May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7351 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move 

to reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1156

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question 

recurs on amendment No. 1156 offered 

by the Senator from New Mexico. 

The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment. 

The amendment (No. 1156) was agreed 

to. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The adoption 

of the Domenici amendment renders 

the underlying amendment moot. 

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator 

from Washington. 

Mr. GORTON. I am authorized to 

make an announcement by the majority leader that there will be no further 

votes until 5 p.m. 

f 

RECESS 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the 

previous order, the Senate will stand in 

recess until 5 p.m. 

Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the Senate 

recessed until 5 p.m.; whereupon, the 

Senate reassembled when called to 

order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. JEFFORDS). 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority manager of the bill is recognized. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1158

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf 

of Senators BOXER, MURRAY, LAUTENBERG, and FEINSTEIN, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mrs. BOXER, for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

LAUTENBERG, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN, proposes 

an amendment numbered 1158. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the appropriate place add the following: 

‘‘It is the sense of Congress that no Member 

of Congress may use campaign funds to defend against sexual harassment lawsuits.’’

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this a 

sense of the Congress that no Member 

of Congress may use campaign funds to 

defend against sexual harassment lawsuits. 

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. 

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. Are we prepared to 

vote? 

Mr. EXON. We are prepared for the 

vote. I asked for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas 

and nays have been ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to lay the amendment on the 

table. 

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. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE

AMENDMENT NO. 1158

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to lay on the table amendment No. 

1158. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 1, 

nays 99, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.] 

YEAS—1 

Packwood 

NAYS—99 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1158) was rejected. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1159 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1158

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

Mr. DOLE. I send a second-degree 

amendment to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. DOLE] proposes an amendment numbered 1159 to 

amendment No. 1158. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the pending amendment strike all after 

the words ‘‘It is the sense-of-the-Congress’’

and insert the following: ‘‘That no member 

of Congress or the executive branch may use 

campaign funds or privately donated funds 

to defend against sexual harassment lawsuits.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

The result was announced—yeas 55, 

nays 45, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.] 

YEAS—55 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—45 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

So the amendment (No. 1159) was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOLE. 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. 

Mr. BROWN. Parliamentary inquiry, 

Mr. President. Is it true that the unanimous consent agreement that we are 

operating under required any further 

amendments to be considered by this 

body—first-degree amendments—to be 

considered by this body to be presented 

to the managers of the bill by 5:15? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. 

Mr. BROWN. Is it then true that because none of those amendments have 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7352 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

been delivered by 5:15, no further firstdegree amendments are in order to the 

bill? 

Mr. President, I note that it is now 

5:39 and that as of 5:15 none of the 

amendments had been presented. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

amendments were to be presented to 

the managers of the bill, not the clerk. 

Mr. BROWN. Do we have any indication that those amendments were indeed presented by 5:15? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

chair does not know what amendments 

have been submitted to either of the 

managers. 

Mr. EXON. You can get the word of 

the two managers, if that will suffice 

for the distinguished Senator from Colorado. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I do not 

mean to obstruct proceedings but I 

have been trying to get copies of 

amendments after 5:15. I have asked 

the managers, and they are still not 

available. If amendments are not made 

available, I intend to make a point of 

order against amendments offered from 

this point forward. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1158, AS AMENDED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

pending measure is amendment No. 

1158, as amended. 

Mr. BROWN. Parliamentary inquiry, 

Mr. President. Was this amendment 

presented to the managers prior to 

5:15? 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, it was. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

amendment was offered prior to 5:15. 

Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to amendment 

No. 1158, as amended. 

The amendment (No. 1158), as amended, was agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote. 

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have 

been very liberal regarding the time on 

votes. We were 5 minutes over on that 

last vote. 

I urge all Members to stay in the 

Chamber, or close to the Chamber, so 

we can get finished in a more orderly 

and quicker fashion. 

Mr. EXON. Is it in order to proceed 

now in a semi-orderly fashion with 

amendments that are properly of 

record? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendments are in order. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1160

(Purpose: To limit increases in the public 

debt) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON] 

proposes an amendment numbered 1160. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 63, strike beginning with line 8, 

though page 65, line 5, and insert the following: ‘‘The Senate Committee on Finance 

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the statutory limit on 

the public debt to the amount set forth for 

the public debt for fiscal year 1996 in section 

2(5), of this resolution. 

‘‘(8) COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.—

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $0 in fiscal year 1996, $0 for the 

period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and 

$0 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 

2002. 

‘‘(9) COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS.—The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs shall report changes in laws 

within its jurisdiction that provide direct 

spending to reduce outlays $118,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $3,023,000,000 for the period of 

fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and 

$6,871,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 

1996 through 2002. 

‘‘(10) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.—The 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 

that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $119,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 

$923,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 

through 2000, and $1,483,000,000 for the period 

of fiscal years 1996 through 2002. 

‘‘(11) COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES.—The Senate Committee on Labor 

and Human Resources shall report changes 

in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 

direct spending to reduce outlays 

$1,141,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $9,165,000,000 

for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 

2000, and $13,795,000,000 for the period of fiscal 

years 1996 through 2002. 

‘‘(12) COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION.—The Senate Committee on Rules 

and Administration shall report changes in 

laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $2,000,000 in 

fiscal year 1996, $280,000,000 for the period of 

fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $319,000,000 

for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 

2002. 

‘‘(13) COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS.—

The Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $301,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 

$5,760,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 

1996 through 2000, and $10,002,000,000 for the 

period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002. 

TITLE II—BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND 

RULEMAKING 

SEC. 200. LIMITING INCREASES IN THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT. 

(a) RECONCILIATION DIRECTIVES WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.—

(1) BUDGET RESOLUTION.—Any concurrent 

resolution on the budget for a fiscal year 

that contains directives of the type described 

in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 310(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for such fiscal year shall also include a directive of the 

type described in paragraph (3) of that subsection for that fiscal year. 

(2) RECONCILIATION.—Any change in the 

statutory limit on the public debt that is 

recommended pursuant to a directive of the 

type described in paragraph (3) of section 

310(a) shall be included in the reconciliation 

legislation reported pursuant to section 

310(b) for that fiscal year. 

(b) POINT OF ORDER.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—

(A) Notwithstanding any other rule of the 

Senate, except as provided in subparagraph 

(B), it shall not be in order in the Senate to 

consider any bill or joint resolution (or any 

amendment thereto or conference report 

thereon) that increases the statutory limit 

on the public debt during a fiscal year above 

the level set forth as appropriate for such fiscal year in the concurrent resolution on the 

budget for such fiscal year agreed to under 

section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974. 

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 

any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution reported pursuant to section 310(b) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 during 

any fiscal year (or any conference report 

thereon) that contains a provision that—

(i) increases the statutory limit on the 

public debt pursuant to a directive of the 

type described in section 310(a)(3) of such 

Act; and 

(ii) becomes effective on or after the first 

day of the following fiscal year. 

(2) PROHIBITION ON STRIKING PROPER DEBT

LIMIT CHANGES.—Notwithstanding any other 

rule of the Senate, it shall not be in order in 

the Senate to consider any amendment to a 

reconciliation bill or resolution that would 

strike a provision reported pursuant to a directive of the type described in section 

310(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974. 

(3) WAIVERS.—This section may be waived 

or suspended in the Senate by a roll call vote 

of a majority of the Members, duly chosen 

and sworn. 

(c) EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.—The 

Senate adopts the provisions of this title—

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power 

of the Senate, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of the Senate, 

and such rules shall supersede other rules 

only to the extent that they are inconsistent 

therewith; and 

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of the Senate to change those 

rules (so far as they relate to the Senate) at 

any time, in the same manner, and to the 

same extent as in the case of any other rule 

of the Senate. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment is offered by myself. It creates a majority vote point of order 

against legislation which increases the 

public debt beyond that set forth in the 

budget resolution. It is something that 

we discussed in the committee. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the 

pending amendment is not germane to 

the provisions of the budget resolution 

pursuant to 305(b). I raise a point of 

order against the pending amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant 

to section 904 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive 

that act for the consideration of the 

pending amendment. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays are ordered. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO WAIVE THE BUDGET ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question occurs on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7353 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 40, 

nays 60, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.] 

YEAS—40 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—60 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kennedy 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

question, the yeas are 40, the nays are 

60. Three-fifths of the Senators duly 

chosen and sworn not having voted in 

the affirmative, the motion is rejected. 

The point of order is sustained and 

the amendment falls. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1161

(Purpose: To restore funding to the AFDC 

and JOBS programs by using amounts set 

aside for a tax cut) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, 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 Nebraska [Mr. EXON] for 

Mr. MOYNIHAN, proposes an amendment numbered 1161. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 74, strike lines 12 through 24 and 

insert the following: ‘‘budget, the appropriate budgetary allocations, aggregates, and 

levels shall be revised to reflect 

$55,000,000,000 in budget authority and outlays of the additional deficit reduction 

achieved as calculated under subsection (c) 

for legislation that retains AFDC as a Federal entitlement and restores budget authority and outlays for other income security 

programs. 

‘‘(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—Upon the reporting of legislation 

pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon 

the submission of a conference report on 

such legislation (if a conference report is 

submitted), the Chair of the Committee on 

the Budget of the Senate may submit to the 

Senate appropriately revised allocations 

under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, budgetary aggregates, and levels under this resolution, revised by an amount that does not exceed the 

additional deficit reduction specified under 

subsection(d).’’. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator 

MOYNIHAN has proposed this amendment which will enable Congress to improve our welfare system rather than 

dismantle it. Under the amendment, 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children will remain a Federal entitlement 

program. 

The amendment will, over 7 years, restore $55 billion to the income security 

programs, including Aid to Families 

with Dependent Children, supplemental 

security income and unemployment insurance under the jurisdiction of the 

Finance Committee. 

The amendment is deficit neutral. It 

is financed in part by the fiscal dividend that will accrue to the Federal 

Government if we balance the budget. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

might say to my friend, Senator EXON, 

I thought matters might get better 

after the last one, but they are getting 

worse. Maybe we will have to jointly 

look at some of these. 

I would just say from our side what 

this does is take $55 billion of the reserve fund that we have in contingency 

and it would spend it for an entitlement under AFDC. 

Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane to the provisions 

of the budget resolution pursuant to 

305(b) of the act. I raise a point of order 

against the pending amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant 

to section 904 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the 

act for consideration of the pending 

amendment. 

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. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO WAIVE THE BUDGET ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is reminded this is a 9-minute vote. 

I intend to close the vote at 9 minutes. 

The question is on the motion to 

waive the Budget Act. The yeas and 

nays have been ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

The yeas and nays resulted, yeas 41, 

nays 59, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.] 

YEAS—41 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—59 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Ford 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

THOMPSON). On this vote the yeas are 

41, and the nays are 59. Three-fifths of 

the Senators duly chosen and sworn 

not having voted in the affirmative, 

the motion is rejected. The point of 

order is sustained, and the amendment 

falls. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote by which 

the motion was rejected. 

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1162

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

on the importance of research, technology, 

and trade promotion and trade law enforcement programs) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment 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 Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. BINGAMAN, for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. HOLLINGS, 

Mr. BYRD, Mr. KERRY, Mr. DODD, and Mr. 

PRYOR, proposes an amendment numbered 

1162. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of the concurrent resolution, 

add the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, AND TRADE PROMOTION 

AND TRADE LAW ENFORCEMENT 

PROGRAMS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) the public welfare, economy, and national security of the United States have 

benefited enormously from the investments 

the Federal Government has made over the 

past fifty years in research, technology, and 

trade promotion and trade law enforcement; 

(2) these investments are even more important at the dawn of the twenty-first century 

in order to insure that future generations of 

Americans can remain at the forefront of exploring the endless scientific and technological frontier in the face of ever greater 

challenges from abroad and thereby maintain and improve their health, standard of 

living, and national security; and 

(3) enforcement of United States trade laws 

and promotion of United States exports, especially programs in support of small and 

medium sized businesses, serve an invaluable 

function in creating jobs, promoting national economic growth, and allowing American workers and businesses to have the resources to compete in an ever more competitive global economy. 

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense 

of the Senate that, in the assumptions for 

the overall accounts, it is assumed that—

(1) in allocating discretionary spending in 

fiscal years 1996 through 2002 within the discretionary spending limits established in 

section 201, the Committee on Appropriations will make it a high priority to maintain the overall fiscal year 1995 investment 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7354 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

level (without adjustment for inflation) in 

research, technology and trade promotion, 

and trade law enforcement programs; and 

(2) the conferees on the concurrent budget 

resolution will not agree to any revenue reductions below current law unless the discretionary spending limits established in the 

conference report will permit the Committee 

on Appropriations to achieve the goal established in paragraph (1). 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this 

amendment expresses the sense of the 

Senate that it should be a high priority 

to maintain the overall fiscal year 1995 

investment level, without adjustment 

for inflation, in research, technology, 

trade promotion, and trade law enforcement programs over the next 7 

years. 

The amendment further expresses the 

sense of the Senate that the conferees 

should not agree to any tax cuts below 

current law unless the discretionary 

spending limits in the conference report permit the achievement of the 

above goal. 

The GOP budget will reduce civilian 

research and technology programs to a 

four decade low as a percentage of GDP 

and Federal spending. By 2002, Federal 

civilian research will be 0.26 percent of 

gross domestic product. The Bingaman 

amendment would effectively urge that 

this be raised to 0.31 percent of GDP. 

For comparison purposes in 1969, the 

last year we balanced the budget, civilian research was 0.76 percent of GDP. 

The lowest it ever was in the Reagan 

years was 0.38 percent of GDP in 1986. 

It is currently 0.46 percent of GDP. No 

one can claim that it is research that 

has caused our deficit. Quite the contrary. Almost every economist believes 

our investments in civilian research 

pay for themselves many times over in 

economic growth and the taxes that 

corporations pay on the fruits of our 

federally supported scientific enterprise. 

The governments of other industrialized nations, such as Japan and Germany, invest about six-tenths of 1 percent of GDP in civilian research. We 

are already below them, even if you include the Pentagon’s dual-use basic 

and applied research investments. And 

we are pointing under the GOP budget 

to spending less than half of what our 

economic rivals spend. 

The cuts in Federal support of civilian research will not be made up by the 

private sector. The reason: they have 

an ever-shorter focus and an ever 

greater unwillingness to invest in longterm research projects, the benefits of 

which are uncertain and usually not 

capturable by a single firm. 

Every other nation is following the 

American model of the last half century. They are seeking to invest more, 

not less, in civilian research. 

Our model has succeeded. It put men 

on the Moon, revolutionized medicine, 

developed computers, communications, 

and advanced materials unimagined a 

half century ago. Vannevar Bush, the 

giant of the post-World War II generation, predicted just this in his monograph ‘‘Science: the Endless Frontier’’

that served as the basis of a social 

compact between government and the 

research community for the last half 

century. 

For the past half century, the Federal Government has acted on that vision to foster a science and technology 

enterprise in this country second to 

none. Government research funds have 

helped conquer diseases, win the cold 

war, and spur incredible advances in 

electronics, computers, molecular biology, communications, and materials 

science. These advances enrich our 

daily lives and are at the heart of our 

nation’s status as an economic and 

military superpower. 

It is not an accident that American 

industries from aerospace to agriculture to pharmaceuticals in which 

the Federal Government has made substantial research investments enjoy 

world leadership. 

As we enter the 21st century, we can 

not afford a Luddite approach. The scientific and technogical frontier is still 

endless. We risk condemning our children and grandchildren to a less prosperous, less healthy, and less secure future if we follow the course in the 

budget resolution. 

The Bingaman amendment is intended to provoke a debate and to 

serve as a warning. It does not fix the 

problem. Even if its prescription is followed, we will still be spending half of 

what our rivals spend in 2002. But it is 

a step in the right direction, a finger in 

a breaking dike. 

If action is not taken to deal with 

this, we will lose a generation of research and a generation of young researchers who will choose other professions. We will not be able to recover for 

years from this damage once the pendulum swings back in favor of Federal 

research investments as it will when 

the full damage of the GOP budget becomes clear. 

Almost a century ago in 1899 the head 

of the Patent Office, Charles Duell, 

proposed to close up shop because ‘‘everything that can be invented has been 

invented.’’ Luckily we did not follow 

such Know-Nothing advice as we prepared for the 20th century. A half century later Vannevar Bush laid out his 

vision for the Federal role in science 

and technology. 

Now we face a choice again between 

these competing visions, Duell’s and 

Bush’s. We must reject the notion the 

endless frontier is over, that every invention has been made, and continue to 

commit to a brighter future for our 

children. We cannot afford to shortchange research if the 21st century is 

to be an American century as the 20th 

century was. 

I ask unanimous consent that several 

newspaper articles be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the articles 

were ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From the New York Times, May 22, 1995] 

G.O.P. BUDGET CUTS WOULD FALL HARD ON

CIVILIAN SCIENCE

BASIC RESEARCH AT RISK

EXPERTS FORESEE A CRIPPLING OF SCIENCE

ESTABLISHMENT AND LAYOFFS AT UNIVERSITIES

(By William J. Broad) 

The glory days of the Federal science establishment may be over, science leaders 

fear, as cuts proposed by Republicans to wipe 

out the budget deficit fall hard on civilian 

research. 

Under the cuts, annual appropriations for 

nonmilitary research might drop to about 

$25 billion by 2000 from the current level of 

$32 billion, for total reductions of $24 billion 

or more over the period. 

At risk is the type of Government-financed 

basic science that has put men on the moon, 

explored the deep sea, unlocked the atom, 

cured cancers, found the remains of lost civilizations, tracked earthquake faults, and 

discovered the chemistry of life, among 

other feats. 

Specific casualties of the cuts might include atom smashers, new weather satellites, 

space probes and dozens of large Federal laboratories that study everything from solar 

power to violent storms. 

Republicans say their goal is to trim fat 

and corporate welfare rather than cripple 

basic science, which economists agree is a 

powerful engine for promoting economic 

growth and high standards of living. 

Representative Robert S. Walker, a Republican of Pennsylvania who is chairman of the 

House Science Committee, said this month 

that the proposed budget would keep ‘‘a robust science policy while providing for the 

fundamental science base we need to move 

forward.’’

But Democrats and private experts say the 

cuts would undo the Federal science establishment, crippling parts of it beyond repair. 

To be sure, science leaders in past budget 

battles, clearly working in their own self-interest, have been known to exaggerate how 

painful reductions might be. And some pain 

might be averted as Democrats and Federal 

agencies fight the cuts, or if President Clinton successfully vetoes spending bills. 

Even so, the momentum for change is now 

so great that many private experts, as well 

as Democrats, say Federal support of civilian 

science is destined to weaken and shrink no 

matter what, its budget declining by as 

much as a third if inflation is taken into account. Such cuts portend wide changes in 

American science and American life. 

‘‘Any sensible person knows you have to 

make prudent investments to get ahead,’’

Representative George E. Brown, Jr., a Democrat of California and former chairman of 

the House Science Committee, said in an 

interview last week. ‘‘But the Government 

doesn’t. We’re dominated by fools.’’

Agency heads, university officials and private experts say the fabric of science is likely to fray widely as the Republican juggernaut rolls forward and as the Clinton Administration makes its own cuts in an attempt to regain lost political ground. 

‘‘Nationally, there’s been a massive sticking of heads in the sand, of not looking at 

the problem,’’ said John Wiley, provost at 

the University of Wisconsin in Madison, one 

of the nation’s top science schools. ‘‘There’s 

going to be a price of pay.’’

Experts say the repercussions could include the abandoning of much long-term environmental monitoring, the virtual end of 

applied research to aid corporations, layoffs 

at colleges and universities, and a flight of 

students from scientific careers. 

‘‘We don’t want to get so lost in the frenzy 

to balance the budget that we throw babies 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7355 

out with the bath water,’’ John H. Gibbons, 

President Clinton’s science adviser and director of the White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy, said in an interview. 

‘‘What ever the reduction is—a quarter or 

a third—it’s big, and it’s a reversal of historical trends,’’ he added, referring to how Republican cuts would end years of budget 

growth. 

‘‘There’s no question that we have to be 

sharper with our knives, to streamline the 

agencies,’’ Dr. Gibbons said. ‘‘But if you take 

away a third, that’s going to push us way 

down in terms of international competition.’’

During the last four decades, the Federal 

Government has spent nearly $1 trillion on 

civilian research and development, laying 

the basis for a powerful wave of prosperity 

that has touched most facets of American 

life. In pushing back the frontiers of knowledge, the Federal money has supported tens 

of thousands of scientists at universities 

across the country and has financed the 

work that led to scores of Nobel Prizes. 

Spending on nonmilitary science has 

grown fairly steadily in the last decade. It 

peaked this year at $31.9 billion, according to 

the National Science Foundation, a Federal 

agency that finances much basic research at 

universities. 

The civilian science budget of the Federal 

government is puny compared to the $100 billion that American industry is putting into 

reseach and Development this year. Yet its 

importance is greater than size alone suggests, for while industry typically looks 

years ahead, aiming to please shareholders, 

the Government often looks decades and 

sometimes centuries ahead, pursuing fundamental issues of understanding that may ultimately lead to wide social benefits. 

Another difference is that industrial 

science is often shrouded in secrecy. By contrast, Government-financed civilian work is 

usually published openly so it can serve as 

intellectual kindling for other social and 

commercial endeavors. 

After their sweep in the midterm elections 

last November, the Republicans devised a 

balanced-budget plan that went easy on military research, currently about $40 billion a 

year, and hard on civilian science, especially 

on Federal programs with ties to industry. 

An aim of the Clinton Administration has 

been to help high-technology industries better compete with foreign rivals. 

House Republicans produced the most detailed plan for science cuts, which was endorsed Thursday by the full House as part of 

a comprehensive package to balance the 

budget by 2002. The Senate is debating a 

companion measure. 

Democrats of the House Science Committee portray the House plan as an extensive cracking of the foundations of Federal 

science. By their calculation, spending under 

the committee’s jurisdiction would fall by a 

total $24 billion from 1996 to 2000, relative to 

1995 levels. If 3 percent annual inflation is assumed during that period, the overall drop 

would be 34.7 percent in terms of real purchasing power. 

The committee oversees most civilian 

science spending in the Federal budget, with 

responsibility for $27.2 billion this year. The 

exceptions are the National Institutes of 

Health and the Agriculture and Interior Departments. The latter’s Geological Survey, 

which monitors water, hunts minerals and 

makes maps, has been targeted for eventual 

elimination by the Republicans. Its current 

budget is $571 million. 

The biggest cuts are slated for the Federal 

Government’s largest scientific agency, the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Among possible victims is tiny Pioneer 

10, now nearly six billion miles from Earth 

and still sending back data more than two 

decades after it was launched. 

‘‘A lot more than Pioneer will go,’’ NASA’s 

Administrator, Daniel S. Goldin, said in an 

interview. 

The Republicans would squeeze a series of 

planned satellites for global climate monitoring, trimming the budget by $2.7 billion, 

or about half, to the end of the decade. Overall, the agency’s annual budget would drop 

from $14.3 billion to $11 billion by 2000. 

On Friday, Mr. Goldin outlined a plan that 

would move toward eventually turning over 

operation of the space shuttles to private industry, something the Republicans have 

called for. The NASA plan would also reduce 

the work force of the agency and its contractors by about 25,000 people, bringing it to 

1961 levels. 

‘‘We’re right at the edge,’’ he said. ‘‘The 

Republican cuts would roughly double that, 

pushing about 20,000 people out the door.’’

A similar tale comes from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

whose parent, the Commerce Department, 

has been targeted for elimination by the Republicans. Among other things, NOAA runs 

weather satellites, makes forecasts, tracks 

hurricanes and tornadoes, probes the deep 

ocean and monitors fisheries. 

James D. Baker, NOAA’s Administrator, 

said in an interview that the agency was already losing 2,300 employees and that the 

proposed Republican cuts would trim another 1,000 in 1996 alone. Its budget for that 

year would fall to $1.7 billion from a current 

$2 billion, with deeper cuts in following 

years. 

‘‘What we see coming is a real tragedy,’’ he 

said. ‘‘We’ll have to cut services and stop future investments on all kinds of things.’’

NOAA runs 11 environmental research labs 

around the country to study things like air 

quality, climate changes and severe storms. 

Some labs would have to be cut back or 

closed down. And proposed Republican cuts 

for 1996 would force the agency to abandon 

plans for a new weather satellite. 

Ultimately, NOAA officials say, lives will 

be at risk if weather forecasts decline in 

quality. 

‘‘We’re a service agency,’’ said Douglas K. 

Hall, NOAA’s Deputy Administrator. ‘‘We 

have people on duty 24 hours a day at the 

union’s airports. They’re critical to the safety of millions of Americans.’’

More esoteric is the work of the Energy 

Department, which studies new kinds of 

solar and geothermal energy production, 

struggles to harness the nearly limitless 

power of nuclear fusion, and probes the atom 

with big particle accelerators. It also is conducting a costly cleanup of sites contaminated by decades of nuclear weapons production. 

Its current budget is $17.5 billion. The Republicans would cut that by a total of $7 billion over five years. 

The department says the cuts would trim 

2,000 university science jobs and 3,500 jobs 

from its sprawling system of laboratories, 

would end the large fusion experiment at 

Princeton University and would force the 

cancellation of one of its atom-smasher 

projects. In addition, hundreds of companies, 

universities and Federal laboratories that 

are trying to improve energy efficiency 

would lose funds. 

One bright spot in the Republican proposal 

is the National Science Foundation, whose 

current budget is $3.3 billion. The Republicans would slightly boost basic research to 

match expected inflation but would squeeze 

the social sciences, which include economics, 

anthropology, psychology, sociology, geography and archeology. 

The National Institutes of Health, the nation’s biomedical research giant and a main 

patron of university research, would also get 

some preferential treatment. Its $11.3 billion 

budget would drop slightly in 1996 and then 

freeze. Even without severe reductions, however, N.I.H. officials say their programs 

would be devastated by inflation. 

For the nation’s system of big research 

universities, said Dr. Wiley of the University 

of Wisconsin, ‘‘there’s likely to be a shakeout’’ as the cuts hit home and universities 

shut down programs. 

‘‘We’ll probably emerge from the next 15 or 

20 years with far fewer universities that try 

to be comprehensive,’’ he said. 

Robert L. Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland and a spokesman for the 

American Physical Society, the nation’s 

leading group of physicists, said the race between Republicans and Democrats to make 

science cuts boded ill for the future. 

‘‘Enormous promises have been made and 

it’s hard to see how they can back away from 

those,’’ he said, referring to the Republican 

promise to balance the budget. 

‘‘Social Security and most of Medicare is 

off the table,’’ he added. ‘‘There’s not much 

left in the discretionary budget, except for 

science.’’

[From the New York Times, May 23, 1995] 

CRIPPLING AMERICAN SCIENCE

The budget plan passed by the House 

mounts an assault on scientific research, 

science training and American research universities that are the envy of the world. 

Blinded by ideological fury at government, 

House Republicans seek to abandon a crucial 

function of government, the provision of 

public goods like research that are undersupplied by private markets. Private companies 

will invest in research that is likely to raise 

their profit, but they are unwilling to invest 

in research whose benefits leak out to competitors. By abandoning government’s irreplaceable role, the House budget would undermine America’s technological base. 

The magnitude of the House-passed cuts is 

shocking. Civilian research would fall over 

five years from about $32 billion to $25 billion, a 35 percent cut after accounting for inflation. Medical research, other than for 

AIDS, would fall by more than 25 percent. 

Robert Walker, chairman of the House 

Science Committee, says the plan would protect basic science. He dissembles. His budget 

would increase spending on research by the 

National Science Foundation. But the small 

increases would not keep pace with inflation, 

so the number of university-based scholars, 

graduate students and research projects that 

the N.S.F. supports would steadily fall. Indeed the plan envisions wiping out support 

for social science research. 

The House budget would continue to support the space shuttle and space station, two 

costly hardware projects with constituencies 

in key electoral states, but it would provide 

little money for other aeronautical and 

space research. It would cut several energy 

research programs by between 35 and 80 percent—eliminating thousands of university 

jobs—and reduce research on high-speed rail 

and other transportation projects. Republicans say their cuts eliminate only applied 

research that business can undertake for 

itself, but they propose slashing nearly every 

program in sight. 

Not all the research that Washington pays 

for makes sense. Some university-based research can sound ridiculously abstruse. But 

there is danger in indiscriminately chopping 

research and undermining a system that has 

for decades produced the best scientists and 

graduate programs in the world. The sectors 

in which America has led the world—from 

computers and software to agriculture and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7356 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

aircraft manufacturing—can trace their success to heavy Federal support. 

Mr. Walker could have performed a valuable service by carefully sifting through Federal programs to weed out those that needlessly subsidize corporations for research and 

development projects that they would undertake for themselves. But massive cutting 

just to reach a balanced budget quickly risks 

damaging important economic assets. 

The party that preaches cost-benefit analysis for Federal agencies ought to practice 

what it preaches. Cutting the science budget 

will save a few billion dollars a year in a $6 

trillion economy. Knocking out innovative 

research can lead to stagnant productivity 

and growth. By that calculation, the House 

plan is an irresponsible gamble. 

[From the Washington Post, May 19, 1995] 

THE GOP NEEDS A BIT MORE R&D ON ITS

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

(By Michael Schrage) 

Charred, smoldering and in ruins: The 

budget bills pending in Congress leave the 

Clinton administration’s ambitious science 

and technology agenda looking as if it were 

zapped by one of those space-based X-ray lasers from the Strategic Defense Initiative 

that never quite got built. The destruction is 

near-total. Never have a sitting president’s 

programs promising new public-private partnerships for innovation been so thoroughly 

extirpated so soon after launch. The Commerce Department’s Advanced Technology 

Program—a $430 million-plus effort to turn 

the National Institutes of Standards and 

Technology into a high-tech venture capitalist—is toast. The Technology Reinvestment Program, designed to encourage commercial participation in defense technology 

development, is targeted for extinction. 

Even a $500 million ‘‘national security’’

initiative to build flat-panel displays for the 

Pentagon now shrivels into silicon scraps. 

Techno-‘‘welfare’’ for rich corporations with 

billion-dollar research and development 

budgets of their own is being slashed as rigorously and assiduously as welfare for the 

poor. 

Of course, in the context of the biggest 

proposed budget cuts in U.S. history, there’s 

nothing special about the dismantling of the 

Clinton science and technology apparat. And 

why should there be? Everything else is getting cut. 

What’s disturbingly different, however, is 

that while the Republican majority cheerfully fuses ideas and ideology when it takes 

on the nation’s health care and welfare budgets, its take on federal science and technology budgets seems oddly disjointed. It 

looks decoupled not only from the marketplace, but from the marketplace of ideas. 

The same politicians championing the virtues of America’s ‘‘Third Wave’’ future prescribe federal science and technology policies that would have been deemed simplistic 

during the country’s agrarian heyday. 

The reflexive anti-Washington, pro-market, neo-federalist sentiment that so energizes the right obscures the essential issues 

that need to be openly debated: What role 

should the federal government play in supporting non-defense-related research in 

science and technology? Further, how far 

should the federal government go in defining 

regulations and standards that promote innovation in the marketplace? The Republicans insist that market forces are always 

the best arbiter—but that obviously is not 

true. 

Let’s make these conceptually flavored 

questions more specific and provocative: 

Would an Internet—with its unique, nonproprietary, flexible, expandable, multimedia architecture—have been an inevitable 

byproduct of market forces alone? Or did the 

federal government’s active participation 

play a valuable role in shaping a new kind of 

medium? 

Did federal safety and fuel efficiency 

standards foisted on the automobile and 

aerospace industries over the past 25 years 

promote technical innovation and customer 

satisfaction? Or did the costs of consumers 

and the manufacturers clearly outweigh the 

benefits? 

Was the agricultural extension service, 

created to promote the decentralized diffusion of agricultural innovation among farmers and researchers, an appropriate medium 

for a central government to support? What 

about the Morrill Act, which funded the rise 

of land-grant colleges and universities? 

Does a Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention to monitor the emergence of potentially dangerous viruses and microorganisms make more sense as a federal or state 

institution? 

The answer to any one of these questions 

speaks volumes about why the proffered policy choice between ‘‘centralized government’’ and ‘‘market forces’’ is a false one. In 

a democracy, of course, the government is 

the marketplace and vice versa. 

Instead of having the courage to deal with 

these kinds of issues honestly and directly, 

we have legislators who prefer to cast them 

into anachronistic vocabularies where it’s 

okay for government to fund ‘‘basic’’ and 

‘‘pure’’ science but ever so bad for taxpayers 

to sponsor anything that might be ‘‘commercial’’ research and development. 

But traditional definitions of science and 

technology have become dangerously obsolete. In key research fields, from computer 

software to new materials to molecular biology, the distinction between basic science 

and applied technology has blurred into 

meaninglessness. The applied technology 

drives the basic science every bit as much as 

the basic science drives the applied technology. 

For example, finding the umpteenth gene 

marker in the human genome is ‘‘basic 

science.’’ But building a machine that lets 

biologists find gene markers 10 times faster 

is called ‘‘technology.’’ Guess which gets 

funded? Is a data-compression algorithm 

that squeezes five video streams onto a single copper wire by using a novel topological 

equation an example of pure science or commercial technology? What if the student who 

discovered that algorithm is doing his thesis 

funded by the National Science Foundation 

but while working at a Japanese electronics 

company? 

Just as it would be crazy to write banking 

legislation for tomorrow that focused on 

passbook savings accounts, legislators are 

kidding themselves if they believe they are 

doing taxpayers a service by pretending that 

federally funded science in the 1990s can be 

managed with the same vocabulary it was in 

1975. It can’t. 

One of the biggest lies inside the Beltway 

is that ‘‘you can’t beat something with nothing.’’ Of course you can, as long as you’re 

writing the checks. Say this for the 

Clintonistas: At least this administration 

presented a model of how the federal government should ally and align itself with industry to facilitate innovation in science and 

technology. 

The new Republican majority has yet to 

present a coherent proposal that explains 

what kinds of investments and returns taxpayers have a right to expect from their federal R&D dollars. It is a most glaring policy 

weakness from a group that wants to push 

America into the future. 

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 22, 1995] 

CORPORATE RESEARCH: HOW MUCH IS IT

WORTH? 

TOP LABS SHIFT RESEARCH GOALS TO FAST

PAYOFFS

(By Gautam Naik) 

In the late 1980s, Bob Lucky had what he 

calls ‘‘a great fantasy.’’

As a research at AT&T Corp’s. celebrated 

Bell Laboratories, he was designing a silicon 

robot the size of a grain of sand. Injected 

into the human body, it would act as a 

microsurgeon, traveling to specific locations 

to fix problems. 

‘‘I was damn proud of the stuff we did. The 

benefits to society could be tremendous,’’

Mr. Lucky says. But AT&T scrapped the research because it had no bearing on its main 

business. Mr. Lucky, a 31-year veteran of 

Bell Labs, is now at Bellcore. 

Chasing far-out notions has long been a 

hallmark of industrial research in America. 

But some of the biggest U.S. corporations 

have cut back sharply on research into 

‘‘basic science’’—the exploration of how nature works at a fundamental level—to pursue 

short-term goals and to commercialize products more quickly. Corporate labs, home to 

75% of the nation’s scientists and researchers, are replacing a cherished culture of independence with a results-oriented approach. 

In past decades, the devotion to basic research without regard to boosting the bottom line spawned a steady stream of breakthroughs, including the transistor, the solar 

cell and the forerunner to today’s laser—all 

at Bell Labs. Now, in the 1990s, the cutbacks 

are taking a toll. Some disillusioned scientists have fled to academia. Already, U.S. 

companies are falling behind in advanced 

data-storage devices and technology for oil 

exploration. 

Some experts worry the shift in an even 

greater threat to the future. ‘‘It’s a shortterm response aimed at keeping stockholders 

happy. Without question this will hurt 

American competitiveness,’’ warns Albert 

Link, an economics professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. 

Companies counter that as competition intensifies and technology accelerates, they 

must push harder to get more direct value 

out of their research. ‘‘We need to focus on 

customers’ needs,’’ says Daniel Stanzione, 

who has hammered at that doctrine since becoming president of Bell Labs in March. A 

former president of AT&T’s $6 billion public 

network equipment division, he is the first 

hard-core business manager to run the famed 

research arm. 

The National Science Foundation calculates that U.S. companies’ spending on 

basic research declined slightly to $9.7 billion in 1993 and didn’t rise last year. In a survey by R&D magazine, half of all companies 

with ‘‘research and development’’ budgets of 

$50 million or more plan to cut spending this 

year, for a 3.5% decline overall (About 10% of 

the R&D budget is typically devoted to basic 

research.) 

Those figures mask far more significant 

cuts in some areas. Among U.S. makers of 

communications gear and electronics, spending on basic research dropped 64% between 

1988 and 1992 to $350 million. Even government-funded basic research at universities 

and colleges, which has risen in the last five 

years, is expected to fall slightly in 1995, according to the National Science Foundation. 

International Business Machines Corp. has 

chopped $1.7 billion from its annual R&D 

budget since 1992, a 33% reduction to $3.38 

billion by last year. In the science-oriented 

research division, annual spending has fallen 

to $450 million from $625 million in 1990. The 

staff of scientists has been cut nearly 20% to 

2,600; the number pursuing basic research is 

down by half to 200. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7357 

In the 1980s, IBM labs explored the subatomic mysteries of neutrino particles. In 

the 1990s, an IBM lab perfected the collapsible ‘‘butterfly’’ keyboard in just a year; it 

might have taken seven years in the old 

days. Impressive, but keyboards are hardly 

the stuff of high science. 

Bernard Meyerson, an IBM fellow and senior manager at the IBM lab in Yorktown 

Heights, N.Y., says that despite the reductions, ‘‘core research was preserved.’’ But he 

concedes that cutting back is ‘‘a dicey process’’ because ‘‘you won’t see the impact of 

funding cuts until it’s too late.’’

Elsewhere the changes have been subtle 

but no less significant. Xerox Corp.’s PARC 

lab, which invented laser printing and onscreen icons, now gets detailed ‘‘contracts’’

from the company’s product divisions directing its research. At General Electric Co., the 

portion of R&D spending devoted to longterm projects is down to 15% from 30% in the 

1980s. 

Such changes are sweeping Bell Labs, perhaps the most famous lab in the world. 

AT&T still devotes 10% of its annual $3 billion R&D budget to basic research, but ever 

bigger chunks will be shifted away from 

physical science—the lab’s traditional 

strength—to information science, which is 

closely tied to AT&T’s core business. Bell 

Labs managers used to be promoted solely on 

the basis of technical achievement. Now they 

must also display business acumen. 

‘‘That wonderful culture at Bell Labs’’ is 

disappearing, laments Phillip Griffiths, director of the Institute for Advanced Study in 

Princeton, N.J., one of the last strongholds 

of purely theoretical research in the U.S. 

It is difficult to quantify what may be lost 

because of such shifts. Fiber optics, for one, 

might have been delayed for decades if not 

for fundamental discoveries made at Bell 

Labs, GE and IBM. In the early 1960s, scientists stumbled on a curious find: Gallium 

arsenide was a natural laser. When they 

zapped an electrical current through it, it 

emitted an intense beam of light, thus making practical the laser that was first demonstrated by Hughes Aircraft in 1960. Scientists realized this ‘‘semiconductor injection laser’’ could be manipulated to transmit 

vast amounts of data at nearly the speed of 

light. 

As many big U.S. companies are backing 

away, some foreign concerns are pushing on. 

Major high-tech companies overseas increased R&D spending 23% from 1988 to 1993, 

says Schonfeld & Associates of Lincolnshire, 

Ill. 

At NEC Corp.’s Research Institute in 

Princeton, N.J., about 30 miles from Bell 

Labs’ campus, scientists delve into condensed matter physics, quantum mechanics 

and biology. Joseph Giordmaine, a physicist, 

put in 28 years at Bell Labs but bolted for Japan’s NEC in 1988. 

Now, as a senior vice president, he presides 

over some truly far-out projects. In one, a 

fly, its limbs affixed in wax, is set before a 

TV screen flashing a series of images. A delicate probe connects a single neuron in the 

fly’s brain to an instrument that measures 

how fast it registers the TV images. 

The research may one day yield insights 

into how to design a super-fast computer. 

‘‘Basic research means you have to be able to 

take risks and accept failure,’’ says Mr. 

Giordmaine. 

Greg Blonder, who invented the wristphone 

at Bell Labs, has spent most of his career 

studying physical sciences and their role in 

future technologies. In January, he switched 

to ‘‘human-centered engineering’’ aimed at 

making AT&T products more ‘‘customer 

friendly.’’

He admits to nostalgia for bygone days. 

‘‘There’s no thrill equivalent to the feeling 

when you discover something late at night, 

and you know that no one else in the universe knows it,’’ he says. ‘‘I miss that.’’

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 22, 1995] 

BABY BELLS FIND IT HARD TO PUT PRICE ON

BELLCORE

(By Leslie Cauley) 

How do you value a company that has 

never turned a profit, is prohibited from designing real products and has no experience 

competing for customers? 

That question faces Bell Communications 

Research Co., the jointly owned research 

arm of the seven regional Bell telephone 

companies. The Bells have announced plans 

to sell or spin off Bellcore by next year. 

The shedding of the company, familiarly 

called Bellcore, comes at a time when even 

the most respected technology giants are 

cutting corporate-research budgets. For the 

Baby Bells’ lab, that raises the question: 

Who would want it? ‘‘I have no idea,’’ answers one Wall Street analyst. ‘‘It isn’t commercially oriented, and it’s been operated as 

a nonprofit [entity] that hasn’t been accountable to anyone in particular. It’s a 

seven-headed monster right now.’’

Bellcore came into being 11 years ago when 

the old AT&T empire was dismantled, and 

the seven Baby Bells were spun off. AT&T 

Corp. held on to the famed Bell Labs, inventor of cellular technology, the transistor and 

the satellite. The Bells got newly formed 

Bellcore. 

Despite its formal name, only about 10% of 

Bellcore’s work is devoted to outright research. And unlike Bell Labs, Bellcore 

doesn’t engage at all in the blue-sky realm of 

‘‘pure,’’ or basic, research. 

The bulk of Bellcore’s work is in software 

programming and consulting. Bellcore experts often are among the first in an emergency, as in the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City last month. Bellcore software 

helps the Bells keep track of which phone 

wires go where, no small feat considering the 

more than 150 million telephone lines in the 

U.S. It also handles such tasks as assigning 

area codes and designing a phone system 

aimed at surviving a nuclear attack. 

Some of the top engineers and network designers in the world work at Bellcore. They 

have racked up more than 600 patents. For 

all the technical muscle, however, the lab 

has never produced a single commercial 

product. It can’t. Bellcore is shackled by the 

terms of the AT&T breakup that bar the 

Baby Bells from making equipment or offering long-distance service. It also can’t design 

production-ready prototypes or steer customers to particular brands of gear. 

Once freed from its seven owners, Bellcore 

would escape these restraints. ‘‘It’s about 

time we were able to start cashing in on 

what we know and what we have,’’ says Alexander Gelman, a Bellcore engineer who experiments with advances in video conferencing. 

That’s why the future is filled with exhilarating possibilities—but also fraught with 

fear—for the 6,000 people who work at the 

lab’s five sites in New Jersey. Some senior 

Bell executives say Bellcore may have to get 

rid of 2,000 workers and install a new top tier 

of outsiders to gird for competition. 

Technical ability alone won’t carry 

Bellcore in a competitive environment, says 

Bud Wonsiewiez, vice president of advanced 

technologies at U S West Inc., the Denverbased Bell. ‘‘Their challenge is to move from 

a monopoly culture to a competitive culture, 

which is exactly the same challenge the 

seven owners face,’’ he says. 

Many Bellcore insiders acknowledge the 

risk and even seem energized by it. ‘‘If 

you’re up the challenge it can be quite exhilarating,’’ says Rob Zieglar, a Bellcore 

wireless specialist. ‘‘If not, if can be paralyzing.’’ (Some colleagues, he says, are 

thinking of leaving,) He adds: ‘‘Given the 

chance, ideas are going to jump here. We’re 

going to be a player.’’

From all indications, they have the potential: Following a major fire in a central 

switching site a few years ago, Bellcore technicians came up with a fire sensor that could 

detect a problem long before conventional 

sensors. Then they had to load it up with 

clunky circuits to make sure it wasn’t 

manufacturable and didn’t violate the ban on 

designing a production-ready device. 

‘‘It’s not that our people didn’t know how’’

to make a commercial product, says George 

Heilmeier. Bellcore’s president and chief executive officer. ‘‘They had to do it that 

way.’’ A manufacturer later refined 

Bellcore’s prototype to build a commercial 

sensor, Mr. Heilmeier says, leaving Bellcore 

with some royalties, but little glory. 

‘‘We know our concepts are doable—we just 

have to wait for the right time,’’ adds Vincent Vecchio, a Bellcore network specialist. 

Eric Addeo, a research manager, says operating under the restrictions of the AT&T 

breakup pact ‘‘was like being in a dark room 

with the door cracked. Now the door is opening.’’

But cutting loose from the Bells also 

means eventually losing guaranteed financial support. The regional phone companies 

supply more than 80% of Bellcore’s $1 billion 

in annual funding. Bellcore generated the 

other $200 million or so from non-Bell clients 

last year, but that isn’t nearly enough to 

support its operations. 

The Bells are drafting multiyear contracts 

with Bellcore to help attract outside investors, but most probably won’t commit to 

more than five years. ‘‘The world is too unpredictable to write contracts that go beyond’’ that time frame, says one senior Bell 

executive. 

Its technical expertise might make 

Bellcore an attractive acquisition for a 

maker of telecommunications gear or perhaps a large ‘‘systems integrator’’ that 

lashes together a client’s computers and 

phone systems. But the Baby Bells say they 

won’t sell to a direct competitor such as, 

say, AT&T; they want Bellcore’s technology 

to remain within easy reach. 

That point is one of the few on which the 

Baby Bells have been able to reach easy 

agreement these days. Bellcore’s mission has 

grown muddled as its owners have begun pursuing divergent and sometimes colliding 

strategies. 

U S West last year acquired two cable systems in Atlanta, home base of BellSouth 

Corp., with an eye toward offering competitive local phone service. ‘‘That had a sobering influence’’ on Bellcore’s board, says U S 

West’s Mr. Wonsiewicz, who sits on the 

Bellcore board. He found himself ‘‘sitting 

around the table with BellSouth and others 

[who were] asking, ‘When are you going to 

start offering telephone service against us, 

Bud?’ ’’

Yet to pursue even routine matters, 

Bellcore has been required to win the unanimous approval of all seven Bells. Asked if 

he’ll miss anything once Bellcore is turned 

loose, Mr. Heilmeier, the lab’s CEO, doesn’t 

miss a beat. ‘‘Oh yes, I’ll miss those board 

meetings where we had to have a 7–0 vote on 

everything,’’ he replies sarcastically. ‘‘The 

tears are welling up in my eyes now.’’

[From the New York Time, May 22, 1995] 

CLINTON’S AID TO INDUSTRY IS G.O.P. TARGET

TECHNOLOGY AND TRADE PROGRAMS WOULD END

(By David E. Sanger) 

WASHINGTON, May 22.—Buried among the 

Republicans’ sharp cost-cutting proposals to 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7358 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

balance the Federal budget is the swift dismantling of two of the Clinton Administration’s most prominent economic innovations: the Use of the Government to promote 

exports and the underwriting of new technologies that corporate America considers 

too risky. 

During his Presidential campaign, Mr. 

Clinton briefly called those strategies ‘‘industrial policy,’’ until Republicans seized on 

the phrase as proof that Mr. Clinton wanted 

the Government to meddle in the workings 

of the market. Once in office, the White 

House dropped the terminology but went 

ahead anyway with an aggressive program, 

declaring that the United States needed to 

develop partnerships with industry and use 

Government pressure to promote exports, 

two skills that Japan and Germany turned in 

to an art after World War II. 

The Republican budget proposals would 

bring many of those efforts to a halt and 

drastically shrink others, from the Energy 

Department to the Pentagon. The most 

sweeping cutback proposal, the ‘‘The Department of Commerce Dismantling Act,’’ is 

scheduled to be introduced on Tuesday by 

House Republicans. The act would immediately terminate six of the Cabinet department’s offices and slice up the organization 

that provides the skills for trade negotiations with Japan, China and several other 

nations. 

Many of the functions of the Commerce 

Department’s highest-profile organization, 

the International Trade Administration, 

would be carved up or eliminated. It is unclear what would happen to the economic 

‘‘war room’’ that calls in ambassadors, Cabinet secretaries and sometimes the President 

to put pressure on foreign governments to 

buy American goods. 

Curiously, the White House has said almost nothing in public about the attack on 

the core of its economic strategy, partly for 

fear that it would detract from its warnings 

about proposed cuts to Medicare and other 

popular social programs. 

‘‘Our global competitors are laughing at 

us,’’ Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. 

Brown said today in a telephone conversation from Paris, where he is attending a 

meeting of the organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development. ‘‘Just at the 

moment when we’ve finally learned that 

there is no way to win without a public-private partnership, without getting the Government involved in promoting a nation’s exports, people are incredulous that Congress 

would be doing this. 

‘‘The French are apoplectic that we have 

been so pro-active and successful,’’ Mr. 

Brown said, a reference to Washington’s role 

in winning a huge contract in Brazil last 

year over French competition. ‘‘And now 

they are delighted that we are thinking 

about not doing it anymore.’’

The Republican theory is that the Commerce Department has become a brazen example of ‘‘corporate welfare,’’ a term coined 

by one of Mr. Clinton’s Cabinet members and 

close friends, Labor Secretary Robert B. 

Reich. To the White House’s horror, the 

phrase—which Mr. Reich has not repeated 

since—has become a rallying call for the 

freshman class of Republicans, who do not 

share their party’s traditional closeness or 

dependence on big business. 

‘‘There are 19 different departments in the 

Government that deal with trade,’’ said Representative Dick Chrysler, the Michigan Republican who drafted the legislation to dismantle the Commerce Department 92 years 

after its creation. ‘‘They could all be reduced 

to a single Department of Trade.’’

Another target of Mr. Chrysler’s is the department’s Advanced Technology focused on 

the programs that most people understand,’’

said Hazel R. O’Leary, the Secretary of Energy, whose department’s budget would 

shrink by roughly $7 billion over the next 

five years. 

‘‘It’s a little early,’’ said Laura D’Andrea 

Tyson, the head of the National Economic 

Council, an office that was created at the 

start of the Administration to give economics equal weight with issues of national security. ‘‘There should be a good debate about 

the wisdom of this, but it is still early in the 

budget process.’’

It may be early, but it seems clear that 

most of the trade and technology promotion 

programs will be sharply reduced, if they 

survive at all. 

As a result, the White House’s reticence 

has not kept the departments themselves 

from starting allout survival campaigns. 

Capitol Hill these days is flooded with under 

secretaries and assistant secretaries explaining and justifying programs that have never 

before come under intense scrutiny. 

Many of those programs were started 

under Republican administrations. The 

theme of the presentations often boil down 

to one argument: In an age of economic conflict, cutting out political and economic support for industry is the equivalent of unilateral disarmament. Program, which provides 

backing for technologies that small companies—and some large ones—consider promising but too risky to attempt. ‘‘This has 

grown from $10 million in 1990 to $250 million 

in 1993, and now they want $750 million,’’ Mr. 

Chrysler said. ‘‘This is nothing other than 

picking winners and losers.’’

Such arguments underscore the sharp difference in the way technology and trade policy is dealt with in Washington and in the 

capitals of its major economic competitors, 

where trade is considered national security 

and ‘‘picking winners and losers’’ is a phrase 

with no political resonance. 

In Japan and Germany, there is virtually 

no debate over government programs to provide seed money for risky technologies or to 

use the influence of top officials to win contracts. It is taken as a given that such roles 

fall to the central government, along with 

defending the nation’s territory and making 

foreign policy. 

In Japan, for example, officials will freely 

acknowledge that more than 50 percent of 

the money committed to new technologies 

will result in utter failure. But even a 20 percent success rate, they argue, should be considered a success. No one would even attempt 

such an argument in Washington. 

‘‘You can’t go up on the Hill and talk 

about a 40 percent success rate, even if that 

is a brilliant performance,’’ Ms. O’Leary said 

last week. ‘‘People will say: ‘What? We are 

throwing away 60 percent?’’’

Instead, Ms. O’Leary’s department has 

been churning out news releases about its industrial breakthroughs in energy conservation. A giant sulfur lamp now hangs over the 

Energy Department’s entrance on Constitution Avenue, a single light that replaces 250 

bulbs. ‘‘It was developed with $1 million in 

Government money and much more in private funds,’’ she said. ‘‘That is hardly a 

waste.’’

On the Hill, though, no one wants to talk 

about sulfur lamps, unless they are designed 

to illuminate a balanced budget. ‘‘This is the 

tail-wagging-the-dog syndrome,’’ Mr. Chrysler said. ‘‘If it is a good invention, let the 

private sector invent it.’’

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President; I rise 

today to express my strong support for 

the amendment of my friend from New 

Mexico, Mr. BINGAMAN, which urges 

continued funding for Federal investments in research, technology, export 

promotion and trade law enforcement. 

I take strong exception to the position 

espoused by the Republican budget resolution—that technology research and 

trade promotion are not proper and appropriate functions of the Federal Government. They are, in fact, not only 

appropriate but vital to continued U.S. 

economic growth and competitiveness 

in today’s global economy. 

I have long maintained that our Nation needs to be more, not less, cognizant of the crucial role technology 

plays in affecting our position in the 

world economy. Without it we would 

not enjoy the industrial and military 

strength we have today. Our Government has traditionally played a critical role in this area and I am convinced we must continue to invest prudently in research and technology development if we are to maintain our 

position in an increasingly competitive 

global economy. And with all due respect to my Republican friends, the 

private sector cannot and will not commit sufficient resources to make up for 

the cuts proposed by the Republican 

budget. 

Eroding and/or eliminating the Federal Government’s role in scientific research and technology development is 

like eating our seed corn, short sighted 

and ill advised in the extreme. 

I would assign the same labels—

short-sighted and wrong-headed—to 

the proposed elimination of Federal 

programs which promote U.S exports. 

Undeniably trade has become a major 

factor in the U.S. economy. According 

to the Trade Promotion Coordinating 

Committee, ‘‘long-term forecasts of the 

U.S. economy put exports as the fastest growing component of GDP—increasing perhaps two and a half times 

faster than the overall economy.’’

As the 3rd largest exporter of manufactured goods among the 50 States, 

Ohio has benefited greatly from, and 

has a vital economic stake in, robust 

international trade. We cannot turn a 

blind eye to the fact that all our major 

trade competitors spend considerably 

more than we do to push their products 

in overseas markets. Nevertheless, our 

relatively modest investments at the 

Federal level, prudently targeted and 

efficiently managed, effectively complement private sector marketing efforts and maintain our position is an 

increasingly competitive international 

economic environment. Because governments are major purchasers in most 

of the primary categories of U.S. exports, for example aerospace, power 

generation, transportation, and telecommunications, the government-togovernment contacts are particularly 

useful and appropriate. 

The least we can and should do in the 

interest of future economic growth, 

jobs and prosperity is to maintain the 

current modest level of Federal investment in research, technology and trade 

promotion. 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am 

proud to be a cosponsor of Senator 

BINGAMAN’s amendment to protect 

funding for the important investments 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7359 

that our Nation currently makes to 

help our businesses compete in the 

evolving global economy. 

Mr. President, as the cold war passes 

into our memories, a new type of global challenge to the health and welfare 

of America has emerged. It is an economic war that American businessmen 

and women are fighting in the US marketplace and in global markets against 

foreign competitors support and encouraged by their governments. 

As Commerce Secretary Ron Brown 

recently said, the budget before us 

today is tantamount to unilateral disarmament of the United States. It is 

the business equivalent of shutting 

down the Pentagon to save money in 

the middle of a world war. 

Mr. President, don’t believe me or 

Secretary Brown. Believe the words of 

the customers, the American businesses on the front line of global competition. 

This morning’s Arkansas DemocratGazette had a strong story in which 

businessmen were asked what they 

thought about the idea of eliminating 

trade and technology efforts at the 

Commerce Department. I ask that 

‘‘Cutting out Commerce Finds Few 

Fans in Trade’’ be placed in the 

RECORD following my statement and 

urge my colleagues to read it. 

The Vice Chairman of the Arkansas 

District Export Council, Dave Eldridge, 

said ‘‘For a person who has been an 

international businessman for 30 years, 

I can tell you that (closing the Commerce Department) would be a serious 

mistake.’’

As businesspeople in Arkansas point 

out, at stake is no less than the future 

economic health of our Nation and our 

standing and power in the international community. 

At stake are American jobs threatened by tariffs or other restrictions on 

US products in foreign markets. At 

stake are American businesses, large 

and small, that must beat foreign competitors to the market with new and 

better products, cut costs and improve 

quality through better manufacturing 

technologies, and position themselves 

in the emerging overseas that will generate huge new consuming publics in 

the future. 

To help American businesses compete, the US Government has made 

modest but effective investments in export promotion, trade law enforcement, 

technology and research. All of these 

investments are under attack in this 

budget. 

TRADE

Mr. President, one of the great success stories in our work to support US 

businesses overseas is the International Trade Administration (ITA) 

at the Commerce Department. During 

the first 2 years of the Clinton administration, ITA advocacy of US business 

has boosted US exports by $23.6 billion, 

thereby creating over 300,000 American 

jobs. 

Taxpayers invested roughly $500 million in the ITA and received a return of 

$23 billion in exports. That would pass 

anyone’s cost-benefit test. 

ITA has helped to open foreign markets for American business and to enforce US trade laws that protect us 

against unfair competition. 

This budget resolution apparently 

would dissolve the ITA. Again, Mr. 

President, that is unilateral disarmament. 

TECHNOLOGY

Helping American businesses stay at 

the cutting edge of new technologies is 

vital to long term competitiveness and 

that is exactly what the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or 

NIST, is in the business of doing. According to studies, 25 percent of America’s economic growth since the end of 

World War II can be attributed to technology advances. NIST’s primary mission is to bolster US competitiveness 

by advancing civilian technology by investing in long term, high-risk research and development. 

This formula for technology advancement is working. NIST leverages scarce 

resources, cost sharing, and risk sharing with industry and other government entities. It is maximizing returns 

to American businesses and minimizing 

costs to taxpayers. 

Another technology program that 

has proven itself is the Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP). TRP has 

worked to integrate our military and 

civilian technology sectors in a way 

that will strengthen our economy and 

military. TRP is another useful example of how partnerships between government and industry are useful in 

pooling Federal and non-Federal resources toward a common goal. 

Mr. President, quite simply, we can 

not afford to cut TRP. For years the 

US military relied on its own separate 

technology sector and the American 

taxpayers were forced to pay the huge 

bills. If we want our military to deploy 

the most technologically advanced 

equipment at the lowest cost possible, 

we must tap into civilian markets 

more often. By doing so, everyone 

wins—the US military, the American 

taxpayer, businesses and our economy. 

These technology advancement efforts are under attack in this budget. 

Their demise would effectively mortgage our future competitiveness and 

economic health to buy short term 

budget savings. 

MANUFACTURING

To help small and medium sized manufacturers put new technologies to 

work in global competition, this administration has opened 25 new manufacturing centers. These centers bring 

proven technology to our nation’s 

370,000 small and medium-sized manufacturers. The Centers have received 

rave reviews from their customers. 

Again, this successful investment in 

future jobs and economic growth is 

also under attack in this budget. 

In nations around the world, investments in technology and trade development are top budget priorities. Japan, 

Germany and others will be glad to 

hear that this budget resolution strips 

the United States of its most effective 

weapons for global economic competition. 

Mr. President, it is vitally important 

that we maintain funding for our investments in research, technology, and 

export promotion. The U.S. should be 

investing more in making our workers 

and our firms more competitive around 

the globe so that we can win the battle 

for markets and profits, as well as 

higher wages for our workers. 

The U.S. can no longer prevail in 

international economic competition 

based solely on its vast supply of capital and natural resources, or its large 

educated work force. The economic 

battles of today and tomorrow will be 

won by the firms that can employ the 

latest technology and the latest information to be the first to market, the 

highest quality competitor, and the 

most competitive in pricing. These battles will be won by firms that work in 

concert with their government to 

break down foreign trade barriers and 

open new channels into the mature and 

the emerging markets of the world. 

This amendment preserves the essential functions of trade promotion, technology, and research activities. This 

funding is critical to our nation’s competitiveness. It is critical to the creation of quality jobs in the future. And 

it is critical to the survival of many 

American businesses and industries. I 

urge its adoption. 

The article referred to follows: 

CUTTING OUT COMMERCE FINDS FEW FANS IN

TRADE

(By Randy Tardy) 

Arkansas international trade officials reacted strongly to a Republican budget-cutting move Tuesday to abolish the U.S. Department of Commerce and transfer its functions to other agencies of government. 

A bill introduced in the House would terminate six Commerce Department programs, 

including the Economic Development Administration, the Minority Business Development Agency and the Technology Administration, which promotes public-private cooperation in new technology. 

The department’s export-promoting International Trade Administration would have 

its functions moved to other agencies, including the State Department, which handled export trade policies until 1980. 

‘‘For a person who has been an international businessman for 30 years, I can tell 

you that would be a serious mistake,’’ said 

Dave Eldridge, vice chairman of the Arkansas District Export Council and director of 

economic development for Arkansas Power & 

Light Co. 

Eldridge served as moderator Tuesday for 

the 1995 World Trade Conference on European markets featuring a trio of Commerce 

Department officers representing four European countries. 

‘‘If the United States is going to maintain 

its ability to compete effectively in the 

world market, then we are going to need a 

strong advocacy in Washington and throughout the world,’’ said Hartsell Wingfield, 

president of TCBY International, the Little 

Rock-based frozen yogurt franchiser with operations in 30 countries. 

That advocate is not Congress; ‘‘it is the 

strong, effective Commercial Service’’ sector 

of the Commerce Department’s International 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7360 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

Trade Administration, Wingfield told the 

conference luncheon in the Excelsior Hotel. 

‘‘If we take a hands-off approach to international trade from a political perspective,’’

he said, ‘‘we will lose our edge as an international exporter, because other countries 

are not taking a hands-off approach.’’

Joseph O’Brien, an international trade 

consultant and president of the Arkansas 

World Trade Club, agreed. ‘‘I’ve had personal 

experience on behalf of Arkansas clients 

with the Commercial Service guys stationed 

in Paris and Madrid and Mexico City and 

Guatemala City,’’ he said, ‘‘and in every 

case, they were enthusiastic and they tried 

hard. They really made a big difference.’’

Putting the Commerce Department’s international trade role under the State Department would mean a different set of priorities, O’Brien added. ‘‘We really do need to 

export more in this country, and this is the 

one way for small companies to get help 

overseas. The big boys don’t need it; the 

smaller ones do.’’

Meanwhile, global trade competition is 

getting keener, and some of the best potential European markets for Arkansas exports 

may be in the least-known countries, the 

Commerce Department’s senior commercial 

officers told the world trade conference. 

‘‘Italy is one of the least-known markets 

in the U.S.; it’s a marketplace people don’t 

look at often,’’ said Keith Bovetti, minister 

counselor with the department’s Commercial 

Service in Italy. 

The country’s ‘‘close to a $1 trillion gross 

domestic product has the fifth leading economy in the world, and major privatization is 

going on there,’’ he said, ‘‘but there are no 

shortcuts to being there on the spot to do 

business.’’

Spain and Portugal are also lesser-known 

economies, said minister counselor Emilio 

Iodice, who is assigned to the two countries. 

‘‘Spain is not just a land of bullfighters 

and flamenco dancers,’’ he said, ‘‘it has a 

stable government and the highest growth 

rate in Europe for the last 12 years.’’ Spain 

in 1994 had $6 billion in U.S. investment and, 

while that’s sizable, foreign investment 

there was greater, he said. 

Portugal, with one-fourth Spain’s population, ‘‘is a new country, economically,’’

Iodice said, noting increased investments in 

foreign goods and services to help the country become more competitive globally. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, let me be 

very brief and concise. 

This amendment by Senator BINGAMAN expresses the sense of the Senate 

regarding the importance of research, 

technology, trade promotion, and trade 

law enforcement programs all very important to America. This particular 

amendment is cosponsored by Senators 

LIEBERMAN, ROCKEFELLER, BIDEN, HOLLINGS, BYRD, KERRY, DODD, and PRYOR. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this 

amendment says that the conferees 

have to keep spending limits at a certain level to accomplish the goals that 

the amendment contemplates, and 

there shall be no revenue reductions 

unless we do. Some of the goals are 

rather vague, and it is pretty difficult 

to know what we must do. 

It is with reluctance that I move to 

table the amendment, and I ask for the 

yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is 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 [Mr. 

DOMENICI] to lay on the table the 

amendment of the Senator from New 

Mexico [Mr. BINGAMAN]. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 53, 

nays 47, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.] 

YEAS—53 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—47 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

So the motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the motion 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. 1163

(Purpose: To protect children receiving 

health care insurance under Medicaid) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf 

of Senator MURRAY, 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 Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mrs. MURRAY, proposes an amendment numbered 1163. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 79, between lines 3 and 4, insert 

the following: 

SEC. . PROHIBITION OF LEGISLATION THAT 

WOULD DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF 

THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE UNDER 

MEDICAID. 

(a) POINT OF ORDER.—It shall not be in 

order in the Senate to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference 

report that would cause children eligible to 

receive benefits under Medicaid (whether 

currently or in the future) to lose any of 

those benefits. 

(b) WAIVER.—This section may be waived 

or suspended in the Senate by a majority 

vote of the Members voting, a quorum being 

present, or by the unanimous consent of the 

Senate. 

(c) APPEALS.—Appeals in the Senate from 

the decisions of the Chair relating to this 

section shall be limited to 1 hour, to be 

equally divided between and controlled by, 

the appellant and the manager of the bill or 

resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of a majority of the Members of the 

Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of 

the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 

raised under this provision. 

(d) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REPORTS.—Whenever the Director of the Congressional Budget Office prepares a report 

pursuant to section 308 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 in connection with a bill, 

resolution, or conference report that the Director believes would cause children eligible 

to receive benefits under Medicaid (whether 

currently or in the future) to lose any of 

those benefits, the Director shall so state in 

that report and, to the extent practicable, 

shall include an estimate of the number of 

children eligible to receive benefits under 

Medicaid (whether currently or in the future) who would lose any of those benefits as 

a result of that legislation. 

(e) ESTIMATES.—Solely for the purposes of 

enforcement of this section in the Senate, 

the number of children eligible to receive 

benefits under Medicaid shall be determined 

on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, a majority 

vote point of order against this legislation will cause children currently receiving health care insurance under 

Medicare to lose their insurance. What 

this does is simply requires a majority 

vote if such an event would take place. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this 

amendment is not germane to the 

budget resolution. It establishes another procedure on how the Senate 

should consider future Medicaid reform 

legislation. Because of that, I raise a 

point of order against the pending 

amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant 

to section 904 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive 

that act for consideration of the pending amendment. 

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. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO WAIVE THE BUDGET ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question occurs on agreeing to the motion to waive the Congressional Budget 

Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 45, 

nays 55, as follows: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7361 

[Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.] 

YEAS—45 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Chafee 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—55 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

question, the yeas are 45, the nays are 

55. Three-fifths of the Senators duly 

chosen and sworn having not voted in 

the affirmative, the motion is rejected. 

The point of order is sustained and 

the amendment falls. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1164

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

that the Federal Government has a financial responsibility to schools in our Nation’s communities which are adversely affected by Federal activities and that funding for such responsibilities should not be 

reduced or eliminated) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON] for 

himself, and Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. 

PRESSLER, Mr. AKAKA, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. 

LEVIN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. PELL, Mr. DORGAN, 

Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. KERREY, and Mrs. KASSEBAUM proposes an amendment numbered 1164. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of title III, insert the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds as follows: 

(1) In order to fulfill its responsibility to 

communities that were adversely affected by 

Federal activities, the Congress established 

the Impact Aid program in 1950. 

(2) The Impact Aid program is intended to 

ease the burden on local school districts for 

educating children who live on Federal property. Since Federal property is exempt from 

local property taxes, such districts are denied the primary source of revenue used to 

finance elementary and secondary education. 

Most Impact Aid payments are made for students whose parents are in the uniformed 

services, or for students who reside on Indian 

lands or in federally subsidized low-rent 

housing projects. Over 1,600 local educational 

agencies enrolling over 17,000,000 children are 

provided assistance under the Impact Aid 

program. 

(3) The Impact Aid program is one of the 

few Federal education programs where funds 

are sent directly to the school district. Such 

funds go directly into the general fund and 

may be used as the local educational agency 

decides. 

(4) The Impact Aid program covers less 

than half of what it costs to educate each 

federally connected student in some school 

districts, requiring local school districts or 

States to provide the remainder. 

(5) Added to the burden described in paragraph (4) is the fact that some States do not 

rely upon an income tax for State funding of 

education. In these cases, the loss of property tax revenue makes State and local education funding even more difficult to obtain. 

(6) Given the serious budget constraints 

facing State and local governments it is critical that the Federal Government continue 

to fulfill its responsibility to the federally 

impact school districts in our Nation’s 

States. 

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense 

of the Senate that in the assumptions for the 

overall accounts it is assumed that—the Federal Government has a financial responsibility to schools in our Nation’s communities which are adversely affected by Federal activities and that funding for such responsibilities should not be reduced or eliminated. 

Mr. EXON. This is sense of the Senate on impact aid, to recognize the fact 

that the Federal Government has a financial obligation to schools in our 

communities adversely affected by 

some of the proposed activities, and 

that we should not reduce or eliminate 

funding for these responsibilities. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am 

prepared to accept the amendment if 

there will be no rollcall vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

The amendment (No. 1164) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider 

the vote by which the amendment was 

agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1165

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding student loan cuts) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment 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 Nebraska [Mr. EXON] for 

Mr. PELL proposes an amendment numbered 

1165. 

At the end of title III, insert the following: 

SEC. . STUDENT LOAN CUTS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) in the 20th century, educational increases in the workforce accounted for 30 

percent of the growth in our Nation’s wealth, 

and advances in knowledge accounted for 55 

percent of such growth; 

(2) the Federal Government provides 75 

percent of all college financial aid; 

(3) the Federal student loan program was 

created to make college accessible and affordable for the middle class; 

(4) increased fees and interest costs discourage college participation by making 

higher education more expensive, and more 

of a risk, for students and their families; 

(5) full-time students already work an average of 25 hours per week, taking time away 

from their studies; and 

(6) student indebtedness is already increasing rapidly, and any reduction of the inschool interest subsidy will increase the indebtedness burden on students and families. 

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense 

of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this resolution 

assume the Labor and Human Resources 

Committee, in seeking to achieve mandatory 

savings, should not increase the cost of borrowing for students participating in the Robert T. Stafford Federal Student Loan Program. 

Mr. EXON. The Pell amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the 

Labor and Human Resources Committee, in seeking to achieve mandatory savings, should not increase the 

cost of borrowing for students participating in the Robert T. Stafford Federal Student Loan Program. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, who is 

the sponsor of that amendment? 

Mr. EXON. Senator PELL. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Could he change a 

couple of the words? 

Mr. EXON. I am advised we cannot 

accept this until we clear it with Senator PELL. I apologize to my friend. 

Can we lay this aside? 

Mr. DOMENICI. Pleased to do it. 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. DOLE. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, there will 

be one more vote tonight, and whatever it is, that will be the last vote. 

Then at 7 o’clock we will proceed to 

debate the rescission conference report, but that will not be voted on 

until tomorrow. The first vote tomorrow will be at 9 o’clock, if it is all right 

with the Democratic leader, on the 

conference report. Then we will start 

voting on amendments from 9 o’clock 

until some time late in the day, I assume. 

I would hope that some of my colleagues will take another look at their 

amendments and see if they really feel 

it is important. 

The point I want to make is I made 

a promise to the President we would 

try to do the counter—antiterrorism 

bill. I want to try to keep that promise. I do not know how we can do it if 

we spend all day tomorrow voting. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might 

I say to the distinguished majority 

leader, I believe they are working diligently to try to cut back on the 

amendments. I thank him for urging 

that. We believe we can modify the 

Pell amendment and accept it. 

Mr. EXON. Would the Senator please 

state how he would like to have it 

amended? It has been agreed to and 

Senator PELL has authorized it. He is 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

right here. He has authorized me to 

agree to the changes you had suggested, Senator. 

Mr. DOMENICI. That is not the 

amendment. 

Mr. FORD. It is at the desk. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we will 

temporarily set aside the Pell amendment. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1166

(Purpose: To repeal the ex-patriots billionaires tax loophole and put the money into 

veterans programs to assist American patriots) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment 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 Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. LAUTENBERG for himself, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. 

WELLSTONE, Mr. REID, Mr. DASCHLE, and Ms. 

MIKULSKI proposes an amendment numbered 

1166. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by 

$47,000,000. 

On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by 

$144,000,000. 

On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 

$197,000,000. 

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 

$257,000,000. 

On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 

$322,000,000. 

On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 

$392,000,000. 

On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by 

$412,000,000. 

On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by 

$47,000,000. 

On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by 

$144,000,000. 

On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by 

$197,000,000. 

On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by 

$257,000,000. 

On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by 

$322,000,000. 

On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by 

$392,000,000. 

On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by 

$412,000,000. 

On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by 

$47,000,000. 

On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by 

$144,000,000. 

On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by 

$197,000,000. 

On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by 

$257,000,000. 

On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by 

$322,000,000. 

On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by 

$392,000,000. 

On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by 

$412,000,000. 

On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by 

$47,000,000. 

On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by 

$144,000,000. 

On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by 

$197,000,000. 

On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by 

$257,000,000. 

On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by 

$322,000,000. 

On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by 

$392,000,000. 

On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by 

$412,000,000. 

On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by 

$47,000,000. 

On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 

$144,000,000. 

On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 

$197,000,000. 

On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by 

$257,000,000. 

On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by 

$322,000,000. 

On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by 

$392,000,000. 

On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by 

$412,000,000. 

On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by 

$47,000,000. 

On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by 

$144,000,000. 

On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by 

$197,000,000. 

On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by 

$257,000,000. 

On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by 

$322,000,000. 

On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by 

$392,000,000. 

On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by 

$412,000,000. 

On page 43, line 24, increase the amount by 

$47,000,000. 

On page 43, line 25, increase the amount by 

$47,000,000. 

On page 44, line 7, increase the amount by 

$144,000,000. 

On page 44, line 8, increase the amount by 

$144,000,000. 

On page 44, line 15, increase the amount by 

$197,000,000. 

On page 44, line 16, increase the amount by 

$197,000,000. 

On page 44, line 23, increase the amount by 

$257,000,000. 

On page 44, line 24, increase the amount by 

$257,000,000. 

On page 45, line 7, increase the amount by 

$322,000,000. 

On page 45, line 8, increase the amount by 

$322,000,000. 

On page 45, line 15, increase the amount by 

$392,000,000. 

On page 45, line 16, increase the amount by 

$392,000,000. 

On page 45, line 23, increase the amount by 

$412,000,000. 

On page 45, line 24, increase the amount by 

$412,000,000. 

On page 64, line 24, decrease the amount by 

$47,000,000. 

On page 64, line 25, decrease the amount by 

$967,000,000. 

On page 65, line 2, decrease the amount by 

$1,771,000,000. 

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am a 

proud cosponsor of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators LAUTENBERG and ROCKEFELLER, to restore 

funding to veterans’ programs by closing the ex-patriots tax loophole. 

This provision, which allows billionaires to renounce their citizenship to 

avoid paying taxes, has been quite popular this year. On two occasions, the 

Senate has resoundingly supported 

changing this tax loophole. Unfortunately, final legislation to close this 

loophole has not yet passed. Today we 

have an important opportunity to close 

this unfair loophole once and for all 

and to help those individuals who must 

now face personal battles each and 

every day because they sacrificed for 

their country. 

The Lautenberg-Rockefeller amendment provides that money saved from 

repealing this tax loophole will be used 

to restore funds for critical veterans’

programs. These individuals have been 

unfairly and continually targeted as a 

means to help balance the budget. During the balanced budget amendment 

debate earlier this year, I supported an 

amendment by Senator ROCKEFELLER

that exempted current veterans’ benefits from cuts. That amendment failed 

33 to 62, signaling the intent to further 

cut the benefits of these individuals. 

This budget resolution seeks to cut 

$15.4 billion in funding for veterans’

programs through 2002. This will result 

in denying care to almost 1 million veterans, and closing the equivalent of 35 

of its hospitals. Clearly, this is not an 

effective or responsible way to care for 

the needs of our Nation’s veterans. We 

should be working on ways to improve 

care for veterans, not diminish it. 

Mr. President, I understand the need 

to make difficult choices about which 

programs to cut in our push to balance 

the budget, and that certain sacrifices 

must be made. However, we must not 

lose sight of the promises made to 

those men and women who fought to 

help preserve democracy in our country and around the world. We cannot 

revoke the very care and benefits that 

were promised to these individuals 

when they put their lives on the line 

and served their country. 

As the daughter of a disabled veteran, I understand the toll debilitating 

diseases take on a family. I understand 

the value of the VA health system and 

the critical research being done to help 

improve patient care. This amendment 

seeks to right a serious wrong. It will 

help restore funding for veterans programs that provide medical care and 

medical research for the true patriots 

of this country, and stop an egregious 

abuse of a tax loophole by those individuals who wish to be ex-patriots. 

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help maintain the promises made to the veterans 

of this country. 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this 

year marks the 50th anniversary of the 

end of the Second World War and the 

20th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war. It is a sad irony that at the 

same time we honor the brave men and 

women who served so valiantly in these 

two wars, Senate Republicans are seeking to cut funding for veterans’ programs. 

I support a balanced budget, and I 

want to work with my Republican colleagues to get there. However, we can 

get to a balanced budget without damaging veterans’ programs. To do otherwise says that the sacrifices of those 

who were ready to risk their lives can 

be cheaply bought and easily forgotten. 

It says that solemn promises by Government to those who have risked all 

in the service of Government can be 

casually disregarded. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7363 

The Republican budget resolution 

would slice almost $16 billion from veterans’ programs over the next 7 years. 

Part of this savings would come from 

freezing VA medical care at the fiscal 

year 1995 level for the next 7 years. 

This would be a drastic blow to a system that is already sorely underfunded. 

It will affect every VA health care facility at the same time resources will 

be withdrawn from Medicare and Medicaid, leading to additional pressures 

on the VA system. 

The budget resolution also proposes 

to phase out VA construction by 1999. 

According to the Disabled American 

Veterans, that would lead to the cancellation of 215 projects needed to meet 

current health care delivery standards. 

Clearly, this ill-advised move would 

jeopardize the quality of veterans’ care 

across the country. 

At the same time it cuts funding for 

needed veterans’ programs, this budget 

resolution does nothing to prevent billionaires living abroad from renouncing their U.S. citizenship solely to 

avoid U.S. taxes on their fortunes. Although relatively few individuals 

choose expatriation for this purpose, 

the resulting revenue loss to the U.S. 

Treasury is significant. Specifically, 

closing this tax loophole would raise 

$3.6 billion in the first 5 years from an 

estimated two dozen individuals. 

The Lautenberg-Rockfeller amendment addresses both of these shortcomings in the current budget resolution. Simply, the amendment would 

deny huge tax benefits to ex-patriots 

and use that savings to restore some of 

the funding being taken from the VA. 

As this important amendment illustrates, we don’t have to sacrifice the 

goal of a balanced budget to correct 

what’s wrong with this budget resolution. We need only correct the badly 

unbalanced priorities it establishes. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment I am offering on behalf of 

Senator LAUTENBERG is called the expatriots amendment. This amendment 

would close the loophole that allows 

billionaires and others to avoid Federal 

taxes by renouncing their citizenship, 

and would apply the savings for restoring funding for the veterans programs. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1167 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1166

(Purpose: To repeal the ‘‘Ex-Patriots’’ loophole and use the money to eliminate the 

Social Security earnings penalty) 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send 

a second-degree amendment to the 

desk for Senator MCCAIN 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. MCCAIN and Mr. BROWN, proposes 

an amendment numbered 1167 to amendment 

1166. 

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 is as follows: 

In lieu of the matter proposed, insert the 

following: 

On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 43, line 24, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 43, line 25, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 44, line 7, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 44, line 8, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 44, line 15, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 44, line 16, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 44, line 23, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 44, line 24, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 45, line 7, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 45, line 8, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 45, line 15, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 45, line 16, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 45, line 23, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 45, line 24, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 64, line 24, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 64, line 25, increase the amount by 

$0. 

On page 65, line 2, increase the amount by 

$0. 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE. 

It is the Sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional totals 

in this resolution include that the increased 

revenues resulting from the revision of the 

expatriate tax loophole should be used to 

eliminate the earnings penalty imposed on 

low and middle income senior citizens receiving social security. 

Mr. DOMENICI. This repeals the expatriots tax loophole and uses the 

money to eliminate the Social Security earnings penalty. 

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. 

VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1167 TO AMENDMENT

NO. 1166

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

The result was announced, yeas 97, 

nays 3, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.] 

YEAS—97 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Faircloth 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moseley-Braun 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

NAYS—3 

Exon Mikulski Moynihan 

So, the amendment (No. 1167) was 

agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question now occurs on amendment No. 

1166, as amended. 

So the amendment (No. 1166), as 

amended, was agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1165, AS MODIFIED

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator PELL, I send a modification of amendment No. 1165 to the desk 

and ask unanimous consent that the 

amendment be so modified, agreed to, 

and the motion to reconsider be laid on 

the table. 

Mr. DOLE. We have no objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment (No. 1165), as modified, is as follows: 

At the end of title III, insert the following: 

SEC. . STUDENT LOAN CUTS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) in the 20th century, educational increases in the workforce accounted for 30 

percent of the growth in our Nation’s wealth, 

and advances in knowledge accounted for 55 

percent of such growth; 

(2) the Federal Government provides 75 

percent of all college financial aid; 

(3) the Federal student loan program was 

created to make college accessible and affordable for the middle class; 

(4) increased fees and interest costs discourage college participation by making 

higher education more expensive, and more 

of a risk, for students and their families; 

(5) full-time students already work an average of 25 hours per week, taking time away 

from their studies; and 

(6) student indebtedness is already increasing rapidly, and any reduction of the inschool interest subsidy will increase the indebtedness burden on students and families. 

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense 

of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this resolution 

assume the Labor and Human Resources 

Committee, in seeking to achieve mandatory 

savings, should do their best to not increase 

the cost of borrowing for students participating in the Robert T. Stafford Federal Student Loan Program. 

ALTERNATIVE BUDGET

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise 

today as a supporter and original cosponsor of the amendment offered by 

my distinguished friend from North 

Dakota, which presents an alternative 

budget resolution to the committeepassed version before us. 

While both plans theoretically 

achieve balance by the year 2002, I believe our alterative is a better budget 

in many important ways. 

It is a better budget because it maximizes our future investments in our 

people, restoring partial funding in 

such critical areas as education, infrastructure, and research and development. 

It is a better budget because it eases 

the unprecedented cuts in our Federal 

health programs contained in the Republican budget, replacing $l00 billion 

in Medicare and $50 billion in Medicaid. 

It is a better budget because it restricts current tax loopholes for citizens who make more than $l40,000 a 

year, bringing greater and urgently 

needed equity to our current tax structure. 

And it is a better budget, Mr. President, because it does not designate the 

so-called economic dividend to an indefensible tax cut which may ultimately 

benefit our wealthiest citizens. 

I participated in efforts to craft this 

budget resolution, Mr. President, because I believe strongly that we Democrats cannot simply be against everything on the table. Rather, we have a 

profound obligation to be for something as well. 

While no document crafted by more 

than one Senator can make any Senator completely happy, I am comfortable that this budget brings much 

needed equity to our debate. It gives us 

a plan where revenues are on the table 

along with spending cuts, where critical investments in our people are preserved whenever possible, where our 

wealthiest do not benefit at the expense of our neediest, and, where—very 

importantly—our Federal budget is 

balanced. 

Let me repeat that final point, Mr. 

President. 

We offer today a budget resolution 

that commits us to more deficit reduction than the Republican alternatives 

by the year 2002. In fact, the budget we 

propose reaches true balance without 

using the surplus in the Social Security trust fund by the year 2004. In this 

amendment, we call for the elimination of our deficit and we outline the 

budgets that get us there. 

This debate is not about whether or 

not we should have a balanced budget. 

This debate is how to balance it. 

While I believe the cuts in the Republican budget resolution may be 

unsustainable when committees try to 

implement them, the plan we offer 

today, Mr. President, is fair and defensible. It is about meeting our obligation to our children and our grandchildren in a manner that more responsibly protects the strength and security of their future. 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

very serious alternative resolution we 

bring before the Senate today, Mr. 

President, and I yield the floor. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1127

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Senator 

FEINGOLD’s amendment would prohibit 

us from applying any savings above 

and beyond a balanced budget to tax 

cuts. The majority has estimated that 

those savings would be in the range of 

$170 billion over the next 7 years. 

I believe we should have used the estimated $170 billion in savings to reduce cuts imposed by Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 on Medicare, education, EITC and farm programs. As I 

noted in the statement I delivered to 

this body yesterday, those cuts are too 

severe and will hurt the elderly, young 

people looking to educate themselves, 

as well as the ordinary fellow trying to 

support grandparents and put his kids 

through college. 

Amendments which would have applied the $170 billion in savings to reduce the cuts did not pass. 

Today, we consider Senator FEINGOLD’s amendment which bars using 

the $170 billion savings for tax cuts and 

would instead apply it to create a 

budget surplus. 

Mr. President, I strongly support the 

need to bring our annual deficit to 

zero. I voted for the balanced budget 

amendment and would do so again. 

Yet, selective, focused tax cuts would 

be appropriate. Tax cuts that will specifically benefit the middle class taxpayers who find their expectations of a 

better future challenged or reduced 

from day to day and who are struggling 

to support aging parents and who want 

their children to have the benefit of a 

college education. At this early point 

in time, we should not rule out giving 

them a break. 

For that reason, Mr. President, I oppose the Feingold amendment. 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as the discussion on the budget resolution has 

progressed, it appears that there are 

fundamental and partisan differences 

on our spending priorities and programs. Some of these differences go to 

the heart of the Democratic and Republican approaches to governance, 

and call into question the Federal Government’s role in society. Soon we may 

be dismantling the core components of 

a decades-old social compact between 

the American government and people. 

Our social safety net—Medicare and 

Medicaid, education, support and assistance for our Nation’s poor—is the 

priority one issue of our time. It is one 

of the most important functions of our 

Government, and it encompasses the 

matters about which the American 

people care most deeply. As critical as 

they are, however, this budget debate 

is about more than just our domestic 

spending priorities. The spending cuts 

in the budget plan are so wholesale and 

comprehensive that they will drastically curtail the U.S. ability to conduct diplomacy and advance our interests abroad. 

I would like to take a moment, Mr. 

President, to focus on the impact of 

the proposed spending cuts on foreign 

affairs—the so-called 150 account. This 

budget will slash funding for U.S. foreign affairs agencies, personnel and assistance programs; virtually eliminate 

U.S. financial support for the United 

Nations; and shackle the ability of the 

United States to participate in U.N. 

peacekeeping missions. 

Even though it has yet to be adopted, 

the resolution already has had a debilitating impact on our foreign policy 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7365 

agencies and programs. Last week the 

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported—on a straight party-line 

vote—foreign relations authorizing legislation that will cut spending for the 

Department of State and U.S. foreign 

policy programs by $3.5 billion during 

the next 4 years. Yesterday the Committee began to mark up foreign aid 

authorizing legislation, which if reported will have an equally devastating 

effect on our overseas assistance program. 

Together, these bills will abolish 

three major foreign affairs agencies—

ACDA, USIA, and USAID. They will 

curtail U.S. participation in the United 

Nations Organization and support for 

U.N. peacekeeping. They will slash foreign aid spending and virtually eliminate U.S. support for multilateral lending institutions. They will arbitrarily 

prohibit U.S. participation in multilateral environmental organizations and 

adversely affect the implementation of 

critical environmental initiatives. The 

rush to cut spending is such that the 

Foreign Relations Committee bills will 

authorize spending at levels far below 

even what the budget resolution currently recommends—perhaps as much 

as $600 million. 

On its surface, I acknowledge that for 

some, this news will not be entirely 

disappointing. There are those who do 

not understand the value of spending 

money on foreign affairs programs, and 

most opinion polls place foreign aid 

near the bottom in terms of public support. At the same time, Americans 

want the United States to remain a 

prominent world power in the post-cold 

war era. The people understand this, 

and the times demand it. Our economic 

future lies in a global trading system; 

if we want to protect our national interests we must be active players in 

the international system. 

The problem, however, is that the 

scope and scale of the budget and 

spending proposals will force the 

United States to retreat into isolation. 

All of these initiatives are negative in 

tone; they dictate or suggest that we 

should not engage in certain activities. 

They do not offer affirmative policy 

prescriptions. In the post-cold war era, 

Republicans and Democrats should be 

working together to fashion a bipartisan strategy for U.S. foreign policy in 

the 21 century. Instead, we are wasting 

our time debating neo-isolationist proposals which, if adopted, will result in 

the United States becoming a feeble, 

second-rate power. We will be unable to 

exert influence or work cooperatively 

with the international community to 

resolve conflicts, advance our interest, 

or promote democratic and free market 

principles. 

As written, the budget resolution 

would set us squarely down the road toward retrenchment and withdrawal. If 

we choose to go this route, we will do 

grave disservice to the next generation 

of Americans. At the end of World War 

II, we chose not to yield to the temptation of isolationism, and our country 

prospered as it never had before. I 

think we should have learned our lesson by now. 

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, overall, I am supportive of this budget resolution. I believe it provides a sensible 

roadmap toward balancing the Federal 

budget over the next 7 years and I commend my colleagues on the Budget 

Committee for their efforts. 

However, there is one area of the 

budget resolution with which I disagree: the proposal to sell the Power 

Marketing Administrations. This sale 

would have a devastating effect on 

South Dakota’s rural communities and 

small cities—and on people across the 

country. 

That is why I rise today to join my 

colleague from Montana in offering a 

sense-of-the-Senate to strike the Budget Committee’s recommendation to sell 

the Western Area, Southwestern, and 

Southeastern Power Marketing Administrations—collectively known as the 

PMA’s. Public power serves many functions 

in South Dakota. As a sparsely populated State, utilities are faced with the 

challenge of how to get affordable electricity into small cities and rural communities where there are less than two 

people per mile of transmission line. 

Public power provides the solution. 

In public power utilities, the only investors are the consumers. Revenues 

are reinvested in the community—in 

the form of taxes and services. And, the 

low cost of power is essential to encourage economic development in 

small cities and towns. 

Public power, purchased through the 

Western Area Power Administration, 

known as WAPA, costs South Dakotans 

an average of 2.5 cents less than the 

market rate. This allows revenue to be 

reinvested in additional transmission 

lines, and better service. The availability of hydropower from the Missouri River to rural cooperatives and 

municipals has helped to stabilize 

rates. With 7,758 miles of transmission 

lines in the Pick-Sloan region, WAPA 

can serve 133,100 South Dakotans—

without charging them an arm and a 

leg. 

Public power has brought more than 

electricity to South Dakota. For example, Missouri Basin Municipal Power 

Agency, based in Sioux Falls, has embarked on a program offering incentives for planting trees. The goal is to 

plant at least one tree for each 112,500 

meters in the agency’s membership territory. In fact, Missouri Basin was recognized by the Department of Energy 

for outstanding participation in this 

Global Climate Change Program. I congratulate Tom Heller of Missouri Basin 

for this excellent community service 

program. 

Public power also brings new jobs to 

the communities it serves. In part due 

to the low cost of power from East 

River Electric, there are now three injection molding plants based in Madison, SD—creating snowmobile parts. 

Arctic Cat, PPD, and Falcon Plastics 

employ approximately 200 people in 

Madison. 

East River also is involved in other 

economic development activities. It 

provides classes to help the community 

attract businesses, and offers grants 

for feasibility studies associated with 

economic development projects. South 

Dakota clearly has benefitted from the 

work of Jeff Nelson, as the general 

manager of the East River Electric 

Power Cooperative. 

Public power is a South Dakota success story. It is the source of innovation, development, and community 

pride. I am sure the same is true in 

other small cities and rural communities across America. That is why I 

disagree with the Budget Committee’s 

recommendation to sell WAPA and two 

other power marketing administrations. This is simply economic smoke 

and mirrors used to cover up a backdoor tax on rural and small city Americans. 

In essence, this would force South 

Dakotans—and public power consumers 

everywhere—to cover for the rest of 

America. Why? Because the sale of the 

PMA’s could result in rate increases 

totaling more than $47 million. 

In addition, many of my colleagues 

claim that the sale of the PMA’s would 

generate revenue for the Federal Government. Will it? Let us look at the 

facts. 

PMA’s still owe almost $15 billion in 

principal. Also, more than $9 billion in 

interest already has been paid to the 

Federal Government. By selling the 

PMA’s, the Government would forfeit 

future interest payments. 

In fact, a recent report prepared by 

the Congressional Research Service 

demonstrates just how much money 

the PMA’s are expected to contribute 

to the Federal Government. This year, 

WAPA is expected to pay back $225.1 

million borrowed from the Federal 

Government. But WAPA will also return another $153.4 million to the 

Treasury. Given these figures, it is 

clear that this plan does not make 

good economic sense. 

As my colleagues know, this is not a 

new issue. I have been fighting the proposed sale of the PMA’s ever since I 

came to Congress. In 1986, the Reagan 

administration made similar attempts 

to privatize the PMA’s. I worked with 

many of you to pass a law to prevent 

the Department of Energy form pursuing any future plans to sell the 

PMA’s, unless specifically authorized 

by Congress. As the debate over the 

sale of the PMA’s rises again, it seems 

this law has been forgotten. 

Mr. President, once again, we are 

fighting to prove the worth of public 

power. Once again, we must demonstrate how necessary it is to the 

lives of rural and small city Americans. The people of South Dakota have 

stated their message loudly and clearly—through thousands of postcards, 

letters, and phone calls. South Dakotans such as Ron Holstein. Bob Martin, 

and Jeff Nelson have been leaders in 

their opposition to the proposed AMA 

sale and I appreciate their hard work. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7366 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

Public power is a solid investment 

for the Nation. Public power is one of 

the great success stogie of South Dakota. I urge all my colleagues to stand 

united behind this amendment to allow 

the continued existence of the public 

power, and the essential service it provides to the Americans who reside in 

small cities and rural communities. 

Now is not the time to mess with success. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wanted 

to take a few moments to comment on 

the effect of the pending budget resolution on the Medicare Program. 

I believe history will indicate there 

is no one in this body who has risen to 

give a more vigorous defense against 

unwise Medicare reductions than I. 

Medicare is an important program. It 

provides needed, valuable, and indeed 

vital, services for millions of elderly 

and disabled Americans. Thirty-seven 

and one-half million to be exact. 

Our job is to ensure that beneficiaries have the services they need, 

that the services are of the highest 

quality possible, and that they are 

cost-efficient. We need to ensure that 

services are available in rural as well 

as urban areas. We need to make sure 

that we have a system which provides 

incentives for providers to deliver this 

high-quality, cost-efficient care. 

In sum, on this, the 30th anniversary 

of Medicare’s inception, we must do everything we can to preserve the program, not tear it apart. 

What is largely ignored, however, is 

the fact that absent any congressional 

action, Medicare will go bankrupt by 

2002. In fact, it will run into the red by 

next year. 

My question is that: Is it the budget 

that threatens Medicare—or the very 

design of the program? 

The answer is clearly the latter, as 

most experts will concur. 

Let us look at the facts. 

First, Medicare is going bankrupt. 

The 1995 Annual Report of the Board of 

Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, issued on April 3, indicate that the present financing 

schedule for the HI—Hospital Insurance, or part A—program is sufficient 

to ensure the payment of benefits only 

over the next 7 years. The situation for 

physician payments under part B of 

Medicare, is only slightly more optimistic. 

Second, we cannot sustain the current growth rate of Medicare. Over the 

next 7 years, the period of this budget 

resolution, Medicare hospital benefits 

are projected to grow more than twice 

the rate of revenues. 

Mr. President, at this time, it takes 

about four covered workers to support 

the benefit payments to each enrollee 

on Medicare A. That ratio is declining 

quickly, so that the trustees have estimated by the middle of the next century, only two covered workers will 

support each enrollee. In fact, absent 

any legislative changes, that scenario 

won’t come to pass, because Medicare 

will have been bankrupt long before 

then. 

According to the most recent estimates of Medicare spending—the 

March baseline issued by the Congressional Budget Office—in 1995, Medicare 

is expected to spend $181.2 billion—

$113.6 billion in outlays for hospital 

costs, and $67.6 billion for physician 

and related costs. 

Ten years from now, however, total 

hospital outlays are expected to grow 

to $247 billion, and physician costs to 

$215.8 billion. 

These numbers are troublesome for 

two reasons. First of all, they show a 

level of spending which cannot be sustained. They indicate that spending for 

the Medicare Program is expected to 

increase over the next decade to almost 

half a trillion dollars, to $463.2 billion 

to be exact—more than double current 

levels. 

And second, they show the dramatic 

rise in spending for part B. This year, 

part B costs are roughly half of the 

amount for part A. In 10 years, they are 

almost equal. 

Third, projected shortfalls in Medicare are astronomical. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 

it will take $345 billion in additional 

revenues just to keep Medicare solvent 

over the next decade. This is $345 billion extra. 

The budget resolution assumes a 

$265-billion reduction in the rate of increase over the next 7 years, thus keeping the program solvent for that time 

period. 

Fourth, the budget resolution does 

not cut Medicare, it cuts its rate of 

growth. Under this budget resolution, 

Medicare spending will still exceed 

$1.65 trillion over the next 7 years. 

Medicare spending is projected to grow 

by 94 percent between fiscal years 1995 

and 2002 under this budget. Put another 

way, on average Medicare spending is 

projected to grow at nearly 10 percent 

annually, while private health spending will average less than 7 percent. 

Under the budget resolution, Medicare 

spending will still grow on average 7.1 

percent per year. 

Fifth, to do nothing would be fiscally 

and morally irresponsible. As I have 

said, absent congressional action, 

Medicare will go bankrupt, pure and 

simple. But there is another compelling fact to consider. Total Medicare 

expenditures this fiscal year will account for 11.5 percent of the entire Federal budget. Clearly this growth rate is 

unsustainable; it threatens both current and future beneficiaries. 

Sixth, there are no easy answers. I 

wish there were a simple answer to the 

Medicare conundrum. 

Two weeks ago, Stuart M. Butler, 

vice president and director of domestic 

policy studies for the Heritage Foundation, wrote a very compelling article 

entitled, ‘‘The High Cost of Not Reforming Medicare.’’

Mr. Butler clearly and concisely outlined the choices available to the Congress. He wrote: 

There are only two choices available to the 

Congress: 

Choice #1: Do not change the way in which 

Medicare is run by the government, and pay 

for future benefits by raising new revenues 

through higher payroll and other taxes or by 

diverting money from other programs. This 

means Medicare survives only by draining 

money away from the rest of the budget or 

by raising taxes. 

Choice #2: Change the way Medicare is run 

so that benefits are delivered more efficiently, avoiding future tax increases or a diversion of money from other programs. Making the program more efficient would improve the quality of benefits and the choices 

available to retirees while reducing the double-digit rate of outlay increases. This would 

slow the depletion of the trust fund and stabilize the program. 

As an illustration of the impact of 

choice No. 1, Mr. Butler noted that the 

Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust 

Fund could be put on a sound, permanent actuarial footing right now—by 

raising payroll taxes 3.52 percent on 

top of the current 2.9-percent rate. The 

impact, however, would be enormous. A 

worker earning $45,000 would pay an additional $1,584 a year, obviously an unwise step which would not be acceptable to the Congress. 

Clearly, the better course of action is 

to improve the Medicare program, 

making it more efficient and cost conscious. This will not be an easy task. 

Indeed, it will be extremely difficult, 

perhaps the most difficult task that 

has faced the Congress in decades. But 

it must be done. 

In closing, Mr. President, I wish to 

make one final point. 

I do not wish to give the impression 

that I am diminishing the enormity of 

the task before us. 

I am extremely concerned about 

Medicare reductions of this magnitude. 

I could not vote for this budget if I 

thought that we were taking an action 

that would lead to the demise of Medicare. Medicare is a promise we made to 

our Nation’s elderly and future elderly. 

On the contrary, after considerable 

study of this issue, I can come to no 

other conclusion than that taking no 

action will lead to the demise of Medicare. 

I believe it would be both fiscally and 

morally irresponsible to stand aside 

and propose no changes in Medicare, 

knowing all the while that a staunch 

adherence to the status quo would lead 

to bankruptcy of the program. 

Let me hasten to add that I will be 

monitoring this situation very, very 

carefully. 

Under the budget resolution, the 

Committee on Finance will now begin 

work to outline specific Medicare 

changes to meet the instructions contained in this bill. 

As a member of the Finance Committee, I intend to participate fully in 

those deliberations, to make certain 

that the changes we craft are as equitable and responsible as possible. 

It is not my intent that the changes 

we undertake drive providers out of 

business, force hospital net operating 

margins into the red, or deprive beneficiaries of needed services, although 

some changes will certainly have to be 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7367 

made to save Medicare. We must face 

this situation realistically. 

If we find that these proposed 

changes have an adverse effect that affects patient health, whether in Utah 

or anywhere else in the Nation, I 

pledge to work closely with my colleagues to rectify the situation. 

Mr. President, I do not mean to 

downplay the gravity of the situation. 

Reductions of this magnitude, even 

though they are reductions in the rate 

of growth, are difficult for me—and I 

would venture to say for every Senator—to support. Such reductions will 

indeed have an impact. 

But, in the Senate, as in life, there 

are times when we have to do the right 

thing, even if it is also the hard thing. 

Members of the Senate and House simply must see beyond their next elections. We must force ourselves to look 

at the long term. 

The alternative—bankruptcy of the 

Medicare system—is unthinkable and 

must be avoided. If we fail in this task, 

the health care safety net that Medicare provides for millions of current 

seniors—not to mention those who are 

approaching senior status—will be lost. 

I appreciate that the Budget Committee’s recommendations were adopted with considerable angst. I commend 

Senator DOMENICI and members of the 

committee for doing the right thing. 

We must all focus on solutions to this 

urgent national fiscal dilemma. 

PROTECTING AMERICA’S INFLUENCE ABROAD

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this 

budget resolution calls for elimination 

of the budget deficit. I support that 

goal, but there are many different ways 

to achieve it. I do not support the formula proposed by the Republicans. It 

will hurt the poorest people, and reward the wealthiest. There is no better 

example of the fundamental differences 

between Republicans and Democrats. 

Right now, I would like to focus on 

what the other side’s proposed budget 

would do to Function 150, the part of 

the budget that finances programs to 

advance U.S. foreign policy. 

Function 150 is not a large item in 

the Federal budget. It amounts to only 

a little more than 1 percent of total 

Federal expenditures. It is only 8 percent of our budget for national defense. 

But it is vitally important to every 

man, woman, and child in this country. 

The United States is the world’s only 

remaining superpower. We have an historic opportunity to influence global 

events, and to make sure that political 

and economic developments around the 

world are consistent with American interests. 

The momentum is already in the 

right direction. American investments 

over the past 40 years have paid off. 

Not only has the direct threat of Communist aggression disappeared. The 

end of confrontation between the two 

superpowers has also caused the world 

to refocus attention on the evils of dictatorship and abuse of human rights 

that persist in many places. And the 

collapse of centrally planned economic 

systems has discredited state ownership of the economy all around the 

world. For the first time in history, the 

trend is almost single-mindedly toward 

adopting the values that Americans 

hold dear—democracy, human rights, 

private property, open markets, competition. 

But it is much too early yet to relax 

our vigilance. The world remains an 

unpredictable, violent and unstable 

place. The United States still has a 

vital interest in leading the way towards peace and democracy and prosperity and away from conflict and instability. 

The military threat to America has 

receded, but it is more true today than 

ever that American prosperity is 

linked to conditions in the rest of the 

world. Millions of Americans jobs depend upon persuading other countries 

to open their borders to U.S. exports 

and helping them to raise their incomes so they can afford to buy those 

exports. Providing Americans clean air 

and clean water depends upon international action to protect the environment. Keeping Americans healthy depends on cooperative action to fight 

disease in other countries. Stemming 

the flow of illegal immigrants and refugees to the United States depends on 

advancing democracy and economic development in the countries from which 

the refugees are fleeing. 

For all that people complain about 

the U.S. Government wasting money 

overseas, Americans overwhelmingly 

reject isolationism. They want the 

President of the United States to continue to project American power and 

influence abroad. 

Maintaining a strong military provides underpinning for that exercise of 

leadership. But who wants us to have 

to risk shedding American blood? We 

need the President to conduct an aggressive, preventive foreign policy that 

will secure America’s interests peacefully. This is where Function 150 is absolutely critical. 

It is Function 150 that provides the 

funding for the President to lead: 

It pays for the State Department and 

U.S. Embassies around the globe that 

maintain communication with foreign 

governments and pursue cooperation 

with them. It funds the diplomacy that 

just a few weeks ago secured the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with the enormous 

promise it offers for reducing the 

threat of nuclear explosions. 

It funds U.S. contributions to the 

various international organizations 

that are the glue that holds our international economic system together: 

The United Nations which notwithstanding its weaknesses—weaknesses 

that stem primarily from the differences of its members—plays a critical role in focusing international attention on world problems and helping 

resolve them; 

The International Monetary Fund 

which brings governments together to 

protect the stability of the international monetary system; and 

The World Bank and regional development banks that mobilize capital to 

help the poorer countries develop economic policies that will produce equitable, sustainable economic growth. 

It funds America’s bilateral assistance programs. These include programs 

for helping Rwandans fleeing from 

genocide; programs for containing the 

spread of AIDS and other deadly, infectious diseases; programs for assisting 

Russia to install democratic systems 

and privatize state-owned enterprises; 

programs for advancing the Middle 

East peace process. 

It funds the efforts of the Export Import Bank of the United States and 

other agencies to promote U.S. exports. 

The budget resolution envisions a 

$2.4 billion reduction in Function 150 

spending in the 1996 fiscal year, with 

additional reductions in subsequent 

years. This may not seem like much in 

a $1.5 trillion budget, but it amounts to 

over 12 percent of the current Function 

150 budget. Subtracting out accounts 

that cannot be reduced, it means cuts 

of over 30 percent in many of the remaining accounts. This is not streamlining, this is decapitation. 

Mr. President, quite simply, the cuts 

in Function 150 that the budget resolution contemplates would undermine 

the President’s ability to protect 

American interests abroad by non-military means. Let me cite just a few examples: 

We would abandon efforts to promote 

political and economic reform in Russia and the other former centrally 

planned economies. Given the opportunity to help turn our worst enemy 

into a friend, the Republicans want us 

to shrug and turn our backs. I am not 

thrilled with everything Russia is 

doing. The destruction of Chechnya 

embodies the worst of old-style Soviet 

heavy-handed repression. But there 

have been many astonishingly positive 

developments in Russia, Ukraine, and 

the other central and eastern European 

countries over the past couple of years 

too. Enhanced freedom of the press. 

Privatization of enterprise. Elections. 

Our aid is aimed at advancing reform. 

What folly for us not to seek to nurture what is good in the new Europe. 

We would virtually terminate efforts 

through the World Bank to promote 

economic reform and growth in the 

poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. This is no trivial matter. 

If these countries, with their hundreds 

of millions of people, start to grow, 

they will offer vast new markets for 

employment-generating U.S. exports. 

If, on the other hand, they descend into 

fratricidal war and economic decay, 

they will produce ever-more-overwhelming flows of refugees and disease. 

Representing not just the United 

States but the entire world community, the World Bank and the other 

multilateral development banks are 

the most promising instrument for 

bringing change to these desperate 

countries. In the past few years, they 

have finally begun to record success in 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7368 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

producing broad-based growth in some 

of these countries. For less than $2 billion per year, the United States has the 

prospect of promoting the development 

of economies accounting for a third or 

more of the world’s population. This is 

a sound investment. The Republican 

budget resolution would cancel that investment. 

We would slash spending on bilateral 

development assistance. This is assistance that is keyed directly to U.S. interests. We promote democracy and 

sustainable development in countries 

that are major sources of refugees and 

migrants. The Agency for International Development has taken decisive steps during the Clinton administration to bring its activities fully into 

sync with U.S. foreign policy priorities. 

It is grossly inaccurate to call its programs tax-dollar throw-aways, as some 

have said. 

Programs of special interest to many 

Senators, like aid to Eastern Europe 

and the Baltics, Cyprus and Ireland, 

and military aid to Greece and Turkey, 

would be eliminated. The Ex-Im Bank, 

Peace Corps, PL–480 food aid, and educational exchanges would all be 

slashed. 

Of course, the United States cannot 

do any of this by itself. But no one is 

asking us to. The United States has already fallen to 21st among foreign aid 

donors in the percentage of national income that it devotes to development 

assistance. We aren’t even the largest 

donor in terms of dollar amount anymore. Japan has now left us in the 

dust. The budget resolution would 

force us to withdraw from broad areas 

of development assistance entirely. 

When I became chairman of the Foreign Operation Subcommittee in fiscal 

year 1990, the Foreign Operations budget, which makes up two-thirds of the 

Function 150 account, was $14.6 billion. 

During my 6 years as chairman, we cut 

that budget by 6.5 percent—not even 

taking into account inflation—while 

the remainder of the discretionary 

spending in the Federal budget increased by 4.8 percent. Most of those 

cuts were in military aid. They were a 

calculated response to the end of the 

cold war. But that job is now pretty 

well done. Foreign aid today is substantially less than it was during the 

Reagan and Bush administrations. 

Mr. President, we must recognize 

that there is a limit to how far we can 

cut our budget for international affairs. Our allies are scratching their 

heads, wondering why the United 

States, with the opportunity to exercise influence in the world more cheaply than ever before, is turning its back 

and walking away. We are inviting 

whoever else wants to—friend or foe—

to step into the vacuum and pursue 

their interests at our expense. 

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this is an 

historic moment—today we are closer 

than ever before to putting America’s 

economic house in order. The last time 

Congress balanced the budget was 

1969—more than a quarter-century ago. 

Since that time, and despite the will of 

the American people, Congress has 

been overdrawing the public checkbook 

year after year after year. 

Today the opportunity has come to 

put an end to out of control Federal 

spending—spending that has taken 

money from the private sector, the 

very sector that creates jobs and economic opportunity for all Americans, 

spending that gambles away our children’s future—spending that costs us 

jobs in the workplace and economic security in the home. 

For too long, Congress has faced the 

deficit dilemma like an errant alcoholic or perpetual dieter, with the 

words: We’ll start tomorrow. Well, Mr. 

President, this is tomorrow, and the 

budget that Senator DOMENICI and others have crafted is the cure. It is the 

only cure. 

The President’s budget proposals for 

next year offer clear evidence of the 

lack of political will to make the hard 

choices when it comes to cutting government spending. At first, his decision 

was not to fight for further deficit reduction this year. Now, because he sees 

what the House and Senate have done, 

he’s revisited the issue, offering another watered-down proposal. It’s kind 

of like the little boy who—wanting to 

bend the rules to benefit himself—holds 

his breath until he turns blue, then, realizing he can hold it no longer, tries 

to save face by renegotiating the rules 

of the game. 

This is no time for politics. The 

American people are crying out for a 

smaller, more efficient government. 

They are concerned about the trends 

that for too long have put the interests 

of big government before the interests 

of our families and job-creating private 

sector. They are irritated by the double 

standard that exists between how our 

families are required to balance their 

checkbooks and how government is allowed to continue spending despite its 

deficit accounts. 

It is clear, Mr. President. The time 

has come to heed the will of the people. 

It is our duty, not only to heed their 

will, but to act in their best interest. 

And that is what this budget is all 

about. It makes the hard choices, 

eliminating some 140 programs. It consolidates duplication and makes Federal programs run more efficiently, 

more effectively, placing many of the 

existing programs back in the States 

where they belong. The Republican 

budget also allows for a $175 billion reserve fund to finance tax cuts when the 

budget reaches balance. 

The budget holds Congress and the 

White House up as leaders—as examples in the effort to reduce government 

spending. Both the legislative and executive are required to reduce spending 

by 25 percent. This budget protects Social Security and Medicare—vital programs to the well-being of millions of 

Americans, but programs that would be 

bankrupt within a few years without 

the provisions offered in this budget. 

And, Mr. President, this budget does 

not cut those programs; spending continues to increase. What this budget 

does is slow down the rate of increased 

spending to a level that will allow the 

programs to survive! It is that simple, 

and do not let anyone tell you otherwise. 

Social Security spending will increase from $334 billion to $482 billion 

over the next 7 years. Medicare spending will increase at an average of 7.1 

percent annually, rising from $178 billion this year to $283 billion by fiscal 

year 2002. This budget is the only workable answer on the table. President 

Clinton himself has warned about how 

these programs are going to be insolvent in the near future. Yet, he has offered no viable alternative. 

His most recent effort to counter the 

House and Senate budgets plan is little 

more than political twaddle. The Washington Post itself noted that this 

counter budget which we have yet to 

see is ironic in that just 3 months ago 

the President ‘‘sent Congress a budget 

that increases the federal deficit.’’ Mr. 

President, this is not a game. We are 

talking about real life, real jobs, real 

families and communities and the future of our children. Balancing the 

budget for our Nation is one of the 

most important steps we can take to 

ensure the economic opportunities for 

prosperity for our children and for our 

children’s children. 

As a nation—and as individuals—we 

are morally bound to pass opportunity 

and security to the next generation. 

This is what the budget we are proposing today will help us do. As Thomas Paine has written, no government or 

group of people has the right to shackle succeeding generations with its obligations. Without this budget, children 

born today will have a tax burden of up 

to 84 percent of their lifetime earnings; 

without this budget, each child who 

owes $18,500 in his share of the national 

debt will find that obligation increasing to $23,000 in just 5 years. Without 

this budget, there will be no real and 

meaningful reduction in the size and 

overbearing power of the Federal Government. 

As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee I have outlined a plan to reduce the Federal bureaucracy, eliminate outdated and 

wasteful government programs, and to 

strengthen government’s ability to better serve the taxpayers. 

In January I kicked off a series of 

hearings on ‘‘Government Reform: 

Building a Structure for the 21st Century.’’ It is my belief that as we move 

into the 21st century, so should our 

Government. Innovative technologies 

should allow us to cut out many layers 

of management bureaucracy, and reduce Federal employment. Programmatic changes should also occur. 

Last month I released a report that 

asked the GAO to examine the current 

structure of the Federal Government. 

The GAO examined all budget and government functions and missions. They 

did not conduct in-depth analysis, but 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7369 

simply illustrated the complex web and 

conflicting missions under which agencies are currently operating. 

The GAO report confirms that our 

Federal behemoth must be reformed to 

meet the needs of all taxpayers for the 

21st century. I am convinced that it is 

through a smaller, smarter government 

we will be able to serve Americans into 

the next century. 

Deficit spending cannot continue. We 

can no longer allow waste, inefficiency, 

and overbearing government to consume the potential of America’s future. 

I am committed to spending restraint 

as we move to balance the budget by 

the year 2002. And I ask my colleagues—and all Americans—to support 

our efforts. 

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I believe 

that the Senate’s debate on the balanced budget amendment was a turning point in this session of Congress—

perhaps a turning point in the economic affairs of our country. It was important, not for its disappointing final 

vote, but for the issues it clarified. 

During that debate, opponents of the 

balanced budget again and again challenged those of us supporting it. If you 

really want a balanced budget, propose 

one. One Member of this body put it 

like this: ‘‘Let Senators get to work to 

show Americans we have the courage 

this amendment presumes that we 

lack.’’

This seemed like a good argument to 

many people—an argument against 

easy hypocrisy on the budget. Opponents of the balanced budget amendment pressed it as hard and as far as 

they could. 

They threw down a gauntlet before a 

watching Nation. This week, Republicans have picked it up. And those who 

made that challenge have fled from the 

field—proposing nothing constructive 

of their own. They revealed that their 

point in the balanced budget debate 

was not a conviction, but an alibi. 

For the first time since the 1960’s, 

thanks to this Republican 7-year budget—offered both in the House and Senate, we can see our way clear to a balanced budget. After 40 years of wandering in the desert of deficit spending, 

we are finally destined for the promised land of balanced budgets. 

There is courage in this budget—

courage we have not seen for decades, 

courage that makes this an historic 

moment. But, if we are honest, it is 

courage without alternatives. The status quo may be comfortable, but it is 

not sustainable. The road we are on 

may seem wide and easy, but it ends 

with a cliff, and the fall will be disastrous for our economy, disastrous for 

our people (including our seniors). Disastrous for our children, and for this 

Nation’s future. 

The figures are familiar, but they 

have lost none of their power to shock. 

Our national debt currently stands at 

$4.8 trillion, which translates into 

$19,000 for every man, woman, and child 

in America. This figure will jump to 

$23,000 by 2002. If we ignore our budget 

crisis, a child born this year will pay 

$187,150 over their lifetime just in interest on the national debt. 

The argument for immediate 

change—immediate restraint—is simple. It is one of our highest moral traditions for parents to sacrifice for the 

sake of their children. It is the depth of 

selfishness to call on children to sacrifice for the sake of their parents. If 

we continue on our current path, we 

will violate a trust between generations, and earn the contempt of the future. 

There is no doubt that we need cuts 

in government to balance the budget. 

But there is one more reason as well. 

We need cuts in government because 

government itself is too large—too 

large in our economy, and too large in 

our lives. Even if the books were balanced, we would still need a sober reassessment of the Federal Government’s 

role and reach. 

This is not a matter of money alone. 

We require cuts in government because 

endless, useless, duplicative programs 

should not be (to use a favorite term of 

the administration) ‘‘Reinvented’’—

they should be terminated. Because we 

reject the vision of a passive Nation, 

where an arrogant government sets the 

rules. Because we want to return, not 

only to an affordable government, but 

to a limited government. And those 

limits will help unleash the unlimited 

potential of our economy and our people. 

Votes we make during this debate are 

likely to be some of the toughest we 

ever cast. But if we are honest, most of 

those votes would not be tough calls 

for most Americans. I have yet to meet 

a man or woman from my State who 

believes that reducing the rate of 

growth in government is anything but 

a minimal commitment to common 

sense. 

The changes made by this budget are 

bold, but not radical. They are ambitious, but not dangerous. This is a 

careful plan to meet a specific need. 

Under the Senate resolution, Government spending will rise from its current level of $1.355 trillion to $1.884 trillion in 2002. This is an increase of nearly 40 percent. To put this in perspective, a family currently making 

$45,000—if its income grew at the rate 

Government will grow under the Republican plan—would be making $63,000 

in 2002. Surely a family could construct 

a budget to meet this higher level of 

spending. The Federal Government will 

be required, under the Republican plan, 

to do the same. 

There are honest disagreements 

about the merits and priorities of 

many of these reductions. I expect we 

will have a hard-fought debate. 

On Medicare, it was the President’s 

own commission which concluded: 

‘‘The Medicare Program is clearly 

unsustainable in its present form, we 

strongly recommend that the crisis 

presented by the financial condition of 

the Medicare trust funds be urgently 

addressed on a comprehensive basis.’’

Reforming Medicare and slowing its 

growth is precisely what the administration itself proposed. ‘‘We feel confident,’’ said Hillary Clinton, ‘‘that we 

can reduce the rate of increase in Medicare without undermining quality for 

Medicare recipients.’’ Ira Magaziner 

added, ‘‘slowing the rate of growth actually benefits beneficiaries considerably because it slows the rate of 

growth of the premiums they have to 

pay.’’

Under this budget, Medicare will remain the fastest growing item in the 

Federal budget, increasing at an annual rate of 7.1 percent. Spending on 

Medicare alone will grow from $178 billion this year to $283 billion in 2002—an 

increase of 59 percent. 

As promised, Social Security will remain untouched. Spending will actually increase from the current annual 

total of $334 billion to $480 billion in 

2002. One of our central goals has been 

to protect the integrity of the Social 

Security system. Social Security benefits will be preserved. 

I firmly support this budget—but I 

have two concerns, which will eventually come to the center of our debate. 

Our Government has a budget deficit 

which cannot be sustained. But there is 

another deficit that concerns Americans as well—a deficit in the resources 

of families to care for their own. A deficit we have created by increased taxation over the years, an erosion in the 

personal exemption. Many families are 

in a permanent recession, directly 

caused by Government policies. 

We must understand, first, that a 

balanced budget and family-oriented, 

growth-oriented tax relief are not mutually exclusive proposals. They are 

part of the same movement in America—a movement to limit our Government and empower our people. One idea 

implies and requires the other—when 

we reduce public spending, we should 

increase the resources of families to 

meet their own needs. That is a good 

investment, a sound investment. A dollar spent by families is far more useful 

than a dollar spent by Government. 

America can have a balanced budget 

and tax relief for families. No choice is 

necessary between them. One proposal 

in particular makes this clear. An 

amendment that will be offered by Senator GRAMM slows the growth of spending to 3 percent rather than the 3.3 percent currently outlined in the resolution—allowing additional funds for tax 

cuts. Giving the American people back 

just 1.5 percent of total budget spending is not too much to ask. 

Senator GRAMM’s amendment embodies the provisions of the families 

first legislation that I introduced earlier this year with Senator ROD GRAMS. 

It proves that deficit reduction and tax 

relief can go hand-in-hand. We have 

met the challenge of those who said it 

could not be done. Adding this provision to the budget resolution will prove 

to families all across the Nation that 

their concerns are a central element of 

budget reform. 

It is time to admit that when families fail, so does our society. Their financial crisis is as urgent and as important as any other priority in this 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7370 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

debate. The Gramm amendment is a 

way for the Senate to prove it. 

Much of the opposition to tax relief 

seems to be based on a myth—a myth 

that tax cuts somehow cost the Government money. But Government produces nothing, and has no resources of 

its own to spend. Tax cuts are not a 

waste of Government funds. They are 

simply a method to allow Americans to 

keep their own money and care for 

themselves. They are a method to build 

working independence as an alternative to destructive government paternalism. 

My second concern relates to our 

level of defense spending. The Clinton 

budget is clearly inadequate to retain 

our long-term readiness and the quality of life of our troops. On this issue 

we are talking about the primary purpose of government—to defend our national interests without placing our 

soldiers at needless risk. We have seen 

disturbing evidence in the Armed Services Committee that the Clinton level 

of funding will leave our forces without 

all the tools, training and conditions to 

fulfill the roles we will ask of them. 

Many of us are struggling to recoup 

at least some of this shortfall. Senator 

THURMOND will be proposing an amendment to restore a portion of this funding. I hope the Senate will support it. 

Mr. President, we have come to the 

beginning of the end of deficit spending 

in America. We have come to this place 

because there is no alternative. Two 

decades of promises, two decades of 

rhetoric, budget proposals, budget 

deals, tax increases, unfulfilled promises on spending cuts, all these have 

failed. This is the best argument for a 

balanced budget amendment—defeated, 

for the moment, by just one vote. So 

we turn to this effort—the only effort—

the only game in town. 

The President has abdicated his leadership on this most critical of all issues 

facing our Nation. Likewise, Democrats have offered no alternative of 

their own. 

So we have come to a time that is 

unique and historic—an authentic moment of decision. It is a moment to act 

worthy of our words and keep faith 

with the future. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

PROGRAM

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise 

in opposition to the Budget Committee’s proposals with respect to the 

Community Block Grant [CDBG] program. The Budget Committee’s report 

that accompanies the budget resolution recommends a 50 percent cut in 

the CDBG Program and calls for targeting CDBG funds to the most needy 

areas. I strongly oppose those. CDBG 

funds are a critical component of this 

Nation’s efforts to revitalize its lowand moderate-income communities. 

CDBG is already well-targeted to distressed communities, and, more importantly, CDBG is well-targeted to lowincome neighborhoods within those 

communities that receive the block 

grants. 

CDBG has been a major element of 

our Nation’s housing and community 

development strategy for over 20 years. 

CDBG was signed into law in 1974 by 

then President Gerald Ford. It is surprising to me that the Republican 

budget-cutters have targeted this program for inordinate cuts, because 

CDBG is an excellent example of the 

policy approaches that my colleagues 

on the other side of the aisle espouse. 

CDBG is a block grant. The program 

distributes its funds on a formula basis 

to State and local governments, and 

provides jurisdictions with flexibility 

on the use of the funds within broad 

national objectives. CDBG embodies 

the principle of developing responsibility and decision-making to local 

governments. It allows local governments to tailor specific solutions to 

meet their specific community development needs. 

The need for these resources is vast. 

Too many of our Nation’s communities 

still suffer. Vacant housing, closed 

plants, and empty shops are the visible 

manifestations of neighborhoods with 

persistent unemployment, broken families, and high crime rates. We know 

that revitalizing distressed communities requires a multi-faceted approach: successful strategies are using 

community-based organizations to deliver programs that simultaneously attack the physical blight while addressing the social service needs of the residents. With its built-in flexibility, 

CDBG allows local governments to implement comprehensive strategies that 

may, for example, combine the rehabilitation of the commercial strip, with 

the small business start-up loans, with 

the job training for local residents and 

the child care. 

The Budget Committee’s notion of 

targeting CDBG should also be considered carefully. CDBG is already welltargeted. The formula for the program 

does a good job of distributing CDBG 

funds by need: 50 percent of the program funds go to the 20 percent most 

distressed cities based on a distress 

ranking created by HUD. Only 5 percent of the funds go to the least distressed cities. Moreover, program data 

shows that 90 percent of the CDBG 

funds go to benefit low- and moderateincome households consistent with the 

national purpose of the program. 

In the past, proponents of targeting 

have proposed three types of approaches. Some have proposed to cut 

off formula grant funds to smaller 

communities, forcing these communities to compete for funds through the 

state-administered program. Others 

have proposed to eliminate grants to 

wealthier communities. And, still others would tighten the criteria HUD 

uses to measure program benefits. 

CDBG currently provides a direct formula grant to more than 900 urban 

counties, communities with populations above 50,000 people, and consortia of smaller communities. Allowing these communities to receive annual, reliable formula grants is extremely important from the perspective of the local jurisdiction’s need to 

plan for the use of the funds and to 

pursue long-term strategies. 

In some wealthier jurisdictions, 

CDBG rules often provide the impetus 

for community development activities 

in low-income neighborhoods that 

would not otherwise occur—especially 

if the communities were entirely responsible for serving their poorer 

neighborhoods out of own-source revenues. CDBG’s fundamental national objective of serving low- and moderateincome neighborhoods argues for a continued distribution of CDBG funds to 

all jurisdictions with these needs. 

Finally, it would be ironic if, by calling for targeting, the Budget Committee were proposing to tighten the 

criteria that govern how communities 

use the funds. Tighter targeting criteria would take away local discretion 

and flexibility, and, therefore, run 

counter to the philosophy of those who 

promote block grants. Moreover, forcing grantees to spend more of their 

funds to benefit poorer neighborhoods 

is not a rationale for a 50-percent cut 

in program funds. Indeed, the resource 

needs of our poorest communities are 

so vast, that if the program objective 

was based on only strict targeting to 

very poor neighborhoods, this would 

make the case for increased funding. 

I would argue that given the limited 

resources, preserving the current program targeting is desirable. States, 

counties, and cities may find that an 

optimal economic development strategy would be to use small amounts of 

CDBG assistance to leverage private 

investment in areas with other existing 

features attractive to investors. Grantees who have been losing population, 

may want to focus community development activities on stabilizing mixed income neighborhoods or in pursuing 

strategies to lure moderate-income 

households into low-income neighborhoods. These are local decisions and appropriate community development 

strategies. 

I oppose the Republicans proposed 

cut of 50 percent in CDBG Program 

funds because CDBG is making a difference in thousands of American communities. A recent evaluation of the 

CDBG Program by the Urban Institute 

concludes that ‘‘. . . the program has 

made an important contribution to 

city community development, including demonstrated successes in achieving local neighborhood stabilization 

and revitalization objectives. It’s fair 

to say that in almost every city, neighborhoods would have been worse off 

had the program never existed, and certainly, cities would not have embarked 

on the housing and redevelopment programs that now comprise a core function of municipal government. Further, 

CDBG-funded programs clearly benefit 

those for whom the program was intended—low- and moderate-income persons and neighborhoods—and does so 

by a substantially greater degree than 

the minimum required under law.’’

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7371 

Mr. President, CDBG has a proven 

track record. Our Nation’s communities continue to need our support. 

OPPOSITION TO TRANSIT CUTS

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I 

want to express my strong opposition 

to the Budget Committee’s proposal to 

eliminate Federal mass transit operating subsidies. 

The report that accompanies the 

Senate Budget Resolution calls for 

eliminating mass transit operating 

subsidies. Simply stated, these cuts 

will have significant consequences for 

our Nation’s communities by leading 

to increased fares, reductions in services, and losses in ridership. As a result, working people will find it more 

difficult and costly to get to their jobs, 

roadways will become more congested, 

and environmental quality will decline. 

Public transportation is a critical 

element of our economy. In 1990, 8.8 billion American took transit trips; 7.5 

million people ride public transportation every weekday. Of these trips 

54.4 percent are trips to work. An additional 20 percent of the trips taken by 

transit riders are to get to school or to 

access medical services. Trips to work 

are especially important uses of transit 

systems in large urban areas; use of 

bus service by elderly households to 

get medical attention is the largest 

component of rides in smaller communities and rural areas. 

A high proportion of transit riders 

are low-income persons or minorities, 

27.5 percent of the transit ridership has 

incomes below $15,000 compared to 16.9 

percent in the general population. African-American and Hispanic riders as a 

percentage of total ridership are more 

than two times the percentage of African-American and Hispanic individuals 

in the general population. However, the 

importance of transit for working people is underscored by statistics showing that 55 percent of the riders have 

incomes between $15,000 and $50,000. 

For most transit systems, operating 

revenues are a combination of fares 

and federal and state money. Assuming 

no increases in state contributions, 

fares would, on average, have to increase 50 percent to make up for the 

loss of revenue. Cuts in operating subsidies will also have disparate impacts 

on smaller communities. Federal operating subsidies make up 21 percent of 

total operating revenues for transit 

systems in communities below 200,000 

people compared to 13 percent on average for all transit systems. Fares 

would nearly have to double for these 

smaller systems. This assumes no cutbacks in services and no loss in ridership as a result of the fare increases. 

Many individuals faced either with 

increased fares or decreased service 

will either have to give up their employment or use their cars to get to 

work. According to an article by Neal 

R. Pierce in the National Journal on 

April 15 of this year, one study already 

puts the cost of traffic congestion at 

$100 billion a year in lost productivity. 

Fewer transit riders and more drivers 

will exacerbate this problem. More cars 

on the road and increased congestion 

will worsen air quality in metropolitan 

areas where environmental quality is 

already strained. 

I realize, Mr. President, that the 

Budget Resolution itself does not cut 

transit operating subsidies. Decisions 

with respect to the appropriate level of 

funding for operating subsidies are left 

up to the Appropriations Committee. 

However, I felt it was important to 

raise a voice in opposition to the recommendation in the Budget Committee’s report at this time and to urge 

my colleagues to begin to focus on the 

many cost to our citizens that would 

occur if the Budget Committee’s proposed cuts in transit operating subsidies were carried out. 

f 

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS 

ACT, 1995—CONFERENCE REPORT 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I submit a 

report of the committee of conference 

on H.R. 1158 and ask for its immediate 

consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 

amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 

1158) making emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster assistance 

and making rescissions for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 

recommend to their respective Houses this 

report, signed by a majority of the conferees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, the Senate will proceed to 

the consideration of the conference report. 

(The conference report is printed in 

the House proceedings of the RECORD of 

May 16, 1995.) 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

yields time? 

The Senator from Oregon. 

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I 

yield myself whatever time I require. 

Mr. President, the conference report 

before us reflects the agreement of the 

two Houses on H.R. 1158, a bill making 

emergency supplemental appropriations for the additional disaster assistance and making rescissions for fiscal 

year 1995, and for other purposes. 

This conference report is a culmination of several weeks of effort on a 

number of different fronts. It represents a balance between our responsibility to provide additional funding 

when necessary to address urgent national needs, on the one hand, and our 

responsibility to reduce funding for 

lower priority programs whenever and 

wherever we can, on the other hand. 

The Senate’s conferees on this measure 

present it to the Senate with a belief 

that it merits approval of this body, 

and I urge its adoption. 

The bill provides a total of 

$7,249,503,600 in additional appropriations, of which $6,700,000,000, equally divided between fiscal years 1995 and 

1996, is for FEMA for the disaster relief 

programs. We have fully funded the 

President’s request in this regard, and 

we concur with his designation of this 

funding as an emergency requirement. 

We also agree with the President’s 

request for additional emergency appropriations in response to the Oklahoma City tragedy and have provided 

$183,798,000 for that purpose. 

Finally, we are recommending 

$365,705,600 in nonemergency 

supplementals for fiscal year 1995. That 

latter figure includes $275 million in 

debt relief for Jordan as requested by 

the President and endorsed by the joint 

leadership of the Senate. 

In addition, the conferees reached 

agreement on rescissions of budget authority and other funding limitations 

totaling $16,413,932,975, and those reductions have been the focus of the debate 

throughout the consideration of the 

bill. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table summarizing the 

supplementals and rescissions recommended in the bill be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

H.R. 1158, SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AND RESCISSION BILL CONFERENCE AGREEMENT 

President’s request House allowance Senate allowance Conference 

Conference vs.—

President’s request House allowance Senate allowance 

TITLE I—SUPPLEMENTALS AND RESCISSIONS 

Emergency supplementals: 

FEMA disaster relief, 1995 ................................................................................ 6,700,000,000 5,360,000,000 1,900,000,000 3,350,000,000 ¥3,350,000,000 ¥2,010,000,000 1,450,000,000 

FEMA disaster relief, 1996 advance ................................................................. ................................ ................................ 4,800,000,000 3,350,000,000 3,350,000,000 3,350,000,000 ¥1,450,000,000 

Other emergency supplementals ....................................................................... 718,297,000 28,297,000 ................................ ................................ ¥718,297,000 ¥28,297,000 ................................

Subtotal, emergency supplements ................................................................ 7,418,297,000 5,388,297,000 6,700,000,000 6,700,000,000 ¥718,297,000 1,311,703,000 ................................

Other supplementals .................................................................................................. 434,672,000 85,471,600 306,915,600 365,705,600 ¥68,966,400 280,234,000 58,790,000 

Subtotal, supplementals ............................................................................... 7,852,969,000 5,473,768,600 7,006,915,600 7,065,705,600 ¥787,263,400 1,591,937,000 58,790,000 

Rescissions ................................................................................................................. ¥1,536,623,805 ¥17,187,861,839 ¥15,144,481,050 ¥16,247,831,476 ¥14,711,207,671 940,030,363 ¥1,103,350,426 

Reductions in limitations on obligations ................................................................... ................................ ¥201,791,000 ¥279,166,000 ¥166,101,500 ¥166,101,500 35,689,500 113,064,500 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS