for supporting fair and 
     adequate Medicaid payments for disproportionate share 
     hospitals (DSH). As you know, St. Louis Children's Hospital 
     serves a patient population which consists of approximately 
     50 percent Medicaid patients. We have qualified as a DSH 
     provider ever since the Medicaid program recognized the need 
     for additional funding to those hospitals serving an 
     extraordinary Medicaid and uninsured patient load.
       We certainly agree with the Senate's observations regarding 
     the high priority which should be placed on the health care 
     needs of low income pregnant women and children. In Missouri, 
     restrictions on Medicaid DSH funding would seriously impair 
     our Federal Reimbursement Allowance (FRA) program. The FRA 
     targets DSH payments to hospitals serving a high volume of 
     Medicaid and low income patients. As Governor Carnahan points 
     out in his May 19 letter, Missouri has made significant 
     progress expanding Medicaid eligibility in recent years and 
     we would hate to see our program threatened by proposals 
     which may not have been carefully evaluated in terms of 
     impact.
       Please contact me if there is anything I can do to help and 
     thank you again for your continued leadership on behalf of 
     all children.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ted W. Frey,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 


                                The Children's Mercy Hospital,

                                    Kansas City, MO, May 21, 1997.
     Hon. Kit Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Kit: On behalf of The Children's Mercy Hospital in 
     Kansas City, Missouri, I wish to thank you for your 
     resolution on children's health and Medicaid. The Children's 
     Mercy Hospital recognizes the need to control federal 
     spending, but we are deeply concerned about the impact of 
     billions of dollars in new spending reductions in Medicaid, 
     which would come on top of major savings states already have 
     begun to achieve.
       Never has the Medicaid safety net for children been more 
     important than now. Without the Medicaid safety net, the 
     numbers of uninsured children would increase dramatically. It 
     is of paramount importance that any Medicaid proposal 
     preserve a base-year formula that includes all 
     ``disproportionate share hospital (DSH)'' payments in order 
     to continue to serve all of the children in our community.
       We applaud your dedication to children and the betterment 
     of their lives. Your efforts will not only benefit the 
     children of Missouri, but the children of the entire country 
     for generations to come. Thank you for your continued 
     support.
           Sincerely,
                                       Randall L. O'Donnell, Ph.D.
                                President/Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bond has not yielded his time. Has he reserved?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have reserved time. I see one of the 
cosponsors of the amendment on the floor. When she finishes, I would be 
willing to have this set aside to accommodate the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  May I ask the Senator from Washington how much time she requires?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will only take 30 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. I yield 1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before we yield to Senator Murray, let 
me once again ask my friend, Senator Bond.
  You know, we are reaching a deadline here with an awful lot of things 
that haven't been handled. From my standpoint, the way the Senator has 
accommodated his amendment in working with us is acceptable. I urge 
that he let us accept it at some point and not insist on a rollcall 
vote. I assume the rollcall vote will probably be 100 percent. But I 
don't think that helps the Senator any more. I am trying to tell him as 
clearly as I can that is not going to help him any more than if he lets 
us accept it. It is going to a conference which is on an expedited 
process. I want to help him. I am doing everything I can. I don't know 
if I want to go through a rollcall and then, you know, be very helpful 
after that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the good advice from my very 
wise leader on the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from Missouri in offering this amendment. I have been extremely 
concerned about the impact of a $14 billion reduction in the 
disproportionate share hospital payments.

  The Bond/Murray amendment sends a strong message to the authorizers 
that the health care needs of low-income pregnant women and children 
remain a priority in developing any DSH reform legislation. I am not 
opposed to reforming the program to ensure that payments are being 
targeted to those most in need, but we cannot allow reform efforts to 
threaten the delivery of care to our most vulnerable populations.
  Massive changes in DSH implemented in order to be a deficit reduction 
target could jeopardize the ability of many hospitals, especially 
children's hospitals to serve low-income children, pregnant women, and 
the disabled. For many hospitals, DSH payments are the difference 
between solvency and bankruptcy.
  As we all know, few States would be in a position to off set the loss 
of Federal DSH payments. Meaning that hospitals would have little 
choice but to eliminate or reduce services for the most vulnerable in 
our society. Without the flexibility of DSH, States cannot hope to 
expand Medicaid coverage for uninsured children or pregnant women. In 
addition, any efforts to expand Medicaid for HIV positive individuals 
in order to prevent the onset of full blown AIDS, could be impossible.
  I am hopeful that the authorizers will carefully craft a reform 
proposal drive by policy, not just numbers. DSH is too important to 
allow simple numbers to be the guiding influence.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to send an important 
message that DSH reform should not result in the loss of health care 
coverage for children, the disabled and low income pregnant women. We 
need to use extreme caution to prevent any further eroding of health 
security for these vulnerable populations.
  I thank Senator Bond for his efforts in bringing this amendment to 
the floor and I look forward to working with the authorizing committee 
in developing a fair and equitable DSH reform legislation.
  Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Bond's 
resolution, the sense of the Senate regarding the protection of 
children's health. While I believe that our children will be best 
served by a balanced budget, we also must ensure that this agreement 
sends a strong message that we must preserve the access of low-income 
children to quality health care.
  May children's hospitals are designated as disproportionate share 
hospitals or DSH hospitals because they serve a disproportionate share 
of low-income children. DSH payments make a vital difference in the 
ability of hospitals to serve this population. They are a critical part 
of the health care safety net for vulnerable children.

  For example, two of the largest children's hospitals in Ohio have 
informed me that approximately 40 percent of the children they serve 
are covered by Medicaid. Without the additional DSH payments, the 
ability of these hospitals to serve low-income children would be 
seriously impaired.
  DSH payments are even more important to independent children's 
teaching hospitals that do not receive Medicare support for graduate 
medical education, known as DSH dollars. In fact, I'm working on a 
letter to the Finance Committee about this GME inequity now.
  But my point here is that if DSH funds are cut from children's 
hospitals--that already are not receiving dsh funds--then these 
hospitals will

[[Page S4962]]

find it very difficult to provide quality care for poor children. 
Although we must balance the Federal budget, we also want this balanced 
budget to make children's health and well-being a top priority.
  Senator Bond's resolution is consistent with that message. It 
recognizes how important a balanced budget is, and it recognizes that 
some changes in DSH payments may well be necessary. But, it also 
recognizes how important--within such a budget--DSH is to children's 
health. I strongly support the Bond resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not want to get myself into another 
situation where I am confused. Senator Bond has a lot of time. Has he 
yielded his time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I had several other cosponsors who wished to 
speak. I would like to reserve 5 minutes for them to speak and yield 
back the remainder of the time. In the meantime, until they come to the 
floor, I would be happy to ask unanimous consent to have the amendment 
temporarily set aside so I can confer with the chairman and give an 
opportunity for the cosponsors to speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could we establish this, however? Either before we 
accept the amendment, if that is the approach, or before we vote on it, 
if that is the approach, the Senator from Missouri would use 5 minutes 
immediately prior thereto.
  Mr. BOND. I would be agreeable with that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that we could temporarily set aside the 
pending amendments and proceed now to Senator Specter, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, for one of his three amendments. I understand that the 
Senator from Pennsylvania has agreed that the other two will not be 
called up.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the distinguished manager articulates it 
correctly. I will offer one amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, very much.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 340

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 340.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 340.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment adds $1.1 billion to 
function 550, which is the health function, for fiscal year 1998, with 
an offsetting $1.1 billion reduction in nondefense discretionary 
functions, which would hold Federal agency administrative costs to 96 
percent of the estimated 1998 level.
  The offset constitutes a reduction in nondefense spending of four-
tenths of 1 percent. This four-tenths of 1 percent could be 
accommodated by reducing administrative costs only 4 percent, so that 
the net effect would be to have Federal administrative costs reduced by 
4 percent to 96 percent of the estimated 1998 level.
  This amendment is being offered, Mr. President, because the Senate 
yesterday adopted, by a vote of 98 to nothing, a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution to increase spending for the National Institutes of Health 
by $2 billion. And while that sounds good, to those who are unaware of 
the inner workings of the Senate, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution does 
not have any real effect but just says what we would like to have 
occur. This amendment will be directed toward having hard dollars 
placed in the budget resolution for the National Institutes of Health. 
I am offering this amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin, Senator Mack, 
Senator D'Amato, Senator Jeffords, Senator Inouye, Senator Collins, 
Senator Hutchison, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Reid.
  Mr. President, there is a general acceptance that the National 
Institutes of Health has been one of the real treasures of the U.S. 
Government, making enormous advances in the most dreaded diseases which 
we face today. There have been enormous advances in cancer, breast 
cancer, prostate cancer, enormous advances in Alzheimer's disease, 
cystic fibrosis, more recently in schizophrenia; a new generation of 
AIDS drugs are reducing the presence of the AIDS virus and HIV-infected 
persons to nearly undetectable levels, and the phenomenal work being 
done by the National Institutes of Health has led to a consistent rise 
in funding for that agency.
  Since becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 
Human Services and Education, we have raised the funding for NIH by 
some $643 million in fiscal year 1996. We have raised the funding for 
the National Institutes of Health by $820 million in fiscal year 1997, 
but this year we are faced with a reduction in the health account. So 
that if this budget goes forward, and this budget signifies what 
funding will be available for NIH, there will be a cut in all health 
accounts and accordingly, on a pro rata basis, a cut on the National 
Institutes of Health.
  The total allocation and funding for the health account, account 550, 
was frozen from last year at $25 billion, and in this budget it is in 
at $24.9 billion, or, as I say, a cut of some $100 million.
  This is $400 million short of what the President's original budget 
mark was for 1998, and over $3 billion short for the 5-year budget 
period. The budget would cut the health account by some $2.2 billion 
through the year 2002. But, most importantly, from the point of view of 
what we are doing here today, we have the President coming forward with 
a budget increase of some $400 million, and this account is now cut by 
$100 million.
  If this is left to stand, Mr. President, we will have the anomalous, 
or hard-to-understand situation where the Senate has said we ought to 
increase the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion, and then when 
it comes to my committee where I chair and have the responsibility for 
establishing the mark, suddenly we will find not only no money for an 
increase, but the account is cut by $100 million. So, on a pro rata 
basis, there would have to be a decrease.
  We find this at a time when other accounts have increases in 
spending. Defense spending rises by $3.2 billion in fiscal year 1998; 
international affairs rises by $900 million in fiscal year 1998; energy 
rises by $400 million in fiscal year 1998; natural resources and 
environment rises by $1.3 billion for this year; commerce and housing 
goes up $300 million; education and training goes up $4.3 billion; 
administration of justice up by $1.4 billion, the general Government 
rises by some $800 million. But no one has come to the floor on any of 
these lines and has said there ought to be a $2 billion increase. The 
only line in the items which I have just spoken about would be defense. 
But for the National Institutes of Health, yesterday we had a spirited 
presentation with many speakers saying NIH ought to go up by $2 
billion. The reality is it is all Confederate money unless there is 
some allocation which is more than a sense-of-the-Senate or our very 
best wishes but a specific amount which has a specific offset.

  That is, in itself, somewhat of an oversimplification, but that is 
very close to the reality. The whole budget resolution, in a sense, is 
an expression by the Senate, by the Congress of what we ought to have 
done, contrasted with the specific appropriations bills which are then 
legislated and then ultimately signed by the President.
  I conferred with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee after talking this over with the distinguished chairman of 
the Budget Committee, and Senator Domenici said, well, you better see 
how Senator Stevens is going to respond to it. And Senator Stevens says 
we need to have the hard dollars through the budget process. So that if 
the National Institutes of Health is to avoid having a cut, this 
amendment is going to have to be adopted.
  It goes without saying that as one Senator who chairs a certain 
subcommittee, I am bound by the will of the Senate. If the Senate says 
in this vote that the National Institutes of Health is not to have an 
increase but, in fact, is supposed to have a decrease, to the various 
interest groups who want breast cancer to be funded, who want prostate 
cancer to be funded, who want Alzheimer's to be funded, who want heart 
disease to be funded, who

[[Page S4963]]

want AIDS to be funded, then I can say I went to the floor and I laid 
the case on the line--and I am not totally without experience as an 
advocate--and the Senate said, no, we are not going to increase the 
funding for the National Institutes of Health. I have a specific 
offset, and that is administrative costs that go down 4 cents on the 
dollar. I think that administratively you can cut 4 percent. It is 
four-tenths of 1 percent across all discretionary nondefense budgets, 
but it comes out of, could come out of 4 cents on the dollar on 
administrative costs.
  If the Senate says that on Wednesday night we said put it up $2 
billion, that is what we would like to see, but when the Senate faces 
the hard choice and has to put its money where its mouth is, a sense-
of-the-Senate amendment is where the Senate's mouth is. This budget 
resolution is where the money is. If the Senate says we are not going 
to put our money where our mouth is, that is on the record. And when 
people say NIH did not get an increase, it is because the Senate turned 
it down.
  So this is an opportunity for the Senate, bluntly speaking, to put 
its mouth where its money is. Mr. President, we have only 1 in 4 
approved grants funded, and we have people dying as we speak from 
cancer, dying as we speak from heart disease, dying as we speak from 
many, many ailments. The National Institutes of Health has been our 
very best capital investment in the health of the American people.
  That, in effect, lays it on the line in just a very few moments. So 
at this point I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside so that I might present an 
amendment, which will only take 5 minutes, and then we can go back to 
the amendment, unless the Senator just wants to wait for someone else 
to speak.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have no objection to my distinguished 
colleague proceeding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request? If not, who yields time to the Senator from Texas?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield--how much time, I ask the 
Senator?
  Mr. GRAMM. Five minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Five minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                     Amendment No. 320, as modified

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to 
amendment No. 320. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  If the Senator will withhold, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], for himself and Mr. 
     Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 320, as modified.

  Mr. GRAMM. 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, as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . DEPOSIT OF ALL FEDERAL GASOLINE TAXES INTO THE 
                   HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1956, federal gasoline excise tax revenues have 
     generally been deposits in the Highway Trust Fund and 
     reserved for transportation uses.
       (2) In 1993, Congress and the President enacted the first 
     permanent increase in the federal gasoline excise tax which 
     was dedicated to general revenues, not the Highway Trust 
     Fund.
       (3) Over the next five years, approximately $7 billion per 
     year in federal gasoline excise tax revenues will be 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury, rather than 
     the Highway Trust Fund.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions in this resolution assume that the 
     Congress should in the extension of the Budget Enforcement 
     Act, ISTEA reauthorization, appropriations acts, and in any 
     revenue bills, that all revenues from federal gasoline excise 
     taxes, including amounts dedicated to general revenues in 
     1993, should be dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund so that 
     such taxes may be used for the purpose to which they have 
     historically been dedicated, promoting transportation 
     infrastructure and building roads.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd 
be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 320 with a modification in its 
stated purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we set up the highway trust fund in 1956, 
and from 1956 until 1993, every time we had a permanent gasoline tax, 
that gasoline tax as a user fee for use of the highways was deposited 
in a highway trust fund that was spent largely for highway 
construction, though in recent years some portions of it have been 
dedicated to other purposes like mass transit. But from 1956 to 1993, 
when somebody went to the filling station and stuck that nozzle in 
their gasoline tank and filled up their car or truck, they were paying 
a tax on gasoline that was used to build the roads that they would 
drive over using that car or truck.
  In 1993, in the budget and subsequent tax bill that flowed from it, 
for the first time in American history since the adoption of the 
highway trust fund, we had a permanent gasoline tax of 4.3 cents a 
gallon that went not into the highway trust fund but into general 
revenues, so that for the first time since we set up the trust fund we 
had a gasoline tax that was adopted for the purpose of paying for 
general Government and not building highways.
  We know from the vote in the House on the Shuster amendment, we know 
from the vote in the Senate on the Warner amendment that there is a 
strong belief that money collected on gasoline taxes ought to be used 
to build roads and it should not be taken to fund other programs of 
American Government.
  I have put together and sent to the desk in my modification to 
amendment No. 320 a very strong sense-of-the-Senate resolution that 
simply makes note of the fact that this 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on 
gasoline, which has been diverted for the first time ever from the 
highway trust fund, should be returned to the highway trust fund, and 
that as we move on to consider our Budget Enforcement Act, as we 
consider ISTEA reauthorization, as we consider appropriations acts, and 
as we consider other revenue bills, all revenues coming from a gasoline 
excise tax, including the 4.3 cents a gallon that currently goes to 
general revenues, should be deposited in the highway trust fund and 
should be used for the purposes that the trust fund has been 
historically dedicated to: building roads and paying for other modes of 
transportation. This is the first of many amendments that we will have, 
aimed at moving the 4.3-cent a gallon tax on gasoline out of general 
revenue, where it funds general Government, into the highway trust fund 
so that this roughly $7 billion a year can go for the purpose that the 
gasoline tax was collected. I know this is a controversial amendment in 
some areas, but I believe there is a strong consensus in Congress that 
we need to move in this direction. I do believe that later this year, 
when we do a tax bill, that this will be done. So my purpose here is 
simply to begin the process of putting the Senate on record.

  Let me also say, and I discussed this with Senator Domenici, and I 
feel a little sheepish about doing it, but when we had so many people 
who felt so strongly about this issue, one of the things that I 
promised them was that they were going to get an opportunity to vote on 
it. So, what I would like to do is simply ask that this be put with 
another amendment, possibly a unanimous consent that this be a 10-
minute vote following some other vote that we would have, so we might 
actually give people a chance to be on record on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I cannot agree to the unanimous-consent 
request regarding the 10 minutes. Would the Senator leave that up to us 
as we schedule it? Does the Senator want to get the yeas and nays?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent it be in order we get the yeas 
and nays.

[[Page S4964]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Texas. I intend to support his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                           Amendment No. 340

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask Senator Santorum be added as 
original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time on the pending amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the pending amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to inquire parliamentary wise, 
how much time does Senator Specter have remaining on his amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 50 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five-zero, 50 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time did he have for the amendment? I thought 
he had an hour. He only spoke 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am sorry. I thought he spoke much longer than 10 
minutes.
  Would the Senator agree to reduce his time to 30 and we will take 15 
on our side?

  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I so propose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might inquire, the sequence has been 
somewhat misunderstood, but I think we are close to an agreement. If 
Senator Ashcroft, from the State of Missouri, can agree to 30 minutes 
on his, then I would proceed to ask that he go next, and then Senator 
Wellstone go next; but in the event Senator Wellstone is inconvenienced 
for 5 or 6 minutes, that we do other business but not deny him the next 
amendment to be called up to be his, after Senator Ashcroft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I just inquire of the Senator 
from New Mexico, I believe my colleague from Missouri is planning to 
take the full half-hour?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from New Mexico, I think I will 
be here. I thank him for his courtesy. If I am not, a 1-minute quorum 
call will do the job and I will be ready to go.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will send out word for you and we will give you a 
little time, because you accommodated us and I appreciate it.
  Does the Chair have an inquiry of the Senator?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I inquire of my distinguished colleague 
from Iowa, how much time he would like? The distinguished ranking 
member of the subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and 
Education, former chairman of the subcommittee?
  Mr. HARKIN. And the proud cosponsor of your amendment, I might add. 
How much time do we have?
  Mr. SPECTER. We have 20 minutes left. Parliamentary inquiry, how much 
time does remain on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair that the 
request was for 30 minutes, equally divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. No, that was not our intention. I asked the Senator if 
he would agree with a total of 30 minutes, and then I would agree to 15 
minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct. That was my understanding.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And that is the consent. He has, whatever time he has 
used, the total he is going to get is 30 minutes on the amendment and I 
have agreed to reduce my time from an hour to 15 minutes in rebuttal. 
Is there something wrong with this that makes it complicated? I thought 
it is very, very simple.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. So the Senator from Pennsylvania has 15 
minutes?
  Mr. SPECTER. I have 20 minutes. Mr. President, the statement was made 
that I had spoken 10 minutes. Senator Domenici asked a few moments ago 
how much time remained on my account: 50 minutes, 5-0. I spoke for 10 
minutes. I have agreed to speak for 30. So 10 from 30 would leave 20. 
Senator Domenici has agreed to accept 15 minutes. So the total time 
remaining would be 20 minutes on my side and 15 minutes on Senator 
Domenici's side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then that will be the order.
  Mr. HARKIN. May I have 10 minutes?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the 
chairman, Senator Specter, to support this important amendment. 
Yesterday the Senate went on record in support of doubling research at 
NIH with the adoption of the Mack sense-of-the-Senate amendment, a 
unanimous vote last time. This amendment that Senator Spector is 
offering is a modest first step toward making good on that commitment.
  Senator Specter said the amendment would add $1.1 billion to the 
health account to restore, first of all, the $100 million cut contained 
in the resolution and additional moneys to enable our subcommittee to 
provide adequate funding for NIH and other health programs. Without our 
amendment, it will be virtually impossible to provide even an inflation 
adjustment for medical research in the year 1998.

  Mr. President, the resolution before us, despite the other merits, 
is, to put it kindly, extremely shortsighted when it comes to support 
for finding cures and more cost-effective treatment and prevention for 
the many diseases and disabilities that affect us. In so doing, it 
shortchanges our future, shortchanges Americans' health, and 
shortchanges efforts to control health care costs and keep Medicare 
solvent in the long run. At the same time we are shortchanging basic 
investments in health care, the Pentagon gets another multibillion-
dollar increase. Here is a chart right here that will show you. Here is 
the shifting priorities. This is our budget agreement versus last 
year's spending.
  Defense gets $3.2 billion more; health gets $100 million cut. Wrong 
priorities.
  Another way of looking at it is to see what is happening with our 
spending on discretionary health funding. The President's budget had 
$25.3 billion; the 1997 budget was $25 billion; the budget agreement is 
$24.9 billion. That is where that missing $100 million is. We are going 
in the wrong direction in spending for basic research in this country.
  Let me just give a couple of examples to show the folly of what we 
are doing. Last year, the federally supported research on Alzheimer's 
disease totaled about $300 million. Yet it is estimated that we spend 
about $90 billion annually caring for people with Alzheimer's. In other 
words, for every $100 we spend caring for people with Alzheimer's we 
are spending about 3 pennies on research for Alzheimer's. Supported 
research on diabetes is about $290 million a year, yet it is estimated 
we spend over $25 billion on diabetes care. Mental health, research is 
about $613 million a year, estimated $130 billion a year spent annually 
on mental health care.
  So, these penny-wise and pound-foolish statistics are even more 
illogical

[[Page S4965]]

today. We are at a time of great promise. Just about every day we read 
about new discoveries and new breakthroughs, new therapies and new 
treatment strategies. We are making progress. But, while we aren't 
suffering from a shortfall of ideas, we are suffering from a shortfall 
of resources. I have often made this analogy, when it comes to medical 
research. It is like we have 10 doors and they are all closed. We want 
to find out what is behind those doors. If you look behind one door, 
the odds are 10 to 1 you are not going to find what you are looking 
for. Right now, we are funding less than 25 percent of the peer 
reviewed, accepted grant proposals at NIH. That means we may be looking 
behind door No. 1, but doors 2, 3, and 4 are still closed.
  That is the odds. They are not good odds we are going to find the 
right treatments, strategies, cures, interventions. ``Let's Make A 
Deal'' had better odds than that. Maybe there is a cure for breast 
cancer behind door 3, or Alzheimer's behind door No. 4, or Parkinson's 
behind door No. 2, but we don't know because we aren't committing the 
resources to unlock those doors.
  There is another impact that lack of medical research funding has. 
Young people, maybe looking ahead, thinking about pursuing a career in 
medical research, yet they see the resources are not there to let them 
do long-term research. So the doors are locked to the cures but so are 
the doors to careers.
  Our lack of investment in research is discouraging people from 
pursuing careers in medical research. Here is a figure. The number of 
people under the age of 36 applying for NIH grants dropped by 54 
percent between 1985 and 1993.
  I know there are a lot of factors, but we believe that the lower 
success rate among all applicants is making biomedical research less 
and less attractive to young people. This amendment, by Senator 
Specter, provides a very modest downpayment on what is needed. It 
begins to put us on the right path, the path that we committed to last 
night unanimously by adopting the Mack amendment. This amendment today 
will have a real impact on efforts to support medical research. But let 
me be clear, even with adoption of this amendment we can't get the job 
done. The budget resolution before us makes it clear that the only way 
we can devote the resources we need to help research, to help health 
research and stop robbing Peter to pay Paul is by going outside of the 
regular discretionary spending process.

  This resolution calls for $24.2 billion in discretionary health 
spending by the year 2002. That includes NIH, CDC, Community Health 
Centers, Older Americans Act, health professional training, maternal 
and child health care, and on and on. To double funding for NIH, as 
this body committed to do last night, would cost over $26 billion by 
the year 2002. That is $2 billion more than the entire health function 
is allotted by the year 2002.
  So even if you eliminated all funding for breast cancer screening, 
Meals on Wheels for seniors, drug treatment, Older Americans Act, 
community health centers, and on and on, if you eliminated all of that, 
this budget resolution would still not enable us to meet the goal that 
we said last night by a vote of 98 to 0 that we wanted to meet by the 
year 2002, which is to double NIH funding.
  The only way we are going to get this is through another mechanism. I 
believe the best other mechanism is called for in S. 441, National Fund 
for Health Research Act, that Senator Specter and I introduced. 
Basically, what this trust fund says is, look, we spend about $650 
billion a year in health plans--Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Aetna, HMO's, 
on and on. All we are asking is that 1 percent, 1 penny out of every 
dollar that we spend on health care in this country, be remitted to a 
trust fund, just like a highway trust fund. Every time you buy a gallon 
of gas, you put money into the highway trust fund. It is like an 
airline ticket tax; you put money in to keep the airports going.
  What we are saying is, it is unconscionable that we spend all this 
money in health care in America and we put nothing from that health 
care budget into research.
  The bill Senator Specter and I have introduced, S. 441, will do that. 
It will take 1 penny out of $1 to put into a research trust fund, 
because if we do not do it, then all we did last night were just words, 
so much hot air. Ninety-eight Senators last night said they want to 
double funding for NIH by the year 2002. Let's put our resources where 
our mouths are.
  The first step toward that is adopting the Specter amendment to at 
least meet the needs next year to make sure that we do not have this 
$100 million cut in health spending, and to make sure that we have 
higher-than-inflation-spending resources for the National Institutes of 
Health.
  Mr. President, expanding our commitment to research will promote 
health care, control health costs, create jobs and strengthen our 
economy and competitive position in the global marketplace. This 
amendment is an investment in our future.
  I urge the adoption of the Specter amendment so that we can meet--
start to meet--what we said we were going to do last night when we 
adopted the Mack resolution.
  I yield back whatever time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. When I suggest the 
absence of a quorum, how is that time charged?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is charged to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. And when no one speaks and the Senate is in session, 
there is no quorum call, how is that time charged?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is charged equally between both sides.
  Mr. SPECTER. I do not suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 9 minutes, 
36 seconds; the Senator from New Mexico has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will not yield time but await response, if any, from 
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to make sure my friend, Senator 
Gramm, has 4 or 5 minutes, so will you remind me when I have used 5 
minutes, and then I will yield as much time Senator Lautenberg needs 
and then withhold a few minutes for the Senator from Texas. If not, I 
will take it off the resolution.
  First of all, let me say it is with great regret that I cannot 
support this amendment. It does not make any difference what the U.S. 
Senate said last night in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. They 
expressed a wish, a hope. The truth of the matter is that we cannot 
afford this amendment, nor will it work as proposed by the proponents 
of the amendment.
  First of all, it is without saying, that no matter what we do to try 
to add money to the function of Government that the two Senators who 
are proposing this control in the appropriations process, that the 
allocation of the moneys will be done by the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations. So, in a sense, we are going through an exercise as 
if we are really increasing NIH when we really are not. There is no 
doubt in my mind that if this amendment were to be adopted, that 
Senator Stevens would not have any chance of being fair to all the rest 
of the parts of Government and take $1.2 billion and add it to this 
function of Government.
  The second point is, just to be absolutely frank and honest, even if 
we did it and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee did not 
agree and did not put any money in, there is plenty of money in the 
subcommittee to increase NIH by $1.1 billion if the chairman and 
ranking member chose to do so. They will just have to do what all the 
other committees do; they will

[[Page S4966]]

have to reduce a lot of other spending within their committee to make 
an addition of $1.1 billion to NIH.
  So, in a sense, this is like expressing a desire, but in this one, we 
actually change the numbers and presume that this is going to be what 
is going to be carried out. I do not think we ought to do that.
  For Senators who would like to know what the effect of it is, because 
there is nothing free, you take $1.1 billion out of the rest of the 
functions of Government and here is what I assume: First, I assume that 
the agreement between the President of the United States and the 
leadership, with reference to preferential accounts, will hold, and 
that in the subcommittees, we will fund those items that are preferred. 
The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has a huge amount of money 
for these protected items, most of them in education, but I assume they 
are the largest number of protected accounts wherein more money is put 
in the subcommittee than any other subcommittee.

  Having said that, I am going to assume in this explanation to the 
Senate that we protect all the other accounts we have agreed to 
protect, which are considerable. This small amount of money that they 
are talking about cutting, on that assumption, would yield cuts like 
this: Veterans, $190 million; WIC, $38 million; LIHEAP, which many 
around here worry about, emergency energy, $14 million; Social Security 
administrative expenses, $36 million.
  Frankly, I do not think we ought to be doing that here today. I have 
the greatest admiration for the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania, and, yes, indeed, he has done a marvelous job in seeing 
to it that he can push NIH up as much as possible, for which we are all 
grateful. And, yes, I will say he has been very helpful to the Senator 
from New Mexico, and I hope this debate on the floor will never change 
that. But I just cannot, in good conscience, let the Senate take $1.1 
billion, which I assume is going to come from the unprotected accounts 
of this Government, and put them into the function that is called 550, 
where it could be spent for anything in that function. There is nothing 
we are going to do here today which says you put it in and it must be 
spent for NIH. The good judgment of the chairman and ranking manager 
will be what controls it. They could put more in education if they like 
and nobody could stop them.
  Until the chairman of the Appropriations Committee looks at all the 
money available in the nonprotected accounts and determines how much he 
wants to give this subcommittee, we are not going to know how much the 
subcommittee has to spend, and I regret that, but I believe that is the 
case.
  I do not think we ought to do this to the rest of the budget. 
Yesterday evening, when we debated the desire of the institution, 
called the U.S. Senate, to do more for NIH, you did not hear the 
Senator from New Mexico say, ``And that assures you in this budget we 
are going to change it by $1.1 billion,'' and had anybody asked me, I 
would have said it does not assure you of that. This budget is 
finished. That wish is in the future, and I think the proponent of that 
amendment knows we are not going to get there very easily doubling NIH. 
It is just we want to shoot for the stars when it comes to science 
research, especially biomedical research.
  I yield the floor and yield whatever time Senator Lautenberg wants, 
and if we have a few minutes left, I will yield to Senator Gramm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Once again, Mr. President, I find myself on the 
opposite side of an amendment that, frankly, I would not mind 
supporting. I do not think we do enough to combat the diseases that 
plague our society, things that we could ultimately save, I think, a 
fortune with if we could develop some of the programs that are now kind 
of just showing up with a light at the end of the tunnel.
  I met with a group of drug executives last week in New Jersey, and 
when they laid out the programs that are near completion--some of those 
are in testing now in FDA--and the prospect of saving costs for long-
term diseases, whether it is Alzheimer's or osteoporosis and so many 
other things, it is a great advantage for us, both financially and 
functionally, as a society.
  Because we are in this bind where the funds would come from functions 
like education, environment, crimefighting, frankly, I am going to have 
to oppose it. It is one of the tasks we inherit when we take on an 
assignment like budget, which was declared earlier in this Chamber to 
be one of the least popular assignments in the place. As a matter of 
fact, one Senator suggested that every Senator ought to have a sentence 
of 6 months on the Budget Committee to understand what it is like. 
Budget committees are fun when there is lots of money. When there is 
not much money, to put it mildly, it is a drag.
  Mr. President, I yield back any time remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 6 minutes 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Gramm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am in favor of doubling funding for NIH, 
and I am going to vote for it. When the appropriations bill comes to 
the floor and we are shooting with real bullets, as I like to say, I am 
going to offer this amendment if nobody else does. I think we ought to 
vote on funding NIH, but I want to make it clear that we are not voting 
to fund NIH here. We are voting to give the Labor-HHS Subcommittee 
another $1.1 billion, with no guarantee where that money is going to 
go.
  I would like to make this point: There is no program under their 
jurisdiction that is more popular than the National Institutes of 
Health. The National Institutes of Health is going to end up getting 
this $1.1 billion no matter what we do here, but if we did transfer 
this money and if the Appropriations Committee actually decided to do 
it, something we cannot mandate they do, what we are doing is larding 
the very social programs that make up the biggest growth in this 
budget.
  The President of the United States said, in one of his most honest 
statements, this budget provides the largest increase in social 
spending we have had since the 1960's. The point is, most of those 
programs are under the jurisdiction of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, 
chaired by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. All we are 
asking is that we not give that subcommittee more money; that they have 
to set priorities, and if we are for the National Institutes of Health, 
we have to decide that there are other programs that are less important 
than it is.
  I remind my colleagues that the discretionary allocation alone to the 
Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee is going 
to be at least $60 billion.
  The National Institutes of Health gets about $13 billion. So we could 
quadruple funding for the National Institutes of Health in 1 year if we 
were willing to take it away from other programs.
  So I am glad we are voting on this amendment now because when we have 
this appropriation come to the floor of the Senate, if NIH does not 
have this money and nobody else on the committee and no one who is on 
the subcommittee offers an amendment to give it to them by taking it 
away from other social programs, I intend to offer the amendment to see 
that NIH gets the $1.1 billion.
  But let us not today give the fastest growing part of the domestic 
budget, Labor, Health and Human Services, another $1.1 billion with no 
guarantee that we are protecting the National Institutes of Health but 
every guarantee that we are larding programs that many of the Members 
of the Senate do not even support, much less do not support giving more 
money to.
  So if you want to raise funding for NIH, vote for it when the 
appropriations bill is on the floor. But there is over $60 billion in 
discretionary funding under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. If 
they want to quadruple NIH next year, they can do it.
  But they have to do it the way families make a decision about sending 
their child to Texas A&M University. They have to say, ``Well, look, I 
wanted to buy a new refrigerator. That was great. I wanted to go on 
vacation. That

[[Page S4967]]

was even better. But I didn't do those things in order to send my child 
to college.''
  If we want to fund NIH, let us fund it. And let us do it by giving 
less money to things that are less important. I think that basically is 
what this amendment is about. That is why I am going the oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 9 minutes 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will be interested to see when the 
distinguished Senator from Texas offers his amendment during the 
appropriations process what his offsets will be. On my time, I am 
interested to hear them now, if the Senator from Texas would care to 
give us a preview.
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, let me say that I do not have the listing before me, 
but I can certainly tell you that it would be my intention to go 
through the list and to look at many of the areas where we are funding 
programs that are of a lower priority than the National Institutes of 
Health.
  When a family decides they are not going to go on vacation, that is 
not because it is not important. It is just because they have other 
things that are more important.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the answer from my 
distinguished colleague from Texas. But I ask him if he would cut the 
Social Security administrative costs which total some $6 billion or cut 
the Medicare administration costs or if he would cut the job training 
programs or student aid or Pell grants?
  I understand that, in posing this question to the Senator from Texas, 
it is not possible for him to give a very meaningful answer without 
having the list before him, but I suggest at the same time that when he 
says we could quadruple the accounts because we have $60 billion; we 
had $74 billion last year and the funding was very, very short. And 
contrary to what the distinguished Senator from New Mexico says, that 
we are just talking about expressing a wish and a hope, that the 
accounts are going to be set by the appropriators, that really is not 
so.
  When the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the full 
committee, sits down for the 602(b) allocations, what the Budget 
Committee has done will be very, very important. When the Senator from 
New Mexico says that we can make allocations, yet at the same time has 
stated that there are protected accounts on education that cannot be 
utilized for the health account, it is just a little bit inconceivable 
to this Senator how the Budget Committee comes up with the 550 account 
which is less than a freeze on last year's account. The reality is that 
there will not be the funds for us to make an allocation for the 
National Institutes of Health.

  If this amendment passes, there will be a statement from the U.S. 
Senate to the Appropriations Committee that there ought to be an 
increase by $1.1 billion, which will net out to about $1 billion for 
NIH, and that when you go through, as the Senator from New Mexico did, 
and specify what the costs will be other places, that it is doable to 
have a cut of 4 percent in administrative costs. The administrative 
costs are $25 billion today. Nobody can tell me that you cannot cut 4 
cents out of a dollar on administrative costs.
  What we did last night in talking about a $2 billion increase for NIH 
is ``talking about it.'' What we are doing now is putting our money 
where our mouths were last night.
  If the Senate votes this down, then there is a ready answer that this 
Senator will have because I have the responsibility as chairman, 
Senator Harkin has the responsibility as ranking member, of saying what 
we are doing. On this date of the record, it looks like there is going 
to be a $2 billion increase.
  How does the American public, how do the people understand what the 
sense of the Senate is? You say it is the sense of the Senate. Is there 
a sense? Yes, there is a Senate. Does the Senate have any sense? Well, 
not really if you pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which does not 
mean anything; $2 billion. Does the Senate have any sense? Well, not if 
you pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which is vacuous and 
meaningless.
  This is the money. Where is the money? It is in this amendment. If 
you do not pass this amendment, fine. I have a way to tell the people 
who want breast cancer to be financed, there is not the money. The 
Senate voted no. I have a way to say to the people who wanted money for 
mental health, there is no money to increase mental health.
  The fact is that there has to be a pro rata cut. You have less in the 
550 health account. There is no way to have an increase for inflation. 
Now, if that is sense, then the Senate does not have any sense.
  How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes thirty seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will try not to take more than a minute.
  The Senator from Texas said, if I heard him correctly, that we can 
double in 1 year the funding for NIH if we would just set our 
priorities straight.
  Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator will yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. HARKIN. Sure.
  Mr. SPECTER. He did not say, ``double.'' He said, ``quadruple.''
  Mr. HARKIN. In 1 year?
  Mr. SPECTER. In 1 year. That is what he said.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thought it was double.
  We are spending about $13 billion a year at NIH.
  Mr. SPECTER. Four times 13 is $52 billion, and we have $8 billion 
left over according to the $60 billion figure. But we only have worker 
safety and child care and education.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask if the Senator from Texas would amend his statement 
in the Record and provide us with a table. If the Senator from Texas 
says we can quadruple spending for NIH, please tell us how. Please put 
in the Record for all to see what the Senator from Texas would like to 
cut in order to increase that kind of funding for NIH. If he does not, 
well, then the words are just words; they do not mean anything.
  So I challenge the Senator from Texas to back up his words with 
examples of where we are going to get the money to quadruple in 1 year 
funding for NIH.
  Lastly, let me just say, again for the record, there has been some 
talk we put the money there, but we don't know where it is going to go. 
We offer the amendment as chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee as cosponsors. We have the votes on his side and our side 
to make sure that is where the money goes, to NIH. There should be no 
doubt in anyone's mind that that is where this money is going to go.

  I thank the chairman for taking the lead on this.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, beyond the assurance as to where the 
money is going to go, there is money there, so that if there needs to 
be a reallocation, there will be some funds that can be allocated.
  The subcommittee has the responsibility for job training, student 
aid, Pell grants, LIHEAP, the Center for Disease Control, child care, 
Social Security administrative costs, Medicare, and a long list of 
items which have very, very high priority. And when the Budget 
Committee returns to the health account less money than it had last 
year, obviously, there is no money for NIH because the other items have 
been cut to the bone as it is.
  The last 2 years Senator Harkin and I consolidated or eliminated 134 
programs to save $1.5 billion to put into NIH and to put into 
education. And the additional funds here are on projected programs.
  So it is a very clear vote. It is a vote as to whether we want to put 
our money where we spoke so eloquently last night on $2 billion or 
whether we want to have NIH unable to have an inflation rise and, in 
fact, have a pro rata cut.
  How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 1 minute 22 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is the Senator finished?
  I yield 2 minutes to Senator Gramm.

[[Page S4968]]

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to go back to this issue a moment 
because I think it makes my point. I was thinking in terms of yesterday 
in talking about $60 billion for this subcommittee. They are now up to 
$74 billion. They blew through $60 billion in a hurry, and then another 
$14 billion.
  My point is this--and I stand by the point--if they wanted to give 
this project more money, they could do it. But the point is they have 
got to take it away from somebody else. Actually, they could increase 
it fivefold. I was being overly conservative, as usual.
  But let me just give you an example. I do not have the list in front 
of me. I will have to have the list when I offer the amendment on the 
floor to provide this money. I will have to cut some.
  Let me give you one example. $491 million for Goals 2000. Maybe local 
education could do without Federal Government telling them how to run 
the primary and secondary schools. Maybe we could sacrifice and not 
obligate that $491 million of budget authority. That would be about 
half of the way home toward meeting this goal.
  So I just begin with that one example. I will start that out of the 
bidding process. You can have all $491 million of that project. My 
guess is with the list before me, in another 45 seconds I could 
probably come up with the other funds it would be required to do this.
  But the point is, not that it is easy, not that you want to do it, 
but the point is, their argument is sort of like the parent saying, 
``Well, you know, I'd really like my child to go to college but, you 
know, I've got to buy a new refrigerator. We have been planning to go 
on vacation.'' The point is, families make those decisions; why cannot 
Government?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if it were the old U.S.S.R., and Senator 
Gramm were Premier Stalin, he could cut the $400 million for Goals 
2000. That happens to be one of the President's premier projects. Every 
time you turn around within that item, there are matters which are 
very, very important to someone.
  But I will await the vote. I will abide by the will of the Senate. I 
will be fascinated to see Senator Gramm's amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back his remaining 50 
seconds?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, not until I hear what Senator Domenici 
says.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 3 minutes. What I do not have I will 
take it off the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I guess I would like to once again 
compliment the sponsors and certainly indicate that I have great 
respect for their desire to fund programs like NIH.
  But I tell you, fellow Senators, to say you are going to go across 
the entire budget of the United States and you are going to get rid of 
some administrative costs and then you are going to take those 
administrative costs and you are going to put them in this subcommittee 
so it can spend it on NIH is a pipe dream.
  There is not going to be any 4-percent cut or 2 percent, whatever it 
is, in overhead unless it is made by each subcommittee who is doing 
that. What this amounts to is deciding here on the floor of the Senate 
that all of the other subcommittees of the U.S. Senate that handle 
everything from the Department of the Interior to Veterans--in fact, if 
I were the chairman of the Veterans' Subcommittee I would be here on 
the floor and I would say, ``I don't think the U.S. Senate has given 
the veterans enough.'' I would ask John Ashcroft, ``Will you help me? 
Why don't we just say, let's cut overhead and give the veterans $5 
billion more? After all, they're preferred people in America.''
  Boy what an amendment that would make up here at the desk. Who is 
going to turn it down? It does not cost you anything--does not cost 
you. Of course it costs you something. Huge numbers of other programs 
are going to have to be cut. All I am suggesting is, we ought to wait 
for the appropriators to make that decision.

  I think I am glad we stopped the amendments and there are not any 
more. I would look at very popular programs and send the subcommittee 
chairman over here and say, well, let's just cut 8 percent out of the 
Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, the one they are adding to, 
and just cut 8 percent out of overhead, and stand here and tell the 
Senate, well, we did not hurt anything in the subcommittee; we took 8 
percent out of overhead and put it in the veterans.
  Maybe you can think of a good one, or maybe you can think of a good 
one. I gave you some ideas, but I do not want you to do that. I tell 
you, that is what this amounts to. What we ought to do is leave it up 
to the appropriators as we have in the past.
  It has been said that the Budget Committee's numbers are important as 
to how they allocate. Let me tell you, sometimes I am pretty puffed up 
about this process. Other times I wonder what in the world am I doing 
working so hard at this process. The truth of the matter is, in the 
last 14 years, the appropriators have used the allocations of the 
Budget Committee how many times, would anybody think? Once. One time 
Senator Mark Hatfield said, ``I am brand new at this job as chairman, 
so I am just going to take your allocations and just accept them.'' 
Boy, that did not last very long. By the next year, they figured out 
what their allocations ought to be and that was the end of that, and 
they probably departed from it by $5 billion. In other words, they 
moved it from here to here but stayed with the total.
  I think we ought to stay with the totals. Frankly, I hate to do this 
because I am a strong supporter of NIH. In fact, I may very well urge 
that Ted Stevens put more money in NIH when we look through all the 
accounts of Government and see how we can fit it. I do not think it is 
fair to come here and say it is not going to cost anybody anything, it 
is a tiny bit of overhead. The other phrase we used to use is ``fraud 
and abuse.'' The best fraud and abuse salesman around here was Senator 
Dennis DeConcini. He used to come down here at the end of the whole 
process and say, ``I am not spending anything. I just want to tell the 
Government to save $600 million on fraud and abuse,'' and he would 
write up an amendment, fraud and abuse, take the $6 million, put it in 
the subcommittee, and say we will spend it there, and everybody went 
home and he got a press release. The truth is, nobody found the $600 
million or the $400 million in fraud and abuse, and so what happened, 
another committee has to eat it.
  That is what we are asking to do here. I do not think that is the way 
to do it. We will have a little more time spent on this amendment 
before we finish here today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am delighted I did not have an offset here on fraud 
and abuse. I have an offset on administrative costs.
  As the distinguished chairman knows, there has to be an offset. I 
chose an offset which I think is realistic. When the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico says the appropriators are going to do whatever 
they want to do, I wonder why we are here at all. Why have we been 
spending the last 2 days on a budget process that does not mean 
anything? The fact is that it does mean something.
  When the Senator from New Mexico says, call on the subcommittee 
chairman of Veterans' Affairs, how about the chairman of Veterans' 
Affairs? I chair the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Let me tell you, it 
would be a boon to that committee to have this researched.
  Now the question is whether there is going to be any sense of the 
Senate at all, and if there is, this amendment will be adopted.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand this amendment will be stacked in the 
normal manner that we are planning, or if we have not gotten that 
agreement, we have a number of amendments we will stack by unanimous 
consent soon. But we have another amendment to call up, and I ask 
whatever the pending amendment is, that it be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4969]]

                           Amendment No. 322

  Mr. ASHCROFT. I call up an amendment numbered 322, and I ask 
unanimous consent that Senators McCain and Inhofe be added as original 
cosponsors, and Senator Gramm is now reflected as a cosponsor of the 
amendment, but, if not, I ask his name be added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] for himself, Mr. 
     Gramm, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Abraham, Mr Helms, Mr. Faircloth, 
     Mr. McCain and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 
     322.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1977.)
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today with an open mind, for I 
have not yet decided how to vote on the budget resolution before the 
Senate. I understand and I appreciate that we should not let the 
perfect become the enemy of the good. If I forget that, the leadership 
and the Senator from New Mexico will be quick to remind me, I am sure.
  Having been a Governor, I understand that budgeting requires choices, 
choices that will not satisfy everyone but should benefit everyone. 
Like Senator Bond, who served as Missouri Governor before me, I 
balanced eight budgets in our State of Missouri, working with our State 
legislature. The economic results were a strong, growing economy, more 
jobs, low taxes, and the Nation's highest bond ratings. We developed a 
record of which we could be proud in balancing the budgets. We 
developed a rainy day fund, several hundred million dollars in the 
cashflow operating reserve.
  But the State law that we had equipped us with the necessary tools to 
balance our budget. We had a constitutional provision and requirement 
that we balance the budget. We had the line-item veto. We had the 
requirement and the power to balance our budgets and then the tools to 
enforce our agreements. We worked with good people who had good 
intentions, and we reached good agreements. But we also had a good 
process to ensure that our agreements were kept.
  I have only been in the Senate for a relatively short period of time, 
but it seems to me there is no shortage of good people with good 
intentions here in Washington. What disturbs me is that here in 
Washington we do not have good processes in place to ensure that the 
budget agreements we make 1 year will be kept the next year. 
Particularly, we lack the right kind of mechanical structural devices 
in Government to make sure that the budget agreements we make in one 
year, like 1997, would be kept in the year 2002.
  You can believe in and trust the people who reach disagreement in 
good faith, and I do believe in them and I trust in them. But the 
history of failed budget agreements and the continuous deficit spending 
without enforcement measures makes a mockery of good people and it 
makes a mockery of good intentions. We need more than good intentions 
and good people. We need good guarantees. We need strong enforcement 
provisions. We need the limits contained in the agreement to make sure 
that the agreement is not broken.
  We have heard a lot on the floor of Senate that if you do this to the 
budget, it will be a deal-breaker. Well, I want to make sure that we 
add some enforcement so that we have a deal-keeper. I hope that there 
will not be folks anywhere in this Chamber who say that because you 
have an enforcer of this agreement that it is a deal-breaker. It would 
be awfully difficult to hear people argue that anything that forces us 
to keep the agreement breaks the agreement. I think what we have here 
is the need for a deal-keeper and a deal-keeper cannot be a deal-
breaker.
  Most of the people who are involved in the debate might not be in 
office 5 years from now. The President certainly will not. So if we 
expect to balance the budget, we need a principled process, we need the 
structure of protection to be added to this agreement. We should not 
trust the next generation's future to a handshake agreement between 
people who will not even be around when the real crunch time comes. 
That would be the triumph of hope over experience.
  For me, a balanced budget in the year 2002 is worth voting for, but 
good intentions are not enough to be worth voting for and good 
intentions alone will simply not protect us until we get there. The 
budget resolution which we have before the Senate today claims to reach 
balance by the year 2002. The American people will furnish every single 
dollar that is taxed and spent under this budget deal. I believe they 
are entitled to the very strongest possible guarantees, guarantees that 
promises made under this deal today will be promises kept tomorrow. 
People outside the Washington Beltway have a healthy skepticism of 
promises to stay on course for a balanced budget.
  The amendment which I have introduced and which I am introducing with 
those other Senators whose names have already been recited enforces the 
assurances that the leadership is promising under this plan. It does 
not change the bipartisan agreement between the President and the 
constitutional leadership. It simply adds additional enforcement 
mechanisms to ensure that the Nation actually reaches balancing its 
budget by the year 2002.
  Now, if we are truly committed to balancing the budget, we must have 
adequate enforcement mechanisms. This amendment ensures that any 
legislation, any legislation would be out of order if it caused total 
outlays to exceed total receipts for the year 2002, or any fiscal year 
thereafter, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House 
provide for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall 
vote. Under this amendment, any legislation would be out of order if it 
caused an increase in the public debt above the levels in the fiscal 
year 1998 budget resolution for fiscal year 1998 through 2002, 
remaining at the 2002 level thereafter unless three-fifths of the 
Members of each House provided for such by rollcall vote. Under this 
amendment, any legislation would be out of order if it caused an 
increase in revenues unless approved by a majority of the whole number 
of each House by a rollcall vote. That is the requirement for an 
absolute majority in the event of any increase in taxes.

  Now, over the past 30 years Congress has not been very good at 
exercising self-control in budgetary matters. We need these enforcement 
tools to lock in our commitments to the American people to balance the 
budget by the year 2002. Senators should recognize these concepts which 
I have just mentioned. The fact that it would be out of order to 
increase the debt above the levels in the agreement, it would be out of 
order to have outlays that exceeded our income, it would be out of 
order to have tax increases without the whole of a majority of each 
whole House in a rollcall vote, because these are the very provisions, 
these are the very provisions which we all voted for, which 66 Members 
of this Senate voted for in the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution debate.
  I say to the 66 Members who voted in favor of this, this should be 
the structure we work in perpetuity, as long as this Nation exists. If 
it was good enough to put in the Constitution as long as America would 
exist, it ought to be good enough to put into this budget agreement for 
the next 5 years. It is that simple.
  Deficit spending has wrested power from the people it has deposited 
here in Washington. We have inverted the Framers' will. They expected 
us not to spend the money of the next generation. This approach is to 
do one thing, and one thing alone, and it is to curtail the deficit. It 
is to put enforcement and teeth into this agreement. It is to hold this 
agreement in place during the next 5 years. It is not to add spending 
to this agreement or take spending out of this agreement. It is simply 
to make this agreement an honest agreement for the people of the United 
States of America.
  Our ability to spend the money of the next generation is one of the 
skills we have refined to a very high level, and it is a skill we ought 
to curtail and guard against. This amendment would guard against it.
  We have tried time and time again to deal with the dilemma of 
recurring debt. We have not been able to deal with it. We simply have 
not been able to summon the discipline. Well, I say put the discipline 
in this agreement. We should make part of this agreement the kind of 
guarantee that will make sure we keep our word. Put ``deal-keeper'' 
into this agreement. Stop talking

[[Page S4970]]

about deal-breakers. Make this a deal-keeper.
  Chronic overspending does not simply result when one group decides 
that it will try and stop it. We have to have the right structure in 
place, and the amendment which I have offered today is the right 
structure for doing that.
  This budget agreement suggests that Congress will balance the budget 
by the year 2002. We must have the enforcement provisions necessary to 
ensure that this goal is actually reached to place the very provisions 
in this agreement, the very provisions which were voted for 
overwhelmingly by this Senate when it sought to pass the balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution. Sixty-six Members voted for those 
items. That makes good sense.

  Incidentally, for those who didn't vote in favor of the balanced 
budget amendment, the rest voted against it and almost universally said 
give us a chance to vote for this as a statute.
  We don't need to tamper with the Constitution. Here is that chance. 
This is a chance to say, ``Yes. We agree that statutorily the very 
conditions which were so favorably received in the balanced budget 
amendment proposal are available as statutory law here.'' I believe 
this is an addition to the budget agreement, which won't be a deal 
breaker but which would be a budget agreement keeper.
  If the Senators believe that this budget deal will lead us to a 
balanced budget by the year 2002, then they shouldn't fear adequate 
enforcement provisions that will make this a certainty. The American 
people are rightly skeptical that this deal will lead to a balanced 
budget. Firm enforcement would go a long way to assure the American 
people of Congress' resolve to do the right thing and to keep its 
promise to balance the budget.
  As I mentioned, 66 Senators voted to abide by the enforcement 
provisions in this amendment when they voted for the balanced budget 
constitutional amount.
  I hope that they will join in support of these very items which would 
provide an assurance that the conditions of this agreement would indeed 
be met.
  Senator Inhofe and I have combined forces on another amendment. I 
wanted to thank him for his cooperation in getting that done.
  I yield the remaining time to Senator Inhofe.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Perhaps I 
didn't understand the Senator from Missouri. Was the Senator yielding 
time to the Senator from Oklahoma to speak on the Ashcroft amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the Senator from 
Missouri yielded his remaining time to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. If I could be recognized for a point of clarification, I 
believe that the Senator from Missouri was recognized for the purpose 
of explaining the provisions of the amendment 323, and inadvertently 
said ``322.''
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I had two amendments. The second amendment I was going 
to use at the same time.
  Mr. INHOFE. We are going to ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I would like to ask for the yeas and nays on amendment 
322.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to congratulate our colleague from 
Missouri.
  This is a very important amendment. Quite frankly, the only reason 
anybody would oppose this amendment is if they don't believe that this 
budget agreement is going to produce a balanced budget. I think this 
budget agreement is really short on enforcement. I think enforcement is 
very important in a budget because you are talking about what you are 
going to do 5 years from now.
  We all know the old adage: ``After all is said and done more is said 
than done.'' And in politics that adage should grow by some multiple. 
In fact, we have stood on the floor of the Senate on many occasions and 
pounded our chests and said we balanced the Federal budget. It is not 
balanced yet. And, in fact, we are a long way from the goal line.
  As I pointed out yesterday, 97 cents out of every dollar of deficit 
reduction, as compared to current discretionary spending and current 
law, in this budget comes from assuming good things are going to happen 
in the future.
  What the amendment of the Senator from Missouri does is say that is 
just great, but, if it doesn't happen, we are going to have an 
enforcement procedure that says you have to have a three-fifths vote to 
raise the debt to pay for this deficit, that you have to balance the 
budget by the year 2002 unless 60 percent of the Senators vote to waive 
it. Obviously, they are going to be under political pressure to live up 
to their promise--and that you have to have a rollcall vote and a 
constitutional majority on raising taxes.
  These provisions weren't made up by the Senator from Missouri last 
night. These provisions weren't simply dreamed up or written on the 
back of an envelope. We enshrined these agreements forever when 66 
Members of the Senate voted to make this part of the Constitution of 
the United States of America. In fact, had two of our colleagues, who 
had pledged to vote for it, not changed their votes it would be part of 
the Constitution today, and this wouldn't even be needed.
  If 66 Members of the Senate were willing to make this the 
Constitution, why couldn't 51 of them vote to make it part of this 
budget agreement, that for the next 5 years as a part of this budget 
agreement we have the same enforcement procedures we would have had had 
one more person voted for the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution?
  So I want to congratulate our colleague from Missouri. I think this 
is a very important amendment. If you have any concerns that Congress 
may not live up to what it said, if you have any reason to be 
suspicious that all may not go well or as planned and you want to buy a 
little insurance policy that says there is something different about 
this budget than all of the others that we have adopted, vote for this 
amendment. I intend to vote for it. I think it is a very important 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I thank our colleague for yielding me this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment, numbered 
323, to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A second-degree amendment is not in order 
until all time has expired on the amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Does the Senator from Missouri yield back all his time on 
322?
  Parliamentary inquiry: As I understand it, if the Senator from 
Missouri would yield back the remaining time on amendment No. 322, then 
it would be in order for me to send this to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Missouri and the Senators 
who control the time yield all time, then the amendment would be in 
order.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I send a 
second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration and 
that it be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield such time in opposition to the 
amendment by the Senator from Missouri to the Senator from New Jersey 
as he may use.

[[Page S4971]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  As we examine the amendment sent up by the Senator from Missouri, it 
kind of recalls some other debates that we have had here, and he so 
aptly reminded us, that included the balanced budget debates and the 
subsequent vote that took place. And it therefore seems to me to be out 
of range to attempt to do that on this budget resolution.
  Frankly, in discussions that we have been having informally, it is my 
understanding that this amendment not only is opposed by me on behalf 
of the Democrats but also is opposed by the Republican management, and 
I certainly hope so because this is outside certainly the structure of 
this budget resolution.
  We are, Mr. President, working with a set of estimates. That is the 
best that can be done. One cannot put this into concrete and say that 
absolutely at the end of your fiscal year 1998 or even at the end of 
the fiscal year 1997, which is relatively imminent, we are going to be 
able to precisely gauge exactly what the outcome is going to be. It 
cannot happen. So we are working with estimates.

  But there is something else we are working with, and that is the good 
faith of the institution. I have heard it said on this floor in recent 
moments that the implication is that we in this body can't be trusted. 
And the words that were uttered came from a Member or Members of the 
institution.
  I don't know who it is that can't be trusted. Is it everybody else 
except the speaker? Is it everybody on this side of the aisle? Is it 
everybody on that side of the aisle? The one thing I must tell you I 
find difficult to comprehend--now, my background is business and I 
spent 30 years doing that. We didn't find everybody always meeting 
their word. But typically, if someone had a position of responsibility, 
you gave them the benefit of trust. And if there was, sometimes, a 
misunderstanding on an agreement, why, we chalked it up to a 
misunderstanding, we chalked it up to a misinterpretation. But to 
suggest that there is no trust in the U.S. Senate, sent here, 100 of 
us, by 260 million people--what fools those people are to send us here. 
We can't be trusted. You hear it coming from those who work here, those 
who have been sent here: Oh, no, we can't be trusted.
  I will tell you this. I don't know anybody here--anybody here, on 
either side of the aisle, who can't be trusted. I may disagree with 
their point of view. I may disagree with their judgment. I wouldn't 
say--I am trying to think of the instances where, perhaps, in my 15 
years here, that I have run into someone who you just can't trust. 
There are rumors about a person here or there. But to suggest that the 
body is not trustworthy and therefore we need special shackles, special 
handcuffs, special rules, special procedures?
  It is not enough to say, look, I was sent here by, I don't know, 2 
million people in the voting booths, or that I represent a State with 8 
million people, or this one represents a State with almost 50 million 
people, or that one represents a State with 18 million, or that one 
represents a State with 350,000 people--to say those people are either 
naive, stupid, don't know what is going on? They made a choice that 
suits their intellect and suits their view of what life is about, what 
they need to carry on their responsibilities. I don't think we need 
these constraints.
  I want to look at the record. I look at a record and if we get 
partisan about this, I look at a record of two parties, one Republican, 
one Democrat. The Republicans came into power in full force in 1980. 
President Reagan was a popular President, among the most popular in the 
history of the country. He came in, made decisions about tax cuts, $2.8 
trillion worth of tax cuts--$2.8 trillion. By the way, in this budget, 
we have $250 billion, and there is a fair amount of debate. I didn't 
hear a lot of people say, don't trust him. It was voted, it was part of 
the law, and we succeeded in creating skyrocketing deficits, year after 
year, growing more each year than the year before, until we were almost 
at our wit's end.
  In 1992, a Democrat was elected President, a Democrat from the tax-
and-spend party. That Democrat brought the budget deficit down from 
$290 billion to what is anticipated this year to be below $70 billion, 
1992-97, 5 years' worth. We have been doing pretty good. That, to me, 
looks like we kept our word, all of us, because we have legislated. We 
have been lucky, too. We have had a very good economy to bolster the 
revenue side of things.
  But Government is smaller than it was by a significant measure, over 
a couple of hundred thousand people. We have tightened up in lots of 
ways that needed tightening up, and the results are pretty good. We 
have close to 12 million new jobs, unemployment is at its lowest point 
in 24 years, inflation at a steady rate, very low. There is not too 
much concern--a little worry, but it's not like it used to be. It's not 
like it was when it finally worked its way up to 21-or-so percent some 
years ago. It has been modest. Things have been happening.
  Our tax-to-GDP ratio is the lowest among the industrialized nations. 
Our ratio of deficit to GDP, very low. Signs are pretty good. Is this 
going to last forever? I don't know. Neither does anybody else here. Is 
it going to get worse immediately? No one knows that here, either.
  We look at the statistics. They look pretty good: PPI down, CPI down, 
everything in the right direction. That, again, does not mean it is 
going to last, but it does mean this is a heck of a time to, after 
struggling, struggling to get a balanced budget amendment on the 
books--and we are this close, Mr. President, this close to a balanced 
budget. It can be done in this body within hours from now, within 
hours, 4 or 5 hours; pass a balanced budget amendment--a balanced 
budget. I am sorry. A balanced budget. That was a slip of the tongue. 
Not one I meant to make, I can tell you. Within 4 hours, we can have a 
balanced budget, bipartisan--their side, my side.
  I don't know that we are walking arm in arm, but as I said for the 
newspaper the other day, at least we are not looking nose to nose, we 
are looking shoulder to shoulder, which I think is a better way to do 
it, and feeling pretty good about a lot of hard work.

  I don't get paid overtime. I don't want to get paid overtime. I did 
it because I took the job I wanted to have. I am so privileged to serve 
in this body. So many times I go over to my desk and I lift the top 
drawer--this is for the Senator from Missouri. I lift the top of my 
desk. It is right back there. Underneath that top, it says, ``Truman, 
Missouri.'' There is only one Truman I know, who was the President of 
the United States. I think his name was Harry--``Truman, Missouri.'' 
The man who stood for don't pass the buck: ``The buck stops here.'' The 
distinguished Senator from Missouri had served as Governor of that 
State. He is someone highly thought of. But I could not disagree with 
him more on this resolution.
  When I see things going as they are, and we have an opportunity for 
us to work in a bipartisan fashion, 6 weeks, roughly, of long days, 
long nights of sitting across the table from one another--no growling, 
no grousing, no anger, no fits or bursts of temperament, walk out of 
the room--none of that stuff. We disagreed. We discussed it. But nobody 
tried to put anything over on the other person. And we had the 
President's people in the room with us, three parties to the agreement.
  And I tell you, talking for myself and for my colleagues over here, 
there are things in here that we just don't like. I can be sure that 
there are things over there that they just don't like. But in a 
consensus arrangement--I have heard that even occurs sometimes in 
marriage. Two people get along, have nice kids and all that. Sometimes 
they disagree. Hard to believe?
  In any event, here we are. We have worked together and we walked out 
of that room, that day, feeling pretty good, even though we had the 
disagreements that followed on. We have worked, now, for these couple 
of days to try to get this agreement in place so it could go over to 
the House, have a conference on it, get the President to sign it and 
say to the American people--I hold my head high when I do it, in 
conscience. And my conscience--my name means a lot to me. It means a 
lot to me because whenever I am in here, I always remember that my 
parents were brought here as children by their parents from Europe--
poor, hard-working people. They always said to me, ``Frank, get an 
education. That's the

[[Page S4972]]

way up. That's the way you get out of this. That's the way you get out 
of the store,'' with my mother waiting on the tables, cleaning them off 
all day and all night.
  So, my name means a lot to me. When I lent my support to this 
agreement, I did it feeling full well that I had done it with all the 
knowledge that I had available to me, that I did it in good conscience 
and that we were going to be able to get this agreement passed, out of 
the way and passed, and that we would be working hard to make sure that 
we met the objectives that are in here.
  The budget amendment says--and I perhaps paraphrase here because I am 
not reading from the amendment but I am reading from a summary. It 
requires a three-fifths vote of the Members of each House to provide 
for specific excess of outlays over receipts or to provide for such an 
increase in the level of the public debt.
  That is pretty significant. Normally, we operate with a majority, 
except in some special cases--veto override or supermajority that are 
required, sometimes, in budget affairs. But typically it is 51 votes 
takes it all.
  Here we say that, no, even though it is now in order, even though it 
is on paper, even though these are estimates, I once again say, and 
even though it was done with the best judgment that people could 
exercise, no, we are now going to go back to the debate on the balanced 
budget amendment. That is essentially what this is. Because we saw it 
defeated when it was presented here. It needed 67 votes. It got 66, as 
I remember. And one of the Senators on the floor before said that we 
would have had a balanced budget amendment if a couple of people hadn't 
changed their minds. We would have had it in place. It would have been 
attached to the Constitution.
  Far be it. It took a lot of States. They had to make a lot of votes; 
50 of them had to vote to approve it before it got into place--not all 
50 of them, but three-quarters of them.
  So it would not be in place. To now be doing a balanced budget 
amendment when we have a balanced budget 5 years in duration, 10-year 
projections, we don't expect--we could be wrong, but that's judgment. 
That is why we were sent here. Use your judgment, make sure your 
conscience is clear in things that you do. We could be wrong, but it 
looks in the 10 years, in the next 5-year cycle, that there will not be 
an explosion of growth in tax cuts, there won't be an explosion in the 
annual deficit, that we will be able to muster a surplus so we can 
start paying down some of that debt and get rid of some of the interest 
we have to pay every year. We have to pay more than a quarter of a 
trillion dollars in interest every year that every citizen in this 
country pays for in one way or the other, that children, future 
generations, will be called upon to pay your debt. They didn't sign any 
papers to acquire that debt. But we are on the way to solving some of 
those problems.
  Now, when I look at this amendment, it says, further, that it waives 
these provisions for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
in effect, certainly, or the United States is engaged in a military 
conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to national 
security. Are there threats to our society other than war? Is 
instability within our society a threat to this society? Is violence in 
the street a threat to our society? Is constant tension and hostility 
between parts of our society, one with the other, classes in our 
society? I think that is a real threat to national security. But there 
are no provisions if we are all wrong and a recession starts; if, 
worse, a depression occurs. If we had the same rules in place today in 
the early 1930's, then the Depression--everyone who knows anything 
about business or economics, who studied the problem, will tell you the 
Depression would have been considerably ameliorated if we had 
unemployment insurance, if we had other protections for people during 
that period of time.
  I think, frankly, as we look at this amendment, demanding now a 60 
person vote in order to change things, to try and anticipate all the 
problems you have, is a terrible mistake. I think it violates the 
structure of the budget resolution. It will blow this agreement out of 
the water absolutely, because I know that there are not enough people 
who would vote to sustain a point of order if that is called upon. I 
expect to do just that.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we will leave well enough alone in 
this case, get on with the business at hand, pass the balanced budget 
resolution, and let us start solving our problems and not create new 
ones.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield such time on the amendment as I may use.
  Mr. President, my colleague and ally from New Jersey a few moments 
ago said of the amendment of the Senator from Missouri on this case I 
could not disagree more. I must say I could not disagree less and still 
disagree, but disagree I must do.
  The reason I put it in that form is that the Senator from Missouri 
has presented us with an amendment that is for all practical purposes 
in statutory form the constitutional amendment on the balanced budget 
that was supported by almost but not quite two-thirds of the Members of 
this body. It differs, of course, not just in being in budget 
resolution language but in being effective immediately rather than 
several years from now, and in dealing with declining budget deficits 
as if each of them was the triggering mechanism for the supermajority 
requirements that are included within it.
  It is, nevertheless, a theory with which this Senator and the manager 
of the bill, the Senator from New Mexico, agree. The point with which 
we disagree, however, is the proposition that this philosophy should be 
added to this budget resolution. The issue is an important one. It is 
an appropriate one to be debated.
  I can remember personally a decade ago when I had serious enough 
reservations about a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget 
when I felt that this philosophy ought to be passed in the form of a 
statute so that we could determine as a country whether or not it 
worked before we moved toward placing it in the Constitution. 
Personally, I would still be willing to do that.
  However, it is important enough, it is vital enough that it ought to 
be debated independently of a budget resolution, which, as the Senator 
from New Jersey has said, marks the first time on which we have had a 
budget resolution in the time that I have been here at least that was 
supported largely by both sides of the aisle and in this case by the 
President of the United States.
  And so while it is possible to argue, I suppose, that this amendment 
does not formally or technically breach the bipartisan agreement on the 
budget, as did yesterday's amendment on a tobacco tax and several of 
the other amendments that have been voted on here, it clearly breaches 
at the very least the spirit of this budget resolution agreement. It 
also clearly represents a vitally important policy decision which 
should not be debated for an hour or 2 hours as an amendment to this 
bill and then added to it.
  It is for that reason, keeping what this Senator believes to be a 
commitment to pass this budget resolutions essentially in the form in 
which it was presented to this body, that I regret to say it is not 
acceptable to the leadership on this side as it is not to the 
leadership on the other side.
  Now, Mr. President, for the information of other Members of the 
Senate, when all time has been yielded back on this debate--and I 
intend to yield our time back in just a moment--the Senator from New 
Jersey will raise a point of order against this amendment. I believe 
that the Senator from Missouri will move that the point of order be 
waived, will ask for a rollcall vote on that subject, and then we will 
stack that rollcall vote after the one previously ordered. We will go 
on to a similar but not identical amendment that will be sponsored 
jointly by the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Oklahoma, and 
I suspect, although I cannot guarantee this, that when debate on that 
is completed we will probably have a series of votes, all of the votes 
that have been stacked at that time, which might very possibly take 
place at or around 6 o'clock.

  With that, Mr. President, I am prepared to and I do yield back the 
remainder of my time on this amendment.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield back the remainder of my time on amendment 322.

[[Page S4973]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). All time is yielded back.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane 
and therefore I raise a point of order that violates section 305(b)(2) 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of ordered and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be temporarily 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 323

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I call up amendment 323.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 323.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I believe we are prepared to agree that 
debate on this amendment be limited to 30 minutes in total.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Missouri 
if he would permit the exchange that we expected to have--the chairman 
of the Budget Committee is here--and that was that we would switch side 
to side. Now, we have had an amendment from Senator Gramm, from the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, one amendment from the Senator from 
Missouri. Meanwhile, a commitment was made to the Senator from 
Minnesota, who has been waiting virtually all day. We have not had a 
chance to deal with it and I think----
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think unless Senator Wellstone and you want to yield 
a second opportunity to our side, we have had three in a row. I did not 
know Senator Ashcroft was going to offer two. I said let's have one. 
And if you do not want to yield to them, they will be next after 
Senator Wellstone.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that would be my preference.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.


                     Amendment No. 313, as modified

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 313.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 313.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)


                     Amendment No. 313, as Modified

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is made.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a typographical error. I 
believe we sent it to the staff earlier.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to work this out. We had given it to 
Senator Domenici's staff several hours ago.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. I inform the Senator from Minnesota there will be no 
objection to his modifying his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk. I 
thank my colleague from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $1,650,000,000.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $2,190,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $3,116,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $4,396,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $5,012,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $1,650,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $2,190,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $3,116,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $4,396,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $5,012,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $5,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $1,601,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $2,539,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $4,141,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $6,543,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $1,650,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $2,190,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $3,116,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $4,396,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $5,012,000,000.
       On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by $1,101,000,000.
       On page 22, line 1, increase the amount by $1,690,000,000.
       On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by $2,039,000,000.
       On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by $2,616,000,000.
       On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by $3,541,000,000.
       On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by $3,796,000,000.
       On page 22, line 24, increase the amount by $5,843,000,000.
       On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by $4,312,000,000.
       On page 26, line 6, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 26, line 14, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 22, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 27, line 5, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 6, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 13, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 27, line 14, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 38, line 14, decrease the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 38, line 15, decrease the amount by $2,700,000,000.
       On page 40, line 17, decrease the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, decrease the amount by $5,012,000,000.
       On page 41, line 8, decrease the amount by $16,364,000,000.
       On page 43, line 21, increase the amount by $1,101,000,000.
       On page 43, line 22, increase the amount by $44,000,000.
       On page 43, line 24, increase the amount by $2,039,000,000.
       On page 43, line 25, increase the amount by $1,366,000,000.
       On page 44, line 2, increase the amount by $3,541,000,000.
       On page 44, line 3, increase the amount by $2,546,000,000.
       On page 44, line 5, increase the amount by $5,843,000,000.
       On page 44, line 6, increase the amount by $4,312,000,000.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment assumes increases in 
funding for Head Start and early start, child nutrition programs, 
school construction, and this additional funding will be paid for by 
reducing the tax benefits to the top 2 percent of income earners in the 
United States as well as by reducing tax benefits that are commonly 
characterized as corporate welfare tax loopholes.
  Mr. President, it has been said about this budget--I might ask my 
colleague from North Dakota, does he have an inquiry?
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield to me for a question.

[[Page S4974]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield, Mr. President.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the fact we are on a very important 
amendment the Senator from Minnesota is offering. I am increasingly 
concerned this afternoon. It is now 5:30 in the afternoon. As the 
Senator from Minnesota knows, a number of us in this Chamber have been 
working on a disaster supplemental bill providing disaster relief in an 
appropriations bill for people who have been involved in disasters, and 
we are nearing a point in time when time will run out on the passage of 
the bill. And some say, well, maybe the disaster bill will not be 
passed before the Senate goes out for the Memorial Day recess. Some 
others say, well, maybe not only will we not pass the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill that we have been working on for 
weeks, but we will not pass the emergency portion of it.
  I ask the Senator from Minnesota, is it not the case that in Grand 
Forks and East Grand Forks we have 10,000, 15,000 people who are waking 
up not in their own beds because they are homeless and a disaster bill 
must be passed? We cannot adjourn this session of Congress and take a 
recess unless a disaster bill is passed that deals with these 
critically needed funds. We have victims of floods and fires and 
blizzards out there who are waiting for a disaster bill to be passed. I 
am not suggesting here anyone is to blame for anything. I am just 
saying in the waning hours, we need to find a way to bring a disaster 
bill to the floor of the Senate.
  Is it not the case we have thousands of people homeless in your area, 
East Grand Forks, and in Grand Forks who are awaiting some word about 
whether a disaster bill is going to be passed?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from North 
Dakota, I am pleased he raised this question. I certainly want to speak 
about this amendment. I think it goes to the heart of the question of 
what the budget is about. But I think it is important to take a few 
moments right now in the Chamber to speak about this. I say to the 
Senator from North Dakota I know how hard he has worked on this for 
people in North Dakota. I know how hard Senator Conrad has worked. I 
know how hard Senator Grams, the other Senator from Minnesota, has 
worked and Senator Johnson and Senator Daschle.
  I just think that would be unconscionable. I hope this does not 
happen, the House of Representatives going into recess without getting 
the work done. Because in this particular case --it is quite one thing 
to say we want to get the work done, for example, on the budget, though 
the truth of the matter is 10 days from now the budget could be done 
and it really would make no difference. In this particular piece of 
legislation, we are talking about emergency assistance for people. This 
needs to be done right away.
  So I say to my colleague, we cannot adjourn. I mean there is no way 
we can adjourn until this work is done. He is quite right in the 
question that he put to me.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would yield for one additional question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Certainly.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the disasters that have occurred in our 
country that now result in a requirement to pass a disaster bill have 
been the most significant disasters that occurred in North Dakota 
statehood: 3 years worth of snow in 3 months; a 500-year flood in the 
Red River; thousands and thousands of people homeless, still homeless.
  I appreciate very much the cooperation that we have seen here in the 
U.S. Senate in trying to write a disaster bill. We got one out of 
committee and got into conference. I am a conferee. I know a lot of 
Members of the Senate--the chairman of the committee, the ranking 
member, and others--have been working hard to get this done.
  I do not know what is happening on the other side, but I know this: 
If the result of the coming hours will be that there are those who want 
to adjourn the Congress and go on a Memorial Day recess and decide that 
it is all right later to pass some kind of disaster relief bill, I will 
say to them, it is not all right with this Senator and not all right 
with a number of others, because people awaiting disaster relief are 
going to understand that this Senate has an obligation to do it.
  We must not and cannot take a Memorial Day recess until we have 
addressed the disaster needs of victims who have suffered now for 
weeks.
  In Grand Forks alone, nearly 15,000 of whom are still homeless, we do 
not need those folks to be looking at the Congress and saying ``Why? 
Why on Earth were we not able to get the help we were promised and help 
that was needed?'' I want them at the end of this session to be able to 
say thanks to Members of Congress who worked hard to say to them, 
``You're not alone. Here's some help. Here's some help to reconstruct 
and recover.'' I want them to say thanks for that.
  But I just say to my colleagues, I do not quite know where we are. I 
worry about some of the things I am hearing in the last hour or so. At 
the end of this process, we must have passed some kind of disaster 
relief bill. This Congress cannot--cannot--possibly adjourn for the 
Memorial Day recess and leave the victims of those disasters wanting 
and needing help that will not come.
  So I appreciate the Senator from Minnesota yielding.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is fine.
  I want to go on with this amendment, but I see my other colleague 
from North Dakota on the floor. If he has an inquiry to put to me, I 
would be pleased to hear from him.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from Minnesota.
  I just say, I talked to the mayor now of Grand Forks, our good, 
mutual friend, Mayor Owens. I am sure she is in contact with the mayor 
of East Grand Forks over in Minnesota, Mayor Stauss, your good friend. 
She has said to me that, if Congress adjourns without taking action, it 
will be a terrible blow, given the fact that this city that was 
entirely evacuated, nearly all 50,000 citizens had to leave their 
homes. Many of them still have not been able to return.
  The supplemental has been going through Congress with good, 
bipartisan cooperation, certainly an excellent effort here in the 
Senate, one which has been on both sides of the aisle very 
accommodating, very willing to help out.
  I see our good friend, the Senator from New Jersey, who is the 
ranking member on the Budget Committee, who personally came forward 
with a very generous contribution to help the people in Grand Forks and 
East Grand Forks, which we deeply appreciate. Now we are being told 
that there is a view by some in the other body that they should just 
leave town without taking further action. That would be a disaster all 
of its own.
  I say to my colleague, and I ask him, wouldn't that be a disaster in 
and of itself to say to those local officials, ``We can't tell you what 
resources you have available to rebuild because we've got to take a 
break''? I mean, we could understand if they cannot get the entire 
disaster bill done, although that ought to be the first priority. But 
if they cannot get that done, they should at least be able to get the 
emergency measures in that disaster bill done so those towns are not 
left in the lurch.
  I ask my colleague from Minnesota, wouldn't it be a disaster, a 
second disaster--actually a third disaster--for the people of our 
communities if Congress decided just to leave town before taking action 
at least on the emergency measure?

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I respond to both my colleagues--and 
please understand I think about what is happening to the people in 
Grand Forks. Everybody had to leave their homes. Those people were 
refugees. I know the pain of the people in East Grand Forks and other 
communities of Minnesota.
  I say to both my colleagues that this is a nightmare. I just--this is 
a nightmare. I guess I never would have believed it, that we are on the 
floor right now--this is away from the amendment. We will get back to 
it, I say to the Senator from New Jersey. But my colleagues come to the 
floor and raise these questions.
  This is a nightmare. I never would have dreamed that there would even 
be any thought that we would go into recess without finally providing 
this assistance to people. People need this. These people are trying to 
figure out how to get back to their homes. People are homeless.
  We cannot--we cannot--leave without doing this. I have heard that 
over in the House there is some discussion they are going to just 
adjourn.

[[Page S4975]]

  I just make a plea to Democrats, Republicans, and the independent in 
the House, everybody, every breed of political person, regardless of 
your point of view, please do not do this. I think from our point of 
view, it is just unacceptable.
  I mean, I think all three of us are saying, we just cannot have a 
Congress going into recess without passing through at least this 
emergency assistance. What people do not agree on, I say to both my 
colleagues, they can set aside; but what we cannot set aside is this 
emergency.
  Let me emphasize that word again, ``emergency'' assistance that 
people need. They need it now. It would be the worst possible thing for 
this Congress to go into recess without providing this.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator would yield for one additional 
question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Minnesota, I 
appreciate your yielding to me.
  The flood that occurred--let me take Grand Forks and East Grand Forks 
to discuss why we have the need for an emergency response here.
  The Red River flood was a flood that became 150 miles by 40 miles 
nearly. You could not see a river; it became a huge lake in the Red 
River Valley. But the point of it all is this. When this flood came--
let me just use Grand Forks, ND, and East Grand Forks, MN, represented 
by Senator Grams and Senator Wellstone who worked so hard on this. Nine 
thousand people--when those dams broke and that water came rushing down 
the streets, the people got out of their houses, in most cases with 
only the clothes on their backs. They rushed to the end of the streets, 
were pulled up by National Guard trucks and by other devices, and they 
lost their homes, lost their vehicles.
  Then we saw them at a hangar, big aircraft hangar out at the Grand 
Forks Air Force base sleeping on cots--4,000 of them from every other 
small town for 100 miles around.
  In Grand Forks, 50,000 people, 90 percent of the town was flooded. I 
was in a boat of the Coast Guard in the main street of Grand Forks, ND. 
You would hit a car. You could not see the car. All you could see was 2 
inches of the top of the radio antenna.
  In the downtown, a major fire destroyed 11 of the huge buildings in 
downtown Grand Forks in the historic district.
  In the middle of all of this, with two cities evacuated, we had the 
head of FEMA come to our region, James Lee Witt, and say, ``We're going 
to help you.'' We had the Vice President come to our region and say, 
``You're not alone.'' We had President Clinton in Air Force One fly 
into Grand Forks and East Grand Forks and put his arm around some of 
those victims living in that aircraft hangar, and he said, ``We're with 
you. The rest of the country wants to extend a helping hand and say 
you're not alone.''
  We have had enormous cooperation from everybody. In this Chamber, the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member and the 
subcommittees have done a remarkable job of saying to us, ``We want to 
help you.'' And they put in the disaster supplemental bill the 
resources that were needed. Congratulations to them. Every single one 
of them have come to us and said, ``We want to help you.'' And they 
provided the resources in this bill here in the Senate that we then 
sent to conference.
  What a remarkable effort by the Members of the Senate on a bipartisan 
basis. Then we went to conference. In fact, all of the disaster issues 
that are important to us to provide the necessary resources in 
conference are now agreed to. We do not have any outstanding issues. 
They are agreed to.
  Why is it important that this get done? Because in the cities of 
Grand Forks and East Grand Forks--the Red River runs in the middle of 
those two cities--they have to establish a new floodway. When they 
establish a new floodway, it means there will be hundreds and hundreds 
of homes that will no longer be able to be located there. Most of them 
are now destroyed anyway. In order to describe the new floodway and 
have a buyout of those homes, those mayors need to have the resources 
to begin that process now.

  Today, they do not have the resources, so those hundreds of 
families--well over 1,000, incidentally, are near and in that 
floodway--they now cannot be told by anyone, will their home be there 
or will it not be there? Will it be bought out or not? No one knows and 
no one can know until the resources are available to have that buyout. 
That is why this is urgent. If it waits 1 week or 2 weeks, they cannot 
make those decisions. Those folks can never move back into their homes. 
They cannot move back into their homes.
  So anybody who says, ``This is not urgent. It can wait. It can wait 1 
week or 2 weeks,'' let me give them the names of the young boys and the 
young girls who will sleep on cots, sleep in shelters, sleep in strange 
homes during those 2 weeks, part of which Congress will have been in 
recess. And then have them send them a letter to say, you know, we just 
could not get this done.
  Not getting it done is not acceptable. We have done our work. The 
disaster supplemental is largely agreed to in all of these areas. We 
must at a minimum take that out of the disaster supplemental, those 
resources that are necessary to help those people, and pass that on an 
emergency basis. The failure to do that--a decision, for example, by 
the other body to say we will not do that, we are going to take a 
recess, will be a devastating blow to people who do not deserve that, 
having been victimized by these disasters.
  So the Senator from Minnesota has been generous in yielding for a 
question. I just make the point that this Congress cannot adjourn 
without addressing the emergency needs of this disaster.
  Do I feel passionate about this? You're darn right I do. I am not 
going to let 15,000 people who are not yet back into their homes be 
told that Congress took a break for Memorial Day and the people who are 
homeless can wait a couple of weeks for a solution to this problem. I 
will not be a part of that kind of decision.
  So if there are those who think that any adjournment resolution will 
pass by this Congress failing to pass an emergency bill dealing with 
this disaster, it is going to be a long, long few days.
  I ask for the cooperation of everyone. We have had wonderful 
cooperation of Republicans and Democrats, and I might say in the Senate 
I cannot feel prouder of all the people I have worked with on the 
Appropriations Committee. I will just encourage and urge everyone 
involved in this process to decide and determine that we must get this 
done.
  I appreciate very much the Senator yielding. I understand that you 
have an important amendment and I apologize for intervening on that, 
but I think this message must be understood. This is not an option. We 
must pass a disaster relief bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues, and I 
appreciate their graciousness. I think that what both my colleagues are 
trying to say is we have an emergency now, and, Mr. President, I just 
do not think there is any way that this Congress can go into recess 
without passing this disaster relief bill. I mean, it is just too 
important. I mean, it truly is an emergency measure, and both my 
colleagues were speaking to that. I have told them I am in complete 
agreement.
  So let us hope that the House will be able to do the work. We have 
had great cooperation over here on the Senate side.
  Mr. President, the discussion about the budget, much of the 
discussion is about the balance, that this is a responsible budget, 
this is the responsible thing to do.
  Mr. President, let me just be really clear. I have some good friends 
who believe that. I respect their work. I have tremendous respect for 
their work. But from my point of view, as a Senator from Minnesota, 
when you do not invest to rebuild schools that are crumbling across 
this country--7 million children's schools with asbestos and lead--I do 
not think that is the responsible thing to do.
  When there are not the funds to assure that every child who now goes 
without health care still does not receive that health care, to me, 
that is not responsible. And when there are not the funds and there is 
not the investment to make sure that, in fact, there is a school 
breakfast program for

[[Page S4976]]

children, for whom that really is their only nutritious meal in the 
morning so that they are not going to school hungry, when there is not 
the investment in nutrition programs to make sure children are not 
malnourished in America--there are some 13 million children that are 
now malnourished in America--that does not seem balanced or responsible 
to me.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be 
permitted to follow the amendment he has with a second amendment that 
he has pending and that there be 30 minutes available to the Senator 
from Minnesota on both amendments, and for the opposition on both 
amendments that we have 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from New Mexico, and on my second 
amendment I know I will be joined by Senator Reed from Rhode Island.
  Mr. President, this amendment that is before the Senate right now 
essentially says this. We make sure that the tax cuts in this budget 
resolution do not go to the top 2 percent of the population. We look at 
some of the loopholes and deductions, and what Senators have called 
corporate welfare. There is several hundred billion dollars that fits 
into this category.
  Instead, we take the following steps, which seems so reasonable. 
First of all, since we cut child nutrition programs by roughly $3 
billion for 6 years, this amendment restores $2.7 billion. Let me 
repeat that: Last year, we made cuts in child nutrition programs. This 
amendment says, can we not take some of this out of corporate welfare? 
Can we not take it out of loopholes for billionaires? Can we not make 
sure that the tax cuts go to middle-income families and small business 
people and not the top 1 percent and 2 percent? And instead, could we 
not provide just a little bit, over 5 years, $2.7 billion, could we not 
invest that in nutritional programs for some of the poorest and most 
vulnerable children in America? They do matter. They do count.
  Mr. President, currently, there are 6.5 million children who 
participate in the school breakfast program. However, in many States, 
this program reaches only 50 percent of those eligible. In the State of 
Minnesota, the school breakfast program, much like the national, 
reaches just under 50 percent of those students eligible.
  Mr. President, what we are talking about is all across the country we 
have schools who are not able to participate. The welfare bill last 
year wiped out grants for schools to start up or expand school 
breakfast programs, and we have 13 million malnourished children in 
America. I do not know how my colleagues think some of these children 
will do well in school when they come to school hungry. I have talked 
to kindergarten teachers in Minnesota, and every single Senator here, I 
think, has had similar experiences with their teachers who surely say 
it breaks their heart to know some of the students in their class come 
to school hungry.
  Mr. President, there is another food nutrition program, the summer 
food service program. Many of my colleagues may not be aware of it, but 
I want you to be aware of it because these children, when they are not 
in school, are no longer able to receive school lunch or breakfast if 
that program is not available now during the summer. What we try to do 
is serve meals at summer schools or recreational centers or other 
nonprofit groups--a lunch, a breakfast or a snack--some way of making 
sure that these children have at least one nutritious meal a day.
  Over 14 million children, unfortunately, are low income enough to be 
eligible, and only 2 million are served--only 2 million are served. In 
Minnesota, only 16 percent of low-income children who are served 
throughout the school year are served during the summer.
  Mr. President, is it too much to ask to take just a little bit from 
loopholes, deductions for billionaires, large multinational 
corporations, and others that do not need it and invest a little bit in 
nutrition programs to make sure the children in our country have at 
least one nutritious meal?
  Mr. President, the Head Start Program has been discussed so there is 
no need for me to go into it in great detail but just to say one more 
time, that the President, in his budget, in this budget proposal, 
intends to serve an additional 1 million children. That is fine until 
we find out that that there are 2 million children who are eligible who 
are not participating. This does not even deal with Early Start, that 
is to say, age 2, age 1. So what this says is if we are serious about 
doing well for all the children in this country, surely we will 
dramatically expand the number of children that can participate in Head 
Start. That is worth it. That is an investment, an investment all of us 
can be proud of.

  Mr. President, the final part, of school construction, and I do not 
even need to go into it, again, this amendment says invest the $5 
billion that was in the original agreement--at least that was being 
negotiated; it was taken out. This is too painful a contrast. On the 
one hand, tax cuts not targeted, going to be skewed to the very top of 
the population; on the other hand, not a pittance when it comes to 
going after corporate welfare, but being unwilling to invest in 
crumbling schools all across the country.
  Mr. President, let me use this amendment for a final conclusion about 
this budget. One more time, I have heard it said that this budget is 
balanced, represents balanced values. I do not see the balance. I do 
not see the balanced values when on the one hand the tax cuts are 
skewed to the top and on the other hand we do not invest in crumbling 
schools across the Nation. I do not see the balance when we cannot 
invest in nutrition programs to make sure children are not hungry in 
America. I do not see the balanced values when we talk about a 
compelling problem of children going without adequate health care and 
we are not willing to fully fund health care for those children.
  I think this is a budget without a soul. It is interesting what is 
not on the table. What is not on the table is the $12 billion more than 
the Pentagon wanted. That is for defense. I would have thought we could 
have used that for some of our investment. What is not on the table are 
the tax preferences to special interests that are, quite candidly, a 
result of those who make the large contributions and have the power. 
What is not on the table is the deterioration of public institutions 
which are supposed to be so important to the quality of our lives. If 
we are going to rebuild a sense of community in America, Mr. President, 
that means attending to this deterioration. We have fewer good schools, 
fewer good libraries, and too many hospitals and clinics that are 
unable to provide the best care. This budget does not build a bridge to 
the next century. We do not invest in these critical areas of life.
  Mr. President, what is not on the table, perhaps most of all, is a 
set of social arrangements that allows children to be the most poverty 
stricken group in America. There is no concept of justice or virtue 
that justifies our willingness to allow millions of children to suffer 
involuntary poverty. What principle can we possibly invoke to absolve 
ourselves of responsibility for the fate of children too young to 
comprehend their expulsion from the American promise, denied the 
pleasures of childhood, their natural capacity stifled, their mind and 
spirit under attack from birth? Their impoverishment is our disgrace 
and it is a betrayal of our Nation's heritage.
  Mr. President, if this balanced budget agreement is to be the great 
accomplishment of 8 years of a Democratic Presidency, then history will 
judge us harshly. This agreement is a triumph of the past. This is not 
a bridge to the century to come.
  Mr. President, we have lost our way. I say this to the Democratic 
Party, to some of my colleagues I think we have lost our way. Our 
party, from Jefferson to Jackson to Roosevelt to Kennedy was a party 
that stood for justice, a party that expanded opportunities for 
citizens. We have always been at our best when our party has been there 
for people.
  Mr. President, this budget does not represent the best of the 
Democratic Party. This budgets turns our Nation's gaze away from too 
much of what is important about America--equality of opportunity, 
justice, the very essence

[[Page S4977]]

of our Nation. Mr. President, for that reason, I will vote against this 
budget resolution.
  Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.


                 Amendment No. 313, as Further Modified

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a 
modification to the desk to amendment numbered 313. This was a 
typographical error.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 313), as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $1,650,000,000.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $2,190,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $3,116,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $4,396,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $5,012,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $1,650,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $2,190,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $3,116,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $4,396,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $5,012,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $5,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $1,601,000,000
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $2,539,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $4,141,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $6,543,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $1,650,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $2,190,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $3,116,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $4,396,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $5,012,000,000.
       On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by $1,101,000,000.
       On page 22, line 1, increase the amount by $1,690,000,000.
       On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by $2,039,000,000.
       On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by $2,616,000,000.
       On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by $3,541,000,000.
       On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by $3,796,000,000.
       On page 22, line 24, increase the amount by $5,843,000,000.
       On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by $4,312,000,000.
       On page 26, line 6, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 26, line 14, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 22, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 27, line 5, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 6, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 13, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 27, line 14, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 38, line 14, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 38, line 15, increase the amount by $2,700,000,000.
       On page 40, line 17, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, increase the amount by $5,012,000,000.
       On page 41, line 8, increase the amount by $16,364,000,000.
       On page 43, line 21, increase the amount by $1,101,000,000.
       On page 43, line 22, increase the amount by $440,000,000.
       On page 43, line 24, increase the amount by $2,039,000,000.
       On page 43, line 25, increase the amount by $1,366,000,000.
       On page 44, line 2, increase the amount by $3,541,000,000.
       On page 44, line 3, increase the amount by $2,546,000,000.
       On page 44, line 5, increase the amount by $5,843,000,000.
       On page 44, line 6, increase the amount by $4,312,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 314

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 314.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Reed, Mr Bingaman, and Mr. Moynihan, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 314.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1977.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent Senator Moynihan be added as a 
cosponsor, along with Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator 
Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding me 
this time and also for sponsoring this amendment along with Senator 
Bingaman and Senator Moynihan.
  Today we are offering an amendment to increase the maximum Pell grant 
to $3,500. The Pell grant holds a very special meaning for me. In the 
last 6 years as a Member of the other body I have worked to open up 
further access to higher education. The foundation of that access to 
higher education is the Pell grant.
  As you know it is probably the enduring legacy of my predecessor, 
Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. One of his most significant 
accomplishments was the creation of the basic educational opportunity 
grant program in 1972 during the reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act. Later, this basic opportunity grant was named in his 
honor and has become the famous Pell grant. Its purpose then and now is 
to assist low-income Americans to gain access to postsecondary 
education, access which is critical not only to their future but to the 
future of this Nation.
  Going back to the very beginning of the Pell grants, the avowed 
purpose was to ``in combination with reasonable family and student 
contributions and other Federal grant aid meet at least 75 percent of 
the student's costs of attendance.'' Sadly, we have not met that 75 
percent, and we need, in fact, to raise the Pell grant so that we can 
begin to recoup some of the original purpose and allow students to meet 
the significant cost increases in higher education.
  This program was premised on Senator Pell's belief, which is my 
belief, and indeed I believe the belief of so many people in this 
Chamber, that everyone who is qualified should have the opportunity to 
pursue higher education. The Pell grant has been the cornerstone of 
this effort for many, many years. Since its creation, over 60 million 
Pell grants have been awarded, providing over $75 billion in aid to 
students across the Nation.
  In the first year of the program, 1973-74 over 176,000 students 
received the Pell grants. By 1980-81, this total had grown to 2.7 
million recipients. Today, over 3.6 million American students receive 
Pell grants. In my home State of Rhode Island, that includes 16,000 
recipients.

  This investment clearly assists our neediest students. In 1995-96, 54 
percent of Pell grant recipients had income levels of less than 
$10,000. Only 9 percent of recipients had incomes over $30,000.
  In 1992, during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I 
worked closely with Senator Pell to increase the authorization level of 
the maximum Pell grant from $3,100 to $3,700 for the 1993-94 award 
cycle with increases thereafter of $200 a year with the hopes that by 
1997-98 that we would have a maximum Pell grant on the order of $4,500 
a year. But, as we are all aware, we have not come even close to that 
figure. Indeed, this year the appropriated maximum Pell grant was only 
$2,700--too little to meet the needs of so many students across this 
country.
  This lack of resources has had a dramatic impact on students 
struggling to go to college. Indeed, as college costs have increased 
over the past two decades at an annual rate of between 5 percent and 6 
percent, consistently outpacing inflation, there has been a decline in 
the purchasing power of the Pell grant.
  According to the College Board, for 4-year private institutions the 
average tuition has gone up by over $14,000 between 1980 and 1996. In 
that same period the maximum Pell grant has only increased by about 
$950, and the average Pell grant only by about $733. As a result, back 
in 1980 the maximum Pell grant covered 33 percent of the tuition costs 
of a 4-year private institution. Now it only covers 14 percent. The 
average Pell grant covered 18 percent of costs of 4-year private 
colleges in 1980 and now it only covers 9 percent.

[[Page S4978]]

  If you look at public institutions--those great institutions which we 
feel have a special obligation to educate all of our citizens, 
particularly those coming from disadvantaged backgrounds--the maximum 
Pell grant back in 1980 covered 72 percent of a 4-year public college. 
Today it only covers 22 percent.
  As I said before, the grant has not hardly kept up with inflation. If 
we had simply paid the Pell grant at inflation we would today be 
looking at not a $2,700 maximum grant but a $4,300 maximum grant.
  So, before us we have the obligation to raise the maximum Pell grant. 
I am pleased to note that the proposal in the budget does increase it 
by $300. But that is not sufficient to keep up with the accelerating 
costs that I have described. The Wellstone-Reed amendment builds on 
this request within this budget--the President's request--by increasing 
the maximum Pell grant from $2,700 to $3,500. This would be a $500 
increase above the President's proposal.
  It calls for a $6 billion investment over five years by an offset of 
additional reductions in corporate tax loopholes and corporate welfare 
to fund this increase. By increasing the Pell grant to $3,500 we would 
be able to extend this grant to several hundred thousand more students. 
The average Pell award among poorest students would increase by almost 
a third.
  And, Mr. President, we recognize--all of us--the absolute necessity 
of higher education. A college education really pays off. It pays off 
for our country, and it pays off for individual graduates of college.
  The National Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated that 60 percent 
of all the new jobs between 1992 and the year 2005 will require an 
education beyond high school. Without these skills, college and 
postsecondary technical school graduates will not be able to man the 
economy of the 21st century. College education is also the key to 
higher wages. And one thing that we have been talking about repeatedly 
here is how do we raise the wages of Americans to give them a fair 
share in the progress of our economy? Education is the answer--higher 
education particularly. This translates dramatically.
  It is estimated that college graduates earn 50 percent more than high 
school graduates. In 40 years of expected work a college graduate is 
estimated to earn over a half-million dollars more than a high school 
graduate. All of this points to the critical need to provide additional 
access to higher education.

  Indeed, in terms of the national well being there have been studies, 
one of which is Trends in American Economic Growth, that point to the 
fact that 37 percent of our growth as a Nation from 1929 to 1982 was 
attributable to education, and particularly higher education.
  So not to invest in Pell grants, not to invest in opportunities for 
Americans to seek higher education, will I think undercut the goal we 
all have of growing and providing for an expanding and productive 
economy.
  So the amendment before us today is a step in the right direction, to 
provide more access to higher education, to allow particularly students 
from low-income households to go to school, to learn skills, to work in 
this economy, and to build strong communities so that we prosper not 
only economically but as citizens in a community of other citizens.
  If we shortchange the Pell grant and other educational programs, we 
will be reaping a very short and very transparent economy, one that in 
the clear light of day in the future will reveal itself to be not a 
savings but a massive lack of investment in the potential of our people 
and the success of our economy.
  I hope that we will all join together, as the distinguished Senator 
from Minnesota has done, to put forth this amendment and support this 
amendment and to increase our contribution to the Pell grant. Doing so 
I think will prepare us well for the new economy we face, an economy 
which demands these skills. The world is changed. Technology is forging 
new boundaries. Capital investment respects no boundaries. The only 
determinant I believe that we will have to ensure that we maintain our 
superiority as an economy is that we have the best educated people with 
access to higher education being the key to that success.
  This amendment will I hope take that strong step forward to 
accelerate the process of education for all of our citizens to ensure 
that we meet these technological challenges, to ensure that we have the 
best prepared work force, and that we also have people who respect and, 
indeed, appreciate the value of education because they benefited from 
it.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. The Pell 
grant program has been a huge success. It has sort of been the 
foundation of opportunity in our country. I feel like my words are also 
dedicated to Senator Claiborne Pell.
  Let me just highlight a few things that Senator Reed had to say. And, 
again, Senator Bingaman and Senator Moynihan are also original 
cosponsors.
  What we are really doing is saying that we are pleased to see the tax 
deductions. And we are pleased to see the tax credits. But we want to 
make sure that we also provide the support for students and families 
with incomes under $20,000 a year who may very well fall between the 
cracks.
  So what this amendment does is it says for $6 billion more over 5 
years we take it out of a variety of different loopholes and deductions 
that are called corporate welfare. Instead, we would invest it in the 
Pell grant program. We would increase the award up to $3,500.
  My colleague is right. The President has brought it from $2,700 to 
$3,000, and that is a modest increase. But we are pleased to see that. 
But if we brought it up to $3,500, then what you would see is that the 
Pell program would be available to several hundred thousand new 
students and the average Pell grant among low-income students would 
increase by about a third.
  One of the things that I want to say to my colleagues is that I hope 
before you vote on this amendment that there will be a way that you can 
be in touch, if you are not already, with the higher education 
communities in your States, because I think you will hear over and over 
again from them that there is no more important program than the Pell 
grant program, if we want to target this assistance to make sure those 
students and those families most in need of assistance are able to have 
access to higher education.

  There is a shameful statistic in our country. The best predictor of 
attending college is family income. And only 16 percent of college 
freshmen come from households with incomes under $20,000 a year. Only 
half of them graduate by age 24.
  So just think about that for a moment. Only 8 percent of those women 
and men coming from households with incomes under $20,000 a year are 
able to graduate. And we are now moving toward an economy where the 
brainpower of women and men in industry is going to matter more and 
more. Many of these companies, by the way, are going to be small 
businesses--not necessarily large companies. And the whole key to 
whether or not our children and our grandchildren are going to be able 
to do well economically is to be able to have access to higher 
education.
  I mean this really speaks not only to the whole issue of opportunity 
but also to national security. We do well as a Nation when we make sure 
that women and men have access to higher education so that they can do 
well for themselves and their families and they can do well for our 
country.
  So, again, I just want to make it clear that this is the choice. We 
just simply take $6 billion. And believe me, you know, you are looking 
at hundreds of billions of dollars when you look at this whole area of 
tax expenditures. We say find some of those loopholes and deductions 
and plug them. Mr. President, $6 billion over 5 years is not too much 
to expand the Pell grant program up to $3,500 which would make a huge 
difference.
  Again, what we would be talking about is several thousand new 
students. The Pell grant award would increase. It would make a huge 
difference to low- and moderate-income families. It would make a huge 
difference to access to higher education.
  And if we want to talk about priorities, I don't see any reason why 
this

[[Page S4979]]

amendment would not be an amendment that would carry on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate. There are a whole bunch of loopholes and deductions. 
Regular people are pretty angry about them. They don't think that those 
people who already make millions of dollars should get these breaks. 
And I think it is an absolute priority for people to make sure that 
higher education is affordable.
  This would really make this budget a budget with a strong higher 
education component. This would really make this budget a budget that I 
think Senators could feel really proud of when it came to higher 
education. Senator Reed and I are really trying to improve upon this.
  So, Mr. President, I am hopeful that we will get very, very strong 
support.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if my colleague wants to comment, I 
would like to preserve 2 minutes.
  Mr. REED. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks 
of the Senator from Minnesota. He has stated very well what is at 
stake--which is the future of the country through the future of 
individual students who have the opportunity to pursue higher 
education.
  There is something else that I might add. This proposed increase in 
the Pell grant compliments some of the other provisions in this bill 
where the President has proposed higher education tax credits and tax 
deductions which will assist, I think, generally speaking middle- and 
upper-income Americans. This Pell proposal would be particularly 
effective in helping low-income working Americans, and also 
particularly effective in helping a new and growing category of 
students--not recent high school graduates but those people who through 
circumstance were forced in midlife to retrain themselves. And there 
are so many in this situation nowadays due to downsizing.
  So for all of these reasons this is a very useful and critical step.
  I thank again the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank again the Senator from Rhode Island. He comes 
from a State with a great tradition of commitment to higher education.
  To my colleagues, there are two amendments. One of them is, if you 
will, very precious.
  It is all about making sure that we at least provide some more 
funding for nutritional programs for many poor children who are 
malnourished in America; that we invest in Head Start; and that we 
invest in our schools, too many of which are crumbling across the 
country, and we take that out of tax cuts that are skewed to the very 
top and we say target those to middle-income and small businesses, and 
we take it out of corporate welfare.
  The second amendment Senator Reed and I offered is a higher education 
amendment. This makes all the sense in the world. With this additional 
$6 billion of outlays over 5 years, we would be talking about a 
dramatic increase in access to higher education for many, many families 
all across the country in our States.
  Mr. President, those are the two amendments. I am going to finish on 
a positive note, but with 30 seconds left, I will just say one thing on 
a negative note. I gather that I will be meeting with my colleagues 
from North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota. Apparently the House is 
not going to finish the disaster relief bill. I have to say on the 
floor of the Senate, I cannot believe that this is happening. I think 
it is just unconscionable. It is irresponsible. This is emergency 
assistance that people in our States have been waiting for.
  We as Senators are going to have to figure out exactly what we do 
next, but I can assure you, and I think I speak for my colleagues, we 
will be as strong as we can be, and we will fight as hard as we can for 
people in our States. That is not meant to be showman-like. It is very 
sincere.
  Finally, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, for 
his graciousness. We were able to get the two amendments in in the 30-
minute limit, and I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, I have the 
greatest respect for the two Senators who spoke. I do not know the new 
Senator from Rhode Island as well as I know Senator Wellstone, but I am 
growing in understanding and knowledge and put him in the category of a 
Senator I respect.
  Mr. President, I actually believed, as I listened to those arguments, 
that we did not have a budget before us; that somehow or another, we 
had not done anything in this budget.
  Let me tell the American people and Senators what we did in this 
budget. Did anybody happen to catch the President's press conference 
when he bragged about this budget resolution? Remember what he said 
about education? ``We have done more to increase educational funding in 
this budget than at any time in the last 30 years.'' He had in mind a 
few things that the Senators are talking about in their amendments.
  Let me just tell you a couple of them. A $2.7 billion increase over 
the next 5 years in Head Start. Over the next 5 years, Head Start will 
receive exactly what the President of the United States requested. It 
is interesting, when the President has to look at all of Government 
like we do in the budget resolution, he gives Head Start a huge 
increase, and we agree with him in this agreement, and we make it a 
priority item that is going to be hard not to fund. That program has 
enjoyed a 300-percent increase since 1990. Not very many programs 
around have done that.
  I would have thought, if I were one listening here, that this 
President of the United States just denied these poor people Head 
Start, just sent them off saying, ``I don't want anything to do with 
it.'' It is the President who asked for this much money, and we did not 
change it one penny.
  Then, they were talking about Pell grants, and then I will return to 
another issue. Of course, it would be wonderful for America if Pell 
grants were $5,000. What did the President say about Pell grants? He 
said, we have the best increase in Pell grants in the last decade. How 
much? Three-hundred dollars for each Pell grant.
  We conservatives did not say that. We are glad to do it. The 
President of the United States asked for that. He got every penny he 
asked for. It is very simple to come to the floor of the Senate, no 
matter what you do in a budget, to have a new wish list and a new set 
of statistics about who needs something.
  I have learned more from that side of the aisle about that than I 
ever dreamt in my life. I can get up after you put the President's 
budget together, if we had given him everything he wanted, I learned 
from that side of the aisle that I could get up here and say we have 26 
million people who do not have enough food, even if the President had 
put in a whole new nutrition program.
  As a matter of fact, let's move from Pell grants to nutrition. Child 
nutrition program, isn't it interesting? The Federal Government spent 
$12.4 billion on those programs last year. Believe it or not, 70 
percent of those programs, Mr. President, are what we call mandatory 
programs. That means, if you qualify, you get them. There cannot be 
much more needed; if you qualify, you get them. That means everybody 
who is poor qualifies for those programs, and we spend $12.4 billion.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. You would have thought we did not even have a program 
from over there, and we did not even have an increase. Let me just 
finish.
  Believe it or not, the other 30 percent of the money that goes to 
children's nutrition programs is spent for programs like WIC, Women, 
Infants, and Children, one of the finest programs in terms of 
effectiveness we have in the Federal Government in this inventory. It 
has wide bipartisan support. It enjoys an increase in this budget, and, 
as a matter of fact, the President is so confident that it will be 
funded every year and funded appropriately that he did not even ask us 
to make it a priority program, because by doing so, we

[[Page S4980]]

are taking more and more of the budget and locking it in, because he 
knows we are going to fund it.
  Mr. President, I do not know exactly how I will ultimately handle 
these amendments, because no matter what you say, the argument is going 
to be that we are against nutrition programs, and it is a ready-made TV 
ad.
  On Pell grants, no matter if we gave the President every penny he 
wanted and we increased it $300 a year--it would be great if we had 
enough money to go to $10,000 a year, I guess, I am not sure. It does 
not matter. Whoever votes with Domenici tonight is going to vote 
against Pell grants.
  So I want to make sure the Senators understand that I have great 
respect for them, and I admire them greatly, but we may have a second-
degree amendment to change the way this vote occurs, so we are voting 
on something different for a change than your add-ons. I am not sure 
yet, but I am looking at it. So with that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question or comment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question or comment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Mexico, 
who is really--we say a good friend--he really is a good friend. I want 
him to know both of these amendments--and I am speaking for myself, not 
for Senator Reed--do not have a darn thing to do with TV attack ads. I 
cannot stand them. I wish there was no such thing.
  These amendments are offered out of a sense of sincerity, and, in all 
due respect to my colleague, you can talk about what we are doing in 
the area of, for example, nutrition for children, and it is, I guess, 
all a matter of how you see it. These amendments just say we can do 
better. The fact of the matter is that in the last Congress, we cut 
grants for school districts to establish the School Breakfast Program 
and only 50 percent of the children who are eligible receive it. The 
fact of the matter is----
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yielded for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The fact of the matter is, the same thing can be said 
for the Summer School Program. So, the question--I said actually a 
comment, but I will put it in the form of a question. My question for 
the Senator is, how can you even view this as some sort of potential TV 
attack ad when these amendments are so substantive and they speak to 
the huge--I am sorry, I say to the Senator--disparity between children 
who need this assistance and, quite frankly, a budget that does not get 
them anywhere near close to it? How can that be viewed just as an 
effort to have an attack ad?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me answer the question. I would never suggest that 
any Senator who offers an amendment, with all of the concern that you 
have in your heart and your mind when you offer these kinds of 
amendments, I would never consider that they would ever be used to 
disabuse somebody who voted against you improperly. But I am merely 
suggesting that happens from time to time, and that is all I was 
thinking. I do not think it will be much of a defense to say that the 
President of the United States was given everything he asked for in 
these areas. I do not think that will help much, if somebody wants to 
use it for a contrary purpose.
  I yield the floor, and I understand the next amendment is Senator 
Inhofe's amendment, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes, 15 seconds 
remaining. Does he yield his time back? Does he wish to yield his time 
back?
  Mr. DOMENICI. If Senator Wellstone will wait, can we yield back our 
time and get the yeas and nays on his two amendments?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that will be fine. I yield back the 
remainder of our time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Could we not do that for 
a moment and let him proceed and let me clarify something?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask to set aside temporarily the consideration of the 
Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 301

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask we turn to consideration of 
amendment No. 301.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 301.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not plan to take a long time. I would 
like to make a couple comments about some of the things that have been 
said here.
  I do not question the sincerity of any Member on this floor, but I 
think it should be obvious to you, Mr. President, and anyone else who 
may not be worn out right now, that there is a difference of philosophy 
often expressed on this floor. I think it goes back to the role of 
Government.
  I not only remind my friend from Minnesota that every country that 
has tried to take care of all these ills from a government perspective 
has not made it. I wonder sometimes, all these people who come to 
school supposedly that are hungry, how many of those parents perhaps 
are not able to feed them because they are overtaxed, or how many of 
those parents might have fallen into this mentality that permeated the 
1960's that Government has the responsibility of taking care of all the 
human social ills?
  I agree with one thing the distinguished Senator from Minnesota said 
when he said we have lost our way. I think we have. I think that is 
what this is all about, trying to find our way back.
  I have to say, Mr. President, that I have not been supportive of this 
compromise, but for a totally different reason than the Senator from 
Minnesota. I look at this, and I have to correct the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico about one thing that he said. He said we gave 
the President everything he wanted in his social programs. We actually 
gave him more. This is $5 billion more than his request was last year. 
It is not a matter of not having enough in this bill. I feel the 
spending is too high. I do not agree with all the assumptions, but I am 
very confident that this is going to be adopted and going to be adopted 
tonight.
  Also, I am not sure we are going to be able to accomplish all the tax 
decreases that we have promised some of the people. I had occasion this 
morning to talk to two large groups, both of whom are endorsing this, 
and they are endorsing this because they believe they are going to get 
an estate tax reduction; they believe they are going to get capital 
gains reductions. I do not believe there is going to be enough money to 
do that. But that is not the point of standing here now.
  What I would like to see happen with this, ultimately, in the year 
2002 is to accomplish the goal that many people believe in their hearts 
we will accomplish with this. I am not that confident. I am going to 
assume that will happen and we will reach a balanced budget by the year 
2002.
  I have offered amendment No. 301 because I think by just oversight, 
something was left out. Let's assume that everything we are trying to 
accomplish with the adoption of this budget agreement becomes a 
reality. Let's assume that the economic assumptions produced an 
additional $225 billion. Let's assume that these spending programs are 
going to stay within the limits and that we are able to do the tax 
cuts. And let's assume that we find ourselves with a balanced budget.
  Now, here is the problem that I have with this. One of the problems 
is, if we reach the year 2001 and we see, in fact, it is doing what we 
projected it would do, doing what we told the American people it would 
do, and that is balance the budget, eliminate the deficit, what happens 
in the next year? With that as a concern, I don't think there is anyone 
in this Chamber who is going to vote for this bill on the basis that 
they want to balance the budget who does not also want to keep the 
budget in balance in the years following that. So I have this very 
simple resolution that I wouldn't think there would be any opposition 
to. That is, if this passes, and that becomes a reality--I am going to 
read the sentence from the bill. This is, in essence, my entire 
amendment.


[[Page S4981]]


       It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any 
     budget resolution or conference report on a budget resolution 
     for fiscal year 2002 and any fiscal year thereafter that 
     would cause a unified budget deficit for the budget year or 
     any of the four fiscal years following the budget year.

  So, what we are saying is, once we get it in balance and we have 
eliminated the deficit, I would like to go further and say, let's then 
start spending down and paying down the debt. Instead of that, with 
this, all we are saying is once we eliminate the deficit, let's keep it 
eliminated. In the absence of this, all of this, that is on this plan, 
this road map can become a reality in the year 2001. But if that 
happens, then they can turn around and say, ``Good, that's over with, 
now let's start raising deficits again.''
  That is the essence of it. I am prepared to yield the remainder of my 
time, but I understand the Senator from New Jersey wants to use some of 
his time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Very briefly, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
remembering that I might disagree that we have a 60-person vote 
required after the year 2002. I understand that the Senator wants to 
make sure that if we do achieve the objectives that we set out for 
ourselves, that we can continue to do so. I believe the same thing. 
However, I do disagree that we require a supermajority.
  The fact of the matter is, to project that far in advance--again, I 
said it earlier in a discussion, that we are working with estimates. We 
are looking at a particular point in time, the condition of our 
economy, the condition of the revenue stream that we get from, really, 
an ebullient marketplace and high tax collection. That has given us 
revenues that make the balanced budget a reality, to permit the tax 
cuts that have been established. Again, we each take a little bit of 
time for editorial comment to say--with which I disagree. I do agree 
with the portion that is devoted to the middle class and devoted to 
education. But it cannot be only my way. I regret that, but that is 
life and the reality.
  Mr. President, I hope we will be able to defeat this amendment. I 
think it does violate the agreement as we understand it. If we get to 
2002--we have deliberately had the projections extend for 10 years, so 
we had some idea that we were not going to face a cataclysmic explosion 
with deficits or with tax cuts, frankly, in that period of time. I hope 
we will be able to defeat it. I do not see my colleague, the chairman 
of the Budget Committee here, but I assume he will agree with me and 
that he will discuss it at an appropriate moment, if we have time.
  Has the Senator yielded back all the time?
  Mr. INHOFE. No, I was waiting until the Senator yielded his time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for the spirit in 
which he is addressing these things. I know there is a difference of 
opinion. But I would only say, in closing, that we have a list here of 
66 people, Democrats and Republicans--you were not one of them--that 
voted for the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Not.
  Mr. INHOFE. I assume you don't want to change that vote today?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The record is closed.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would say it would be very difficult for me to 
understand how anyone could have voted for a balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution and not support this. Because we are talking about, 
if you do not do this and you are saying, let's make the plan work, 
come up to 5 years from now, and then let's start in again on deficits. 
And we do not want to do that.
  With that, if the Senator from New Jersey would like to yield back 
his time, I will do the same.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield our time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 335

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is on the list. I 
am going to do this very briefly to accommodate our colleagues who are 
anticipating a series of upcoming votes. The distinguished chairman of 
the committee has given me a couple of minutes to explain my amendment. 
It is at the desk.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, you heard a couple minutes. A couple 
minutes is my interpretation of 3, that is what a couple is.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 335.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, let me explain, as I said when 
I offered an amendment earlier in the week, I intend to support this 
budget resolution. I think it is a good resolution. I commend the 
leadership for putting it together. There is some disagreement around 
the fringes.
  Fundamentally, this is a good agreement. I am impressed with the 
balance that is included in here. One of the ways this balance is 
accomplished is by limiting, of course, as we know, the size of tax 
cuts, both initially and in the latter years.
  The agreement entered into by the President, the majority leader, my 
colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, and Speaker Gingrich 
specifies tax cuts should cost no more than $85 billion in the first 5 
years and no more than $250 billion over the 10-year period.
  I read from the letter signed by our distinguished majority leader 
and the Speaker. I quote from the letter, Mr. President:

       It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 billion 
     through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through 2007.

  As I said, this was signed by the majority leader and the Speaker. I 
was surprised, however, Mr. President, to learn that this budget 
resolution does not fully conform in a sense because there is no 
reflection of the $250 billion over 10 years. It does include the $85 
billion over the first 5 years. There is no particular reason they 
should not be included. It was part of the agreement.
  In my view, the resolution ought to reflect the agreement. We do not 
specify, obviously, what is to be done. That is up to the specific 
committees; in our case, the Finance Committee; in the House, the Ways 
and Means Committee. All it does is conform to the overall agreement of 
tax cuts should not exceed $250 billion over 10 years. The absence of 
that reference in the resolution, I think, leaves open the question 
whether or not we are going to meet those guidelines.
  So, Mr. President, I offer this modification with reconciliation 
instructions so that the tax cuts are not limited to $85 billion but 
also be limited to $250 billion in 10 years. This language would be 
binding, but not in the sense of how it is done. We are not out of the 
woods, obviously, at the end of 10 years. There are reports we could 
have a ballooning problem, as we did after the 1981 agreement. I think 
by including the $250 billion here, it does conform very explicitly, as 
I said, with the letter.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the distinguished 
majority leader and the Speaker be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 1997.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We would like to take this opportunity 
     to confirm important aspects of the Balanced Budget 
     Agreement. It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 
     billion through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through 
     2007. We believe these levels provide enough room for 
     important reforms, including broad-based permanent capital 
     gains tax reductions, significant death tax relief, $500 per 
     child tax credit and expansion of IRAs.
       In the course of drafting the legislation to implement the 
     balanced budget plan, there

[[Page S4982]]

     are some additional areas that we want to be sure the 
     committees of jurisdiction consider. Specifically, we believe 
     the package must include tax relief of roughly $35 billion 
     over five years for education, including a deduction and a 
     tax credit. We believe this package should be consistent with 
     the objectives put forward in the HOPE scholarship and 
     tuition tax proposals contained in the Administration's FY 
     1998 budget to assist middle-class parents in paying and 
     saving for their children's education.
       Additionally, the House and Senate Leadership will seek to 
     include various proposals in the Administration's FY 1998 
     budget (e.g., the welfare-to-work tax credit, capital gains 
     tax relief for home sales, the Administration's EZ/EC 
     proposals, brownfields legislation, FSC software, and tax 
     incentives designed to spur economic growth in the District 
     of Columbia), as well as various pending congressional tax 
     proposals.
       In this context, it should be noted the tax-writing 
     committees will be required to balance the interests and 
     desires of many parties in crafting tax legislation within 
     the context of the net tax reduction goals which have been 
     adopted, while at the same time protecting the interests of 
     taxpayers generally.
       We stand to work with you toward these ends. Thank you very 
     much for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
     Newt Gingrich,
                                                          Speaker.
     Trent Lott,
                                           Senate Majority Leader.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, so my colleagues can appreciate this, this 
is not gamesmanship or trying to be cute about this in any way, but 
merely to have our reconciliation instructions conform to what the 
letter says we do. I think that would certainly put everyone at ease 
about the commitments we are all making to this resolution when it 
comes to deficit reduction.
  The great tragedy would be if we got to the end of 5 years and have 
no requirement that we try to limit it to $250 billion at the end of 10 
years, and you have deficit reduction and balance for 1 year, and then 
it will explode out of proportion after that period of time. That is 
the reason for the amendment.
  I appreciate, again, my colleague providing me these few minutes to 
explain the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment, 
but before we finish and wrap this up, I will be making sure that the 
rest of the agreement, as it pertains to cuts, has the same kind of 
specificity to it, otherwise, I would not accept it. I am not sure we 
can hold it in conference, as long as the Senator understands that.
  Mr. DODD. I am sure the Senator from New Mexico will try. I say to my 
colleague, I think the cuts are there. If not, I will join him in an 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection. I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. DODD. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 335) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator withhold for a moment? Can I have the 
attention of the floor manager?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield for a 
question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I question the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico, why can't we just start voting right now?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have five amendments which we are going to vote on 
and some other unanimous-consent requests that the leadership and the 
managers have. We will put it all in one UC and then start with the 
amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. His is the lead-off one, and we 
should not take more than another 5 minutes and then we will be ready.
  Mr. BUMPERS. How many following mine?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Five in total, I believe. Yours and four others for a 
total of five. Then we will have some more language in the UC about the 
rest of the evening and the rest of the amendments.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if the Senator, while we are in this colloquy, 
can tell us what to expect for the rest of the evening after these 
votes, and tomorrow.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I can only tell you that the distinguished Democratic 
manager and I are going to be here this evening, and we are going to 
use all the time to take up amendments. Whether we will vote on them 
tonight or not, let's wait and see what the leadership proposes. The 
time will run out sometime before too late, at least it will not be so 
late that we cannot stand here on the floor and get it done. Amendments 
will be worked on all evening. There may not be any votes, but it 
depends on the unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator can inform the 
Senator how much time is left on the bill?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will ask--a little less than 5 hours.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. About roughly 5 hours.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. How much time is 
left on the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A little less than 5 hours is left.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Amendment No. 328, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an unprinted amendment on behalf 
of Senator John McCain. It is a modification to 328 which has 
heretofore been offered. It is a sense-of-the-Senate regarding Amtrak. 
I ask that it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified, and the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes amendment numbered 328, as modified.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ASSISTANCE TO AMTRAK.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Amtrak is in a financial crisis, with growing and 
     substantial debt obligations approaching $2 billion;
       (2) Amtrak has not been authorized since 1994:
       (3) the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation favorably reported legislation to reform 
     Amtrak during the last two Congresses, but no legislation was 
     enacted;
       (4) the Finance Committee favorably reported legislation in 
     the last Congress that created a dedicated trust fund for 
     Amtrak, but no legislation was enacted;
       (5) in 1997 Amtrak testified before the Congress that it 
     cannot survive beyond 1998 without comprehensive legislative 
     reforms and a dedicated source of capital funding; and
       (6) Congress is obligated to invest Federal tax dollars 
     responsibly and to reduce waste and inefficiency in Federal 
     programs, including Amtrak.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that:
       (1) Legislative reform is urgently needed to address 
     Amtrak's financial and operational problems.
       (2) It is fiscally irresponsible for Congress to allocate 
     additional Federal dollars to Amtrak, and to distribute money 
     from a new trust fund, without providing reforms requested by 
     Amtrak to address its precarious financial situation.
       (3) The distribution of money from any new fund to finance 
     an intercity rail passenger fund should be implemented in 
     conjunction with legislation to reauthorize and reform the 
     National Rail Passenger Corporation.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my amendment states that if legislation is 
enacted to establish an intercity passenger rail fund, as this budget 
resolution would make room for, the distribution of any new money 
should be in conjunction with legislation to reauthorize and reform the 
National Rail Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak. Money 
alone, cannot fix all

[[Page S4983]]

of Amtrak's financial and operational problems.
  This amendment does not attempt to kill Amtrak or block its funding. 
It simply attempts to establish some level of fiscal accountability 
before the taxpayers are forced to pay $400 to $500 million more to 
fund Amtrak capital subsidies.
  We have an obligation to the American public to invest our Federal 
dollars wisely. We should reduce waste and inefficiency and allow 
Amtrak to achieve greater fiscal accountability. Statutory reforms are 
necessary if Amtrak is to increase efficiencies, reduce costs, and 
lessen its dependence on Federal assistance.
  Earlier this week, I met with Delaware's Governor, Tom Carper, who 
serves on the Amtrak board of directors. Governor Carper articulated 
clearly to me Amtrak's plan to turn its financial condition around. He 
talked about the need for capital investment and his support for 
establishing a trust fund for Amtrak. He also talked about the 
importance of legislative reforms.
  I may not agree with Governor Carper's views on the role that the 
Federal Government should continue to play in supporting Amtrak. But, 
it was refreshing to hear from someone close to Amtrak's operations 
discuss the critical need for statutory reforms--including labor and 
liability reforms--and not just the need for more money.
  Mr. President, Amtrak has not been authorized since 1994. The 
Commerce Committee has reported out reform legislation during the last 
two Congresses. But, instead of meeting our authorizing obligations, 
Congress has found it easier to just keep throwing good money at an 
inefficent operation. This fiscally irresponsible practice must stop.
  Last week, Senator Hutchison, the chairman of the Surface 
Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, introduced S. 738, the 
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. That bill proposes to reauthorize 
Amtrak for 5 years and provide comprehensive reforms to allow Amtrak to 
operate more like a business. In short, it provides all the things 
Amtrak's president, Tom Downs, says are needed in order for Amtrak to 
meet its glide path to zero Federal operating subsides by 2002.
  The Commerce Committee is prepared to move Senator Hutchison's bill 
during our very next executive session. We will be ready for floor 
action as soon as the leadership can agree on a schedule. Members can 
offer amendments and cast their votes. But we are committed to debate 
reform legislation on the Senate floor.
  I cannot understand how any Member could seriously argue that reform 
legislation should not be tied to any future ``pot of gold'' for 
Amtrak. Let me remind my colleagues that it is Amtrak that has 
said that money will not solve all its problems.

  For the past several years, Amtrak's president, Tom Downs, has 
testified before Congress explaining the three things needed to turn 
Amtrak around: Internal Restructuring; comprehensive legislative 
reforms; and a dedicated source of capital funding.
  And, just yesterday morning, during a DOT oversight hearing of the 
Commerce Committee, the GAO and the Office of Inspector General 
testified on the serious challenges Amtrak faces to achieving operating 
self-sufficiency.
  Mr. President, since 1983 I have listened to Amtrak officials talk 
about their plans to turn Amtrak into a viable operation. I imagine 
they've talked about it for 26 years. Amtrak says they can operate more 
efficiently and reduce the need for Federal assistance if Congress 
gives them the tools they have requested. Therefore, it would be 
extremely irresponsible to give Amtrak a substantial increase in 
Federal assistance and not remove some of the statutory burdens that 
are the root cause of many of their financial woes today.
  If Amtrak is given new money without reforms, I can hear them in the 
year 2002. They'll try to convince me how Congress still should 
continue subsidizing Amtrak because Congress never gave them what they 
said they needed. Well, enough is enough. If Amtrak is going to receive 
Federal assistance, let's make sure they also have the ability to 
increase efficiencies, reduce costs, and operate more like a business.
  Amtrak is in a financial crisis. Without comprehensive legislative 
reforms, it is business as usual. And today, that business faces a debt 
load fast approaching $2 billion.
  Mr. President, I do not support a never-ending drain on the Federal 
taxpayers in funding a passenger rail system that serves only 500 
locations across the country. But, if the collective wisdom of Congress 
believes we should continue to invest billions of dollars in a 
passenger system that serves less than 1 percent of the traveling 
public, I am going to do all I can to ensure such investment is as 
fiscally sound at possible. Turning on a new Amtrak funding spigot 
absent comprehensive operational reforms would be wasteful and 
careless.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I support Senator McCain's Sense of the 
Senate. I agree with my colleague from Arizona that Amtrak needs 
reforms. Amtrak must be able to operate more like a business. Senator 
Hutchison has recently introduced a major reform package which I 
support. Amtrak needs these reforms and they must be enacted this year. 
It is also very clear that Amtrak needs an adequate and reliable source 
of capital funding. Amtrak is currently borrowing to meet payroll and 
if additional capital funding is not provided, GAO and Amtrak have 
testified that the company will not survive past mid-1998. The key to 
Amtrak's future is both a legislative reform package and a secure 
source of capital funding.
  Given the immediate financial crisis Amtrak is facing, Congress 
cannot wait a moment longer. To be viable Amtrak will need both a 
secure source of capital funding and a reauthorization and reform bill 
this year. It is my goal to see both bills enacted this year. I do not 
doubt Senator McCain's ability to get the reform bill passed in the 
Senate and enacted this year. And, as I have stated on the floor many 
times, it is one of my priorities to give Amtrak a secure source of 
capital funding this year. Both bills are essential and I believe both 
should be implemented in conjunction with each other. We cannot lose 
our national passenger rail system. If something is not done to give 
Amtrak the capital funds and the reforms it needs, Amtrak will not 
survive. This is not an idle threat. GAO has testified before my 
committee that this is the case. Amtrak President Tom Downs has 
testified that the company would not survive past 1998. Amtrak's 
financial report proves it. The question before us is whether or not we 
want this country to have a national passenger rail system. If we want 
a national system, we must give Amtrak a secure capital funding source 
to allow it to operate more like a business.
  Let me take a few minutes to explain why I fought to include the 
Amtrak reserve fund in the budget resolution. And may I also say at 
this time that Senators Domenici and Lautenburg have been extremely 
helpful in securing this compromise language for me.
  Senator Domenici and I have worked together to develop a compromise 
on how to finance a secure source of funding for Amtrak. Out of these 
discussions we developed an Amtrak reserve fund which would allow for 
the spending caps for Amtrak to be raised by the amount of revenue 
raised to finance this fund. It is the first step, and a very critical 
step, for ensuring that Amtrak receives the capital funding it needs to 
survive.
  Mr. President, all major modes of transportation have a dedicated 
source of capital funding, except for intercity passenger rail. Amtrak 
needs a similar capital funding source to bring its equipment, 
facilities, and tracks into a state of good repair. Much of Amtrak's 
equipment and infrastructure has exceeded its projected useful life. 
The costs of maintaining this aging fleet and the need to modernize and 
overhaul facilities through capital improvements to the system are 
serious financial challenges for Amtrak. This provision is the first 
step in helping to reverse these problems and give Amtrak the resources 
necessary to meet its capital investment needs.
  I believe that it is time for Congress to reverse our current policy 
that favors building more highways at the expense of alternative means 
of transportation, such as intercity passenger rail. Despite rail's 
proven safety, efficiency, and reliability in Europe, Japan, and

[[Page S4984]]

elsewhere, intercity passenger rail remains severely underfunded in the 
United States. In fact, over half of the Department of Transportation's 
spending authority is devoted to highways and another quarter to 
aviation; rail still ranks last with roughly 3 percent of total 
spending authority.
  If this Congress wants a national passenger rail system, we will have 
to properly fund the system. Amtrak has not been able to make 
sufficient capital investments in the past through annual, but 
inadequate appropriation. I am pleased that the Senate now recognizes 
that a new funding mechanism is needed for Amtrak. Under this budget 
agreement, Amtrak would finally receive similar treatment as other 
modes of transportation.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
his efforts. I appreciate his leadership as full committee chairman 
because he makes it possible for members to move important legislation 
in a timely fashion, and I am pleased to hear his commitment to move S. 
738, Amtrak reauthorization and reform legislation, as soon as 
possible.
  In particular, he is exercising great leadership on the issue of 
Amtrak. I know he personally has doubts about our current passenger 
rail policy but, as chairman, has not acted to impede the will of the 
Commerce Committee or Congress to continue the national passenger rail 
system. He does, however, insist these the policies and their 
implementation be responsible. I commend him for that, appreciate the 
leadership it represents, and will work closely with him to that end.
  I support this amendment because I believe Amtrak must have both 
reform and capital funding. I commend Senator Roth for his commitment 
to authorize a capital fund for Amtrak and will work with him to see 
that it occurs. He is a cosponsor of my Amtrak reauthorization bill and 
am certain he will make a similar commitment to help achieve its 
passage.
  I believe we agree that the passage of both of these bills is 
necessary to sustain Amtrak. Increased Amtrak funding alone is not 
enough; nor are reforms without adequate funding. However, providing 
the funding without the reforms not only shortchanges Amtrak, it 
shortchanges the taxpayer.
  I fully share the sense of this Senate that appropriations from the 
new intercity rail fund should go to a reformed and reauthorized 
Amtrak. I urge all of my colleagues to work with me to pass Amtrak 
reform legislation as soon as possible in fulfillment of this 
resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no objection to this and hope we 
will adopt it here by voice vote.
  But I yield to Senator Frank Lautenberg.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Very simply, Mr. President, I too approve of the 
amendment. I have a deep interest in Amtrak and national passenger rail 
service. And this refines a process. I am pleased to endorse it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back all my time.
  I yield back any time Senator McCain may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 328), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have discussed this unanimous consent 
agreement we are about to enter with the Democratic leader. Therefore, 
I ask unanimous consent that at 7:15 today the Senate proceed to a 
series of votes on or in relation to the following amendments in the 
order specified, and, further, prior to each vote there be 2 minutes 
for debate equally divided in the usual form: Senator Bumpers, No. 330; 
Senator Bumpers, No. 331; Senator Bond, No. 324, which I understand 
will be a voice vote; Senator Gramm, No. 320; Senator Ashcroft, No. 
322; Senator Ashcroft, No. 323; Senator Inhofe, No. 301.
  Mr. President, I make that unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all votes after 
the first vote be limited to 10 minutes in length, and, further, all 
time consumed by the votes count against the overall time limitation, 
and, further, any remaining debate time under the statute be consumed 
this evening, and, finally, beginning at 9:30 a.m., tomorrow morning 
the Senate proceed to vote on any pending amendments, and following 
disposition of all amendments, the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of calendar 56, House Concurrent Resolution 84, the House 
companion, and all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text 
of Senate Concurrent Resolution 27 be inserted, and the Senate proceed 
to vote on adoption of the budget resolution, with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous consent that following adoption of 
House Concurrent Resolution 84, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for the 
cooperation from the chairman and ranking member and the Democratic 
leader for getting this agreement. This will, I think, be a fair way 
and expeditious way to complete our action. And we will then get all 
amendments voted on and final passage beginning at 9:30 tomorrow 
morning.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished 
majority leader for his assistance tonight.
  I think this is a very fair way to handle matters. And we will be 
discussing further amendments that will come up this evening while 
these votes take place.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if--I am sorry. The leader made 
that request, and I was not paying close enough attention.
  I would like to reverse my two amendments and bring up 331 first and 
then 330 second. I ask unanimous consent that we do that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection. Maybe we could proceed, I say to 
Senator Bumpers, to use up time that you have to--
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am prepared to use my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator used his minute and I use my minute, we 
will be ready to vote promptly at 7:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The order 
is so modified.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 331

  Mr. BUMPERS. My first amendment simply says that the Finance 
Committee must come up with offsets of $115 billion to offset that 
amount which is the cut in Medicare. I think it would be unseemly and 
extreme if we have to go home and tell our people that we cut Medicare 
by $115 billion to make the system more solvent and at the same time 
tell them the only way we could cut taxes under this budget agreement 
was to cut Medicare by $115 billion.
  So, Mr. President, I earnestly ask my colleagues to seriously 
consider voting to simply say to the Finance Committee, do not force us 
to go home and tell our constituents that we cut Medicaid by $115 
billion and we used every dime of it--every dime of it--to offset all 
these tax cuts, many of which go to the wealthiest people in America.
  It is indefensible. It is inexcusable. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The problem is that what the Senator just described is 
not the amendment. All the amendment does is take out all the tax cuts 
the American people are to receive. It has nothing to do with Medicare.

[[Page S4985]]

  It is a forthright simple amendment. It says, take out all the tax 
cuts. It totally violates the agreement and, I repeat, has nothing to 
do with Medicare, nothing.
  Everything that we saved in Medicare went to make Medicare solvent. 
There are plenty of other savings to cover these tax cuts if you had to 
cover them. But we have to make no apologies. We produced a balanced 
budget, and in that we got $85 billion net new tax cuts available to 
the American people.
  Plain and simple, this amendment says, no tax cuts. That means anyone 
that votes for it is against tax cuts. Simple, plain, nothing else.
  I yield any time I have remaining.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 47 seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee, and my colleagues, what kind of a tax cut will you 
have if you do not use Medicare's $115 billion cut? The answer to that 
is, none, virtually none.
  Make no mistake about it, the Medicare cut is being used to fund 
these tax cuts. And without it there will be no tax cuts. It is just 
that simple.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is just not true. If that did not take 10 seconds, 
that is enough.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment. They yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--26

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coats
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 331) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 330

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate on the next 
Bumpers amendment, 1 minute to each side.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is an amendment which keeps the 
deficit from soaring next year. This year's deficit is going to be $67 
billion. This budget takes the deficit next year to $97 billion. In the 
year 2000 it is $97 billion. It starts coming down the last 2 years 
only because of the economic assumptions.
  You are assuming in this budget that the economy is going to stay as 
hot the next 5 years as it has been the last 5 years. And if that 
proves to be a false assumption you are going to see the deficit start 
soaring.
  I say strike while the iron is hot.
  In 1981 we bought into this same proposition, and in 8 years had a $3 
trillion debt to show for it.
  Here we are back at the same old stand--cutting taxes and balancing 
the budget. That is the good old five-chocolate-sundae-a-day diet. It 
didn't work in 1981. It isn't going to work now.
  So I am saying balance the budget in the year 2001, not 2002. 
Postpone the tax cuts until 2002 and honor the American people who say 
they want a balanced budget a lot worse than they want a tax cut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will not take very long.
  Fellow Senators, what this amendment effectively does is takes away 
all the tax cuts except $20 billion--plain and simple. There can be all 
kinds of rationale. But at least $20 billion of the $835 billion in tax 
cuts, and the rest of the tax cuts are gone.
  It seems to me that we have made a commitment that we are going to do 
both--balance the budget and cut taxes for some Americans, including 
families with children. This eliminates all of that, and I believe it 
ought to be turned down overwhelmingly.
  Indeed, it doesn't cut any spending. It just cuts out the tax cuts.
  I yield my time.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Mexico to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Arkansas. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Akaka
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coats
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 330) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bond?


                     Amendment No. 324, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. We will 
now have debate on the Bond amendment No. 324, as modified; 2 minutes, 
1 minute per side.

[[Page S4986]]

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment can be accepted. 
Basically it points out the fact that in the State of Missouri and 
other States, the disproportionate share of the hospital Medicaid 
payments is used to provide health care to the most vulnerable 
population, a quarter of a million pregnant women and children and, as 
we look at it, when the Finance Committee addresses this DSH program, 
they need to keep in mind that no harm must befall these very 
vulnerable people. We ask they consider use of the funds in the 
legislation, other legislation that is being adopted. We urge the 
adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield back my time. I am willing to 
accept the amendment without a rollcall vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 324), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleague for changing it into a sense of 
the Senate. It is acceptable because of that.


                           Amendment No. 320

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 320.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the amendment following the Gramm amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ashcroft amendment No. 322.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Ashcroft, would you mind going next and giving 
your 1 minute? I ask consent we pass the Gramm amendment and proceed to 
the Ashcroft amendment that is listed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 322

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will have a 2-minute debate.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, much has been said about different 
amendments, alleging that they were deal breakers. This is a deal 
keeper. This is a set of enforcement provisions which would limit the 
amount of debt that we could have each year to the amount that is 
specified in the budget agreement. This is basically the balanced 
budget amendment in statutory form, conformed to the balanced budget 
agreement. Those individuals who voted in favor of a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution were willing to put this kind of 
discipline into our culture for life. I think we ought to be willing to 
put it into this agreement for the next 5 years.
  This is not a deal breaker. This is a deal keeper, and the American 
people deserve to have the discipline of knowing that the debt will not 
exceed the limits specified.
  The debt will not exceed the numbers of debt which are provided for 
in the agreement. This is just a way to provide discipline and 
enforcement of the agreement, as written.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment would require a 
supermajority, three-fifths of the Members in each House, to provide 
for specific excess of outlays of receipts or to provide for such 
increase in the level of public debt.
  What we are doing here is we will be reviewing the balanced budget 
amendment and voting for it here again. It does not fit in the scope of 
things.
  I have raised a point of order on this relative to germaneness. We 
should defeat this. I think this is a very dangerous precedent, for us 
to get involved with this kind of legislation in this budget 
resolution.
  I hope we will defeat it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has the Senator's time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 seconds.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I urge Members of the Senate who voted 
for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to do this 
imposition of a balanced budget amendment to the budget agreement. It 
provides discipline and will ensure that we keep the agreement; that we 
don't break it. The American people deserve no less.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, do I have any time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Around 20 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 20 seconds? We will use the 20 
seconds, Mr. President.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could we have order, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. The 
Senate will please come to order.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We will use the seconds preciously and quickly and 
just say that this doesn't even allow for any adjustments during a 
recession, depression or that kind of thing. It says, ``other than 
national security.'' That is a military reference. I think national 
security includes a stable society, one that adjusts to the times. I 
hope we will again vote it down.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to waive the Budget Act in relation to amendment No. 322, offered by 
the Senator from Missouri.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays, 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coats
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 58. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The point of order previously raised against the amendment is 
sustained in that it violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional 
Budget Act and the amendment falls.


                     Amendment No. 320, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 320, as modified.
  There are 2 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we established the highway trust fund in 
1956, and under that trust fund, when people paid taxes on gasoline, it 
was a user fee to build roads and to build mass transit. In 1993, in 
the tax bill, for the first time ever, we had a permanent tax increase 
on gasoline that went to general revenues.
  What this sense-of-the-Senate resolution says is that it is the sense 
of the Senate that on the budget reconciliation, on any appropriation, 
or any tax bill that we should put this 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on 
gasoline back into the highway trust fund so that it can be spent for 
the purpose the tax is collected.
  I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. We are going to 
have an opportunity to vote on the real thing later this year, but this 
vote will put people on record.

[[Page S4987]]

  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not in opposition.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am in opposition.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to Senator Chafee.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, what this does is it takes $40 billion 
over the 5 years that is now going into the General Treasury and puts 
it into the highway trust fund with, obviously, the assumption that it 
is going to be spent. In effect, what we are doing here is adding $40 
billion to the deficit of the United States.
  I just don't think, when we are in this effort of trying to balance 
the budget, that this is the right step to take. Do we all want to have 
more highways? Of course, we do. Indeed, it falls under the very 
committee of which I am the chairman. I don't think at this time, when 
we are making these efforts to balance the budget, that we want to take 
$40 billion over 5 years going into the General Treasury and spend it 
in this manner. So I hope the amendment will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Chafee
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Robb
     Roth
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coats
       
  The amendment (No. 320), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to explain 
my vote on the Gramm sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  This sense-of-the-Senate amendment calls for the return of 4.3 cents 
of the Federal gas tax currently used for deficit reduction to the 
highway trust fund.
  I have long argued for the return of these revenues to transportation 
programs--approximately $7 billion annually. In fact, I recently 
introduced legislation to transfer the 4.3 cents to transportation 
programs--3.8 cents to the highway account of the highway trust fund 
and 0.5 cents to be used to maintain this Nation's national passenger 
rail system or Amtrak.
  While this sense-of-the-Senate amendment unfortunately does not 
address Amtrak, I feel it is important for the Senate to express its 
support for redirecting the 4.3 cents to transportation purposes. That 
is why I have voted for this amendment.
  As this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is nonbinding, it is important 
to ensure that the transfer of the 4.3 cents for transportation 
actually takes place. As a member of the Finance Committee, I want to 
make it very clear to my colleagues that I intend to pursue my 
legislation to make the transfer--again, 3.8 cents for the highway 
account and 0.5 cents for Amtrak.
  Transportation investments are the key to this Nation's economic 
future. Our ability to compete in today's global economy is tied to an 
efficient and safe intermodal transportation system--highways, transit, 
Amtrak, and other modes.
  The Gramm amendment is the first step to reaching that outcome. By 
putting the Senate on record in support of transferring the 4.3 cents 
for transportation purposes, we will be able to work during the 
reconciliation process and the reauthorization of ISTEA to see that 
additional investments are made in our transportation system.
  I look forward to working with the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Moynihan, and others to transfer these revenues as we develop 
reconciliation legislation.


                      Amendment No. 323, Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, we will proceed to 
consider amendment No. 323 by the Senator from Missouri, Senator 
Ashcroft.
  There are 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able 
to withdraw this amendment. This amendment was in large measure 
subsumed in the prior amendment which I offered to the Senate. I ask 
unanimous consent that this amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 323) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 301

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 301 
by the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is the last amendment of the evening. 
I would like to have your attention for a short period of time.
  I have not been a strong supporter of this budget deal, the basis of 
the assumptions and other things. But in the event it does come up with 
a balanced budget in the year 2002, I see one frailty with this, and 
that is, you can come into balance in the year 2002, only to find out 
that in 2003 you come along and go back into deficits again.
  So I am going to read one sentence very carefully. I would like to 
have you listen to it.

       [I]t shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any 
     budget resolution . . . for fiscal year 2002 and any fiscal 
     year thereafter . . . that would cause a unified budget 
     deficit for the budget year or any of the 4 fiscal years 
     following the budget year.

  I would like to reserve the last 10 seconds of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment talks to the years 
2000-plus. We heard it from the Senator from Oklahoma. We are not 
balancing the budget for 10 years. We are balancing it for the first 5 
years to 2002. We project off into the years subsequent to that.
  We believe that we will have the mechanism in place to control it. If 
not, we ought to take it up at that time. And this budget amendment 
creates a supermajority. So we are back to 60 votes in case you want to 
make a change at that time.
  I do not think we ought to be strapping ourselves now for something 
that is going to happen after 2002. I hope that we will defeat this 
amendment. I think that it is important that we do.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. I believe I have 15 seconds remaining.
  Let me just say that if it is the intent of anyone to vote for this 
in hopes it would achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, and then 
coming back and starting into deficits again, of course you want to 
oppose it.
  This is your last opportunity to say that we want to reach that 
balanced budget by 2002, and then keep it in balance thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the other side wish to yield back their 
time?

[[Page S4988]]

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--47

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Burns
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coats
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 301) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 316

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 316.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], for himself, Mr. 
     Kyl, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr Sessions, and Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 316.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is not my intent tonight to keep the 
Senate here for a lengthy period of time on this amendment. I will 
speak to my amendment for just a couple of minutes. If others wish to 
debate it, I will stay here, but I am otherwise prepared to yield back 
my time on this amendment after giving it a couple of minute's 
description.
  Basically, Mr. President, this amendment tries to address a concern 
that a number of my constituents, and I suspect constituents from other 
States, have expressed in recent weeks with respect to the development 
of this budget. As the President and Members are aware near the end of 
discussions and deliberations that went into the development of this 
budget agreement, the Congressional Budget Office informed the 
negotiators at the last minute that they had underestimated the income 
shares, the revenue estimate, for the upcoming 5-year period by some 
$225 billion.
  Obviously, a lot of questions have been raised. I am not here tonight 
to quarrel with or to raise questions about the basis on which those 
adjustments took place, but the fact is, Mr. President, based on these 
adjustments, we are moving forward with a budget that estimates certain 
amounts of revenue.
  Clearly, it is possible that sometime during the period that this 
budget covers over the next 5 years we might find further adjustments 
occurring. My concern, Mr. President, is what happens if further 
adjustments based on the actual receipts to the Federal Government 
exceed what the estimates are that we are using as the basis for this 
budget resolution. To that end, my constituents are basically telling 
me that if the actual revenues the Government produces exceed that 
which we are using here in this budget resolution, that those dollars 
ought to be returned to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts or ought to 
be used to reduce the deficit, for deficit reduction and debt reduction 
purposes.
  Based on that, Mr. President, I am offering tonight--because of the 
nature of the resolution, I am not offering this as an amendment in the 
fullest sense--as a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that if, in fact, the 
revenues which we receive during the pendency of this resolution exceed 
the revenue estimates that have been used to formulate the resolution, 
those dollars be, in effect, put in a lockbox and made available 
exclusively for reductions in the deficit or for further tax cuts.
  I think this makes sense because if, in fact, the American taxpayers 
are sending more money to Washington than we expect them to it only 
makes sense to me that the additional dollars ought to be returned to 
the taxpayers or used to reduce the deficit as opposed to being used 
for increased and additional Federal spending beyond that which we are 
including in this budget resolution.
  Mr. President, I think that is the one way by which we can maintain 
some integrity with respect to the taxpayers by assuring them that as a 
consequence of the progrowth ideas we have for this budget resolution--
which we hope will result in such things as a capital gains tax--as a 
consequence we see the revenue come to the Federal Government beyond 
that which we expect, that the only way we maintain some integrity here 
is guarantee the taxpayers that those additional dollars are either 
going to help us reduce the debt of this country, or we give it back to 
the taxpayers in the form of additional tax cuts.
  Virtually everybody in this Chamber could think of additional ways by 
which we might address some of the problems with the Internal Revenue 
Code, whether it is additional tax cuts for education for working 
families or to a eliminate the marriage penalty or a variety of other 
things.
  We all know that there isn't embodied within this resolution adequate 
resources to address all of those objectives that we have as a group.
  My feeling is that, if the taxpayers send us more money than we are 
counting on, more money than we have asked them to, we might then use 
those additional dollars to fund additional taxes or, alternatively, 
for the purposes of deficit reduction.
  So, for those reasons, I offer this amendment.
  I also would like to say in closing here tonight that I want to offer 
my praise particularly to Senator Domenici, whom we work with on the 
Budget Committee, for his unstinting efforts here. I have always been 
impressed and amazed at his resilience as we go through amendment after 
amendment. He leads us so well in that.
  So, I thank Senator Domenici, both for in the committee and in the 
prior activities before we get to the committee, and then here on the 
floor this week.
  I offer my amendment. As I said, I am prepared, unless there is a 
desire to debate the amendment, to yield the remainder of the time 
tonight. I guess we will vote tomorrow on this.
  At this point, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, there is a 601(b) point of order against 
this budget because it raises spending above the spending caps set in 
the 1993 budget.
  My remaining business with the budget is I want to raise this point 
of order. We are going to have 1 minute a side tomorrow, I guess, to do 
closing. I would like to ask unanimous consent that tomorrow I be 
recognized for the purpose of making the point of order. I can make it 
within the minute, and then we will have the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator

[[Page S4989]]

would agree to double that time, 2 minutes to a side.
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in light of the fact that I don't think 
there is further debate planned on this amendment on either side, I at 
this point yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If we yield our time, that means there is 1 minute on a 
side tomorrow under the interpretation of the Parliamentarian.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                     Amendment No. 353, As Modified

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, I believe 
amendment No. 353, and I ask unanimous consent that I may modify the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 353), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 56, strike line 5 through page 58, line 12 and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 209. HIGHWAY RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998-2002.

       (a) In General.--If legislation generates revenue increases 
     or direct spending reductions to finance highways and to the 
     extent that such increases or reductions are not included in 
     this concurrent resolution on the budget, the appropriate 
     budgetary levels and limits may be adjusted if such 
     adjustments do not cause an increase in the deficit in this 
     resolution.
       (b) Adjustments for Budget Authority.--Upon the reporting 
     of legislation (the offering of an amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon) that reduces direct non-highway 
     spending or increases revenues for a fiscal year or years, 
     the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall submit 
     revised budget authority allocations and aggregates by an 
     amount that equals the amount such legislation reduces direct 
     spending or increases revenues.
       (c) Establishing a Reserve.--
       (1) Revisions.--After the enactment of legislation 
     described in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may submit revisions to the appropriate 
     allocations and aggregates by the amount that provisions in 
     such legislation generates revenue increases or direct non-
     highway spending reductions.
       (2) Revenue increases or direct spending reductions.--Upon 
     the submission of such revisions, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall also submit the amount of 
     revenue increases or direct non-highway spending reductions 
     such legislation generates and the maximum amount available 
     each year for adjustments pursuant to subsection (d).
       (d) Adjustments for Discretionary Spending.--
       (1) Revisions to allocations and aggregates.--Upon the 
     reporting of an appropriations measure, or when a conference 
     committee submits a conference report thereon, that 
     appropriates funds for highways, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall submit increased outlay 
     allocations, aggregates, and discretionary limits for the 
     amount of outlays flowing from the additional obligational 
     authority provided in such bill.
       (2) Revisions to suballocations.--The Committee on 
     Appropriations may submit appropriately revised 
     suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (e) Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--The revisions made pursuant to subsection 
     (c) shall not be made--
       (A) with respect to direct non-highway spending reductions, 
     unless the committee that generates the direct spending 
     reductions is within its allocations under section 302(a) and 
     (602)a of the Budget Act in this resolution (not including 
     the direct spending reductions envisioned in subsection (c)); 
     and
       (B) with respect to revenue increases, unless revenues are 
     at or above the revenue aggregates in this resolution (not 
     including the revenue increases envisioned in subsection 
     (c)).
       (2) Outlays.--The outlay adjustments made pursuant to 
     subsection (d) shall not exceed the amounts specified in 
     subsection (c)(2) for a fiscal year.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to provide a 
meaningful and effective mechanism that will allow the Senate to boost 
substantially our national investment in highways. Much has been said 
over the last few days, both in the Senate and in the other body, 
regarding the critical need for our nation to reverse the trend of 
national disinvestment in our Nation's highways.
  My amendment would substitute the reserve fund provisions in the 
committee-reported resolution with a new fund that will provide the 
Senate with the opportunity to consider reported bills or individual 
amendments that reduce spending in nonhighway areas or increase 
revenues to allow for increased highway funding. Mr. President, I 
believe that when the Senate is faced with the very difficult process 
of reauthorizing ISTEA, there will be renewed interest in finding 
additional funding for highways. But we must have the mechanism 
available to us to revisit the issue. This amendment will provide us 
with that opportunity.
  I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, Senators Domenici and Lautenberg, for their cooperation in 
the development of this amendment.
  I hope they will accept my amendment, as modified.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Byrd has understood from our 
side through my staff and myself that we are willing to accept the 
amendment. It may need further refinements, and he understands that. 
But we have no objection to it under those circumstances.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are pleased to support the amendment, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time in opposition.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield back any time I may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing on the amendment of 
the Senator from West Virginia.
  The amendment (No. 353), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Domenici and Senator 
Lautenberg for their consideration and courtesy and for their 
acceptance of the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Amendments Nos. 291, 350, 351, and 356 Withdrawn

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 291 by Senator Murray, amendments Nos. 350 and 351 by Senator 
Harkin, and amendment No. 356 by Senator Robb be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 291, 350, 351, and 356) were withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a series of amendments here 
that have been agreed to on both sides.


                           Amendment No. 354

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the extension of 
    the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund through fiscal year 2002)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for Mr. 
     Biden, for himself, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Gramm, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 354.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)

[[Page S4990]]

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to commend President Clinton and 
congressional leaders on both sides for bringing before the Senate a 
balanced budget.
  I also believe that this budget goes a long way toward protecting the 
key priorities I believe must be protected.
  But, of all those priorities, I believe that none is more important 
than continuing our fight against violent crime and violence against 
women.
  To a great extent, this budget resolution meets this test--but, in at 
least one area of this crime front, I believe the budget resolution 
must be clarified.
  The amendment I am offering, along with Senators Byrd and Gramm does 
exactly that--by clarifying that it is the sense of the Senate that the 
violent crime control trust fund will continue through the end of this 
budget resolution, fiscal year 2002.
  I am particularly pleased that Senator Byrd--who, more than anyone, 
deserves credit for the crime law trust fund. Senator Byrd worked to 
develop an idea that was simple as it was profound--as he called on us 
to use the savings from the reductions in the Federal work force of 
272,000 employees to fund one of the Nation's most urgent priorities: 
fighting the scourge of violent crime.
  Senator Gramm was also one of the very first to call on the Senate to 
put our money where our mouth was. Too often, this Senate has voted to 
send significant aid to State and local law enforcement--but, when it 
came time to write the check, we did not find nearly the dollars we 
promised.
  Working together in 1993, Senator Byrd, myself, Senator Gramm, and 
other Ssenators passed the violent crime control trust fund in the 
Senate. And, in 1994, it became law in the Biden crime law.
  Since then, the dollars from the crime law trust fund have:
  Helped add more than 60,000 community police officers to our streets;
  Helped shelter more than 80,000 battered women and their children;
  Focussed law enforcement, prosecutors, and victims service providers 
on providing immediate help to women victimized by someone who pretends 
to love them;
  Forced tens of thousands of drug offenders into drug testing and 
treatment programs, instead of continuing to allow them to remain free 
on probation with no supervision and no accountability;
  Constructed thousands of prison cells for violent criminals; and
  Brought unprecedented resources to defending our southwest border--
putting us on the path to literally double the number of Federal border 
agents over just a 5-year period.
  The results of this effort are already taking hold:
  According to the FBI's national crime statistics, violent crime is 
down and down significantly--leaving our Nation with its lowest murder 
rate since 1971;
  The lowest violent crime total since 1990; and
  The lowest murder rate for wives, ex-wives and girlfriends at the 
hands of their intimates to an 18-year low.
  In short, we have proven able to do what few thought possible--by 
being smart, keeping our focus, and putting our money where our mouths 
are--we have actually cut violent crime.
  Today, our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant 
against violent crime. Today, the Biden-Byrd-Gramm amendment before the 
Senate offers one modest step toward meeting that challenge:
  By confirming that it is the sense of the Senate that the commitment 
to fighting crime and violence against women will continue for the full 
duration of this budget resolution.
  By confirming that it is the sense of the Senate that the Violent 
Crime Control Trust Fund will continue--in its current form which 
provides additional Federal assistance without adding 1 cent to the 
deficit--for the full duration of this budget resolution.
  The Biden-Byrd-Gramm amendment offers a few very simple choices: 
Stand up for cops--or don't; Stand up for the fight against violence 
against women --or don't; Stand up for increased border enforcement--or 
don't.
  Every Member of this Senate is against violent crime--we say that in 
speech after speech. Now, I urge all my colleagues to back up with 
words with the only thing that we can actually do for the cop walking 
the beat, the battered woman, the victim of crime--provide the dollars 
that help give them the tools to fight violent criminals, standup to 
their abuser, and restore at least some small piece of the dignity 
taken from them at the hands of a violent criminal.
  Let us be very clear of the stakes here--frankly, if we do not 
continue the trust fund, we will not be able to continue such proven, 
valuable efforts as the Violence Against Women law. Nothing we can do 
today can guarantee that we, in fact, will continue the Violence 
Against Women Act when the law expires in the year 2000.
  But, mark my words, if the trust fund ends, the efforts to provide 
shelter, help victims, and get tough on the abusers and batterers will 
wither on the vine. Passing the amendment I offer today will send a 
clear, unambiguous message that the trust fund should continue and with 
it, the historic effort undertaken by the Violence Against Women Act 
that says by word, deed and dollar that the Federal Government stands 
with women and against the misguided notion that domestic violence is a 
man's right and not really a crime.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Biden-Byrd-Gramm amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 354) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 352, As Modified

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 New Jersey [Mr. Lautengerg], for Mr. Kohl, 
     for himself and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 
     352, as modified.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  If there is no objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 352), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Scientific research on the development of the brain has 
     confirmed that the early childhood years, particularly from 
     birth to the age of 3, are critical to children's 
     development.
       (2) Studies repeatedly have shown that good quality child 
     care helps children develop well, enter school ready to 
     succeed, improve their skills, cognitive abilities and 
     socioemotional development, improve classroom learning 
     behavior, and stay safe while their parents work. Further, 
     quality early childhood programs can positively affect 
     children's long-term success in school achievement, higher 
     earnings as adults, decrease reliance on public assistance 
     and decrease involvement with the criminal justice system.
       (3) The first of the National Education Goals, endorsed by 
     the Nation's governors, passed by Congress and signed into 
     law by President Bush, stated that by the year 2000, every 
     child should enter school ready to learn and that access to a 
     high quality early childhood education program was integral 
     to meeting this goal.
       (4) According to data compiled by the RAND Corporation, 
     while 90 percent of human brain growth occurs by the age of 
     3, public spending on children in that age range equals only 
     8 percent of spending on all children. A vast majority of 
     public spending on children occurs after the brain has gone 
     through its most dramatic changes, often to correct problems 
     that should have been addressed during early childhood 
     development.
       (5) According to the Department of Education, of 
     $29,400,000,000 in current estimated education expenditures, 
     only $1,500,000,000, or 5 percent, is spent on children from 
     birth to age 5. The vast majority is spent on children over 
     age 5.
       (6) A new commitment to quality child care and early 
     childhood education is a necessary response to the fact that 
     children from birth to the age of 3 are spending more time in 
     care away from their homes. Almost 60 percent of women in the 
     workforce have children under the age of 3 requiring care.
       (7) Many States and communities are currently experimenting 
     with innovative programs directed at early childhood care and

[[Page S4991]]

     education in a variety of care settings, including the home. 
     States and local communities are best able to deliver 
     efficient, cost-effective services, but while such programs 
     are long on demand, they are short on resources. Additional 
     Federal resources should not create new bureaucracy, but 
     build on successful locally driven efforts.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the budget totals and levels in this resolution assume 
     that funds ought to be directed toward increasing the supply 
     of quality child care, early childhood education, and teacher 
     and parent training for children from birth through age 3.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 352), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


   Amendments Nos. 302, 303, 304, 305, and 306, en bloc, as modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk five Hollings 
amendments and ask that they be considered en bloc.
  They are acceptable to this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Hollings, proposes amendments numbered 302, 303, 304, 305 and 
     306, en bloc, as modified.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments, as modified, are as follows:


                           amendment no. 302

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . HIGHWAY TRUST FUND NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR 
                   DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the Congress 
     should consider legislation to exclude the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Highway Trust Fund from the totals of 
     the Budget of the United States government.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 303

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 
                   FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the budget resolution that the Congress should 
     consider legislation to exclude the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund from the 
     totals of the Budget of the United States government.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 304

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . MILITARY RETIREMENT TRUST FUNDS NOT TAKEN INTO 
                   ACCOUNT FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the Congress 
     should consider legislation to exclude the receipts and 
     disbursements of the retirement and disability trust funds 
     for members of the Armed Forces of the United States from the 
     totals of the Budget of the United States government.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 305

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT TRUST FUNDS NOT TAKEN INTO 
                   ACCOUNT FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the Congress 
     should consider legislation to exclude the receipts and 
     disbursements of the retirement and disability trust funds 
     for civilian employees of the United States from the totals 
     of the Budget of the United States government.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 306

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TRUST FUND NOT TAKEN INTO 
                   ACCOUNT FOR DEFICIT PURPOSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying this budget resolution assume that the Congress 
     should consider legislation to exclude the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Federal Unemployment Compensation Trust 
     Fund--
       (1) should not be included in the totals of--
       (A) the Budget of the United States government.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I just make note of the fact they have been modified 
from those that were pending, and so when I send them to the desk, I 
assume I am requesting the modification, which I am entitled to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are so 
modified.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We disposed of Hollings, did we not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, we have not.
  Without objection, the Hollings amendments, as modified, are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 302, 303, 304, 305, and 306), as modified, were 
agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 325

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an amendment of Senator Kit Bond 
on the highway trust fund. It has been cleared on both sides. I send it 
to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Bond, 
     proposes an amendment No. 325.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.)
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I must start by saying that this is not an 
ISTEA amendment, this is not a formula amendment, this is not a 4.3 
cents amendment, this is not an Amtrak amendment, this is not an off-
budget amendment.
  This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment concerning reestablishing the 
linkage between the revenues deposited in the highway trust fund and 
transportation spending.
  Mr. President, if I can take just a moment I want to read this short 
sense-of-the-Senate.

       The Senate finds that--
       One, there is no direct linkage between the fuel taxes 
     deposited in the Highway Trust Fund and the transportation 
     spending from the Highway Trust Fund.
       Two, the Federal budget process has served this linkage by 
     dividing revenues and spending into separate budget 
     categories with fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust 
     Fund as revenues; and most spending from the Highway Trust 
     Fund in the discretionary category.
       Three, each budget category referred to has its own rules 
     and procedures.
       Four, under budget rules in effect prior to the date of 
     adoption of this resolution, an increase in fuel taxes 
     permits increased spending to be included in the budget, but 
     not for increased Highway Trust Fund spending.
       It is the sense of the Senate that in this session of 
     Congress, Congress should, within a unified budget, change 
     the Federal budget process to establish a linkage between the 
     fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund, including any 
     fuel tax increases that may be enacted into law after the 
     date of adoption of this resolution, and the spending from 
     the Highway Trust Fund. Changes to the budgetary process of 
     the Highway Trust Fund should not result in total program 
     levels for highways or mass transit that is inconsistent with 
     those allowed for under the resolution.

  This sense-of-the-Senate is self explanatory, but let me provide some 
background.
  Mr. President, back in 1956 the Federal highway trust fund was 
established as a way to finance the Federal-Aid Highway Program. This 
was a dedicated trust fund supported by direct user fees/taxes. It was 
called a trust fund because, once the money went in, we were suppose to 
be able to trust that money would come back out for use on our roads, 
highways, and bridges.
  However, the 1990 Budget Act eliminated the linkage between the 
revenues raised by the user taxes and the spending from the 
transportation trust fund. We know that we promised ourselves and our 
constituents that the highway user taxes deposited into the highway 
trust fund would be used for highways, but we now have an illogical 
process that does not always result in the desired outcome. With the 
process currently in place balances are accumulating in the trust fund 
and not being spent on the vitally important transportation needs we 
have.
  To correct the problem, we must reform our budget process.

[[Page S4992]]

  Mr. President, status quo is not sustainable.
  Senator Chafee and I have introduced S. 404, the Highway Trust Fund 
Integrity Act. I know that not everyone agrees with the revenue 
constrained fund approach taken in that bill. However, I think everyone 
can agree with this sense-of-the Senate that we must work something 
out. We must establish the linkage to ensure that the taxes deposited 
into the highway trust fund are spend on transportation.
  I share the concerns that many of my colleagues have--on both sides 
of the aisle--that we need to find ways to spend more on 
transportation. This budget resolution moves us closer to that goal. I 
want to thank the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking 
member for including in the budget resolution the assumption of 
spending all of the estimated highway trust fund tax receipts that 
comes in each year for highways.
  All of us share the same belief that transportation funding is 
critical to our individual States and the entire country. 
Transportation links our communities, towns, and cities with markets. 
It links our constituents with their schools, hospitals, churches, and 
jobs. An effective transportation system will help move this country 
into the 21st century.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that as this Congress moves forward on 
one of the most important and probably most difficult pieces of 
legislation--ISTEA--we also continue our efforts to ensure that 
``trust'' is in the highway trust fund. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to ensure that we do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 325) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 321, as modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a modification of Senator 
Faircloth's previously submitted amendment No. 321. It has been cleared 
by both our side and their side. I send it to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Faircloth, proposes an amendment numbered 321, as modified.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that any revenue reconciliation bill should 
     include tax incentives for the cost of post-secondary 
     education, including expenses of workforce education and 
     training at vocational schools and community colleges.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 321), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 348, as modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. I send to the desk on behalf of Senator Kyl amendment 
No. 348, as modified. It has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Kyl, 
     proposes an amendment 348, as modified:
       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that nothing in this 
     resolution shall be construed as prohibiting Congress in 
     future years from providing additional tax relief if the cost 
     of such tax relief is offset by reductions in discretionary 
     or mandatory spending, or increases in revenue from 
     alternative sources.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 348), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 344--Additional Cosponsors

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request 
that Senators Daschle, Harkin, and Bumpers be added as original 
cosponsors to the Boxer-Durbin amendment No. 355.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 funding for natural resource programs

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development, Senator Reid, and the distinguished ranking member 
of the Budget Committee, Senator Lautenberg, if they would respond to 
questions I have concerning funding for natural resource programs in 
the budget resolution for fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to respond to a question from the senator 
from California.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I look forward to her question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me first ask my friend and State neighbor, Senator 
Reid, to recall the provision in last year's omnibus appropriations 
bill, that authorized the California Bay-Delta Environmental 
Enhancement and Water Security Act. The Act authorizes Federal 
participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which is charged with 
developing a balanced, comprehensive and lasting plan to restore and 
enhance the ecological health and improve water management in the Bay-
Delta system. This program is a top priority of the State of California 
and has support from business, environmental and water users throughout 
the State. I would like to ask Senator Reid, as the ranking member of 
the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over this act, if he 
agrees with me that it is important to fund this program?
  Mr. REID. I want to thank the Senator from California for bringing 
this issue to my attention. Indeed, I believe the Bay-Delta program 
serves as a national model on how we can bring environmental, 
agribusiness, and other water users to the same table with the goal of 
preserving our natural resources for many uses. I see the program has 
having a particular benefit for our Western States. If California 
restores its environment and improves its water supply reliability, 
then we relieve the pressure on the Colorado River and lessen any 
tensions among the seven Colorado River States. When California 
restores migratory bird habitat and provides water for wildlife 
refuges, the health of the Pacific flyway will be improved, benefitting 
States from Arizona to Alaska.
  While the investments will be made in California, the benefits will 
be realized throughout the west. I look forward to working with the 
senator from California on the Bay-Delta project on the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Senator. Let me now ask our very distinguished 
ranking member of the Senate Budget committee, Senator Lautenberg, 
about the Bay-Delta program. Senator Lautenberg, as one of the 
negotiators involved in this current budget agreement and as a member 
of the Budget Committee leadership, is it your view that the amounts 
provided under the Natural Resources function in this Budget Resolution 
are sufficient to accommodate the President's request of $143 million 
in fiscal year 1998 to implement the California Bay-Delta Environmental 
and Water Security Act?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Let me first also express my support for this 
critical program to protect California's Bay-Delta system. I do believe 
that the amount that the Budget Committee has provided under the 
natural resources function is sufficient to accommodate the funding of 
the California Bay-Delta Environmental Water Security Act.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to thank both of the Senators for their time to 
discuss the Bay-Delta project and, for their

[[Page S4993]]

support as fellow members of the Appropriations Committee, for the 
President's request for funding the program in fiscal year 1998.


                     funding for veterans' programs

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the impact this 
budget agreement will have on America's veterans, and to express my 
concerns that funding assumed under the agreement will not be 
sufficient to provide for adequate health care for America's veterans.
  If it is approved, the budget resolution will require the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs [VA] to report legislation which will reduce 
entitlement spending, over a 5-year period, by $2.7 billion compared to 
the budget baseline. That sounds like, and is, a substantial sum. 
However, I believe the committee will be able to meet this goal by 
extending the expiration dates of savings provisions already enacted as 
part of prior deficit reduction measures, and by agreeing to round down 
to the nearest dollar future cost-of-living adjustments.
  No one is happy that controlling the deficit requires restrained 
growth in mandatory-account spending for veterans' benefits. But I am 
confident that the committee will be able to meet its mandatory 
spending instructions in such a way as to ensure that no provision in 
the final reconciliation bill will result in a veteran who receives a 
benefit this year not also receiving the same benefit next year. 
Indeed, even after the committee has complied with its reconciliation 
instructions, spending for veterans' benefits from mandatory accounts 
will increase each year the budget agreement is in effect.
  I am also pleased that the proposed budget resolution permits the 
committee to report legislation which will allow VA to retain money it 
collects from private health insurance carriers when VA treats the 
nonservice-connected illnesses of veterans who have health insurance. 
Under current law, VA is required to bill insurance companies when it 
treats the nonservice-connected illnesses of insured veterans. However, 
VA is required to transfer the money it collects to the Treasury. 
Allowing VA to retain the money it collects will provide a real 
incentive for more efficient and effective collections.
  However, the administration proposed its health insurance proceeds 
retention provision with a hook. The President, in requesting the 
authority to allow VA to retain health insurance proceeds, also 
proposed that VA receive, initially, a cut in appropriated funds for VA 
medical care and that appropriations be frozen at that reduced level 
over the succeeding 4 years. historically, VA has needed an increase of 
almost a half a billion dollars a year just to pay for VA employees' 
cost-of-living salary adjustments and for the increased costs of 
medical supplies and equipment.
  In its April 24, 1997, ``Views and Estimates'' letter to the Budget 
Committee, the Veterans' Affairs Committee expressed its serious 
concerns about the wisdom of relying on an untested source of revenue--
insurance collections--for a program as critical as veterans' health 
care. I continue to have that concern.
  The budget resolution now before this body is even worse than the 
President's initial proposal. It does not merely carry forward the 
President's proposal to cut appropriations for VA medical care, and 
then maintain that reduced level of appropriations for 5 years. Under 
this proposal, VA discretionary spending in 1998 will be $400 million 
less than it was in fiscal year 1997, and $3.1 billion less than 
current levels over the 5-year term of the agreement, even after 
allowing for retained health insurance collections.
  The cost of providing health care for veterans consumes over 417 
billion of $18 billion plus in VA discretionary spending. Almost all of 
the rest of VA discretionary spending is expended on construction, 
medical research, and for the salaries of VA employees who process 
veterans' disability claims. There are no unimportant discretionary 
accounts with VA's budget. According to VA, each 4100 million pays for 
about 1,400 VA care givers, and for care for about 22,000 veterans.
  In February, 1997, Dr. Kenneth Kizer, VA's Under Secretary for 
Health, announced an initiative to increase the number of veterans VA 
treats by 20 percent and to reduce VA's cost per patient by 30 percent. 
In time, reforms in the delivery of VA care may enable VA to absorb 
real reductions in health care funding. But those reforms have not yet 
taken root. Further, it takes money to make money. According to VA, 
reforms needed to achieve Dr. Kizer's ambitious goals will cost money 
to implement. If Congress reduces VA medical funding before VA's 
reforms are implemented, we should not be surprised if VA's goals of 
increasing the number of veterans treated, and reducing the average 
cost of treating each patient, are postponed or even abandoned. I 
believe that would be a false economy, and a tragedy for our veterans.
  I recognize that discretionary spending assumptions are just that 
assumptions. The actual decisions will be made as the Congress debates 
and enacts appropriations bills to fund discretionary programs. The 
Appropriations Committee always faces heavy pressure to ensure adequate 
funding for VA medical care. This budget resolution will only increase 
that pressure.
  Mr. President, 26 million American veterans will watch to see how--
and if--the Congress will rise to the challenge presented by the 
discretionary spending assumptions affecting the VA in this budget 
resolution. I will fight to assure that adequate funding for veterans' 
health care is provided. In my estimation, appropriations for 
discretionary spending on veterans' programs, which are assumed under 
this budget agreement, are not sufficient. I intend to work hard, as 
chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, to correct this inequity.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to have supported 
the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, which 
expresses the sense of the Senate that Federal funding for biomedical 
research should be doubled over the next 5 years. This amendment is 
based on a resolution which I cosponsored, Senate Joint Resolution 15--
one of the first bills the Republican leadership introduced in the 
105th Congress. That resolution, and the amendment we adopted last 
night, sends a message to the American people, as well as to scientists 
and policy makers, that Congress is committed to enhanced funding for 
this crucial research.
  Americans consistently identify increased funding for medical 
research as something they believe should be a national priority. They 
want researchers to unravel the mysteries of cancer, Alzheimer's 
disease, Parkinson's, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, HIV, multiple 
sclerosis, and countless other diseases which plague Americans today. 
And they do not want their national leaders or scientists to rest until 
there is a cure.
  We must bring the full force of our country's tremendous resources to 
bear on these diseases in the same way we rallied to be the first to 
set foot on the Moon. We are a nation that has split atoms, sent probes 
to the far reaches of the solar system, and eradicated polio from the 
face of the Earth. We ought to be able to conquer these diseases.
  Over the years, we have increased our Federal commitment to medical 
research. For example, 25 years ago, Congress allocated just $400 
million to the National Cancer Institute. Today, total funding for 
cancer research at the National Institutes of Health for this fiscal 
year is $2.7 billion. This represents an increase of close to 700 
percent. And this infusion of Federal funding is working. For the very 
first time since cancer mortality statistics were first collected in 
1930, mortality rates from cancer are actually decreasing.
  Researchers are beginning to isolate the genes responsible for 
various diseases at a seemingly breathtaking speed, and gene therapy 
may someday offer exciting new treatments--or even a cure--for these 
diseases. Scientists are beginning to understand the very workings of 
cancer cells, and immunotherapy may offer cancer sufferers new hope. 
But how this knowledge may someday be translated into benefits for 
everyday Americans is yet unknown. We need to increase Federal funding 
so that we can capitalize on these important breakthroughs.
  Throughout my tenure in both the House and Senate, I have worked hard 
to increase funding for medical research. In fact, on the first 
legislative day of this session, I introduced a bill

[[Page S4994]]

which would raise the reauthorization level for breast cancer funding 
to a record $590 million. The Mack resolution demonstrates the very 
same commitment to ensuring that Americans no longer suffer from 
diseases that cut their lives short and cause undue suffering. Our 
enhanced investment in medical research will save countless lives and 
health care dollars, and alleviate suffering in millions of Americans.

                          ____________________