S7416 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

granted, it would be spent in the manner suggested. 

It is subject to a point of order under 

the Budget Act, and I make the point 

of order. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

waive the Budget Act for consideration 

of the pending amendment, and I ask 

for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

of the Senator from Nebraska. On this 

question, the yeas and nays have been 

ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI] is 

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 43, 

nays 56, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.] 

YEAS—43 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Ford 

Glenn 

Harkin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—56 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Frist 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

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 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas 

are 43, the nays are 56. Three-fifths of 

the Senators duly chosen and sworn 

not having voted in the affirmative, 

the motion is not agreed to. The point 

of order is sustained. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if I might just ask the Senate if I 

could have 1 minute as if in morning 

business for a completely unrelated 

matter. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

(The remarks of Mr. DOMENICI pertaining to the introduction of S. 852 are 

located in today’s RECORD under 

‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and 

Joint Resolutions.’’) 

Mr. FORD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. 

Mr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent 

that I might have 1 minute, as the Senator from New Mexico, as if in morning 

business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

f 

ABSENCE OF SENATOR MIKULSKI 

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Ms. 

MIKULSKI] asked me to inform her colleagues that she is necessarily absent 

today because of a special event in the 

Mikulski family. 

Today, her niece, Val, and her nephew, Jimmy, are receiving their college 

degrees from Johns Hopkins University 

in Baltimore. 

In addition, I would like my colleagues to know that Senator MIKULSKI

is giving the commencement address at 

Johns Hopkins as well. She is also 

being honored by the university with 

an honorary doctorate for her outstanding life in public service, her commitment to strengthening higher education, and her work on behalf of the 

university. 

On behalf of all my colleagues, I extend the Senate’s congratulations to 

the family on this very happy day. And 

we know that the Senator and her family are very proud of the accomplishments of Val and Jimmy. 

f 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 

THE BUDGET 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1178

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding mandatory major assumptions 

under Function 270: Energy) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf 

of Senator BAUCUS, I send an amendment to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON] for 

Mr. BAUCUS, for himself, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. 

PRESSLER, Mr. ROBB, Mr. WARNER, Mr. FORD, 

Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. 

WELLSTONE, and Mr. EXON, proposes an 

amendment numbered 1178: 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of title III, add the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MANDATORY MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS 

UNDER FUNCTION 270: ENERGY. 

It is the sense of the Senate that within 

the mandatory major assumptions under 

budget function 270, none of the power marketing administrations within the 48 contiguous States will be sold, and any savings 

that were assumed would be realized from 

the sale of those power marketing administrations will be realized through cost reductions in other programs within the Department of Energy. 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the 

budget resolution assumes $1.6 billion 

from the sale of unnamed power marketing administrations, and I have cosponsored this amendment to express 

the Senate’s view that savings should 

be sought from other Department of 

Energy spending rather than from sale 

of the PMA’s. 

Some in Congress and the executive 

branch have tried for years to sell off 

parts or all of the public power generation, transmission and marketing system that we built in the middle of this 

century to bring affordable power to 

rural areas and many small cities. 

From the standpoint of our responsibilities to the public purse, such proposals are penny-wise but pound foolish. For a one-time gain in sale of assets, some propose selling off a system 

that has generated about $50 billion in 

power revenues, a system that has paid 

its way on time and with interest. 

In addition to net power revenues 

that come to the Treasury, the $21.6 

billion that was invested to build the 

PMA’s is being repaid by the power 

customers in the same way most of us 

repay our home mortgages. The system 

has paid off more than $5 billion of the 

initial investment, and $9 billion in interest. 

But, for me, the worst part about 

selling the PMA’s would be the effect 

on rural America. The PMA’s were 

built so our farms and small towns 

would have assess to dependable, affordable electricity. That promise has 

been fulfilled. 

However, the sale of the PMA’s would 

cancel the mortgage, so to speak, upon 

which the PMA’s and their customers 

have been faithfully making payments 

for years. It would add debt to the system and force substantial power rate 

increases across rural America. I have 

received estimates that customers in 

my State would see rate increases 

averaging 24 percent. 

In a budget resolution that would cut 

taxes to the most wealthy in this country, the provision for PMA sales would 

impose a kind of back-door tax increase upon rural America. 

The sale of PMA’s is foolish from a 

public policy standpoint, and it is unfair and hurtful to rural America. This 

body should voice its opposition to 

such a proposal by voting for this 

amendment. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, the 

amendment offered by the Senator 

from South Dakota would state the 

sense-of-the-Senate that none of the 

Power Market Administrations [PMA] 

should be sold and that the savings assumed from these sales should be taken 

from elsewhere in the Department of 

Energy’s budget. I intend to vote 

against this amendment, and I would 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7417 

like to take a brief moment to explain 

why. 

Many people have offered their interpretations of last November’s elections. The theme which reoccurs in almost all of these analyses is the desire 

of the American people to have a 

smaller and more efficient government. 

The budget before us lays out a road 

map which attempts to accomplish 

that goal. 

My colleagues are well aware that 

the assumptions included in the budget 

resolution are not binding. The authorization committees can set their own 

priorities as to how to meet the budget 

outlined in the resolution. We should 

not follow the advice of this sense-ofthe-Senate amendment that urges the 

authorizing committee to refrain from 

exploring all of the available budget 

options. 

The Power Marketing Administration sells power generated at Federal 

water projects to millions of Americans across the Nation. The power generated by these facilities is essential to 

many small and rural communities 

throughout my home State of Arizona. 

We should of course be very careful 

not to enter into any agreement which 

would result in unfair rate increases to 

the many people served by these systems, or that would result in the inefficient operation of these facilities. 

Nevertheless, the committee should 

be allowed to at least examine the 

issue. Several ideas have been discussed on how to down size the Federal 

Government in relation to the PMA’s 

either through sale, lease, or management contracts. 

The budget resolution suggests that 

existing customers could be given the 

first option to buy the PMA’s. Under 

this scenario, it may be possible for 

users to operate these facilities more 

efficiently than the Federal Government and actually reduce power rates. 

These and other ideas could and should 

be discussed to determine if it is possible to resolve this issue in a manner 

which will meet the public interest. 

Mr. President, I feel it would be inappropriate and an abdication of our responsibility to not even examine if and 

how we can reduce the size of the Government by exploring opportunities to 

provide power in a more efficient and 

cost effective manner. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the amendment that I have just offered proposes 

a sense of the Senate that the budget 

resolution not include language to sell 

the power marketing administrations 

except for Alaska; that offsetting revenue be found in the Department of Energy programs. 

This amendment recognizes that the 

production marketing associations 

contribute an annual $240 million a 

year in revenue to the Treasury while 

providing affordable, reliable power to 

32 rural States. The PMA’s are a vital 

part of this Nation’s infrastructure and 

should not be sold to net an estimated 

$165 million. 

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 addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the 

budget resolution scales back on the 

President’s proposals to sell PMA’s. 

We reduce the savings in the President’s budget by two-thirds or $2.9 billion. Our assumption can be accomplished by dropping the sale of the 

western PMA’s from the President’s 

budget. We also assume that existing 

customers get a preferential right to 

purchase the PMA’s. I think there are 

some Senators who know which PMA’s 

were in neither proposal. 

I wish to move to table the 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. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question occurs on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment. The yeas 

and nays have been ordered. The clerk 

will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI] is 

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 35, 

nays 64, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 212 Leg.] 

YEAS—35 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cohen 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Feingold 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Gregg 

Helms 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moynihan 

Roth 

Santorum 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Thompson 

NAYS—64 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Cochran 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dole 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Graham 

Grassley 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Moseley-Braun 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1178) was rejected. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the yeas 

and nays have been ordered on the underlying amendment. 

In view of the vote on the motion to 

table, I ask unanimous consent that 

the yeas and nays be vitiated. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, the yeas and nays are vitiated. 

The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment. 

The amendment (No. 1178) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, unless it 

was previously ordered, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 

WELLSTONE, MOSELEY-BRAUN, and EXON

be included as cosponsors of the 

amendment that was just agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I say to all 

Senators we are making great progress. 

There has been great progress on both 

sides. 

We have two amendments that I 

think we have tentatively agreed to accept by voice vote. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1179

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding reducing overhead expenses in 

the Department of Defense) 

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. LEVIN, for himself, and Mr. SIMON, proposes an amendment numbered 1179. 

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, insert the following new section: 

SEC. . DEFENSE OVERHEAD. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) the major discretionary assumptions in 

this concurrent budget resolution include 15 

percent reduction in overhead for programs 

of nondefense agencies that remain funded in 

the budget and whose funding is not interconnected with receipts dedicated to a program; 

(2) the Committee Report (104–82) on this 

concurrent budget resolution states that 

‘‘this assumption would not reduce funding 

for the programmatic activities of agencies.’’

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

of the Senate that the Committees on Armed 

Services and Appropriations should make a 

reduction of at least three percent in overhead for Fiscal Year 1996 programs of defense 

agencies, and should do so in a manner so as 

not to reduce funding for the programmatic 

activities of these agencies. 

Mr. EXON. This is the Levin-Simon 

amendment. The budget resolution assumes the 15 percent reduction in overhead for nondefense agencies. The 

Levin-Simon amendment is a sense-ofthe-Senate resolution which calls on 

the Senate Armed Services Committee 

and the Appropriations Committee to 

make at least a 3-percent reduction in 

overhead in defense agencies without 

reducing programmatic activities. I believe that, after a lot of discussion, this 

can be accepted by a voice vote. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7418 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is 

a sense of the Senate, and it in no way 

cuts the dollar amount of defense. Defense receives the exact amount of 

money as prescribed in the budget resolution. I have agreed to accept it and 

see how it works out. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

The amendment (No. 1179) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. LEVIN. 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. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1180

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding the essential air service program 

of the Department of Transportation) 

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. BAUCUS, for himself, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. 

BRYAN, Mr. SIMON, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. 

BUMPERS, Mr. STEVENS and Mr. EXON, proposes an amendment numbered 1180. 

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 end of title III, add the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PROGRAM 

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) the essential air service program of the 

Department of Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, United 

States Code—

(A) provides essential airline access to isolated rural communities across the United 

States; 

(B) is necessary for the economic growth 

and development of rural communities; 

(C) connects small rural communities to 

the national air transportation system of the 

United States; 

(D) is a critical component of the national 

transportation system of the United States; 

and 

(E) provides air service to 108 communities 

in 30 States; and 

(2) the National Commission to Ensure a 

Strong Competitive Airline Industry established under section 204 of the Airport and 

Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of 

1992 recommended maintaining the essential 

air service program with a sufficient level of 

funding to continue to provide air service to 

small communities. 

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

of the Senate that the essential air service 

program of the Department of Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of 

title 49, United States Code, should receive 

to the maximum extent possible a sufficient 

level of funding to continue to provide air 

service to small rural communities that 

qualify for assistance under the program. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this is another amendment that I believe we 

have worked out with the cooperation 

between both sides. This amendment is 

a sense-of-the-Senate amendment by 

Senator BAUCUS on essential air service, which I believe can be accepted by 

the managers. 

Mr. EXON. We have agreed to this 

and I urge its adoption. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to add Senator 

STEVENS as an original cosponsor. He 

was part of working this amendment 

out. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent 

that I be added as a cosponsor if I am 

not already one. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

The amendment (No. 1180) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1181

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding funding for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation) 

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 Montana [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. BAUCUS, proposes an amendment numbered 1181. 

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, insert the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING 

FUNDING FOR NATIONAL RAILROAD 

PASSENGER CORPORATION. 

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

in this resolution include the following: that 

Congress should redirect revenues resulting 

from the 1⁄2 cent of the excise tax rate directed by the amendments made by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 for 

fiscal years 1996 through 1999 to the account 

under subsection (e) of section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to a new account 

under such section for grants to the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation for operating expenses and capital improvements incurred by the Corporation. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment is the next one on our list. 

It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 

by Senator BAUCUS on Amtrak. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will 

oppose this amendment on a couple of 

bases. One is that a half cent of the 

gasoline tax would be transferred from 

the highway fund to a special new fund 

called the Amtrak trust fund. I believe 

we ought not do business that way. I 

urge that this amendment be tabled. 

I therefore move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to table. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI] is 

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 50, 

nays 49, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 213 Leg.] 

YEAS—50 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Campbell 

Coats 

Cochran 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—49 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Chafee 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Harkin 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Snowe 

Specter 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1181) was agreed to. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SHELBY). The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from New Mexico. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1182

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send 

an amendment to the desk on behalf of 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7419 

Senator GRAMS and Senator ABRAHAM

and ask for its immediate consideration. Senator LIEBERMAN is also an 

original cosponsor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. DOMENICI] for Mr. GRAMS, for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM

and Mr. LIEBERMAN, proposes an amendment 

numbered 1182. 

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: 

On page 73, line 2, strike ‘‘may be reduced’’

and insert ‘‘shall be reduced’’. 

On page 73, line 2, strike ‘‘may be revised’’

and insert ‘‘shall be revised’’. 

On page 74, line 12, strike ‘‘may’’ and insert 

‘‘shall’’. 

On page 74, line 13, strike ‘‘may’’ and insert 

‘‘shall’’. 

On page 74, line 21, strike ‘‘may’’ and insert 

‘‘shall’’. 

On page 74, line 16, insert the following before the period, ‘‘by providing family tax relief and incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic 

growth.’’

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

support this amendment because I believe that at least a substantial part of 

the fiscal dividend in the budget before 

us is set aside for family tax relief, incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic 

growth. 

Getting our fiscal house in order by 

balancing the budget represents a significant investment in our economic 

future. At the same time, I very much 

believe that providing family tax relief 

and savings and investment incentives 

is a significant investment in our collective and individual futures as well. 

The budget will inevitably require 

some painful adjustments. If we are 

asking the American people to make 

some of these adjustments, to share in 

this sacrifice, there should also be a 

light at the end of the tunnel. We 

should provide much-needed tax relief 

to the working families of this country, and tax incentives to the businesses of this country so that people 

will continue to have jobs at which 

they can work. 

As I understand it, the family tax relief envisioned by this amendment 

could embrace not only a middle-class 

child credit but a deduction for college 

and vocational training, much like the 

$10,000 education deduction proposed 

earlier this year by President Clinton. 

In my travels across Connecticut, I 

have found that the level of anxiety 

among parents over how to pay for the 

higher education of their children is 

very high. Even those parents who 

have scrupulously saved over the years 

are wondering how they can ever foot 

education bills that run up to hundreds 

of thousands of dollars. And it is important to point out that while an education deduction will make it easier 

for families to invest in the future of 

their children, an education deduction 

also represents a collective investment 

in the future of this country. 

We are all aware of two additional 

facts. First, savings and investment 

are critical to our future economic 

well-being, and second, we are not 

doing enough of either. At present, our 

budget deficit eats up our national savings by borrowing from our national 

savings pool to pay for our current 

spending. Our national savings rate, 

which has been hovering between 3 and 

4 percent of national income is not 

only historically low for us but three 

to four times lower than competitor 

countries such as Japan. This is a national crisis which the balanced budget 

before us attempts to address. 

That is one side of the equation. The 

other side is to jump start savings and 

investment in this country by providing tax incentives for savings and 

investment. Short of a complete overhaul of the Tax Code, along the lines of 

the thoughtful proposal that has been 

put forth by Senators NUNN and 

DOMENICI, I believe we should act now 

to reverse the downward savings trend 

in this country. 

The initiatives outlined above, combined with a steady path toward a balanced budget, will take us up to a higher plateau of savings and investment 

which will translate into new jobs and 

new growth in this country. I encourage my colleagues to support this 

amendment. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the 

amendment states that once balance is 

achieved and certified by the Congressional Budget Office, a reserve fund is 

provided to the Finance Committee for 

reduced revenues. 

If the Finance Committee reports a 

tax bill, it would include provisions for 

family tax relief and to stimulate savings and investment. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

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

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI] is 

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 54, 

nays 45, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 214 Leg.] 

YEAS—54 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Coats 

Cochran 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—45 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Chafee 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Snowe 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the amendment (No. 1182) 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. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1183

(Purpose: To propose a substitute) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf 

of Senator CONRAD, 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. CONRAD, for himself, Mr. REID, Mr. 

GRAHAM, Mr. SIMON, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. KOHL, 

Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. BINGAMAN, 

Mr. ROBB, and Mr. BYRD, proposes an amendment numbered 1183. 

(The text of the amendment appears 

in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Amendments 

Submitted.’’) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment received some debate, although limited. I think most Members 

of this body understand the proposal 

very, very well. I do not have enough 

time to explain it in great detail. 

Let me try to sum up very briefly. 

The fair share alternative offered by 

Senator CONRAD and others makes 

some very hard and necessary choices 

in the whole area of budget fairness. 

The Republican plan makes the wrong 

choices. 

This alternative gives us a plan that 

asks everyone to contribute. The fair 

share plan balances the budget by the 

year 2004 without counting the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund 

and achieves more deficit reduction in 

2002 than the Republican plan. 

The fair share plan freezes discretionary spending but restores $190 billion in public investment. The fair 

share plan restores funding to Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and 

other high priorities. It rejects the tax 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7420 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

cut targeted to wealthy and instead 

asks them to contribute by limiting 

the growth of tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy. 

The alternative does not balance the 

budget on the backs of the middle 

class, children, college students, and 

our elders. 

FINALLY, A ‘‘REAL’’ BALANCED BUDGET

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise 

today to applaud my colleague and 

friend, Senator CONRAD, for his work in 

constructing this amendment. As I 

learned in 1980 and again in 1985, it is 

not an easy task. But the Senator from 

North Dakota should be commended 

for his courage and resolve to focus his 

budget alternative on three bedrock 

principles that are essential if we really want to do the job. 

First, the Conrad alternative would 

comply with section 13301 of the Congressional Budget Act and would balance the budget without counting the 

surpluses in the Social Security trust 

fund. We’ve heard a lot of talk in the 

last few days about how the Republican 

budget resolution would balance the 

budget in 7 years, but the hard facts 

tell otherwise. Again, I would invite 

my colleagues to turn to page 7 of the 

Republican resolution where the deficit 

for fiscal year 2002 is listed as $113.5 billion. In contrast, the Conrad amendment is designed not only to talk the 

talk, but to walk the walk. Under this 

proposal by the year 2004, the Federal 

budget, excluding Social Security, 

would be in balance. 

Second, the Conrad approach recognizes that the Federal budget cannot 

be balanced through spending cuts 

alone. If we want a balanced budget, we 

have to have a balanced approach. No 

one relishes the idea of raising taxes, 

but the simple fact is that we could 

eliminate all spending on non-defense 

discretionary programs and the budget 

would still be out of whack. Instead of 

facing this budget reality, the Republican resolution plays Santa Claus, 

promising $170 billion in tax cuts that 

will be written in stone out of a economic dividend that may never materialize. 

Finally, the Conrad amendment protects programs that are crucial to our 

Nation’s well-being. The Republican 

strategy is an alarming permutation of 

a justification that we heard during 

Vietnam—that we had to burn the village in order to save it. Mr. President, 

that line was wrong then and it is 

wrong now. Programs such as education and biomedical research are crucial investments in our Nation’s future; drastic cuts in such programs are 

penny wise and pound foolish. 

While the Conrad approach offers a 

far more honest and realistic approach 

to balancing the budget, it is not a perfect plan. Specifically, I am concerned 

that the $170 billion economic dividend, 

which Senator CONRAD puts towards 

deficit reduction, may never materialize and that the elimination of tax 

loopholes may fall short of its $228 billion target. A far more certain and equitable alternative, I believe, would 

rely on a comprehensive 5 percent 

value added tax that would be earmarked specifically for deficit and debt 

reduction. Such an approach would 

reap additional benefits in encouraging 

national savings over consumption and 

in improving our international trade 

position through a border neutral tax. 

While we may differ on some of the 

specifics, let me again applaud the efforts of Senator CONRAD for his willingness to stop the gamesmanship of the 

past few days and to propose the first 

real balanced budget that we have 

seen. 

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as we approach final passage of the fiscal 1996 

budget resolution, I want to take a few 

moments to outline my views and concerns on this historic vote. 

CONRAD ALTERNATIVE

This morning I voted to support Senator CONRAD’s Fair Share Balanced 

Budget Plan offered as a substitute to 

the majority’s resolution. While this 

plan is far from perfect, it represents a 

fairer, more honest approach to fiscal 

discipline than the underlying budget 

resolution. 

The Fair Share plan would balance 

the budget by 2004 without counting 

the Social Security trust fund in the 

calculation. In other words, it would 

not use the Social Security surpluses 

to mask the true size of the deficit, as 

the majority’s resolution would do. It 

would produce $16 billion more in deficit reduction in 2002 than does the Republican plan. 

The plan would freeze non-defense 

discretionary spending, instead of cutting it $190 billion below a freeze, as 

the Republican resolution would do. As 

a result, this alternative would save 

critical investments such as education, 

technology, medical research, and important environmental clean-up efforts 

from far more severe cuts. 

The alternative would also lessen the 

severity of the Republicans’ cuts in 

Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition and veterans benefits. The plan would fully 

fund student loans. 

The alternative wisely contains no 

tax cuts. As I have said previously, I do 

not believe that now is the time to cut 

taxes. Revenue reductions only serve 

to make the hole we must dig ourselves 

out of that much deeper. Tax cuts 

skewed toward the affluent, as are 

those passed by the House, are especially difficult to justify. 

Finally, the Fair Share plan would 

cap the rate of growth for tax loopholes 

that benefit corporations and the 

wealthy. It would therefore ensure that 

all segments of society, including the 

most affluent, sacrifice to attain a balanced budget. This stands in stark contrast to the Republican plan. 

I do not support every element of 

this alternative, but I believe it makes 

an important statement: There are 

other, fairer routes to a balanced budget than the one offered by our Republican colleagues. 

FISCAL 1996 RESOLUTION

Mr. President, in my view, the underlying resolution is fundamentally 

flawed. It treats our people not as assets to be developed, but as items in a 

spending cut process. It burns the 

bridges that ordinary Americans use, 

or hope to use, or hope to use, to cross 

over to a better life for themselves and 

their families. And it requires the middle-class and the less affluent to cleanup from the fiscal train wreck of the 

1980’s. I would remind my colleagues 

that our budget would be in balance if 

we were not required to pay interest on 

the debt accumulated solely during the 

Reagan/Bush era. 

In an effort to lessen its adverse impact, I have supported numerous 

amendments to restore funding for 

vital Federal investments such as 

health care, education, and the environment. The cost of all of these 

amendments has been fully offset from 

other sources. I regret that few of these 

amendments have passed, but I am 

pleased that we were able to achieve bipartisan cooperation in restoring funding for the National Institutes of 

Health and partial restoration for student loans. I offered and cosponsored a 

number of amendments that would 

have restored greater funding for our 

critical investment in education. They, 

unfortunately, failed. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. President, the American middleclass is collapsing around us. A report 

just released by the Casey Foundation 

states that today, nearly a third of all 

men between the ages of 25 and 34 don’t 

earn enough to support a family of 4 

above the poverty level. That’s about 

two and a half times the number from 

25 years ago. 

There was a time when blue collar 

workers formed the bedrock of the 

middle-class. High-wage jobs for people 

without years of advanced education 

were plentiful, and a high school education was a passport to a healthy future. That time is gone. 

The United States now has the largest gap between rich and poor of any 

industrialized nation in the world. The 

richest 1 percent of American families 

now own 40 percent of our Nation’s 

wealth, whereas in Britain—our closest 

rival—the top 1 percent own just 18 

percent of the wealth. 

If we care about restoring opportunity and security to our people, then 

we’ve got to do better by them. If we 

want them to obtain the best jobs that 

the new economy has to offer, then 

they’ll need the best education, job 

training, and health care that this 

country has to offer. 

American politics is about change, 

Mr. President. But it is not about this 

kind of change. This debate should be 

about how we build a stronger and a 

richer America, not just fiscally, as important as that is, but economically 

and socially and morally, as well. 

Using this standard, this resolution 

fails. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7421 

In the days ahead, it is my sincere 

hope that we can work cooperatively 

together to put our fiscal house in 

order without jeopardizing our neighborhoods, our communities, and our future in the process. We can do better, 

and we must. 

GETTING PRIORITIES RIGHT

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in 

support of the alternative budget proposed by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator CONRAD. 

I have cosponsored this alternative 

because a budget debate is about priorities. The Republican budget resolution 

has its priorities all wrong. And the 

CONRAD alternative, which I helped put 

together, gets our priorities right. 

Mr. President, the problem with the 

Republican budget resolution is that it 

hits middle America in the stomach. It 

tells the elderly, most of whom live on 

fixed incomes, to absorb $256 billion in 

Medicare cuts. This budget asks the 

poor to suffer $175 billion in Medicaid 

cuts. It requires students from middleincome families to pay interest on 

their loans during their schooling, a 

total hit of $14 billion. And it would 

cut food and farm programs by $46 billion. 

As I have mentioned on the floor before, what is truly galling about the 

Republican budget is that it would use 

this hit to middle-income Americans to 

pay for $170 billion in tax cuts primarily for the wealthy. Tax cuts are irresponsible when we are trying to cut 

the budget deficit. And the budget 

passed by the House is even worse. It 

takes $350 billion from programs that 

people depend on and then uses that 

money to pay for tax cuts that would 

overwhelmingly benefit the rich. 

Our alternative is a sharp contrast to 

the Republican budget. My colleague 

from North Dakota and I are interested 

in very different priorities. 

While achieving more deficit reduction than the Republican plan, we 

would restore much of the funding for 

a few key domestic programs that the 

GOP budget would cut. We would add 

back $100 billion for Medicare. We 

would restore $50 billion for Medicaid. 

We would provide $24 billion more for 

food and farm programs. And we would 

soften the blow to our Nation’s students by $14 billion. All of these programs would still be cut, but not nearly so much under our alternative as 

under the Republican budget. 

To pay for our changes, we simply 

would ask the wealthy and big corporations to give up some of their tax 

breaks, get out of the corporate welfare 

wagon, and help the rest of us pull toward a balanced budget. 

We would require the Finance Committee to close $228 billion in tax loopholes for the wealthy and for big business. Foreign corporations that try to 

avoid taxes here could expect a crackdown under the Conrad budget. Multinational firms that try to hide their income from the IRS would have a far 

more difficult time. Billionaires who 

renounce their citizenship and retire to 

tax havens abroad would have to pay 

the taxes the rest of us have to pay. 

We have chosen these tax changes 

carefully. We would not touch the 

home mortgage interest deduction, the 

deduction for State and local taxes, or 

the deduction for charitable giving. 

These are provisions that millions of 

Americans depend on. We would also 

insist that any reduction in tax preferences target those who earn over 

$140,000 a year. 

Also, Mr. President, let me emphasize that we would use the $170 billion 

fiscal dividend for deficit reduction, 

not for tax cuts for the wealthy. That 

is what the American people want us to 

do—reduce the deficit first. 

And reduce it we do. This alternative 

budget would balance the budget (without counting the Social Security trust 

fund surplus) in the year 2004, two 

years earlier than the Republican 

budget would do so. We achieve more 

deficit reduction than the majority’s 

budget by the year 2002. 

Mr. President, there you have it. I 

will vote for this alternative because it 

does more to reduce the deficit and it 

shares the pain fairly. It asks all Americans to pay their fair share, and that 

is the right way to cut the deficit. 

Thank you Mr. President. I yield the 

floor. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the 

Republicans, in particular Representative KASICH and Senator DOMENICI, deserve credit for focusing the attention 

of Congress on the great need to balance the Federal budget. The evergrowing national debt is a weight on 

the growth of the economy. Merely 

paying the interest on the debt costs 

taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year and limits the Government’s ability to act effectively. I 

strongly support balancing the budget 

at the earliest possible date, and I realize that a lot of sacrifices will need to 

be made in order to reach a balanced 

budget. 

The Republican budget leaders in 

both the Senate and the House were 

brave enough to submit plans that call 

for a great deal of fiscal restraint and 

some hard choices. For that we should 

commend them. 

But, unfortunately for a lot of Americans and a lot of New Mexicans, the 

choices the Republicans have asked us 

to make are the wrong choices. With 

their eyes firmly fixed on providing tax 

loopholes to the rich and to providing 

an unspecified tax cut, the Republicans 

in Congress are forced to balance the 

budget in an unbalanced way. 

I am sure in coming weeks I will be 

criticized for not voting for the Republican budget. People will say I did not 

support a balanced budget. But the 

truth is that today I will be recorderd 

as having voted in favor of a balanced 

budget, the very same day the Republican budget passed. But the balanced 

budget I voted for—the Democratic alternative budget I helped craft—is a 

budget just as strict fiscally as the Republican budget, but fairer to seniors, 

students and working families. 

The Republican budget, in my view, 

is anti-working families, anti-seniors, 

anti-future, and anti-New Mexico. In 

contrast, the Fair Share Plan—formulated by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator CONRAD, myself and a 

small group of Democratic Senators—

does the following: 

I. ACHIEVES EVEN GREATER FISCAL DISCIPLINE

THAN THE REPUBLICAN PLAN

A. Balances the budget (on a unified 

basis) by 2002, just as the Republican 

plan does. 

B. Achieves total on-budget balance 

(that is, without using Social Security 

surpluses) by 2004, or 2 years before the 

Republican plan does. 

II. PROTECTS CRITICAL INVESTMENTS IN OUR

FUTURE COMPETITIVENESS

A. Restores non-defense discretionary spending to a hard freeze, providing almost $200 billion more than 

the Republican plan for critical investments in: First, education and training, second, infrastructure, third, research & development, and fourth, 

other areas that will boost our economic competitiveness in the 21st century. 

B. Freezes defense spending to the 

same extent as the Republican plan. 

III. REDUCES THE BURDEN ON MIDDLE CLASS

FAMILIES

A. Protects middle class seniors by 

restoring $150 billion from the Republican cuts in Medicare and Medicaid 

benefits. 

B. Restores to middle class college 

students and their families the full $14 

billion that Republicans propose to cut 

from student loans and other mandatory education accounts. 

C. Reverses the Republican plan’s cut 

in the earned income tax credit for 

lower-middle class and poor working 

families, by restoring $60 billion of the 

Republican proposal on income assistance programs. 

D. Only cuts $22 billion from family 

farm and nutrition assistance programs, $24 billion less than the Republican proposal. 

E. Restores half of the Republican $10 

billion cuts in veterans benefits. 

IV. ASKS THE WEALTHY TO PAY SOME FAIR

SHARE OF THE BURDEN OF BALANCING THE

BUDGET

A. Rejects the Republican $170 billion 

reserve for tax cuts that will mostly 

benefit wealthy taxpayers. 

B. Asks big corporations and wealthy 

taxpayers (couples making over $140,000 

per year, e.g.) to pay some share of the 

deficit reduction burden, by closing tax 

loopholes and by just limiting the 

growth in tax breaks and tax preferences for corporations and these 

wealthy taxpayers to inflation plus one 

percent (CPI + 1 percent). 

V. BRINGS ALL, AND NOT JUST SOME, OF THE

COMPONENTS OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES

UNDER CONTROL

A. The Republican budget proposal 

limits Federal direct spending to less 

than a 25-percent increase over the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7422 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

next 7 years, but allows Federal tax expenditures in the form of loopholes, tax 

preferences, and tax breaks to increase 

by almost 50 percent over the next 7 

years. 

B. The Fair Share Budget corrects 

this imbalance by limiting direct 

spending to just over 25-percent increase (cutting over $1 trillion in 

spending and interest over the next 7 

years), but also by slowing the growth 

of Federal tax breaks and tax preferences to a 35-percent increase over 

the same period. The alternative budget requires the cutting of just 5.7 percent of a projected $4 trillion of tax expenditures over the 7 years, and limits 

the cuts only to wealthy corporations 

and wealthy taxpayers (couples earning 

over $140,000, e.g.). 

VI. IS NOT ABOUT RAISING ANYBODY’S TAXES

A. Tax preferences or tax entitlements are one of the fastest growing 

categories of Federal spending. The 

Fair Share Balanced Budget resolution 

does not reduce these entitlements. It 

only slows their growth to inflation 

plus 1 percent. 

B. The Republicans cannot have it 

both ways. They cannot claim, on the 

one hand, that the Fair Share Budget’s 

proposed slow-down in the growth of 

tax entitlements for the wealthy constitutes a tax increase, but, on the 

other hand, claim that their slow-down 

in the growth of the earned income tax 

credit [EITC] (which is also a tax expenditure) is not a tax increase. If they 

claim that the Fair Share Budget includes a tax increase on the rich and 

big corporations, they must also admit 

that the Republican budget plan includes a tax increase on lower-middle 

class and poor working families. 

While not perfect, this Democratic 

alternative plan achieves the goal of a 

balanced Federal budget without asking America’s working families, seniors and students to bear all of the burden. But the Republican budget does 

not ask the wealthiest corporations 

and the wealthiest Americans to contribute one dime to balance the budget. 

Moreover, in order to secure a $170 billion reserve for tax cuts to benefit 

mostly wealthy people, the Republican 

budget trades away investments in our 

future—in education, infrastructure, 

and research and development—investments in our children. 

Remember that the main reason 

given for eliminating the deficit is that 

we are doing it for our children. But, if 

we free our children from the burden of 

the Federal deficit by depriving them 

of the education and training that they 

will need to compete and succeed in the 

global and technologically driven economy of the next century, then we have 

not been responsible. 

Education programs, for example, are 

especially important to New Mexico. 

My State has the third highest rate of 

children living in poverty of any State 

in the Nation. More than one in four 

children in New Mexico live in families 

with incomes below the poverty line. 

One-third of the students in New Mexico’s schools have limited proficiency in 

English. Its school-age population has 

grown tremendously, and a 12-percent 

increase in New Mexico’s population of 

school-age children is projected over 

the next 7 years. The Republican budget will cut programs for New Mexico’s 

schools by about 30 percent over the 

next seven years; that translates into 

tens of millions of dollars that New 

Mexico’s schools will have to do without as they struggle with these special 

problems. 

By cutting programs to help the children of working families go to college 

by nearly a third, which is being proposed by the GOP, tens of thousands of 

New Mexico’s students could lose the 

opportunity to go to college. That 

would be devastating to their futures 

and to the future of our State. In New 

Mexico, most higher education students receive Federal financial aid, including 33,000 students who receive Pell 

Grants. 

I do not believe that America will be 

well-served by the Republican budget, 

nor do I feel that most Americans 

would agree with the specific proposals 

contained within it. And that is why I 

am proud to have cosponsored the fair 

share balanced budget alternative and 

to vote for it today. 

In conclusion, I want to remind the 

Senate that the passage of any budget 

resolution today is only the beginning 

of a long process that will determine 

the priorities of our Government. The 

budget is only a framework for the appropriations committees to work with 

as they spend the summer determining 

specific spending levels for agencies 

and programs. 

Throughout this process, I pledge to 

continue to fight for proper funding for 

programs that will contribute to providing educational opportunities for 

our children, meet the health care 

needs of our senior citizens, and reward 

work and encourage innovation in the 

marketplace. 

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the 

floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 2 

years ago, we passed the largest tax increase in American history. This will 

be the second largest tax increase in 

American history. I do not think we 

ought to adopt it. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI] is 

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 39, 

nays 60, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.] 

YEAS—39 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Feingold 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

NAYS—60 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the amendment (No. 1183) was rejected. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was rejected, and I move to 

lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

want to say to the Senate, I apologize 

for the delay I caused. I thought I 

voted before I left. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE TWO HOUSES 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 

turn to the adjournment resolution, 

House Concurrent Resolution 72. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

Providing for an adjournment of the two 

Houses. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution? 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the concurrent 

resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution. 

The concurrent resolution (H. Con. 

Res. 72) was agreed to. 

The concurrent resolution is as follows: 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the 

Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, 

May 25, 1995, it stand adjourned until noon 

on Tuesday, June 6, 1995, or until noon on 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS