S6476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

already passed the House will reduce 

Federal revenues by $250 billion. Without that tax cut for the wealthy there 

would be virtually no need to cut Medicare in order to achieve a balanced 

budget under their plan. The Senate 

Budget Resolution reserves $170 billion 

for tax cuts. Without that allocation 

the Medicare cuts could be reduced by 

two-thirds without any increase in the 

deficit. 

The arguments used to justify deep 

cuts in Medicare cannot pass the truthin-labeling test. They will not fool the 

American people. As the ceremonies on 

V–E Day earlier this week commemorating the end of World War II in Europe reminded us, today’s senior citizens have stood by America in war and 

peace and America must stand by them 

now. The senior citizens of today are 

the veterans of the Army, the Navy, 

the Air Force, the Marines, and the 

hard-working men and women on the 

home front. They pulled us through 

that terrible war. We cannot pull the 

rug out from under them on Medicare 

now. 

I urge the Senate to reject these unwise Republican proposals. 

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. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE 

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that I may proceed 

as if in morning business for no more 

than 10 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

THE BUDGET 

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have 

all been receiving phone calls and getting letters about the proposed budget 

that is being recommended now or 

being talked about and marked up in 

the respective committees in the Senate and House of Representatives. We 

have had time to talk to the chairmen 

of those committees and get copies of 

the proposal that they have put forth. 

In other words, the great debate has 

started on this year’s budget. 

I think we have to applaud the chairman of each committee because they 

have come forward with very daring 

proposals. I applaud the chairmen, especially Senator DOMENICI of the Senate Budget Committee. When you look 

at our deficit spending we see, yes, that 

the deficit did become lower last year. 

It went down. But it now continues to 

climb. The deficit this year alone 

stands at $175 billion, and for a while. 

But, nonetheless, it is growing at the 

outrageous rate of $482 million a day. 

That sounds like a lot of money to me. 

So, consequently, it is time for this 

body and this Government to do something responsible and to deal very 

frankly with the budget, to be up front 

about it, and to try to address some of 

the problems that we have because I 

think most Americans are wanting 

something done to rein it in. 

It is absolutely necessary if we are to 

continue the economic viability and 

the leadership in this world for our Nation. We cannot continue to stand by 

and conduct business as usual, and in 

so doing allow the national debt to increase by $1 trillion every Presidential 

term. 

So the time has come for bold initiatives to look at getting spending under 

control, and Senator DOMENICI’s budget 

right now does exactly that. 

The chairman of the Budget Committee slows the annual growth of 

most lines. Every line in that budget, 

with the exception of a few, grow every 

year. We have heard a lot of attention 

brought to the Medicare line, growing 

10 to 11 percent every year. Now we 

want to slow that growth because already the trustees of that trust fund 

have told us that by the year 2002 it 

will be broke and they will pay no bills 

at all. 

Also it transforms Medicaid into 

block grant funds to the States where 

they will have the responsibility to do 

something responsible to get spending 

under control. 

It further calls for the establishment 

of a bipartisan congressional committee to represent policy changes 

needed to maintain the short-term solvency of the Medicare system. Such 

measures would generate the savings 

needed to put the system on a financially sound footing for the next 7 

years while we work together to develop a long-term solution for Medicare solvency gap. There can be no getting around the fact that, if we continue on the path that we are presently 

on, Medicare will lapse into bankruptcy within 7 years and then it will 

be too late, or too expensive, to solve 

the problem. 

The chairman’s budget proposes the 

elimination of spending for the National Biological Survey. I have long 

said that we had the resources within 

the organizations of the Fish and Wildlife, the Park Service, or in the Department of the Interior to do that without 

creating another bureau or the money 

that goes with it. We also want our policy decisions based on sound science 

and we start dealing with the biological makeup of this country or this 

world. And I think we can do it without 

the National Biological Survey. 

The chairman’s budget proposes the 

reduction in the Agricultural Research 

Service by 10 percent which would reduce the total outlays in this program 

by $1 million. 

It is true that we all will not agree 

with this budget. This is one area 

where I do not agree. This is one area 

where we cannot pull back on any investment in the research and development in agriculture. I will stand on 

this floor and maintain until I can 

draw my last breath that the second 

thing everybody who lives in this Nation does every morning is eat. I do not 

know what the first thing is that they 

do. They have a lot of options there. 

But I know the second thing they do is 

eat. 

We still have an obligation to feed 

this Nation and this society. 

So when it comes time to talking 

about budgets, basically that is what a 

balanced budget amendment would 

have done; make us talk about the 

most important things and to set our 

priorities where we think those important things are. 

We have to look to the necessities of 

life, not to the frills but the necessities 

of life and also the individual responsibility that each one of us has at just 

being a citizen of this great country. 

You might be surprised to know that 

for the first time in the history of agriculture our yields in wheat are going 

down, because we are just not getting 

enough money for research, plant 

breeding, developing those strains of 

wheat that are disease resistant because that is a constant thing; it goes 

on all the time. And so we must, if we 

are going to feed this Nation—and 

right now, 1 farmer feeds 145 other people. Also, one of our greatest exports is 

agriculture. In fact, it has been in the 

black forever. We have to continue 

with our ability to produce foodstuffs, 

food and fiber for this society. 

The chairman of the Budget Committee also proposed the privatization 

of the PMA’s, the power marketing administrations. They are making money 

for the Treasury. They also generate 

and produce power for our REA’s. In 

rural America, we would not have electricity yet if it was not for REA’s. My 

father served on an REA board. I have 

often said if it was not for REA on the 

farms, we would be watching television 

by candlelight. 

We have to be very cautious in the 

way we set our priorities in this budget. So consequently I think we have to 

take a very hard look at long-term revenue implications that would happen, 

that is, if WAPA, western area power 

marketing, and the Southwest and the 

Southeast are moved into private 

hands. 

And this is nothing new. We will 

argue about different parts of the budget. Where we set our priorities is what 

is really important for this Nation and 

the people who live in it. That is what 

this budget will do. But it will be a responsible budget that I am sure, after 

America looks at it, we will have the 

confidence in its integrity to do what 

we have to do, and that is to balance 

the budget by the year 2002. 

I do not think there is anything that 

will come before this body that will be 

any more important than the issue of 

this budget and the roadmap, the blueprint to get us where we want to be as 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6477 

not only an economically free and viable leader of the world but also that 

keeps us free. 

In conclusion, I wish to again praise 

the chairman. He presented a responsible budget resolution, and I pledge to 

work with the Budget Committee and 

all my colleagues to make sure we do 

those things that are necessary and do 

away with those things, those frills at 

this time in our history that we cannot 

afford just because we like to say we 

have them. 

So I wish to work with the chairman 

and this body in producing a budget 

that will work for all Americans. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I 

note the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the pending 

amendment be set aside. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 758

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators DODD and LIEBERMAN, 

I send an amendment to the desk and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 

CHAFEE], for Mr. DODD, for himself and Mr. 

LIEBERMAN, proposes an amendment numbered 758. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 62, line 4, after the words ‘‘public 

service authority’’, add ‘‘or its operator’’. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is a 

technical amendment, obviously. It is 

needed to be consistent with the language on page 61, line 18 of the legislation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, the amendment is agreed to. 

So the amendment (No. 758) was 

agreed to. 

Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Chair recognizes the Senator from 

Montana. 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

INHOFE). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

FLOW CONTROL

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would 

like to engage in a colloquy with Senator CHAFEE, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee 

and Senator BAUCUS, the committee’s 

ranking member, regarding the intent 

of S. 534 with respect to flow control. 

Is it the intent of this bill to allow 

for the refinancing of public debt for 

waste management facilities where 

only the interest rate would change, 

and not the amount or maturity date 

of the bond? 

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, that is the intent 

of the bill. 

Mr. DODD. Is this the understanding 

of the Senator from Montana? 

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, that is my understanding as well. 

FLOW CONTROL AND FREE MARKET ISSUES

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I 

seek recognition for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, 

Senator SMITH, the manager of S. 534. 

First, may I congratulate my colleague on his skillful handling of this 

difficult legislation. 

Second, it is that very difficulty on 

which I would like to focus in this colloquy. 

I think my colleague would agree 

with me in my characterization of this 

legislation as statutory interference 

with the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. This interference comes as a result of the 

Carbone versus Clarkstown decision, 

which has caused problems with certain public facilities financed by revenue bonds. Carbone invalidated State 

and local laws which create a solid 

waste monopoly for those facilities. 

And, of course, there is the continued 

desire to come to grips with the problem of interstate transfer of solid 

waste. I am especially aware of this 

problem because my own State of 

Pennsylvania has been the unwilling 

recipient of solid waste exported from 

New Jersey and New York, in particular. 

Thus, we have a clash between the 

fundamental wisdom of the commerce 

clause and the practical effects of the 

interstate trade in solid waste. May I 

ask my colleague from New Hampshire 

the following question? 

Is it fair to state that he has attempted to craft legislation which 

would interfere as little as possible 

with the commerce clause and thereby 

he would try to protect the free market 

where it has worked? 

Mr. SMITH. I have stated before that 

I am not in favor of flow control. Flow 

control is anticompetitive. But it is 

only fair and equitable that communities that have indebted themselves—

completely within the law prior to the 

Supreme Court decision—must not be 

left to suffer the consequences of financial failure. The outstanding municipal 

bonds that total more than $20 billion 

must be honored and the communities’

financial stability must be maintained. 

However, only those facilities with 

bonded revenues are given grandfather 

coverage under this bill. Any municipality indebted after the Carbone decision is not and will not be protected. 

The free market must prevail. Rather 

than assisting with the creation of yet 

another bloated Government bureaucracy, we should be encouraging the establishment of a healthy free market, 

one in which competition keeps prices 

low, offers consumers better services, 

and disposal techniques are state-ofthe-art. 

Mr. SANTORUM. Further, it appears 

to me that the interstate title of this 

legislation gives my Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania the tools it needs to prevent abuse of our resources and environment. Could my colleague comment 

on that? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, the interstate title 

gives the Governor of Pennsylvania 

and the Governors of other affected 

States authority to ensure that their 

States do not continue as unabated 

dumping grounds for States which do 

not act to site their own disposal capacity. 

Mr. SANTORUM. Last, with regard 

to title II, flow control, may I inquire 

of my colleague whether this legislation imposes flow control or in any 

way makes it mandatory and thereby 

suppresses the free market? 

Mr. SMITH. This legislation does not 

impose flow control. Flow control is 

fundamentally incompatible with the 

principles of free enterprise, market 

competition, and the best interest of 

the consumer. Requiring the use of 

flow control would be a step backward 

in the handling of municipal solid 

waste. This bill is designed specifically 

to protect the bond holders and commitments previously made. The free 

market is not broken, and with the inclusion of a 30-year sunset provision, 

the free market will once again take 

over. 

Mr. SANTORUM. Based on the response of my colleague, may I validly 

draw the following two conclusions? 

First, this legislation allows the continuation of flow control as previously 

enacted under State law under certain 

conditions but not require or mandate 

flow control. 

Second, it is the intention of the distinguished subcommittee chairman 

that this legislation not be used in and 

of itself as an argument to suppress the 

free market. 

Mr. SMITH. My colleague from Pennsylvania is correct in his conclusions 

regarding the spirit of the legislation. 

Flow control will continue under certain conditions but is not required or 

mandated. As I have said before, the 

free market must be allowed to prevail. 

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my distinguished colleague and again commend 

him for so ably discharging this difficult responsibility. 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am 

fortunate to come from a State with 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS