```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7198-S7225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             CHANGE OF VOTE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Iowa would 
yield for a unanimous-consent request in regard to a vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 178, I am embarrassed to say that 
I voted yes. It was my intention to vote no. I have been a proponent of 
the position of no. Therefore, I would ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of 
the vote. [[Page S7199]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I apologize to my colleagues.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. I understand I have 15 minutes, is 
that right?

                           Amendment No. 1126

  (Purpose: To reduce unnecessary military spending, holding military 
   spending to a freeze in overall spending over 7 years protecting 
  readiness and modernization activities and shifting the savings to 
   education and job training, restoring a portion of the reductions 
             proposed for those programs in the resolution)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mr. 
     Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 1126.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 12, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,800,000,000.
       On page 12, line 4, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 12, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 12, line 11, decrease the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 12, line 17, decrease the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 12, line 18, decrease the amount by $6,200,000,000.
       On page 12, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 12, line 25, decrease the amount by $6,200,000,000.
       On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by $4,800,000,000.
       On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
       On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by $6,200,000,000.
       On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by $6,200,000,000.
       On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by $4,800,000,000.
       On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by $4,800,000,000.
       On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 17, decrease the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 18, decrease the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 66, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 25, decrease the amount by $6,200,000,000.
       On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by $6,200,000,000.
       On page 67, line 6, decrease the amount by $10,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 7, decrease the amount by $6,200,000,000.
       On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by $6,200,000,000.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have before us a proposed budget that 
cuts over $1 trillion in Federal spending. It cuts health, education, 
training, veterans, and virtually everything else but for one item. The 
Pentagon is increased by $34.5 billion over what a hard freeze would be 
over the 7 years. Simply put, this budget jeopardizes our long-term 
national security by failing to invest in education, training, and 
infrastructure in order to preserve a bloated Pentagon budget and its 
cold war relics.
  Mr. President, the cold war is over, I would like to inform everyone. 
And guess what? We won.
  First let me explain exactly what my amendment does. My amendment 
will provide over the next 7 years for a hard freeze for Pentagon 
spending.
  Now, for the next 3 years, my amendment would track exactly what the 
Budget Committee does--exactly. For 1996, 1997, and 1998, my amendment 
would provide the same funding for the Pentagon as does the 
Republicans' budget proposal.
  Beginning then in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, I increase spending for 
defense but not as much as the Budget Committee.
  For example, in 1999, the Budget Committee provides $266.2 billion 
for defense. My amendment would provide $261.4, less than $5 billion 
less. So I track it, but what happens is over the 7 years my amendment 
freezes it--over the 7 years--and thus saves $34.8 billion.
  My amendment would take that $34.8 billion and put it into function 
500, which is education and job training. Education and job training is 
way below a hard freeze in the committee bill. The Defense Department, 
the Pentagon is above a hard freeze. I am bringing the Pentagon down to 
a hard freeze, taking that money, putting it into education and job 
training to bring it up to just under a hard freeze. It still would be 
below a hard freeze level of funding for education and job training, 
but at least it brings it up close to a hard freeze.
  But I wanted to make the point very clear, that for the first 3 years 
my amendment spends the same thing on defense as does the Budget 
Committee. And so those who would like to just kind of freeze 
everything, well, this is a freeze amendment. It freezes Pentagon 
spending for the next 7 years.
  Mr. President, I keep picking up these articles. I know Senator Byrd 
earlier talked about the articles that were in the Washington Post: 
Billions go astray often without a trace in the Defense Department is 
the headline in this recent story on Pentagon waste. It says the 
Department has spent $15 billion it cannot account for over the past 
decade. And Pentagon purchasing agents appear to have overdrawn 
Government checking accounts by at least $7 billion in payment for 
goods and services with little or no accountability.
  You want to talk about waste and inefficiency, start reading some of 
these articles about waste and inefficiency in the Defense Department. 
It boggles the mind and it picks taxpayers' pockets.
  I also want to point to a scandal that happened last December in the 
Air Force, and to my knowledge it still has not been resolved--a 
scandal. Gen. Joseph W. Ashy was in Italy. He wanted to get to the U.S. 
Space Command in Denver, CO. He could have flown commercially, could 
have gotten on a United Airlines flight. No, he got an Air Force C-141 
transport jet that flew empty from here to Italy, picked him up and 
flew him to Colorado at an estimated cost of $120,000.
  Did he fly alone? No, he took his cat with him. I guess he paid $85 
for his cat. But he listed on the manifest that his wife was going to 
be with him, that she was traveling with him. His wife was already in 
Colorado, and it turned out that there was a young Air Force aide, a 
21-year-old senior airman Christa Hart, a young woman traveling with 
him, and she was not even listed on the manifest but his wife was.
  You wonder why she was on that flight with him, at a cost of $120,000 
to fly this general. And the Air Force tried covering it up, and as far 
as I know they still have not explained it except to say that no 
regulations were broken.
  Well, I might just say that one-way, first-class fare from Rome to 
Colorado Springs is $1,617. But, no, General Ashy had to fly himself 
and his young female aide and his cat in a C-141 for $120,000, and they 
still have not fessed up to it. And I will bet you General Ashy will 
not even get his wrist slapped for wasting taxpayers' dollars like 
that.
  So there is a lot of waste in that Pentagon that we can clamp down 
on, and I think if they have a hard freeze over 7 years, then maybe 
they will start doing a little bit better accounting and they will 
start knocking out these luxury flights for generals and their cats and 
their 21-year-old female aides.
  The real story is here in the chart I have here as to why we do not 
need to continue to increase Pentagon spending. This chart illustrates 
how much the United States is spending this year on the military. It 
says $260 billion. Actually, it is $261 billion. Our NATO and other 
allies will spend $250.9 billion. So [[Page S7200]] total U.S., NATO, 
and our allies spending, $510 billion this year, fiscal year 1995 on 
defense.
  Well, what is the rest of the world doing? How about our potential 
adversaries? Here is Russia, $12 billion this year.
  In fact, last year the sum in Russia was $79 billion. This year, 
Russia cut military spending from $79 billion to $12 billion this year.
  Mr. President, I will ask consent to have an article printed in the 
Record about the Russian budget. The military defense officials in 
Russia have called it a disaster, but the Parliament did not listen to 
them. They went ahead and cut it to $12 billion.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                Russian MoD Labels Budget a Catastrophe

                          (By Anton Zhigulsky)

       Moscow.--Members of Russia's parliament, failing to heed 
     the military's call for increased funding, set defense 
     spending for 1995 at 46.5 trillion rubles ($12 billion).
       Defense Ministry officials have lobbied the government 
     during the past several months for a budget more than twice 
     as large--up to 110 trillion rubles ($29 billion).
       Defense Minister Pavel Grachev called the budget ``a total 
     catastrophe for the Army.'' The spending plan as passed put 
     the future of the armed forces ``under threat,'' he said 
     after the March 15 vote. ``It is a sin to keep an army in 
     poverty and half-starved.''
       On March 15 parliament's lower house, the Duma, passed the 
     fourth and final draft of the government budget, which will 
     take effect April 1. That budget saddles Russia with a 
     deficit of about 73 trillion rubles ($18 billion), or 8 
     percent of gross national product.
       The argument over the Russian defense budget has been 
     particularly contentious, especially since the costly 
     invasion of the separatist region of Chechnya in December.
       Grachev has argued that a defense spending level of 46 
     trillion rubles will affect readiness, equipment maintenance 
     and troop morale, all of which have been in a downward spiral 
     since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
       In a front-page appeal to parliament in the Defense 
     Ministry daily Krasnaya Zvezda on March 10, the ministry 
     warned that ``parliament has one last chance to prove that 
     the armed forces is not a stepchild.''
       In the past several weeks Krasnaya Zvezda has warned that a 
     demoralized armed forces, without the resources to train or 
     even house troops, may not be politically reliable if the 
     government is forced to quash a coup as it did in October 
     1993.
       On March 15, Russian soldiers suffered an additional 
     setback when the Duma voted to spend 1 trillion rubles ($250 
     million) to purchase weapons from the ailing defense 
     industry.
       The money had been earmarked earlier for the Army's day-to-
     day needs, such as housing and provisions, but deputies 
     decided to aid the cash-strapped defense factories instead.
       Finance Minister Vladimir Panskov acknowledged that the 
     1995 military budget is ``tough and even cruel,'' but said 
     the state could provide no more.
       ``There are matters of principle on which there can be no 
     concessions,'' he told the deputies.
       Krasnaya Zvezda blasted the vote, stating the following day 
     that it would be easier to disband the Army completely than 
     to subject it to the budget.
       ``This Duma has never understood the problems of the Army. 
     It is absolutely indifferent to the defense capacity of 
     Russia,'' the newspaper said.
       The Russian Defense Ministry also is under fire for its 
     handling of the crisis in Chechnya, and President Boris 
     Yeltsin has promised to pursue long-overdue changes in the 
     Army, which suffered humiliating losses to partisan fighters 
     in Chechnya.
       ``Chechnya has convinced us once again that we are too late 
     in conducting military reform. We must not delay any more. 
     The Army is starting to disintegrate,'' Yeltsin said Feb. 23.
       But military officials, complaining of a lack of money, 
     said reform can be carried out only if it is properly funded. 
     ``Without funding, there will be no reform,'' Grachev said in 
     the parliament March 16.
       According to Pavel Felgenhauer, a military analyst with the 
     daily newspaper Sevodnya, Russia's armed forces must be 
     reorganized quickly to avoid more combat deaths in the war-
     torn northern Caucasus region and in Tadzhikistan, where 
     Russian soldiers are bolstering the government in a civil 
     war.
       ``The situation in the Army is beginning to get out of 
     control. The new budget doesn't allow Russia to keep the Army 
     as it is. A combat-ready professional army will have to be 
     started urgently, within 12 to 18 months,'' Felgenhauer said.

  Mr. HARKIN. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a table that indicates what my amendment would do in terms of 
budget authority and budget outlays.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Fiscal year--                                                     
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     1995          1996          1997          1998          1999         2000         2001         2002        Total   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority:                                                                                                                                       
    Committee..................         261.4         257.7         253.4         259.6        266.2        276.0        275.9        275.9       1864.6
    Harkin.....................         261.4         257.7         253.4         259.6        261.4        266.0        265.9        265.9       1829.8
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Savings..................           0             0             0             0            4.8         10.0         10.0         10.0         34.8
                                ========================================================================================================================
Budget outlays:                                                                                                                                         
    Committee..................         269.6         261.1         257.0         254.5        259.6        267.8        267.7        269.2       1836.9
    Harkin.....................         269.6         261.1         257.0         254.5        258.6        264.4        261.1        263.0       1820.1
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Savings..................           0             0             0             0            1.0          3.4          6.2          6.2         16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what this chart says is that the United 
States and its allies are spending almost 10 times more than all of our 
potential adversaries put together. Here is Russia at $12 billion; 
China, 27.4 billion; North Korea, $5.3 billion; Iraq, $2.6 billion; 
Iran, $2.3 billion. Libya, Syria, and Cuba spend even less.
  You total up all of our potential adversaries--and I put Russia in 
there even though Russia is not a potential adversary at this time; and 
we have diplomatic relations with China--you add them all up and it 
comes to $54.37 billion. That is in the whole world what our 
adversaries are spending. We are spending $510 billion total; for the 
United States, $260 billion.
  If you just look at the United States, we are spending almost five 
times more than all of our adversaries put together. And yet the budget 
before us says it is not enough. We are going to increase it in the 
next 7 years, while we cut education, cut job training, cut Head Start, 
cut Pell grants. That simply defies common sense.
  We had this other chart yesterday when we talked about education. 
Look at what is happening. Here is the line that shows the cost of 
going to State universities per year, rising by the year 2002 to about 
$8,000 a year. Here is line for Pell grants that student rely on, going 
from $2,590 down to $1,500, almost a 40 percent cut in Pell grants over 
the same year--a 40 percent cut in Pell grants. That is what we are 
being asked to do. But, at the same time, we are being asked to 
increase military spending.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining of his 
time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when I have 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. President, I am sure you are going to hear from the opponents of 
this modest amendment Senator Bumpers and I are offering the argument, 
``Well, if we freeze it, it is going to cut into readiness, our ability 
to respond.''
  That is simply not true. This amendment would fully protect readiness 
and modernization. Believe me, there are places we can cut that have 
nothing to do with readiness or modernization. We can cut out some of 
this high-flying stuff that General Ashy was doing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article regarding General Ashy and his $120,000 flight last 
December.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S7201]]

                [From the Washington Post, Dec. 9, 1994]

Air Fare, Rome to Colorado: $120,000; General's Costly Flight Runs Into 
                    Flak on Hill (But the Cat Paid)

                          (By John F. Harris)

       A commercial flight was leaving the next day, but that was 
     not soon enough for Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ashy.
       Instead, the new leader of the U.S. Space Command traveled 
     on an Air Force C-141 transport jet, which flew him, one aide 
     and the Ashy family cat from Italy to Colorado at an 
     estimated cost of at least $120,000.
       Ashy's Sept. 9 flight on a 200-passenger plane specially 
     equipped with a luxury cabin and carrying a steward on its 
     crew of 13 was more convenient at the time, but it is causing 
     big trouble now.
       After a complaint from Capitol Hill, Defense Department 
     Acting Inspector General Derek J. Vander Schaaf agreed this 
     week to investigate the propriety of the flight and whether 
     Air Force public affairs personnel were truthful in answering 
     reporters' inquiries.
       Ashy, who followed Pentagon regulations by paying $85 fare 
     for the cat, declined to comment.
       A spokesman at the Space Command in Colorado Springs, Lt. 
     Col. Dennis Gauci, said Ashy and his aide considered flying a 
     commercial flight out of Rome on Sept. 10, but worried the 
     schedule would not give him enough time in Colorado the next 
     day to take an eight-hour training course on procedures for 
     alerting the president in event of an air attack.
       He was sworn in as head of the Space Command Sept. 13.
       Ashy, 54, a 32-year Air Force veteran and fighter pilot, 
     could not leave earlier, the Air Force said, because he was 
     still commander of the 16th Air Force in Italy, a job that 
     included directing air missions over Bosnia.
       Air Force officials in Washington acknowledge Ashy's flight 
     looks bad, but said no regulations were broken. Ashy, they 
     said, was on an especially tight schedule to get to his new 
     posting, and asked an aide to see if any government planes 
     were heading his way.
       Subordinates went overboard in accommodating his request, 
     according to an Air Force official at the Pentagon familiar 
     with the case, and an empty C-141 was ordered across the 
     Atlantic and back again to ferry Ashy to his new home.
       United Airlines is quoting a one-way, first-class fare from 
     Rome to Colorado Springs of $1,617.
       The C-141, which costs about $3,400 an hour to operate, was 
     dispatched from McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey to Italy 
     and on to Colorado.
       Total flight time was 31 hours, Air Force officials said, 
     and two mid-air refuelings were required that added to the 
     cost.
       The price tag gave Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) a case 
     of sticker shock, and he asked Vander Schaaf to investigate.
       In a letter to the inspector general, Grassley said he 
     learned about the incident from Newsweek military affairs 
     columnist David Hackworth, a highly decorated retired Army 
     colonel who is planning a story about the flight in next 
     week's issue of the magazine.
       Hackworth is ``disturbed by the arrogance that General 
     Ashy's behavior appears to represent,'' and believes ``Air 
     Force officials have `repeatedly lied' to him'' and an ABC 
     News producer who collaborated with him in investigating the 
     episode, Grassley wrote.
       The inspector general's office will ``determine whether the 
     travel was proper and reasonable, and address a number of 
     related matters, the most important of which appears to be 
     whether Air Force personnel were truthful in answering press 
     inquiries about the flight,'' Vander Schaaf said in a 
     memorandum Tuesday to Defense Secretary William J. Perry.
       Ashy had no idea until he got on the flight, according to 
     Gauci, that a C-141 had been dispatched especially for him.
       When an aide contacted the Air Mobility Command to ask 
     about transport, Gauci said, Ashy assumed he would be on a 
     flight that was already traveling from Europe to the United 
     States.
       ``General Ashy didn't specifically request that plane,'' 
     Gauci said, ``and he had no idea where that plane 
     originated.''
       The spokesman said Ashy also did not know the C-141, 
     ordinarily used for carrying troops and equipment, would be 
     equipped with a special ``comfort pallet,'' which includes 
     such amenities as first-class seating, a kitchen and a 
     sleeping area.
       The plane had recently been carrying U.S. Ambassador to the 
     United Nations Madeleine K. Albright on a flight to Russia, 
     the Air Force reported.
       Ashy's flight might not have been publicized, except for a 
     coincidence before taking off in Naples. Two retired military 
     officers and their wives, who are allowed to travel on 
     military planes on a space-available basis, asked the crew if 
     they could tag along.
       Even though the flight was flying nearly empty, Air Force 
     officials said the crew told them no, because they believed 
     Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado was not an allowed port 
     of entry into the United States for travelers not on Air 
     Force business. An Air Force official in Washington said the 
     crew was mistaken, and that accommodations for the foursome 
     could have been made.
       Vowing revenge, the spurned retirees took their grievances 
     to Hackworth, who began investigating. ABC's ``20-20'' is 
     also planning a piece on the incident for tonight's 
     broadcast.
       Air Force officials said the crew made other mistakes. The 
     manifest on the plane said Ashy's wife was with him on the 
     flight. In fact, the Air Force said, Ashy's wife was already 
     in Colorado, and the woman traveling with him was his 21-
     year-old aide, Senior Airman Christa Hart.
       ``Why did a young female enlisted aide . . . accompany 
     General Ashy on this flight?'' Grassley asked in his letter. 
     ``Why is Hart's name not listed on the flight manifest? Was 
     Hart performing normal official duties, or was there some 
     other reason for her presence?''
       Hart was on the flight because she is joining Ashy in his 
     new assignment, an Air Force official said. She serves as a 
     valet to Ashy and performs some protocol functions.

  Mr. HARKIN. We can cut that out. We can start having better 
accounting procedures. We can reduce the Milstar, for example, this 
relic that is no longer needed. If we cancel that, we save $3 billion 
over 7 years.
  Stopping production of the Trident D-5 missiles after 1996. After 
1996, we will have enough to equip all of our nuclear subs at START II 
levels. So why buy more D-5's? This would save $3.7 billion over 7 
years. And we could, for example, reinstate the fees on commercial arms 
sales to pay the U.S. Government for R&D costs, that again gives us 
about $500 million over this period of time.
  So, Mr. President, there are a lot of things we can do. We do not 
have to cut into readiness or modernization. I would not want to cut 
into readiness or modernization. But there is a lot of waste and a lot 
of inefficiency in the Pentagon that can and should be eliminated.
  Quite frankly, when you look at the defense budget, what it is now is 
a jobs program. That is what we are spending money in the Pentagon for. 
It is a jobs program. But I submit to you, Mr. President, there are 
more effective and efficient ways to invest in jobs programs than 
throwing it at the Pentagon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that he has 3 minutes 
remaining on his time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the remainder of his 
time.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes of my time.
  First of all, let me say to every Senator around, the argument that 
the U.S. Defense Department does not manage its business with 
perfection should come as no surprise. But should it surprise anyone 
that the Department of Education does not manage its business very 
well? Might that be a shock? I would assume there is as much waste and 
inefficiency in the Department of Education of the United States as 
there is in the Defense Department.
  Mr. President, I would say that HUD has more waste than the Defense 
Department.
  To talk about the fact that the Defense Department has made some 
mistakes is no argument at all to take $40 billion out of defense now 
on this budget resolution.
  Actually, this amendment should be turned down. I am hoping it will 
be turned down by a large number, by a large vote. But I think there 
are some who will say ``Well, let's just take it out of defense and put 
it on education.''
  Well, Mr. President, fellow Americans, the argument can be made on 
every single domestic need. Think of one: the National Institutes of 
Health. We are not able to fund them fully. A tremendous program. Take 
it out of defense. Defense is getting too much.
  We could have an array of amendments here and, by the time we were 
through, saying, pay for all these things we need, guess what would 
happen, Mr. President? The United States of America would have no 
military left.
  Now it seems to me that everybody knows we have put defense on a 
downward path over the last 8 years. This budget resolution still has 
to go to conference with the House. In this resolution, we have assumed 
the President's numbers. I am the first one to suggest I have not been 
very happy with the President's numbers. I did not vote on the last 
amendment to add some $80 or $90 billion in budget authority to 
defense. [[Page S7202]] 
  But I am here to say we ought to leave it alone. It is probably about 
as low as it ought to get.
  That does not mean that every American program on the other domestic 
side, from health to education, is fully funded either. There are many 
who would say defense is not fully funded either. The Chiefs of Staff 
of the United States military could tell us some things we ought to be 
doing that we are not doing.
  Mr. President, when we need the defense of the United States, when we 
need those men and women, we are not going to be arguing about some 
general using an airplane that he ought not use. We are going to say, 
``We hope they take care of that.''
  But let us take care of the men and women and our needs. And we know 
what they are.
  I only reserved 5 minutes on this amendment. I hope nobody assumes 
that I do not think it is a serious amendment. I do. And I hope no one 
gets the idea that all we have to do the rest of this debate is to 
bring amendments down here and offer to take money out of defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself one additional minute.
  After all, the point of it is that it is a big department of 
Government. It is the evidence of America's strength in the world. It 
ought to be big. It ought to be powerful. It ought to be strong.
  We have an all-volunteer Army. Nobody compares with that. When people 
say we spend more than everyone, of course we do. We pay our men and 
women in the military. They are not drafted. They are paid good 
salaries and have a good retirement because we decided that is how we 
wanted keep a strong military. This will begin the demise of the 
military and everybody will think it is for a good purpose. It will 
actually have a very serious, bad effect on America's future.
  I reserve whatever time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves 1 minute and 17 seconds.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, to hear the comments by my friend from New 
Mexico, you would think the amendment I am offering would totally gut 
the Department of Defense.
  As I pointed out, my amendment keeps the same spending for the 
Department of Defense as the Budget Committee does over the next 3 
years. That is my amendment. It continues the same spending. And then, 
for the next 4 years, it provides for just slightly less growth than 
what the Budget Committee has, slightly less growth.
  I am not cutting defense spending. I am just growing it a little bit 
less than what the Budget Committee does in the out years.
  Well, for example, as I said, for the next 3 years, spending under my 
amendment is the same as the Budget Committee. In 1999, the Budget 
Committee would spend $266.2 billion. I spend $261.4 billion. Over the 
total of the 7 years we would spend $34.8 billion less, bringing the 
Pentagon to a freeze level.
  Do you know what the difference is, Mr. President? Do you know what 
the difference between my amendment and the Budget Committee is? Two 
percent.
  You mean to tell me that someone can stand here with a straight face 
and say, ``Over the next 7 years, the Department of Defense cannot 
contribute 2 percent?'' What a joke.
  Then we hear people in the military, military officers, saying, ``Oh, 
we have to have more money.''
  Here is what Defense Minister Pavel Grachev called the Russian 
budget. He said it is ``a catastrophe for the Army.''
  Of course, military people are going to say that.
  But back to my chart, back to my chart, Mr. President. The United 
States is spending $260 billion this year.
  All of our adversaries combined only spend $54 billion--one-tenth of 
what we alone spend. Yes, we have to remain strong in the world. Yes, 
we have to pay our military people. Yes, we have to keep a strong 
presence around the globe. But at what expense? By wastefully throwing 
this kind of money at it?
  I am sorry, it is simply ridiculous to think that our modest 
amendment would even cause a disturbance for the Pentagon. It will not 
hurt readiness or modernization one iota. It will not cut one paycheck 
from the military. Two percent? We are cutting education. We are 
cutting everything a lot more than 2 percent. My amendment is just 2 
percent less than the committee's level for defense, a freeze, and we 
are told the Pentagon cannot even do that to help balance the budget.
  We are asking for sacrifice from our senior citizens, sacrifice from 
our students to make them pay more for their college loans, sacrifice 
from our poor to give up the earned-income tax credit, but we cannot 
ask the Pentagon to live with a freeze at a time when our enemies are 
spending only one-fifth as much as us combined? Two percent less than 
the recommended increase. It is not even a cut. And yet some argue we 
cannot even ask them to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will close by saying 2 percent is not too much to ask 
to help balance the budget of the future.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the world is not a utopia. There are dangers 
all over the world and there are growing questions as to whether we 
will be able to meet these challenges in the future.
  Must we repeat history and not be ready when the next major threat 
occurs? The readiness of our military is slipping. We are not procuring 
the equipment we need to meet a growing and unpredictable threat. The 
morale of the men and women who serve in uniform is declining.
  Mr. President, we are not even providing sufficient ammunition for 
proper training. We have already cut defense spending by over 35 
percent. Must we be doomed to repeat history--again?
  We need to take a look at where we are, and what we have done to our 
defense spending levels over the last 11 years. Since 1985:
  Ship purchases are down 80 percent; aircraft purchases are down 86 
percent; tank purchases have dropped to zero--a 100 percent reduction; 
and strategic missile purchases have dropped 95 percent.
  In 1993, the President proposed a 5-year defense spending plan which 
added $126.9 billion in cuts to defense spending--over and above the 
reductions previously made by President Bush. Now we need to 
understand, the cold war ended during the Bush Administration--and 
significant realignment of defense priorities occurred immediately 
following the fall of the Berlin Wall.
  Prior to 1993, defense spending was already cut--and cut deeply. 
Before the Members vote on the amendment by the Senator from Iowa, it 
is important to know what was cut prior to 1993.
  Military personnel were reduced by more than 350,000; overall defense 
spending declined by about 20 percent; our Navy dropped from 536 ships 
to 448 ships in the fleet; three aircraft carriers were eliminated from 
the fleet; eight Fighter Wings were cut from the Air Force; we slashed 
our strategic bomber fleet to 181 planes; and we terminated dozens of 
weapon systems.
  All of this was cut from our defense forces prior to 1993.
  The budget request this year, cuts defense spending even further. The 
procurement budget this year is at its lowest level in 50 years--and is 
$6 billion less this year, than last. Procurement spending under this 
budget is only 39 percent of the total defense budget.
  Now, I completely agree that we should only spend what is necessary 
for our national security needs. The question raised by this amendment 
is: Do we need to spend more for defense--or less? In order to answer 
this important question, you need to review the facts.
  Fact No. 1: The Defense Planning Guidance calls for a Navy fleet of 
346 ships in order to meet our national security requirements.
  But this budget does not provide funding sufficient to achieve and 
maintain a fleet level of 346 ships. Only by not retiring older, less 
capable ships are we able to even come close to the ship numbers we 
require.
  Fact No. 2: The Defense Planning Guidance calls for 184 heavy bombers 
in order to meet our security requirements.
  But this budget barely provides more than 55 percent of the required 
heavy bombers to meet our security requirements. The bomber plan is so 
bad, in fact, we will be forced--under this budget--to keep the B-52 in 
service until the year 2030. In 2030, the B-52 will be over 60 years of 
age. [[Page S7203]] 
  Fact No. 3: Before the budget was submitted to the Congress, the 
Secretary of Defense, on November 15, 1994 reported that fully one-
forth of our Army Divisions were far below peak preparedness.
  But this budget does not aggressively increase funding to solve this 
problem until the year 2000 and after.
  This century, America has failed to be prepared to protect her 
interests on three occasions. We failed to be ready in 1942 at Pearl 
Harbor, We failed to be prepared in Korea in the 1950's. Just over two 
decades later, we failed to be prepared to deal with the military 
challenges facing us in the deserts of Iran.
  Failure to prepare leads to a certain outcome--preparation for 
failure. Loss of military capability does not announce itself--except 
by failure.
  No Member of this body can predict when or where America will next be 
challenged. But just as the mighty Mississippi flows southward with 
lumbering power, on this you can be certain:
  American will again be challenged.
  America will again be forced to defend her interests.
  The only question yet to be answered is--will we be ready to meet 
these future challenges? If you believe American will not be challenged 
again, you should vote for Senator Harkin's amendment.
  If you believe however, that preparation is essential for victory and 
vigilance is our strength--then you should oppose this amendment. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in 1996 dollars, the Department of 
Defense has been reduced from $402 to $246 billion. Now, is there 
anyone that would like the American military and American defense to be 
like the Soviet Union? Of course they do not pay anything. They hardly 
pay their military. Would we like to do that? Would we like to say we 
do not need any new technology or innovation, or do we want to remain 
the strongest Nation on Earth? We have cut defense enough. If there is 
more money needed for education, we ought to take it out of some other 
program, not out of the Defense Department and the men and women who 
serve us there.
  I believe my time has expired. If not, I yield back the remainder of 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico yields back the 
balance of his time. All time has expired on this amendment.
  Under the previous order, the amendment will be laid aside at this 
moment.
  Under the previous order, we will go to the amendment of the Senator 
from Wisconsin. On the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator 
Feingold has 20 minutes and the Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes; 
10 minutes of the time of the Senator from New Mexico is granted to the 
Senator from Alaska.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.

                           Amendment No. 1127

        (Purpose: To strike provisions providing for a tax cut)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from 
South Carolina, Senator Hollings, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr. 
     Hollings, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Nunn, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
     Robb, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Simon, Mrs. Murray, and Ms. Moseley-
     Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 1127.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 74, strike beginning with line 8 through page 75, 
     line 22.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment, in addition to being 
jointly offered by Senator Hollings and myself, is also cosponsored by 
Senator Byrd, Senator Nunn, Senator Bumpers, Senator Kerrey, of 
Nebraska, Senator Robb, Senator Dorgan, Senator Simon, Senator Murray, 
and Senator Moseley-Braun.
  Senator Hollings will speak in a moment or two about this, but let me 
just say, first of all, this is really the moment when the Members of 
this body can convey to the American people whether they believe tax 
cuts are a priority or not. It is a clean vote.
  We can ensure the focus of this budget resolution stays on deficit 
reduction and deficit reduction alone by adopting this amendment. Other 
amendments before us that have been rejected have suggested we use the 
$170 billion tax cut fund for restoring Medicare cuts or education, 
earned-income tax credit. I think those were all worthy priority 
choices. They are all more important than a tax cut at this point. Mr. 
President, none of those amendments were adopted, and we stand here 
with there still being the $170 billion kitty, or cookie jar, existing 
in the budget resolution that came out of the Budget Committee.
  My amendment simply strikes the section of the resolution which 
establishes a special budget surplus account. The result will be that 
any additional savings that would have accrued to this account will 
instead simply go toward the purpose of deficit reduction. By striking 
the budget surplus allowance, any fiscal dividend that flowed to the 
Federal Treasury as a result of the deficit reduction contemplated in 
the resolution would reduce the amount the Government would otherwise 
have to borrow.
  It would eliminate the indebtedness of this country to the tune of 
$170 billion. Eliminating this cookie jar also brings us that much 
closer to really balancing the Federal budget without using Social 
Security, and this point has to be stressed and stressed again. It is 
my understanding that even under this budget resolution, we will still 
be using $113 billion of Social Security funds to balance our books in 
fiscal year 2002. Mr. President, this is not a balanced budget by the 
year 2002 unless you raid the Social Security funds.
  CBO estimates that in 2002, the so-called fiscal dividend might be 
$50 billion for that year by adopting this amendment. So instead of the 
$113 billion bite out of Social Security, we will reduce it by $50 
billion.
  This tax cut that is hidden in the budget resolution is the loose 
thread that threatens to unravel the budget, the potential tax cut 
funded from the so-called budget surplus allowance. This is the symbol 
of irresponsibility that remains in the budget resolution, and it is 
not just a little bit of money. It is three times the total that 
President Clinton proposed in terms of tax cuts earlier this year. He 
proposed about $60 billion. This is almost three times greater than 
that, Mr. President, and people did not think that was an insignificant 
amount either. It is a giant tax cut.
  At best, the budget that passes this body and finally the one that is 
agreed upon by both Houses will be unpopular. It cannot help but be 
unpopular. Some feel that adding a tax cut will sugar coat the medicine 
and make it politically a little bit less risky to balance the budget. 
But it will not. In fact, it will do just the opposite. A tax cut will 
only undercut any work that will be accomplished by Congress.
  First, it will make those tough cuts we do make suspect. Those whom 
we ask to sacrifice for the cause of deficit reduction will not be 
persuaded that their own sacrifice will not instead go to provide tax 
cuts to someone else, someone who may well be a lot wealthier than they 
are. The Senator from South Carolina and I think that is a formula for 
trouble. We simply cannot pass what may be a $1 trillion package of 
spending cuts, including massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and 
education and other programs, and then ask the Nation to support that 
package while promising tax cuts to everyone. It will not wash. Beyond 
that, the potential in this budget resolution for a tax cut is just too 
great of a temptation.
  What this $170 billion fund does, Mr. President, is essentially lay 
out a series of low-calorie menus for a dieter, asking them to eat only 
celery, carrots, some cottage cheese, maybe a little water, but at the 
same time we put right next to them a big piece of banana cream pie. 
That is what this tax cut is. We are not going to put the Federal 
budget deficit on a diet by providing for a tax cut. Nor will we assure 
the Federal Reserve and the financial markets by claiming we can do 
both. [[Page S7204]] 
  It is possible, the prospects of lower interest rates that might flow 
from really lowering the deficit will be lost, and if we do not act 
responsibly in this matter some will reject the claims we can have it 
all. By every measure I know, the Nation has expressed an overwhelming 
preference for deficit reduction over a tax cut. The mail and phone 
calls I have received from Wisconsin since November on this have been 
absolutely clear, because the people of the United States know what is 
at stake. They know there is no free lunch here. We can reduce the 
deficit and help ensure their children and grandchildren will have a 
Government that is financially sound or we can give a nice big tax 
break now and stick future generations with the tab. By significant 
majorities, people want the former. They want us to start paying off 
the bills that have been run up, and they want us to do it now. This is 
not a partisan issue. For my own part, I have opposed the tax cut plans 
of both parties because I believe it is the fiscally responsible thing 
to do.
  Mr. President, I hope that both sides come together in a bipartisan 
fashion. I have heard Members of both parties make absolutely 
unequivocal statements on the floor that they do not believe tax cuts 
can be a priority at this time. This is an opportunity to come together 
and say we can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 but only if we 
resist the temptation to go forward with a tax cut we all would like to 
vote for but cannot afford.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, this is the same amendment that I presented in the 
Budget Committee which was defeated by a 12 to 10 vote. At the markup 
in the Budget Committee markup, Democrats were characterized as wanting 
to take the surplus, and spend it, whether for Medicare, education or 
whatever; Republicans were criticized for taking the surplus to give 
tax cuts.
  The truth of the matter is that there will be no $170 billion 
surplus. But if part of it does materialize, it ought to go to reducing 
the deficit. That was the amendment I offered in committee, and that is 
the amendment that should today be adopted by the Senate if we are 
really sincere. But rather than have any light shed on the subject, we 
have been bombarded by irresponsible reporting on the budget in the 
last several weeks. Specifically, I refer to Time magazine's cover 
which said, ``This time it's serious. Budget resolution . . . for the 
first time in decades, Congress is committed to balancing the budget.'' 
Absolutely false. Turn to page 7 in the budget resolution itself. What 
word appears? ``Deficit'' by the year 2002. It does not appear 
``balanced.''
  On page 7, line 21, for fiscal year 2002 a deficit of $113.500 
billion, or, more accurately, on page 9, you can see how much the debt 
actually increases by the year 2002 over just 1 year--2001. It is 
$177.7 billion. That is the real deficit. We are all rhetoric and no 
reality. Republicans are already giving themselves credit and claiming 
to have done a wonderful thing which to some on the other side 
justifies a tax cut. But Mr. President, the American people know what 
is going to happen. Under this proposal, the tax cuts in stone and the 
spending cuts are going to slip by the board.
  Specifically, on this idea of committing to balancing the budget for 
the first time in decades, I submitted when I was chairman of the 
Budget Committee--and again in 1985. Everyone remembers Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings. That was a balanced budget--not in 7 but in 5 years. In 1991, 
we were treated to the budget summit. I remember at that time that 
members were slapping each other on the back and congratulating 
themselves on really getting the budget under control.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 1991 budget resolution deficit 
surplus figures appearing on page 21 of the budget report be printed in 
the Record at this particular time.
  There being no objection, the figures were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    CONFERENCE AGREEMENT TOTAL BUDGET                   
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1991       1992       1993       1994       1995  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority.    1,485.6    1,562.6    1,582.4    1,593.4    1,668.4
Outlays..........    1,236.9    1,269.3    1,305.0    1,324.8    1,355.5
Revenues.........    1,172.9    1,260.8    1,349.8    1,433.3    1,511.7
Deficit (-) /                                                           
 surplus (+).....      -64.0       -8.5       44.8      108.5      158.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. So, Mr. President, yes, they had a deficit for 1991 and 
1992. But at that time, their estimates projected a surplus in 1995 of 
$156.2 billion. The reality was much different. Instead of $156.2 
billion surplus, we have a $317 billion deficit--a swing of some $474 
billion off in the 3 or 4 years.
  There is no education in the second kick of a mule. We have been 
through this gamesmanship. Let us cut out the nonsense and get serious 
here and report accurately that we are not balancing the budget. You 
cannot do it without a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax 
increases.
  If there is any surplus, heavens above, let us allocate it to the 
deficit, because by 2002, we will have a $6.6 trillion debt with 
interest costs growing at the rate of almost $500 billion a year. That 
is, one-third of the budget is automatically going to interest costs, 
just the carrying charges, not to reduce the debt but just to open up 
the doors early every morning up here in Washington in the Government.
  So we cannot engage in this nonsense and gamesmanship. We have to get 
real.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allocated to the Senator has expired.
  Eight minutes remain of the Senator from Wisconsin's time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if a Senator on the other side wishes to 
speak, we can go forward.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me commend my good friend from 
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, for offering this amendment. I certainly 
support the idea that we can do more in deficit reduction and that a 
tax cut is ill-advised. However, I must reluctantly oppose the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee, I think we agree, has 
performed a very remarkable job in putting this budget resolution 
together. Senator Domenici and the staff of the majority and the staff 
of the minority have worked in good faith, and I think they have 
fulfilled the commitment that everyone of us in this body has made when 
he or she voted for the balanced budget amendment earlier this year.
  We have demonstrated that we can balance the budget and put our 
Nation's fiscal house on the road to solvency.
  Now, in addition to the savings that will occur under this budget 
resolution, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that a 
credible reduction in the deficit by the year 2002 would produce a 
fiscal dividend for the Federal treasury. We are all in agreement on 
that. CBO estimates that interest rates would be 1 to 2 percent lower, 
and real GNP would be nearly 1 percent higher by the year 2002 if we 
achieve a balanced budget.
  Now, because of these two factors, CBO estimates that we would reap a 
fiscal dividend of some $170 billion over a 7-year period, and as much 
as a $356 billion dividend over 10 years.
  The issue that has divided many Members on both sides of the aisle, 
and is the subject of this debate, is what should we do with this 
financial windfall if indeed there is one? During the debate we have 
been confronted with two specific choices. One, using the dividend to 
increase Federal spending, or, two, using the dividend to provide 
[[Page S7205]] tax cuts. So far, we have not been able to reach an 
accord on either proposal.
  The amendment being offered by my friend from Wisconsin would use the 
fiscal dividend to further reduce the deficit and, as a consequence of 
that--and this is the discomfort I have--it would absolutely preclude 
any possibility of a tax cut for this year.
  I really believe that this is the wrong time for the Senate to 
completely close off the tax reduction option--I emphasize option--at 
this time. Despite what many Members on the other side have said, this 
budget resolution--and I emphasize this--does not mandate a tax cut. In 
fact, there is no specific tax cut in this plan. What this budget 
resolution says is that if all of the committees in Congress adopt 
reconciliation legislation that produces a balanced budget in the year 
2002 and if--I emphasize ``if''--that reconciliation legislation makes 
it through a conference committee--and that is a big ``if''--and then 
is signed into law by the President, then and only then may Congress 
consider reducing taxes.
  The CBO will have to certify that the reconciliation legislation 
does, in fact, produce a balanced budget. That is, CBO must certify 
that the budget is balanced in the year 2002. CBO will have to provide 
an estimate of how much additional savings will be achieved through 
lower interest rates and increased economic growth. CBO may determine 
that the savings are as projected, $170 billion; on the other hand, 
they may be lower or higher.
  Once CBO has provided that savings estimate, only then can Congress 
consider cutting taxes. Obviously, we do not necessarily know what 
interest rates might be.
  In any event, in the Senate, the decision whether to cut taxes is 
going to be first made by one committee. That is the Finance Committee, 
and that is a committee that I serve on. As a consequence, in the 
Finance Committee, I intend to make every effort to convince my 
colleagues on the committee that the CBO economic dividend should be 
used for further deficit reduction rather than tax cuts.
  Mr. President, if this amendment by my good friend from Wisconsin is 
adopted, and if we completely foreclose the future option of reducing 
taxes, this Senator, the Senator from Alaska, is concerned that this 
balanced budget resolution may not receive a sufficient number of votes 
to pass this body.
  I believe it would be far worse for our Nation's economic health if 
we fail at this effort to bring the deficit to zero than it would be if 
we merely retained the longer-term option of reducing taxes. It is for 
that reason, Mr. President, that I must reluctantly oppose the 
amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator retains 3 minutes 35 seconds of 
his time; Senator Domenici of New Mexico has 10 minutes of his time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the other side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 8 minutes 1 
second.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself about 3 or 4 minutes and 
then will have to absent myself from the floor, and I will be back. 
Perhaps the other side can use part of their time.
  Mr. President, the budget that we crafted that is currently before 
the U.S. Senate, I believe, is a fair way to handle the American people 
and to say to them, ``Once you get a balanced budget, for all the 
sacrifice that goes into that, there is some positive to come out of 
it.''
  We all understand that when we get a balanced budget and we no longer 
are borrowing money, when those out there that set interest rates based 
upon money supply see that America is for real, interest rates come 
down. There is no question.
  Americans should not think we are going through this event in our 
history, one of the most significant in modern times, of putting our 
fiscal house in order, deciding that we finally want to pay our bills 
ourselves as adults instead of having our children and grandchildren 
pay them--there ought to be a bonus for that. We ought to get something 
out of that.
  Incidentally, in this case, the major economists that look at fiscal 
policy of this Nation--perhaps they are just startled by the fact that 
we are finally going to live within our means and be rational and talk 
about what we can afford and what we cannot afford--they say there will 
be an economic bonus, an economic dividend. There will be a change 
sufficiently large in interest rates that when we get to balance, we 
get an economic dividend of somewhere between $150 to $200 billion if 
it is done in the manner prescribed in this budget resolution.
  So what did we say? We said simply, we are not going to have tax cuts 
until the event is completed--the balancing of the budget. So we say, 
when all of these laws are changed by the Congress, that is finished, 
then we can ask the CBO, the real number estimators for our land, are 
we there? Have we reached that point, that event? Is it real? When they 
say, ``Yes,'' they will then say there is an economic dividend. We will 
say then and only then is that released to the Finance Committee of our 
U.S. Senate to be used for tax cuts.
  Now, Mr. President, there are many people in this body and many 
American people who think we ought to have a tax cut for the American 
people. Especially one that focuses in on the American family.
  Frankly, I agree with that. I said my first priority as the chairman 
of the Budget Committee would be to get a balanced budget. I believe we 
got one. I believe that this is historic, and if carried out, the 
economy will get better, interest rates will come down, and I believe 
we have a brighter future if we stay there for about 10 years, in 
balance, paying bills, reducing the debt, instead of borrowing more and 
more every year.
  Now, I think the Senator from New Mexico thinks at that point in time 
when we finish that work, we ought to give the American people at least 
an opportunity to get a tax cut, to get some relief, especially for 
families. That is what this budget resolution does.
  Now, frankly, there are some who would like to spend that dividend. 
We have heard from them. I do not know that there will be any more 
opportunities on the Senate floor to spend that dividend again or to 
use it differently. We have been through that.
  Now we have reached the point in time where those who are not for 
this budget resolution--and I assume the Senator who offers this 
amendment is not for this budget resolution. Perhaps that is a false 
assumption. If it is, he might tell the American people he will vote 
for this budget resolution. That would be interesting. I surmise he 
will not say that. If he does, I would say, ``Wonderful.''
  From that side of the aisle there will be a huge number of votes 
saying after we get there, we want to say what to do with it, and we do 
not want to give the American people a tax cut even after the balanced 
budget when the economic dividend is available and we are still in 
balance.
  I do not believe that amendment ought to pass. I do not believe the 
motion to strike that part of the budget should pass. That is why I am 
speaking tonight. I have spoken enough, perhaps, today and I am not 
sure I will speak much more. Maybe another 3 or 4 minutes before this 
amendment is finished.
  Essentially, while I compliment the Senator who offered the 
amendment, he obviously is really interested in fiscal prudence, in 
making sure that we use common sense, as he says. I believe the common 
sense was all exercised before he ever got to the floor, before this 
amendment ever arrived, when Republican Senators decided to balance the 
budget. We hope when we are finished that some Democrat Senators will 
join Republicans.
  That event was completed. Now we come to the floor and say, ``No 
dividends to America. Just strike it out of this budget resolution.''
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator has a little over 7 
minutes remaining on his time. The Senator from Wisconsin is 
recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Wisconsin. [[Page S7206]] 
  While the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is still on the 
floor, let me tell him I fall into the latter category of one who is 
thinking if we do not do any more damage, that I may be one, and there 
are several on this side of the aisle, I might inform the Senator, who 
are thinking about voting for the budget that emerges --not because we 
think it is the perfect vehicle.
  Indeed, tomorrow, some Members will have an alternative, hopefully, 
to that particular vehicle.
  I want to compliment the Senator from New Mexico. I have known him 
for about 15 years. I have respected his willingness to make tough, 
principled decisions in attempting to bring some sense of fiscal 
responsibility to an otherwise undisciplined Federal Government over a 
long period of time.
 I said on this floor the other day, that I thought he deserved 
enormous credit for giving us a target, something that was truly 
important.

  I support the amendment of my friend, the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin, because I believe we ought to make it clear that deficit 
reduction is the most important objective we are attempting to achieve 
at this particular time. We are not truly balancing the budget even if 
we stick to the numbers we are dealing with, because we continue to 
mask the total budget in the Social Security surplus. It will be about 
$113 billion out of true balance, but it is exactly the same kind of 
obfuscation we have been using for years and I am certainly willing to 
give all the credit that is due for moving in that direction. But in 
this particular case, if we are serious about deficit reduction, I 
think the only message we can leave at this point is we are prepared to 
make some tough choices.
  Several on this side are willing to make those tough choices with our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. One of the most difficult 
votes for me was one just two votes ago when I had to vote ultimately 
against a very substantial increase in defense spending. Not because I 
do not think we need it, because if we are serious about fighting two 
major regional conflicts and winning in the years ahead we are going to 
have to put more money into the defense budget, even more than the 
President has added back right now. I accept that responsibility and 
will continue to work on it. But I thought it was a discordant message 
with respect to deficit reduction.
  That is why I am prepared, with several colleagues, I believe, to 
support the ultimate product of this debate. I hope we will find ways 
to amend that particular end product so we can have something that has 
the kind of balance that many of us want to achieve. But I think the 
most important thing we can do is keep our eye ultimately fixed on the 
target, which is to bring it into what is balance using the $113 
billion that will be available from the Social Security surplus.
  With that I yield whatever time I have remaining and I thank the 
Senator from Wisconsin for offering this particular amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. First of all let me thank the Senator from Virginia for 
his tremendous support on this issue all along.
  Now I would like to yield to the Senator from Illinois, who has also 
been as solid as can be in trying to impose these tax cuts.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Feingold who, 
from day one, when both parties were talking about tax cuts, said, 
``This does not make sense. Our priority has to be to get this budget 
balanced.''
  As I have said half a dozen times on the floor, and I said it in the 
Budget Committee, I commend Senator Domenici for moving toward a 
balanced budget. I disagree with how we get there. But the question is 
right now on a tax cut. The next best thing to passing this amendment 
is to do what Senator Murkowski said on the floor just a few minutes 
ago. He said, as a member of the Finance Committee he is not going to 
vote for a tax cut. And I commend him for that statement.
  When my friend from New Mexico says there ought to be a bonus, we 
ought to get something out of it, I think the bonus is to have this 
budget in balance to get our fiscal house in order. When he says we 
ought to get something out of it--I know he has more children, and more 
grandchildren I believe, than I do. If my three grandchildren can have 
a better future, that is what we ought to be interested in. I think, 
frankly, passage of the Feingold amendment moves us in that direction.
  I know the Senator from New Mexico well enough to know he will not be 
heartbroken if the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin is agreed 
to. I hope it will be agreed to. I am certainly going to vote for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I just take 30 seconds and say to 
my good friend, Senator Simon, I think you know a lot. But you do not 
know whether I will be heartbroken or not. That is pure speculation. I 
spoke rather vigorously against it. All my instincts and all my 
abilities are to speak against it. I have done the very best I can.
  You draw your conclusion. I draw my own.
  Mr. SIMON. All right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska, who has also been extremely helpful on this issue.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend for yielding for 1 minute. 
I find myself very much in the position just articulated by my friend 
and colleague from the State of Virginia. We have to make hard choices 
here. I felt about that amendment that he referenced about like he did. 
But if we are going to make the hard choices then I think we should 
make them. Therefore I endorse thoroughly the amendment offered by my 
friend from Wisconsin and my friend from South Carolina.
  Certainly, in times like these, when we are talking about the concern 
for the defense needs and all the other needs we have been talking 
about all during this debate, it seems to me we have no way or reason 
to be talking about a tax cut. If there is any money left over after 
doing what we think is obviously necessary for national defense and 
these other programs we would be talking about, then that is where the 
money should be spent. If not there, to reduce the deficit.
  I hope the Senator accepts the amendment that is being offered and 
debated at this moment.
  I yield any remaining time I might have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the ranking member and ask how much time we 
have left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute and 10 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me use the last brief period of time 
to say in response to the Senator from New Mexico that one thing has 
been accomplished even if we do not win on this vote. That is, the 
early effort to pretend there was not a tax cut in the Senate budget 
resolution is over. They are admitting it now, that there is this fund 
and they are not willing to eliminate it. That is progress. Because 
that was the first attempt.
  Why are we not able to support the resolution in this form? It is 
because the proposal of the Senator from New Mexico is out of balance 
in the year 2002 because of this very problem of this $170 billion. In 
fact, what it is, is what is left of the crown jewel of the Republican 
contract. It is basically lying on the floor now after the vote earlier 
today; 69 to 31 the U.S. Senate rejected the Gramm amendment which was 
the crown jewel of the Republican contract. This is all that is left of 
it.
  This amendment is an opportunity to say what all the American people 
really know, which is we cannot afford this. As the Senator from 
Nebraska said, we are either going to do deficit reduction or we are 
not. This amendment is the one that allows both parties to come 
together and strike the iron while it is hot.
  I hope the Senator from Alaska is right and we get it done in the 
Finance Committee but we should do it now on the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado controls 6 minutes 
and 36 seconds.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am an admirer of the Senator from 
Wisconsin. [[Page S7207]] He has, I think, forthrightly brought forth 
before the Senate a number of proposals that are meant to save money. 
So I rise out of concern over his amendment, not over concern over the 
Senator himself but concern over the implication. Let me simply go 
directly to the point.
  He made what I thought was a very interesting analogy. He talked 
about this amendment as a proposal to go on a diet, to eat carrots and 
celery and other such things. But then to put at the end of the diet a 
large piece of pie.
  I do not think that is an appropriate analogy. Let me tell you why. 
What this budget resolution is is a diet. I think the Senator from 
Wisconsin is right about that. There is no question the Federal budget 
is overweight and this is a diet. This is carrots and celery. As a 
matter of fact, I think it is so good there might be some lean beef in 
here, too, all of which is very helpful to lose weight. But the 
potential at the end of the rainbow here is not a piece of pie. What it 
is, is the question of whether or not, when you have gone on the diet, 
you can have your suit altered. What it is is a question of whether or 
not you can put a swimming suit on.
  If the Senator from Wisconsin wins, what he is going to say is you 
can go on your diet, which is the first time you have done it in many, 
many years. You can lose the weight, you can eat that celery, you can 
eat those carrots. But at the end of the period we are not going to let 
you take your suit off. You are going to have to walk around in the 
same baggy suit. There is no reward.
  You can do your job. You can make the tough decisions. But, by golly, 
you cannot put on a swimming suit and let other people see how trim and 
attractive you are. Believe me, America is trim and attractive, if ever 
it gets its budget in balance.
  Now, that is what the issue is. It is not a piece of pie. It is 
whether or not you can enjoy the fruits of your efforts.
  Mr. President, we have had lots of inflated rhetoric about budgets. 
Everyone knows it. Everyone knows every time we promise to get the 
budget in line, it has not worked. And the reason it has not worked is 
because this Congress continuously overspends its own budget. So we 
need some help. There is no question about it. And is the promise that 
if we mind our P's and Q's, if we eat our carrots and celery, that we 
will get some reward at the end, some help? I think so. We need some 
help. I do not think anybody can seriously suggest that this Congress 
does not need help in sticking with its budget resolution.
  Now, there is a unique aspect of this. This budget resolution does 
not commit to a tax cut. What it says is if you pass the budget 
resolution, if it all scores out and if you come back and fully 
reconcile it and fully pass that reconciliation--and I think everybody 
knows that is going to be tough and is perhaps unlikely--and if you 
reconcile in a way that the President signs--and that is an even more 
difficult question because the President has not been enthusiastic 
about signing things that cut spending--if you get all that, then you 
may be able to talk about this.
  So what we are talking about is a little incentive for a Congress 
that I believe is desperately in need of some incentive, is desperately 
in need. What happens here is if you eliminate any incentive and you 
have a Congress that goes back to its old ways of overspending its own 
budget, you make it much less likely that we will ever get to the 
promised land, that we will ever keep on our diet.
  Mr. President, what is the impact of going to someone who is on a 
diet and saying if you make the diet, there is going to be no reward at 
the end? Well, it is pretty clear. You diminish the incentive to get it 
done.
  It is my judgment, Mr. President, and I think one of the American 
people, that we ought to be talking about more incentives to get this 
Congress to stay on its diet, not less. I hope the Members will reject 
this amendment.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Maine wishes to speak on 
this subject. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. BROWN. I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes off the 
resolution to the Senator from Georgia on the subject at hand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold amendment of which I 
am a coauthor, to apply the $170 billion fiscal dividend to deficit 
reduction. The $170 billion set aside in this resolution for a later 
possible tax cut is certainly more responsible than the House approach 
beginning with a $1.2 trillion deficit exercise by cutting taxes. The 
House approach to me is like going on the wagon and beginning with 
chugalugging a bottle of whiskey. To me that is the analogy.
  The Senate approach is to set the money aside until after a 
reconciliation bill is enacted and then making it available for a tax 
cut at the discretion of the Budget and Finance Committees and, of 
course, Congress' later approval.
  Mr. President, I believe this fiscal dividend brought about by lower 
interest rates and higher economic growth will exist if we balance the 
budget by 2002. I do not think it is funny money, but I think it is 
very fragile. If we touch it by using it either for increased spending 
or tax cuts, I am afraid it may break. There is a strong probability 
that the spending slowdown in Medicaid, Medicare, education, 
agriculture, and other areas will generate more and more opposition 
from substantial segments of America before the cuts are passed by the 
Congress and certainly before they are fully implemented over a period 
of years.
  There is also a probability that in cutting projected spending by 
over $1 trillion in a 7-year period Congress will inadvertently make 
some serious errors which cause extreme hardship and which will have to 
be corrected.
  Mr. President, if my choice is to use the dividend, the $170 billion, 
for tax cuts or for easing the most severe impacts on Medicare, 
education and low-income working Americans, I believe the priority 
should be on easing the impact, and my votes reflect this.
  However, those are not the only two choices. In effect, until this 
amendment is voted on, we will have been choosing between either 
spending the $170 billion or refunding it. In either case, we will be 
spending and refunding before we have earned the dividend, in my view. 
If I have a choice, as we do on this amendment, however, of using the 
$170 billion, which has not yet been earned because we passed no 
reconciliation bill--and even when we pass one, we all know, looking at 
catastrophic insurance and others, when the public rises up in arms 
over some action by the Congress, it does not take us long to step 
back, and that may happen. I hope it does not, but it may happen in 
some of these cuts. I think the Feingold amendment is the responsible 
way to go because we will be putting this $170 billion on the deficit 
from the very beginning, and it will in effect be a contingency fund so 
that if we have to back up or some of the cuts do not work out as 
projected, we can still work on the goal in the year designated.
  If this amendment passes, there will be a small cushion, a small 
margin for error in economic assumptions or other assumptions in this 
plan to achieve a balanced budget by 2002.
  I would also remind all of my colleagues who believe, as I do, that 
we should be balancing the budget without using the Social Security 
surplus, leaving the fiscal dividend alone and applying it to deficit 
reduction, as we will do if this amendment passes, would help us move 
toward the goal of a real balanced budget in the operating accounts 
rather than simply a unified balance which we all know simply postpones 
the day of pain when the general fund has to start reimbursing the 
Social Security fund for the billions and billions of dollars owed. In 
fact, it will be trillions by the 2010-2013 range.
  Mr. President, I understand the analogy my friend from Colorado used 
about going on a diet and eating celery and carrots and getting thin. 
But I would remind my colleagues that when we get to 2002, if 
everything works out in this budget as planned, we will still have to 
borrow the Social Security [[Page S7208]] trust fund of $107 billion. 
And if we keep adding to the deficit, we will, under this resolution, 
at the time we get to 2002, instead of being slim and trim in a 
swimsuit, we are going to still owe to the people holding bonds and 
notes and Treasury bills all over this country something to the tune of 
about $6 trillion to $7 trillion. I believe the number is now about 
$4.9 trillion that is the national debt.
  So we will not be slim and trim. We will be bulging over our bathing 
suits, but we will simply stop in that year adding to the fat and the 
bulge. So I am not sure we are going to all want to put on our bathing 
suits in 2002 and show the bulges that have been building up for the 
last 40 years. Nevertheless, that would be a rather optimistic view.
  While the exact estimate would depend on what savings and enforcement 
provisions were enacted in the reconciliation bill, CBO's previous 
estimate of the fiscal dividend was about $350 billion in 2002. If we 
applied that to the deficit reduction, we could cut the real deficit, 
excluding Social Security, in half from about $100 billion to $50 
billion in that year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used the 5 minutes yielded to 
him.
  Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield me 1 more minute? I think I can 
complete in 1 more minute.
  Mr. EXON. If the Senator could complete in 1 minute. We are in a real 
crunch tomorrow for time, much more than most people realize.
  Mr. NUNN. I will complete in 30 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. One more minute.
  Mr. NUNN. Thirty seconds.
  We all know that someone has to face up to the Social Security 
problem. We all know the Social Security system is not going to be the 
same for those in their 20's, 30's, and 40's today. It cannot be. And 
the longer we avoid facing up to that problem, the worse the problem is 
going to be. Balancing the budget without the continued use of the 
Social Security surplus to finance other Government spending is an 
absolute necessary first step in that effort. I urge my colleagues to 
strike the reserve fund in this resolution and thereby apply these 
funds to the deficit. We must focus all of our efforts on creating a 
fiscal dividend before we refund it or consume it.
  I thank the Senator from Nebraska. I thank my colleagues.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Maine is recognized.

                           Amendment No. 1128

 (Purpose: To increase funding for mandatory spending in Function 500)

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while that amendment is en route, might 
I ask, did I yield back the remainder of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That time was yielded back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe], for herself, Mr. 
     Abraham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Brown, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Cohen, 
     Mr. Lott, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Simpson, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1128.

  Ms. SNOWE. 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 26, decrease the amount on line 20 by $200,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 21 by $100,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 3 by $200,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 4 by $300,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 11 by $200,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 12 by $300,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 19 by $200,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 20 by $300,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 2 by $200,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 3 by $300,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 10 by $200,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 11 by $300,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 18 by $200,000,000.
       On page 28, decrease the amount on line 19 by $300,000,000.
       On page 31, increase the amount on line 12 by $900,000,000.
       On page 31, increase the amount on line 13 by $500,000,000.
       On page 31, increase the amount on line 20 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 31, increase the amount on line 21 by $800,000,000.
       On page 32, increase the amount on line 3 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 32, increase the amount on line 4 by $900,000,000.
       On page 32, increase the amount on line 11 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 32, increase the amount on line 12 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 32, increase the amount on line 19 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 32, increase the amount on line 20 by 
     $1,100,000,000.
       On page 33, increase the amount on line 2 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 33, increase the amount on line 3 by 
     $1,100,000,000.
       On page 33, increase the amount on line 10 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 33, increase the amount on line 11 by 
     $1,100,000,000.
       On page 48, decrease the amount on line 10 by $300,000,000.
       On page 48, decrease the amount on line 17 by $300,000,000.
       On page 48, decrease the amount on line 24 by $300,000,000.
       On page 48, decrease the amount on line 25 by $100,000,000.
       On page 49, decrease the amount on line 6 by $300,000,000.
       On page 49, decrease the amount on line 7 by $200,000,000.
       On page 49, decrease the amount on line 13 by $300,000,000.
       On page 49, decrease the amount on line 14 by $300,000,000.
       On page 49, decrease the amount on line 20 by $300,000,000.
       On page 49, decrease the amount on line 21 by $300,000,000.
       On page 50, decrease the amount on line 2 by $300,000,000.
       On page 50, decrease the amount on line 3 by $300,000,000.
       On page 54, decrease the amount on line 20 by $400,000,000.
       On page 54, decrease the amount on line 21 by $400,000,000.
       On page 55, decrease the amount on line 2 by $500,000,000.
       On page 55, decrease the amount on line 3 by $500,000,000.
       On page 55, decrease the amount on line 9 by $500,000,000.
       On page 55, decrease the amount on line 10 by $500,000,000.
       On page 55, decrease the amount on line 16 by $500,000,000.
       On page 55, decrease the amount on line 17 by $500,000,000.
       On page 55, decrease the amount on line 23 by $500,000,000.
       On page 55, decrease the amount on line 24 by $500,000,000.
       On page 56, decrease the amount on line 5 by $500,000,000.
       On page 56, decrease the amount on line 6 by $500,000,000.
       On page 56, decrease the amount on line 12 by $500,000,000.
       On page 56, decrease the amount on line 13 by $500,000,000.
       On page 64, decrease the amount on line 9 by $500,000,000.
       On page 64, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $4,300,000,000.
       On page 64, decrease the amount on line 11 by 
     $6,500,000,000.
       On page 65, decrease the amount on line 17 by $900,000,000.
       On page 65, decrease the amount on line 18 by $500,000,000.
       On page 65, decrease the amount on line 24 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 65, decrease the amount on line 25 by $800,000,000.
       On page 66, decrease the amount on line 6 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, decrease the amount on line 7 by $900,000,000.
       On page 66, decrease the amount on line 13 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, decrease the amount on line 14 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, decrease the amount on line 20 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, decrease the amount on line 21 by 
     $1,100,000,000.
       On page 67, decrease the amount on line 2 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 67, decrease the amount on line 3 by 
     $1,100,000,000.
       On page 67, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 67, decrease the amount on line 10 by 
     $1,100,000,000.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I think that there is no question that 
education is one of the highest priorities that we can give in this 
budget resolution, and certainly we should do everything that we can to 
ensure that it receives our greatest attention.
  So I am very pleased to be able to offer an amendment in conjunction 
with many of my colleagues--Senator Abraham, Senator Grassley, Senator 
Cohen, Senator Brown, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Lott, Senator Chafee, 
and Senator Simpson--to restore $6.3 [[Page S7209]] billion in the 
education account. While education will play a key part in the future 
of America's children, let us not also forget the goal of this entire 
process of this budget resolution and the debate we are engaged in to 
balance the budget by the year 2000 is the greatest gift we could 
possibly bequeath to future generations of Americans.
  I know there have been various efforts to restore funding towards 
education, but the amendments that have been offered have certainly 
contained fundamentally flawed funding mechanisms. There has been much 
talk and discussion here in the Senate about the dividend that the 
Congressional Budget Office may provide to score the budget if we put 
in place a balanced budget by the year 2002, and that we may achieve a 
savings of up to $170 billion.
  But that may or may not materialize at the end of 7 years and, 
obviously, as each year goes by, it will be determined whether or not 
the targets have been met under this balanced budget resolution that 
hopefully will be enacted into law, as well as reconciliation.
  But I do not think that on an issue as important as education that we 
can premise the restoration of funding through an illusory estimate 
that, as I said, may or may not be there at the end of this budgetary 
process.
  But furthermore, the purpose of the budget resolution is to provide 
instructions to the Appropriate Committees, both the authorizations as 
well as the Appropriations Committees, as to what funding levels they 
can rely upon in which to conduct their work.
  So they need to know what the bottom line is, and that is what the 
budget resolution is all about, to tell them how much they can spend 
and they, accordingly, make the determinations as to how they will 
proceed within the aggregate numbers that have been provided to them in 
the respective functions within the Federal budget.
  I think we are playing a dangerous numbers game if we think we are 
going to just restore funding based on this dividend that, again, may 
not materialize. I do not think that we can be fiscally presumptuous in 
basing these numbers on such a funding mechanism. I think that we have 
the obligation to provide reliable, straightforward, factual estimates 
and data to the appropriations committees and the other committees 
which will be engaged in the work in trying to determine how they reach 
these funding levels that will be contained in this budget resolution.
  But the amendment that I am offering today with my colleagues, as I 
said earlier, takes a fiscally responsible approach but, at the same 
time, helps to address the educational needs of the next generation.
  Mr. President, we restore $6.3 billion in additional funding, but at 
the same time we provide for specific offsets. Now, of course, the 
appropriate committees may not follow those recommendations. They have 
the option of pursuing other categories for specific reductions in 
spending. But we have provided the offsets by reductions in funding for 
the intelligent vehicle program, NASA R&D for commercial aircraft, new 
Federal building construction, reducing the executive branch air 
carrier fleet from 1,500 planes to 1,350 planes and capping employee 
bonuses, Federal employee bonuses at $100 million from the present $300 
million.
  We think that there are certain priorities that we should target in 
any budget resolution and throughout the budgetary process of this 
year, one of which certainly should be to help provide very critical 
and important assistance to low- and middle-income families who depend 
upon Federal assistance to provide the educational assistance for their 
children.
  Our amendment ensures adequate funding to protect several very 
important policies regarding student financial aid. What we want to do 
and accomplish as a result of this amendment is to ensure that the 
Labor and Education Committee is enforced to make changes in the 
student loan programs that affect home and farm equity, in the 
determination of eligibility for student loans, increasing the student 
loan origination fee or eliminating the grace period for beginning 
payments upon graduation.
  Our aim and goal is to ensure that there are sufficient funds within 
this account to preclude the Labor and Education Committee from taking 
these steps, and our amendment is intended to provide enough money to 
protect those policies.
  The impact of including home and farm equity in the calculations of 
eligibility for Federal assistance would be enormous on so many 
families all across this country. All we need to do is to examine the 
situation which occurred prior to the enactment and the reauthorization 
of the Higher Education Act of 1992, when home and farm equity was 
considered in determining income eligibility for student assistance.
  The inclusion of the value of family home or farm in the need 
calculation meant that many hard-working middle-income families were 
not able to qualify for student aid. These hard-working families, for 
whom their home or farm was their only real asset, were punished by 
being shut out of Federal student aid programs.
  So in 1992, Congress recognized what a serious problem this had 
become for many families in America. So, consequently, the 1992 higher 
education amendments exempted a family's farm or principal resident 
from the student aid program in the calculations of their need. This 
made it possible for low- to middle-income families to receive help 
from the Federal Government to send their children to college, rather 
than requiring them to try to mortgage their home or farms in order to 
pay for their education.
  We want to make sure that Congress does not change the present law, 
which has made college more affordable for thousands of low- and 
middle-income families, and that is why we worked so hard to provide 
reasonable offsets which will hopefully guarantee the continuation of 
present law which eliminates consideration of the home and the farm 
from the needs analysis for student aid programs. We think that these 
offsets are a fair trade.
  As I said earlier, the committees may determine that they can use 
other offsets, and that is certainly within our purview and the 
prerogatives of the committee.
  Our amendment is intended to ensure that those individuals and 
families living off limited incomes will continue to have access to 
Federal student aid to send their children to college. The fact is that 
farms and homes should not be included in the calculation of a 
student's eligibility for student grant or loan assistance because 
those assets are not liquid and cannot be easily converted to cash for 
students to use toward their college education.
  The second aspect of our amendment is student loan original fees 
which, I think, is also a critically important issue in terms of costs 
regarding education. OBRA 1993 reduced the original fee for both 
subsidized and unsubsidized loans from 5 percent to 3 percent. We 
believe that that is an important change and would like to see the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee maintain this policy. Increasing 
the loan origination fee increases the principal amount that borrowers 
must repay to the Federal Government and the amount of interest the 
student must pay.
  Our amendment would provide enough money to hopefully protect the 
present origination fee formula. Finally, our amendment would also 
ensure there is an adequate grace period for those students after they 
graduate from college. We know that certainly in these difficult 
economic times, students upon graduation do not easily find employment, 
and the current grace period is up to 6 months.
  We think it makes sense for us to continue to provide a grace period 
because students do not often find gainful employment immediately, and 
we do not want to force them into a situation where they end up 
defaulting on their student loan almost immediately upon graduation. So 
this grace period gives them a chance not only to find employment but 
also to begin planning so that they can eventually make the payments on 
their monthly loans.
  As we know from the cost of college education and postsecondary 
education, it has become a very, very expensive proposition for the 
students, as well as their families.
  We are offering this amendment because we recognize that productivity 
and the performance of our economy is [[Page S7210]] intertwined with 
the investments that we make as a Nation in education.
  The structural changes in the American economy, the revolution 
technology, have made it necessary for students to attain training 
beyond high school for the work force of the future.
  While nearly 40 percent of today's jobs are in low-skill occupations, 
only 27 percent will fall into that category by the year 2000. At the 
same time, jobs in high-skill occupations will rise from 24 percent to 
41 percent of the work force.
  Looking at the new jobs that are being created, and will be created 
in this decade, more than half of the new jobs created presently 
between now as well as the year 2000, will require education beyond 
high school.
  In fact, the median year of education required by the new jobs is 
13.5. This is a year and a half beyond high school. Therefore, every 
worker is going to have to recognize that they will require not only 
high school education but certainly a postsecondary education of some 
kind, whether it is a 4-year college degree or technical education. 
Whatever it will be, it will require not only postsecondary education 
but schooling beyond that, as well.
  Men and women who continue their education beyond high school, as we 
have seen in study after study, have consistently earned more money on 
average each year than those who do not.
  In 1990, for example, the average income for high school graduates 
was almost $18,000. For those who had 1 to 3 years of a college 
education, earned on the average $24,000. Those who graduated from 
college and received a college diploma received on average salary of 
$31,000. These statistics are from the Census Bureau.
  The entire country benefits, as well. For every $1 we invest in 
education we get enormous returns as a result. Back in 1990, another 
study was conducted that analyzed the school assistance that was 
provided to high school students back in 1972. For every $1 that the 
Federal Government invested in the student loan programs at that time, 
the Government received $4.3 in return in tax revenues.
  According to a study by the Brookings Institute, over the last 60 
years, education and advancements in knowledge have accounted for 37 
percent of our Nation's economic growth.
  At a time in which education is becoming paramount in this global 
arena, where it is going to make the difference for an individual and 
the kind of living that can be enjoying for themselves and their 
families, education puts them on the cutting edge. It puts our Nation 
on the threshold of competition for the future.
  If we deny individuals the opportunity to receive an education 
because they lack the financial assistance or the access to financial 
assistance, clearly, we as a Nation, are going to suffer.
  Costs of education have increased significantly, two to three times 
faster than the growth of median incomes. Without student aid, 
increasing costs make higher education out of reach for millions of 
Americans.
  At a time when college costs are increasing dramatically, in fact, 
since 1988 college costs have risen by 54 percent. We know salaries and 
income for families have not increased 54 percent.
  We have to make sure that we carefully retain policies that will make 
higher education accessible to millions of low- and middle-income 
families.
  I also would like to read part of a letter from the American Council 
of Education which supports this amendment, saying ``It will help 
millions of low- and moderate-income students fulfill their goal of a 
college education. Passage of your amendment is essential if the 
fundamental promise of the Federal student loan program is to remain 
available to future generations of college students. We are grateful to 
you for offering it, and we urge all Members to vote in favor of it.''
  I know this amendment will make a significant contribution to 
students pursuing a higher education. I am pleased to be joined by 
several of my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation.
  I would now like to yield to the Chair of the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee who is a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Maine 
yielding. I am very pleased to offer my support to the amendment that 
has been offered by Senator Snowe and Senator Abraham.
  As Senator Snowe has pointed out, this amendment would soften the 
impact of the budget resolution on Federal student loan programs by 
reducing the reconciliation instruction to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources by $6.3 billion over 7 years.
  At the same time, it maintains the objective of the resolution to 
achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002 by making offsetting 
reductions in other budget functions.
  During the course of the debate on this budget resolution, I have 
listened to my colleagues speak about the significance of restoring 
sound fiscal policy. Many have spoken to the fact that the true 
beneficiaries of this effort will be future generations--our children. 
I strongly agree.
  I was privileged, and it was certainly a lesson in learning about the 
works of the budget and the Senate and the operations of Government, to 
serve on the Budget Committee for a number of years. I would like to at 
this time, Mr. President, particularly commend Senator Domenici, as 
chairman of the Budget Committee, who has for years, labored in the 
vineyards of budgetary policy and has put forward for the Senate, at 
this time, I think, an extraordinary budget. All who served on the 
Budget Committee should be commended because it is not an easy task.
  This amendment that is being put forward by Senator Snowe and Senator 
Abraham does not compromise the resolve to put our fiscal house in 
order. Nor does it impair the budget resolution. What it does is revise 
and realign our priorities just slightly in the context of the entire 
budget, but significantly in our ability to fulfill what I think most 
agree is an appropriate and valuable role for the Federal Government.
  I recognize that as chairman of the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee I might be accused of having adopted a ``not in my backyard'' 
attitude toward the budget resolution. Let me assure my colleagues that 
this is not the case.
  The committee will do its fair share toward reducing the size and 
scope and expense of Government. In fact, we started early making a 25-
percent reduction in the committee's own budget, which was the largest 
cut in any of the Senate committee budgets.
  This is an amendment that should pass. It has offsets that keep the 
budget on course toward balance. It makes no overly optimistic 
assumptions. It does not touch taxes. It is a serious attempt to stay 
within the parameters which a majority of the Senate Committee on the 
Budget endorsed in reporting this resolution.
  I think it is also important to remember what the budget resolution 
is. It is a resolution that makes no reference to any specific program; 
rather, it divides spending into broad overall categories.
  I understand this amendment assumes some specific outsets. There are 
many other assumptions that could have been used to specifically define 
those offsets.
  However, at this stage they are just that--assumptions--and nothing 
more. They are not mandates on authorizers and appropriators. In the 
ends, authorizers and appropriators will make the decisions on 
individual programs.
  Some of my colleagues may have objections to any specific offsets 
that may have been delineated and discussed in relation to this 
amendment.
  While I am concerned about some of the assumptions, one which may be 
regarding the NASA aviation research program, aviation research is 
vital not only to industry but also to public safety and the 
environment.
  However, Mr. President, it is important to remember that the 
amendment itself does not refer to the advanced subsonic technology 
program or high-speed research, or NASA, for that matter.
  It refers only to a slight reduction in the overall transportation 
function. Less than one-half of 1 percent, in fact.
  I would like to ask Senator Snowe, is that not correct?
  Ms. SNOWE. I would like to answer the Senator from Kansas. The 
Senator is absolutely correct. We recommend offsets so that we 
determine the credibility of our numbers and ensuring the committee can 
reach those funding levels, but certainly it is within the prerogative 
of the respective committees [[Page S7211]] to determine how they reach 
those numbers.
  They may choose to arrive at them in a different way and make 
different reductions and offsets than the ones we recommended. The 
specific offsets are not included in the legislation. We want to make 
sure they understand that we have some credible numbers that have been 
scored by the CBO.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine.
  I am confident, Mr. President, that the authorizers and appropriators 
will evaluate programs under their jurisdiction and set their own 
priorities. That has always been the case. It will continue to be the 
case.
  This amendment leaves them more than enough room to preserve a vital 
NASA function, for instance, aviation function, and meet the country's 
pressing transportation infrastructure needs.
  Likewise, the budget resolution makes no specific assumptions about 
how the Senate Committee and Labor and Human Resources will meet its 
instruction on mandatory spending. Yet, the range of options available 
to the committee on mandatory programs is much more limited.
  Even the adoption of this amendment will not leave the committee with 
an easy task--as we still must produce over $7 billion in savings among 
a rather limited number of options. I would like to go further, but I 
do not believe it would be realistic to do so.
  I share the goal of assuring that our Nation's young people do not 
face a future in which the burden of public debt smothers their 
capacity to benefit from the fruits of their own labor.
  I thought Senator Snowe, in her comments, very eloquently laid out 
exactly why it was very important to be able to add this money back to 
assist with the student loan program in ways that I think we all 
recognize would be very beneficial.
  I believe the Snowe-Abraham amendment strikes a reasonable balance 
between these two important objectives. I urge its adoption by the 
Senate when this amendment comes to a vote.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa, 
Senator Grassley.
  Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly in support of 
the amendment offered by Senators Snowe, Abraham, and myself.
  Let me just say that as the 2d ranking Republican on the Budget 
Committee, and having served on the Budget Committee for over 14 years, 
how much the committee has benefitted from the infusion of knowledge, 
ideas, and energy from these two Senators, Senator Snowe and Senator 
Abraham, as well as Senator Frist, the other newcomer to the committee.
  I am pleased to be joining these two Senators as an original 
cosponsor of this amendment which lessens the debt our undergraduate 
students will face and also ensures that students will not be denied 
eligibility for loans because of the value of their family's home or 
farm.
  I commend the Senators for offering this amendment.
  It should not be forgotten though that it is this budget resolution 
and the tremendous work of Chairman Domenici that will do so much to 
benefit our students, both undergraduate and graduate.
  The lower interest rates that will be achieved by getting to balance 
by 2002, will translate into hundreds of millions in savings for 
students who are paying off their student loans.
  It is important to note that this amendment offers real offsets for 
the programs it wants to fund. This amendment doesn't do across-the-
board cuts, or worse, tries to pay for it by assuming funds from the 
economic dividend. This amendment provides real offsets from other 
discretionary spending.
  I would like to comment briefly on one of the offsets--cutting back 
part of the Government's private airlines.
  I have asked the GAO to review the number of planes that are owned by 
the Federal Government. Incredibly, the Federal Government, not 
including DoD, has over 1500 planes--most of which are owned.
  Agencies like the Panama Canal Commission, the Resolution Trust 
Corporation, and the General Services Administration all have planes.
  Now many of these planes are necessary,
   and do have important missions. However, GAO has found that a 
significant number of these planes have as their primary mission 
ferrying senior Government officials around.

  Similarly, the President's Commission on Integrity and Efficiency has 
found that many of these aircraft are not necessary.
  When we are asking others to tighten their belts we cannot continue 
to fund a private airfleet for Government officials.
  A good example of the wastefulness of these Government-owned aircraft 
is highlighted in a recent report by the NASA inspector general:

       Several NASA aircraft were used by NASA employees, other 
     Government employees, and non-Federal travelers for official 
     travel at higher costs than using commercial airlines.
       An analysis of fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993 
     travel, comparing the cost of travel using seven of the eight 
     aircraft--NASA owned aircraft--with the cost of using 
     commercial air flights, showed $5.9 million could be saved 
     annually by using the commercial flights.

  This amendment assumes the selling of only a small number of planes, 
150, approximately the number that GAO believes are being used for 
travel purposes. The amendment still allows the Government to retain 
over 1,400 planes to achieve their missions.
  This is a good amendment, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this 
amendment that will help young people to attend college.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to 
yield as much time as he may consume to Senator Abraham of Michigan, 
who helped in developing this amendment. I was pleased to work with him 
because we share the goal in advancing the needs for our families in 
this country with respect to education.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join Senator Snowe in offering an 
amendment to restore $6.3 billion in mandatory education spending 
through offsetting cuts to corporate welfare and general Government.
  Before I discuss the details of the amendment, let me make clear that 
my sponsorship in no way detracts from the chairman of the Budget 
Committee or his resolution. Senator Domenici and his staff have done a 
Herculean task of putting this budget together and they should be 
applauded. In the area of education, however, I have some concerns.
  Mr. President, going to college has been an integral part of the 
American dream ever since Harvard University was established by the 
General Court of Massachusetts in 1636. For millions of young Americans 
from lower and middle-class families, a college education is the first 
step towards a brighter and more productive future. For many of these 
families, however, that dream is out of reach without some form of 
assistance. The student loan program makes it possible for children 
from families of modest means to attend college and get their degree.
  Because of the important role the student loan program plays in so 
many lives, I am concerned that the spending reductions included in the 
education, training, employment, and social services function will 
result in decreased access for low- and middle-income students to a 
college education. While it should be noted that the reductions in this 
function will not necessarily come out of the student loan program, the 
size of the reconciliation instructions included for the Labor and 
Human Resources Committee make such cuts possible.
  By reducing these instructions by $6.3 billion, I hope to relieve 
pressure on the authorizing committee so that in reaching their target, 
they don't have to resort to some of the cuts listed in the CBO 
``Spending and Revenue Options'' book for mandatory education spending.
  Options like increasing the student origination fee, including home 
and farm equity for when calculating financial need, and eliminating 
the 6-month grace period between graduation and when the loan payments 
begin hit students and then families hard when they can afford it the 
least. The goal of this amendment is to protect undergraduate students 
from higher out-pocket-costs when they apply for Federal loans.
  To pay for this restoration of funding, we are offering the offsets 
from the [[Page S7212]] transportation, general government, and 
allowances function. Speaking generally, I am certain a good case could 
be made for each of these spending areas. With the goal of balancing 
the budget, however, the Senate must set priorities, and trading 
corporate welfare for the dream of a college education is a good 
bargain.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, let me just say that the Federal 
Government has been helping students gain access to higher education 
for over 40 years. This partnership has enabled millions of men and 
women to go to college, get their degree, and go on to live more 
productive and creative lives. This amendment would protect that 
tradition and ensure that student loans continue to be available to all 
Americans. It is a good amendment, and I hope the Senate will support 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to inquire as to how much time 
is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 27 minutes 50 seconds.
  Ms. SNOWE. I would now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode 
Island, Senator Chafee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Maine for yielding me some time and congratulate her and Senator 
Abraham for the amendment which they have presented and of which I am a 
cosponsor.
  I believe they are on the right track. Any time you make 
substitutions, as the Senator from Kansas pointed out, it is difficult. 
But I think the selection of the substitutions that Senators Snowe and 
Abraham made are good ones. So that is a fine amendment and I am glad 
to be a cosponsor of it.
  I would just like to say, if I might, a few words about this budget 
we are considering here today and will vote on tomorrow. It seems to me 
tremendously important that we bear in mind that for 33 straight years 
this Nation of ours, through wars and recessions, through good economic 
times and through bad economic times, the Federal Government has 
continually had to borrow money each year to pay its bills. Why is this 
so bad? What it means is that each year we continue to finance the 
Government with debt, and in doing so we steal the economic prosperity 
of our children and our grandchildren. Interest expenses this year 
totaled $235 billion. Not a penny of that for principal--$235 billion; 
15 percent of the total budget of the United States now is being spent 
on interest on the debt. That amount of $235 billion will increase to 
$400 billion in just 10 years unless we do something about this budget.
  With the problem so clearly defined, you would think the President 
would have addressed it when he sent up a budget this year. But he did 
not. Instead, the President sent us a budget that had $200 billion of 
deficit this year, and over the next 7 years he continued with deficits 
of the same nature.
  I do not think that continuing on the path of deficit spending is 
acceptable. To me it is morally wrong to be sending these bills on to 
our children and future generations. Some Members on the other side of 
the aisle have suggested that selecting 7 years from now, the year 2002 
is arbitrary. I mean why do you select 2002? How about 2005? There is 
nothing magic about 2002. But let us get on with the job. Once you 
start down the slippery slope of saying how about 2005, how about 2015 
or 2020? I do not go with the thinking of postponing it beyond 7 years. 
Seven years provides us with enough time to implement the cuts in a 
manner that does not jeopardize our economy.
  Like every Senator, I have heard from people who come up to me, as 
every Senator here has had the experience, and they say, ``I am for 
balancing the budget, but''--the next word is always ``but''--``but 
please protect this particular program I am interested in,'' whether it 
is education or the environment or health care or doing something about 
law enforcement. You always hear that word ``but,'' but do something 
about greater research at the NIH--whatever it might be.
  If we are going to balance this budget, we have to have hits right 
across the board, in a whole series of attractive programs. Is this the 
perfect budget? I do not think it is. I suppose, if they had asked me 
to draw up a budget, I could have done a better job, probably. That is 
what I think. And every single Senator here thinks the same thing. But 
this budget is the first one in three decades that puts us on a path of 
fiscal responsibility. I congratulate the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici, for the extraordinary work he has done. 
Not only Senator Domenici, but the members of his committee likewise 
deserve congratulations.
  We have a choice. We can stick with the status quo. We can do 
nothing. And we can just go on with $200 billion of deficit this year 
going up to $400 billion in a few years. Or we can end these deficits 
and do it now. The budget before us leads America away from the red ink 
and toward a better future for our children.
  If we succeed in balancing this budget, as we are on the path to 
doing now, we will reap the benefits of lower interest rates, stronger 
economic growth, and the feeling, that wonderful feeling that we are 
passing this Nation on to our children in better condition than we 
found it. What could be more worthwhile than that? What more worthy 
goal than to say we are not going to continue passing these bills on to 
our children and grandchildren?
  Mr. President, I just hope this budget before us will receive the 
support from every single Senator when we vote on it tomorrow 
afternoon. Again, I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Maine 
and the distinguished Senator from Michigan for the excellent amendment 
which they have submitted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would now yield 2 minutes to the Senator 
from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to elaborate a little further on 
some of the reasons why I think this amendment is so important. As a 
candidate for the Senate during the 1994 campaign, I traveled 
throughout my State. I was struck by the extent to which young people 
in Michigan, college students, high school students, and others really 
believe that it was important that we focus on the future. They were 
looking to us, I think, those of us had who were running, to try to 
address how we could make our Nation more competitive, how we could 
expand opportunities, particularly opportunities in the private sector 
in the next century, how we could be more competitive in a global 
environment in which we compete no longer with just three or four other 
industrial nations but with virtually the whole world.
  I think, as I talked to people, both those who might themselves be 
beneficiaries of student loans in this 7-year period we are discussing 
but also to leaders of industry in my State, it became increasingly 
clear to me that a top priority had to be a well-educated work force, a 
work force prepared to be competitive with the kind of global economy 
which we will encounter.
  That is why I think it is important that we make our citizenry as 
competitive as it can be. I believe this amendment, by producing the 
kinds of environments in which not only the volume of student loans 
that are available does not decrease but the access to those loans by 
people of more modest means remains unchanged, is the way by which we 
can fulfill for many people their dreams to be able to participate 
fully in the kind of competitive economic environment of the future.
  For that reason, I think the amendment particularly is sensible, one 
that I hope other Members of the Senate will join us in supporting when 
we cast our votes on this.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Snowe, 
Abraham, Grassley, Brown, Kassebaum, and others in offering an 
amendment to the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution to restore funds to 
valuable education programs by reducing funding for Federal building 
projects by 50 percent.
  I strongly support this amendment and believe that it represents a 
much better use of scarce Federal resources. I am very concerned about 
the cost of Federal construction projects. Last Congress, I introduced 
legislation to [[Page S7213]] reform the way the Federal Government 
manages its office space. I was concerned that the Government had 
billions of dollars in construction projects in the works and did not 
seem to be focusing enough attention on whether these projects were 
being constructed or renovated in the most cost-effective manner, 
whether the Federal Government was building in areas already glutted 
with commercial real estate, or even whether projects were truly 
needed.
  Numerous General Accounting Office [GAO], and General Services 
Administration [GSA], Inspector General [IG] reports over the years 
have consistently identified problems in GSA's real estate portfolio 
and its chronic history of wasteful spending and mismanagement. The 
agency's long standing problems have significantly impaired its ability 
to meet the property needs of the Federal Government in a cost-
effective and business-like manner. My legislation directed OMB to 
review Federal property management policies and implement changes to 
ensure better coordination among Federal agencies, focus on longer term 
cost-effectiveness, and achieve cost savings. While my legislation was 
passed by the Senate, it was amended in conference to require GAO to do 
a study to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of establishing 
a single Federal agency responsible for selling and otherwise disposing 
of real property owned by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development [HUD], Farmers Home Administration, Department of 
Agriculture, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC], and the 
Resolution Trust Corporation [RTC]. This report is due out later this 
year.
  In July 1993, I held a hearing in the Senate Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management to examine how GSA manages its real 
estate. The results were quite disturbing. The hearing highlighted the 
fact that the Federal Government was constructing it did not need and 
leasing buildings it could not afford. Last May, the full Governmental 
Affairs Committee examined waste in the Federal courthouse construction 
program. The hearing illustrated that the Federal Government was 
wasting millions of dollars on courthouses that were padded with 
extravagant features such as brass doorknobs, kitchenettes, custom 
lighting, and expensive wood paneling.
  During these hearings, R.S. Means, a Boston company that surveys 
construction costs, reported that the Federal Government was paying at 
least two to three times as much to build a Federal courthouse or 
office building than it cost to build a State courthouse or construct a 
building for the private sector.
  The GAO also found major flaws in the methodology used by the Federal 
judiciary for estimating future court space needs. As a result, future 
space needs for a 10-year period were overestimated by more than 3 
million square feet which, if authorized, could result in $1.1 billion 
in unneeded courthouse space. I, along with a number of my colleagues, 
wrote GAO to request an audit of the Federal courthouse construction 
program. That report is due out later this year.
  Last March, Senator Kerrey and I offered a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment to the fiscal year 1995 budget resolution calling for a 1-
year moratorium on construction of new Federal courthouses. Although it 
passed the Senate, the provision was dropped in conference and a number 
of courthouses and other Federal office buildings were subsequently 
funded.
  More recently, I joined Senator Kerrey in offering an amendment to 
the rescission bill that would have added over $300 million in deficit 
reduction to be taken from wasteful or unnecessary GSA projects. The 
amendment would have scaled back projects that were not authorized or 
that the GSA itself has either never asked for or said are unnecessary 
or lavish. Senator Shelby offered a second degree amendment which 
expanded the projects covered to all Federal new construction, repair 
and alteration projects, including those that had gone through the 
normal authorization process, eliminating $1.9 billion in funding for 
Federal construction projects. Unfortunately, much of the $1.9 billion 
cut by the Shelby amendment was restored in conference. Mr. President, 
at a time when we are looking at cuts in education and many valuable 
programs, I find it hard to believe that we cannot find the means to 
cut funds for Federal building projects first.
  I have commended GSA Administrator Roger Johnson in the past for his 
efforts to reform GSA and save taxpayers' dollars. At his confirmation 
hearing, I asked Johnson to suspend and review all Federal construction 
projects to determine if the projects were truly needed. GSA 
Administrator Roger Johnson's time out and review looked at about 200 
construction and leasing projects and recommended changes with 
potential savings of $1.2 billion. While this is certainly a step in 
the right direction, more still needs to be done.
  As Congress looks for ways to address the Federal budget deficit, we 
must ensure that Government programs and agencies are operating in the 
most cost effective manner possible. In these times of tight budgetary 
constraint, this amendment makes sense. I am pleased to cosponsor this 
amendment which will reduce funding of Federal buildings projects by 50 
percent, on top of the 25 percent already assumed in the budget 
resolution, and target these funds to helping students go to college. 
This amendment represents a better use of scarce Federal dollars and 
puts money back into important education programs. I urge my colleagues 
to support the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
proposed by Senators Snowe, Abraham, Grassley, Brown, Kassebaum, Cohen, 
Lott, and Chafee.
  I support the goal of the amendment--to provide increased funds for 
higher education. My record is clear and unequivical on education 
funding. These funds must be increased, but not in the way proposed by 
the proponents of this amendment. I would like to speak about two of 
the offsets that the amendment identifies and discuss the impact which 
these cuts would have on our economy.
  First, the amendment would zero out two important NASA programs. 
These programs are the R&D or seed corn type programs which many of my 
colleagues have heard me speak about in the past. This amendment would 
zero out NASA's High-Speed Research Program, and NASA's Advanced 
Subsonic Technology Program.
  Before I talk about these specific programs, I would like to observe 
that NASA has already absorbed more than its share of budget cuts. A 
couple of figures will illustrate what I am talking about: In fiscal 
year 1993, NASA's 5-year budget request was about $122 billion. The 
fiscal year 1996 request is now $82 billion for the next 5 years. NASA 
has been cut by one-third in just over 2 years.
  NASA has stepped up to the plate to reduce bureaucracy and improve 
the way it does business. Under Dan Goldin's leadership the agency is 
currently going through a painful process of reducing its budget by $5 
billion over the next 5 years. Mr. Goldin believes that this can be 
achieved without eliminating programs. He has a tough row to hoe to 
achieve this. Further cuts in NASA's budget will simply result in the 
elimination of current programs.
  Now, let me talk about the High-Speed Research Program first. The 
goal of this program is to help develop the technologies industry needs 
to design and build an environmentally compatible and economically 
competitive high-speed civil jet transport for the 21st century. The 
technology developments are to reach an appropriate stage of maturity 
to enable an industry decision on aircraft production by 2001.
  Mr. President, the technologies currently needed to develop such a 
transport are beyond the state of the art. NASA estimates that industry 
will need to invest more than $20 billion to bring such a transport to 
market.
  Studies have identified a substantial market for a future supersonic 
airliner to meet rapidly growing demand for long-haul travel, 
particularly across the Pacific. Over the period from 2005 to 2015, 
this market could support 500 to 1,000 aircraft, creating a 
multibillion dollar sales opportunity for its producers. Such an 
aircraft will be essential for capturing the valuable long-haul Pacific 
rim market.
  As currently envisioned an HSCT aircraft should be designed to carry 
300 [[Page S7214]] passengers at Mach 2.4 on transoceanic routes over 
distances up to 6,000 nautical miles at fares comparable to subsonic 
transports.
  Now let me talk about the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program.
  The goal of NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology Program is to 
develop, in cooperation with the FAA and the U.S. aeronautics industry, 
high payoff technologies to enable a safe, highly productive global air 
transportation system that includes a new generation of environmentally 
compatible, economical U.S. subsonic aircraft. Some of the technologies 
and issues being studied and developed in this program include:
  Fly by light/power by wire: a fully digital aircraft control system 
which would be substantially lighter, more reliable, and efficient than 
current control systems.
  Aging aircraft: to develop new ways of inspecting aircraft to 
determine their airworthiness. New approaches are being developed to 
determine the residual strength in airframes using advanced 
nondestructive technologies. It might be worth thinking about this 
program the next time you are sitting in a 727 that is 20 years old 
waiting to take off on a cross-country flight.
  Noise reduction: This program is developing technologies to reduce 
aircraft noise by 10 decibels or more by the year 2000.
  Terminal area productivity: Technologies, chiefly involving air 
traffic control, that can improve the efficiency of operations on the 
ground at busy airports.
  Integrated wing design: New concepts, design methodologies, model 
fabrication and test techniques are being developed to provide industry 
an integrated capability to achieve increased aircraft performance at 
lower cost.
  Propulsion: Technologies to improve fuel efficiency of future 
commercial engines by at least 8 percent and reduce nitrogen oxides by 
70 percent over current technology. These are only some of the 
technologies being developed under the program which the amendment's 
proponents would completely gut. It is a truly shortsighted amendment 
that would eliminate these important applied technology programs.
   Mr. President, it is no secret that aerospace business is a 
Government-private sector partnership. Historically our Government has 
funded aeronautics R&D, and industry has taken this basic technology 
and developed aircraft that have dominated the world market. Over the 
last decade or so, other governments have gotten into the act. 
Currently the U.S. Market share is about 65 percent, down from about 91 
percent in the 1960's.
  Cutting these two important programs will not help us regain this 
market share--quite the opposite. We will be
 sending a signal that the U.S. aircraft industry will be less 
competitive.

  In summary, the advanced subsonic technology:
  Meets future technology needs for next generation aircraft.
  Enables NASA to develop high-risk, high-payoff, precompetitive 
technology to prove feasibility so that industry may complete 
development and apply technology to specific products.
  Will result in accomplishments in noise prediction codes for quieter 
engines, nondestructive evaluation techniques for detecting corrosion, 
cracks and disbonds; analytical tools to understand airraft wake 
cortices for safe landings.
  Assists in preserving 1 million U.S. high-quality jobs and $25 to $30 
billion annual positive balance of trade for U.S. aviation.
  The High-Speed Research program will:
  Enable NASA to develop early, high-risk technology for future 
environmentally compatible, economically competitive, high-speed civil 
transport aircraft--technologies needed are beyond state of the art;
  Industry will take NASA technology and invest $20 billion to actually 
develop aircraft, and
  If the United States is first to market, the U.S. market share could 
grow to 80 percent, achieve $200 billion in sales, and create 140,000 
new U.S. jobs.
  Thank you Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Snowe-Abraham amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to say in conclusion that I 
certainly appreciate the efforts by the Senator from Michigan, and 
other colleagues and cosponsors of this amendment, on a very critical 
and important issue in our estimation. We want to be sure that the 
American people understand and know that we consider education to be 
one of the highest priorities. That is why we are seeking to restore 
$6.3 billion in the education account.
  When you consider the fact that since 1988 students' education costs 
increased by 219 percent, it is almost difficult to comprehend, because 
the average family has been struggling since that time in some very 
difficult and unusual economic times, considering the recession that we 
have had, certainly in my State of Maine and in the New England area, 
which was the hardest hit in addition to the other parts of the 
country, especially California. We represented a third of all of the 
jobs that were lost during the course of that recession.
  So when you consider the fact that education needs became more 
important, we have to make sure that they have access to adequate 
funding for financial assistance in the future. Not only is it 
essential for their future, but it also essential to this country's 
future when you consider how important the educational experience is 
going to be for global competition in and for the economic world we 
will be facing in the next century and beyond.
  So I appreciate the statements that have been made by all of my 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. SNOWE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. I yield time for an inquiry by the Senator from Arkansas, 
or I will yield him what time he needs on his amendment. I guess what 
we were hoping for is to restore the balance of the time due on this 
side on the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine. I would make 
inquiry at this time, if the Senator from Maine would consider setting 
aside her amendment now that the yeas and nays have been ordered so 
that we can allow Senator Bumpers to proceed with the offering of an 
amendment that he has that we will vote on tomorrow.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was not here. But essentially there is 
time remaining in opposition to the amendment. I have to use a little 
bit of that. In fact, that is what I was discussing. I told the Senator 
I wanted to discuss this before I asked her to set her amendment aside.
  So I am willing that that time be charged in opposition, however, 
anybody would want to do it. If somebody wants to speak on the general 
budget, I will yield them time. Does the Senator from Alabama need 
time?
  Mr. SHELBY. I need 15 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 15 minutes in opposition to the Snowe amendment 
at this point. I am trying to make arrangements.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, over the past few days Members on the 
other side of the aisle basically have claimed to represent the best 
interests of hard-working Americans. They stood up with charts and made 
passionate speeches, and say they know better. They criticized the 
Domenici budget, although they have no budget of their own.
  I believe that the budget resolution debate has been demagogued to 
death.
  This debate has been turned into an issue of who is compassionate and 
who is not, and rich against poor, even though the Senate budget 
resolution does not include $1 yet in tax cuts. Never mind we do not 
touch Head Start. Never mind that we do not touch the School Lunch 
Program. Mr. President, never mind that we do not cut Social Security. 
Never mind that we preserve Medicare, which will go bankrupt unless 
responsible leaders take action. [[Page S7215]] 
  I believe we need tonight to discuss the real issues, like our 
tremendous national debt and our endless string of deficits. I believe 
that people on the other side of the aisle do not want to debate 
basically the fact that we are the biggest debtor nation in the world. 
People on the other side of the aisle I believe do not basically want 
to debate the fact that the dollar is, overall, losing its value 
against most major currencies, and that hard-working Americans are 
losing purchasing power every time the dollar depreciates. No, Mr. 
President, they will not debate the real issues.
  Mr. President, I was once told that on the other side of the aisle 
people see what they want to see, and that the Republicans have the 
unfortunate tendency of seeing what is there. I would like to show you 
what is there. Because what is there are the real issues.
  I want to share with you a chart, if I can, a chart that shows the 
Federal Government's net financial assets beginning in the year 1946, 
which is over here, through 1993. Instead of an upward spiral, you see 
a downward spiral because these are real issues.
  This chart comes from data contained in the 1995 Economic Report of 
the President. It shows the Federal Government's net financial assets, 
as I said, from 1946 to 1993.
  As one can see on the chart, the Federal Government is depleting the 
national wealth of the United States every year. It is going down. But 
look at it over here, how fast it is going down. The greatest country 
in the world, Mr. President, the United States of America, the great 
economic leader of our time, possessed net financial assets of nearly 
$3 trillion in 1993. Far from saving our children and investing in our 
kids for tomorrow, the spending machine of the Federal Government is 
squandering away our resources at a record rate.
  The chart says it better than we can. In fact, net financial assets 
of the Federal Government have been decreasing at a rate of 7.1 percent 
a year over the past 20 years, while private wealth has grown only 3.2 
percent. The Federal Government is depleting national wealth at a rate 
twice as fast as the private sector can create. This is a trend that we 
cannot simply sustain as a Nation.
  There is a direct impact in the rise in Government budget deficits, 
which is to worsen the current account balance and place upward 
pressure on interest rates. Our current account stood at $104 billion 
in 1993. This means we either sold $104 billion in assets to foreign 
entities, borrowed $104 billion from foreign entities, or a combination 
of the two.
  Although a current account deficit in and of itself is not a bad 
thing, the accumulation of persistent current account deficits over 
time leads to an overwhelmingly external debt that we have today. These 
deficits identify a systematic shortfall of savings below investment 
due to an expansion consumption relative to income.
  The implication is that we borrowed to finance current consumption, 
expenditures that have no real effect on economic growth or future 
income in this Nation. In other words, the Government is borrowing 
abroad to finance the excess of expenditures over income. Projections 
of higher current account deficits run well into the foreseeable 
future, which does not bode well for this country.
  The increase in interest rates caused by budget deficits increase the 
cost of capital, home mortgages, car payments and any other goods that 
are financed. If the other side of the aisle really wants to help the 
hard-working, middle-class Americans, it seems to me they should help 
them reduce the cost of living instead of adding, Mr. President, to 
their already tremendous burden.
  It is true that hard-working, middle-class Americans need relief, but 
on the other side of the aisle I think a lot of the people just cannot 
accept the notion that relief does not have to come in the form of a 
check, Mr. President, in the form of a check from the Government every 
month. No, they do not have to accept the notion of freedom and free 
markets. They still believe that Americans depend on Government for 
their livelihood.
  I reject that notion wholeheartedly. I understand the unpleasantries 
of debt-stricken countries. We all do. Let me tell you that the 
restrained growth in this budget resolution is more compassionate, more 
beneficial and more tolerable than any experience of a bankrupt 
country. The immediate gratification of consumption does not outweigh 
the tremendous long-term benefits of a balanced budget.
  Democrats supposedly believe in a balanced budget. However, they have 
presented no proposal that I have seen. President Clinton supposedly 
believes in a balanced budget, but he has not presented one here that I 
know of. President Clinton, I understand, will not even support a $16 
billion rescission package much less the $175 billion in cuts necessary 
to balance the budget this year. And $16 billion, Mr. President, is 
only 9 percent of this year's deficit. Come to find out it is only .3 
percent of the $4.8 trillion debt.
  The actions of President Clinton and his party do not match their 
words. Their idea of deficit reduction is the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993 that we all know included the largest tax 
increase in history. Did it reduce the deficit, Mr. President? Yes. 
Only temporarily, for a year or two. But if one looks at the outyears, 
deficit spending just keeps going up as far as the eye can see.
  What do we have to show for our $241 billion tax increase? Nothing, I 
would submit--nothing but increasing deficits and reduced disposable 
income for hard-working Americans.
  The Congressional Budget Office has outlined the potential economic 
impacts of balancing the budget by the year 2002. They project long-
term interest rates will fall by almost 2 percentage points. They also 
project an increase in real GNP of almost 1 percent, just from 
practicing a little fiscal discipline.
  Mr. President, a balanced budget is good for America today, tomorrow 
and forever. That is why I am going to support the Domenici budget.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time for that purpose?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Pardon me, Mr. President, for not being in the Chamber. 
I yield 15 minutes to Senator Thompson from Tennessee who desires to 
speak in opposition to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we are now in the midst of a budget 
debate, but in listening to the debate over the last several days it 
has become apparent to me this is not just a debate over the budget, 
not just about the need to balance the budget or budget priorities. It 
is a debate over two conflicting sets of ideas, and ultimately it is a 
debate over how much faith we have in the American people to support a 
policy that we all know is right.
  Many Americans believe that our country is at a crossroads. While we 
all know that we were the victors of the cold war and we are still 
strong and prosperous, more and more of our people are coming to the 
conclusion that there are some things in this country that are simply 
wrong: the youthfulness and the viciousness of our crime, our welfare 
dependency and social disintegration that comes from that, a gradual 
slowing of our economy, our extremely low savings rate and low 
investment rate, a greater and greater dependency upon foreign money to 
prop our economy up. Americans wonder how long we can remain strong 
when we are losing so many things that have made us strong.
  We look at the lessons of history, and we see that the fate of other 
great nations where they have gone down the road of bigger government, 
higher taxes and increasing debt and moral and intellectual laziness. 
We see how they enjoyed their brief hour upon the world's stage and 
then moved on and declined. And we wonder if ours is going to be the 
generation that oversees the decline of the United States of America to 
the role of a second-rate country.
  We certainly are not addressing the totality of this situation during 
this current debate. Indeed, we must question how much in the way of 
solution actually lies in the hands of the Federal Government. However, 
this debate [[Page S7216]] does involve an area that is largely under 
the control of Congress. Indeed, some might say that Congress was 
primarily the cause of it. And it is the most serious economic problem 
facing our Nation. That is a debt that is literally bankrupting our 
country.
  One of the things most basic to human nature, Mr. President, is 
looking out for those who we bring into the world, and for most of our 
country's history we did just that. Through world wars, through a Great 
Depression, we paid for what we consumed. However, for a quarter of a 
century or so now, we have gone off on another track. We have gone off 
on a spending spree, and we are borrowing money now from future 
generations. Over the years, every interest group imaginable has 
organized itself and made its demand on the Federal Treasury. And since 
we are a system essentially of professional legislators whose primary 
interest is in reelection, the answer to these demands for more Federal 
dollars is usually yes. So program is piled upon program, and once a 
program is created and its constituency is created, it is never done 
away with. It is seldom even reduced. It is usually only expanded. And 
more and more people are increasingly dependent upon the so-called free 
money that we are borrowing from our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, it is obvious the American people have decided that 
this country cannot survive under this old way of doing business. They 
have rightfully decided that we cannot sustain an almost $5 trillion 
debt that is still growing. They have decided we will not saddle our 
future generations with higher interest rates, less affordable homes, 
fewer jobs, lower wages and a loss of economic sovereignty. They 
understand we are on the verge of bankrupting two of our most important 
social programs in this country, Social Security and Medicare, if we do 
not take immediate steps.
  In response to this clear mandate, the Republicans on the Budget 
Committee, without one Democratic vote, have produced a plan that will 
balance the budget by the year 2002 by slowing the growth in Federal 
spending from 5 percent a year to 3 percent a year. It protects Social 
Security, saves Medicare from bankruptcy, maintains the Social Security 
safety net, reduces the Federal Government and removes power out of 
Washington back to the people.
  Of course, the defenders of the status quo continue to do everything 
possible to defeat these goals. They first denied the need to balance 
the budget. They are only following the President's lead in that 
regard. He has submitted what the Washington Post called a ``weak and 
directionless budget'' that will add over $1.2 trillion to our national 
debt over 5 years. Then his senior economic adviser claimed that 
cutting the budget would actually be bad for the economy. These 
developments were met with universal dismay and derision and have since 
been abandoned by our friends across the aisle.
  We tried to pass the balanced budget amendment. At this point the 
defenders of the status quo, being able to see which way the wind was 
blowing, acknowledged the need to balance the budget but forcefully 
argued that we should balance it without a constitutional amendment; 
that all we needed to do was exercise our responsibility as 
legislators. Besides that, they said, tell us how you are going to 
balance the budget. We want to see a plan. And they defeated the 
balanced budget amendment by a single vote.
  Now the Republicans have submitted the balanced budget resolution. We 
have detailed a plan, and we are ready to take on the responsibility. 
Now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, backed into a 
corner, slip their favorite old worn out record on the Victrola. Side A 
is entitled ``Scare the Sick and the Elderly.'' Almost as popular with 
them is the flip side called ``Class Warfare''--in other words, the 
same old record that they were playing during the last congressional 
elections, which proved so rewarding for them. They rail against tax 
cuts for the rich when in fact there are no tax cuts in this budget for 
anybody, much less the rich. However, they correctly point out that 
there might be $170 billion dividend if in fact a balanced budget is 
certified.
 And they seem petrified at the thought that this might actually result 
in some taxpayers getting the benefit of some of the money in the form 
of a tax cut; in other words, getting to keep a little bit of the money 
that they earned in the first place. So now instead of helping us 
balance the budget, they are busy trying to figure out how to spend 
this $170 billion that they had no hand in producing and that does not 
even exist yet.

  Clearly, the tax-and-spend philosophy that has gotten us into the 
trouble that we are in is alive and well. Mr. President, the opponents 
of this budget who for so long promoted big spending and every pork 
barrel project to come down the pike, including the President's ill-
fated stimulus package, and who have opposed the balanced budget 
amendment and a balanced budget are now saying that we are not 
balancing it in the right way. They say, ``We definitely want a 
balanced budget, but not at the expense of group A or group B or group 
C'' and the groups go on and on and on. In other words, we cannot 
reduce the rate of growth in any areas even where the growth rate is 
out of hand if it actually affects anyone.
  The defenders of the status quo talk about protecting children when 
it is their policies of the past that have robbed these children of 
their future prosperity. They talk about defending the college student 
when it is the philosophy of ``spending is the solution to everything'' 
which has greatly diminished the value of a college degree because so 
many of our students entering college nowadays cannot even read and 
write.
  They talk about defending the elderly when it is their policies, the 
policies of the past, that have put us on the verge of bankrupting both 
Social Security and the Medicare trust funds.
  They talk about making sure that the wealthy receive no additional 
breaks, and yet it is the wealthy who are the bond holders who are 
receiving the astronomical interest payments that we make on our 
national debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, without 
deficit reduction, annual interest payments by 2002 will balloon to 
$334 billion.
  No, the plain truth is that the only way for these groups to get what 
they deserve and to prosper in the years ahead is to turn our backs on 
the failed policies of these so-called defenders and rectify the damage 
that they have already done by moving toward a balanced budget. The 
balanced budget resolution before this body is the first major step 
toward that end.
  These budget critics want to refight the eighties again, ignoring 
their own part in the spending binge that ran up the deficit. They say 
it was the President's fault back then. I say to my friends on the 
other side, the constitutional authority of the President of the United 
States has not changed. If it was the President's fault in the 
eighties, whose fault is it now?
  As a recent Washington Post editorial said:

       Democratic complaints about Republican budget plans will 
     continue to have a hollow and unpersuasive ring until the 
     Democrats begin to come up with specific alternatives of 
     their own. Until then they will merely seem to be defending 
     the present spending pattern, with its succession of $200 
     billion a year deficit reaching as far as the eye can see 
     that President Clinton projected in the budget he sent to 
     Congress last February.

  Now, it should be kept clearly in mind that we are not going through 
this exercise simply to avert disaster, although that would be reason 
enough. We are doing it to ensure future prosperity, Mr. President. 
Eliminating the deficit could bring widespread benefit in the form of 
lower interest rates for mortgages and business loans. That would spur 
a boon in housing construction and business investment which would 
create jobs and raise incomes.
  The Congressional Budget Office states that the package of a credible 
balanced budget plan would lead the bond market to bid down interest 
rates almost immediately.
  New home buyers would be clear winners. If interest rates dropped 
only 1 percent, a young couple with a $100,000 mortgage would save 
enough over the life of that mortgage to put one of their children 
through college for a year without any help from the Federal 
Government.
  Roger Brinner, chief economist with the forecasting firm of DRI 
McGraw-Hill estimates balancing the budget would raise America's yearly 
output an extra 2.5 percent over the next 10 years. [[Page S7217]] That 
would mean an average of an extra $1,000 a year for each American 
family. He adds that the economy would create 2.4 million more jobs by 
the year 2005 than if the deficit remained unchecked.
  The General Accounting Office projects Americans living by 2025 would 
enjoy per capita incomes of $9,500 higher if Washington succeeds in 
bringing the deficit under control. Many analysts believe that the 
dollar slide in March was due to our failure to pass a balanced budget 
amendment. The U.S. dollar has rebounded in foreign exchange markets 
during the last several weeks, in part because of a growing belief 
among foreign investors that the United States is finally moving to put 
its economic house in order.
  So, Mr. President, we must reject the ideas and practices of the past 
which have caused this problem. We must also reject the rhetoric which 
appeals to fear and prejudice and appeals to greed to use and consume 
everything we can get our hands on today and not concern ourselves with 
the future and the fact that it is our own children's birthright that 
we are consuming.
  And so, Mr. President, let us get on about with what the people sent 
us here to do while it is still not too late to change our direction. 
We as Members of this body must have the courage to stand up to the 
demagoguery and any short-term political risk we might be taking by 
doing what we know is right.
  I am firmly convinced ultimately the American people are willing to 
do what is necessary to ensure a brighter future for our children, and 
we must have the wisdom to follow them and the courage to lead them. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Thompson.
  We are going to enter a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. EXON. May I suggest to my friend, possibly we can get started 
with Senator Bumpers, and then I think we all know what the unanimous 
consent request is going to be. We can finalize it and type it up 
sometime during the debate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is coming right now. I agree, we could probably 
stammer around and between us we might be able to articulate the 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. EXON. As usual.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have difficulty with that. Let me just make sure we 
have it down.
  Mr. President, I wonder, without detracting anything from Senator 
Bumpers who is going to get 20 minutes very soon on his amendment and 
he can share that with Senator Murray, as I understand it, Senator 
Stevens had a sense-of-the-Senate resolution cleared on both sides. I 
understand you all have cleared it. We cleared it.
  Mr. EXON. The Senator is correct.

                      Unanimous-Consent Agreements

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Snowe 
amendment be laid aside until 8 a.m. tomorrow in status quo.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Bumpers be recognized to offer an amendment on which there be 20 
minutes under the control of Senator Bumpers and 10 minutes under my 
control; that no amendments be in order to the Bumpers amendment; and 
that when the Senate votes, it vote on or in relation to the Bumpers 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object.
  I have no objection.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that 
following the debate on the Bumpers amendment, Senator Hatfield be 
recognized to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. EXON. I simply say that this is going to go push things back a 
little bit. We are trying to accommodate everybody here at one time. Is 
the Senator insisting on making an agreement at this time to go back to 
Senator Hatfield's amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Not back to it. He never offered it. That will be 
rotating, and he has received assurance from me for 36 hours that he 
was the next thing after the Snowe amendment. We did not know about the 
Senator's. That is to be put ahead of it, after the Democrat amendment. 
I must do that. I cannot agree on time, but I think it will be 
reasonable considering the circumstances.
  Mr. EXON. Under the circumstances, we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished floor 
manager would be willing to also state that at the time the rollcalls 
occur on these amendments, that mine follow that amendment of the 
Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What about following Senator Feingold's?
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Whatever the order is that the leader agrees to 
pursuant to the unanimous consent request, Senator Bumpers will follow 
Senator Feingold.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thought it would be better if rollcalls followed the 
sequence in which the amendments are offered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We do not know what is going to happen to Senator 
Snowe's amendment. It could have second degrees.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator, in order to keep the flow properly here, 
include as part of his unanimous-consent agreement that after the 
disposition of the Hatfield amendment that we would go back and meet a 
commitment that we have made through Senator Boxer on this side, and 
that her amendment would follow the discussion of the Hatfield 
amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. So long as we make no agreements, other than that 
Senator Boxer is next, I so request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the several unanimous-
consent requests?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask Senator Bumpers if he could do me 
a special favor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If this amendment of Senator Stevens has been cleared, 
that is fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Without in any way changing the time allowed, I wonder 
if we could now recognize Senator Stevens who has an amendment that has 
been approved on both sides. I will yield for 2 or 3 minutes and I ask 
that he be permitted to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank my friend. I am apologetic that I did not appear 
before. I had constituents here.

                           Amendment No. 1129

(Purpose: To provide for a sense of the Congress regarding full funding 
                   for Decade of the Brain research)

  Mr. STEVENS. 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 Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 1129.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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 in Title III of the resolution 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FULL FUNDING FOR 
                   DECADE OF THE BRAIN RESEARCH.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) long term health care costs associated with diseases 
     and disorders of the brain have a substantial impact on 
     federal expenditures for Medicaid and Medicare, and on the 
     earning potential of the Nation;
       (2) to highlight the impact of brain diseases and disorders 
     on the economy and well being of the Nation the Congress has 
     declared the 1990's the Decade of the Brain;
       (3) meaningful research has been initiated as part of the 
     Decade of the Brain;
       (4) if fully funded this research could provide important 
     new medical breakthroughs; and
       (5) these breakthroughs could result in a significant 
     reduction in costs to the Federal Government.
       (d) Sene of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that in furtherance of the goals of the Decade of the Brain 
     the appropriate committees should seek to ensure that full 
     funding is provided for research on brain diseases and 
     disorders in each of the fiscal years to which this 
     resolution applies.

[[Page S7218]]

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Domenici as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this deals with the decade of the brain.
  Over 50 million Americans each year are affected by disease or 
disorders of the brain and central nervous system. The impact on 
society is approximately $300 billion a year. But even as scientific 
progress races ahead, public awareness is falling behind. The DANA 
Foundation has 10 attainable goals by the year 2000. These are;
  First, the identification of the genes that are defective in familial 
Alzheimer's and Huntington's diseases.
  Second, the identification of the genes responsible for manic-
depressive illness.
  Third, the identification of new medications and therapeutic 
strategies to reduce nerve cell death and enhance recovery of function 
after strokes and other forms of brain injury.
  Fourth, the development of new drugs and other measures to alleviate 
the effects of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, motor neuron disease 
(e.g. ALS, or Lou Gehrig's), Parkinson's, and epilepsy.
  Fifth, the identification of new treatments to promote nerve 
regeneration following spinal cord and peripheral nerve injury.
  Sixth, the development of new and more effective treatments for 
manic-depressive illness, anxiety disorders, and forms of schizophrenia 
that at present resist treatment.
  Seventh, the discovery, testing, and application of agents that will 
block the action of cocaine and other addictive substances.
  Eighth, the development of new treatments for pain associated with 
cancer, arthritis, migraine headaches, and other debilitating diseases.
  Ninth, the identification of the genes that cause hereditary deafness 
and blindness.
  Tenth, the elucidation of the neuronal mechanisms involved in 
learning and memory.
  There have been many breakthroughs during the early part of the 
decade. Here are some of the recent discoveries or break-throughs;
  Identified the genes responsible for Huntington's disease, 
Alzheimer's disease, and the familial form of Lou Gehrig's disease.
  Produced new medications for migraine headaches.
  Identified several genes that cause hereditary blindness and 
deafness.
  Launched tests of new drugs to enhance recovery from stroke and 
spinal cord injury.
  Produced new drug for the treatment of epilepsy.
  Made significant progress in understanding the addictive action of 
cocaine.
  CREB--a protein. One form of CREB turns on genes responsible for 
long-term memory storage, while another form turns them off. The 
activating form of CREB may dominate when important things are going 
on, and the memory-repressing form when unnecessary information needs 
to be filtered out.
  CRIF--brain chemical that may eventually control stress. It is a 
chemical that suppresses the body's stress response. Researchers at the 
University of Pennsylvania are currently studying it.
  Riluzole--An experimental drug that has shown some success in slowing 
the progression of the muscle-wasting Lou Gehrig's disease. This 
disease affects 30,000 people in the United States.
  Congress first authorized and President Bush proclaimed the ``Decade 
of the Brain'' in 1990.
  The growth in our knowledge of the brain over the last 5 years has 
exceeded anything we imagined.
  Now at the midpoint of the decade, new discoveries about the brain 
offer unprecedented opportunities to both lower health care costs and 
improve the quality of life for those suffering from brain disorders 
and diseases.
  The cost of neurological and psychiatric disorders currently exceeds 
$300 billion a year.
  Brain diseases account for more hospitalizations and more prolonged 
care than almost all other diseases combined.
  In the remaining 5 years of the decade, scientists are optimistic 
that even more important advances will be made in brain research.
  We must continue to make this research a funding priority, so as to 
reap the benefits of the groundbreaking work already underway.
  Over 50 million Americans each year are affected by disease or 
disorders of the brain and central nervous system.
  Today 1 in 5 Americans is affected by brain disorders, and everyone 
over their lifetime will be affected either individually or because a 
member of their family is afflicted.
  The results are often devastating.
  We have made great progress in the past several years.
  For example the simple step of a women taking folic acid vitamin 
supplements can prevent spina bifida, a disabling disease. This saves 
an enormous amount of pain and suffering for parents and children 
alike.
  The medical cost for a child with spina bifida can exceed $500,000 a 
year.
  We have also discovered new medications for the treatment of 
depression.
  We have identified the genes responsible for Huntington's disease, 
Alzheimer's disease, and the familial form of Lou Gerhig's disease.
  We have produced new medications for migraine headaches.
  We have launched tests of new drugs to enhance recovery from stroke 
and spinal cord injury.
  But there is much still to be accomplised.
  Traumatic brain injury is the leading cause of death and neurological 
disorder among young Americans age 15 to 25.
  Two million Americans a year suffer head injuries at a cost of more 
than $25 billion a year.
  Since 1990 scientists have found that the permanent harm from 
traumatic brain injury increases with each hour and day after the 
injury.
  This produces a clear opportunity to develop powerful new emergency 
treatments.
  By the year 2000 effective therapies to limit brain damage now in 
human trials will be approved.
  Increasingly sophisticated neuropro- tective strategies will be 
introduced.
  Alzheimer's disease may be the single most important area of societal 
need for biomedical research, according to the National Academy on 
Aging (June 1994).
  Four million Americans a year and 20 million people worldwide are 
affected. The cost is more than $60 billion a year.
  Since 1990 scientists have discovered three genes that contribute to 
Alzheimer's, identified key points where intervention might delay, or 
prevent it, and improved techniques for diagnosis.
  By the year 2000 several new drugs will be identified as promising to 
interfere with the progress of Alzheimer's in order to delay its 
disabling symptoms for 5 years.
  This would allow millions of people to remain living independent and 
fuller lives. The cost to the public would also be greatly decreased by 
this step forward.
  Therapies to reverse the damage by replenishing lost cells or adding 
cells should begin to alleviate the suffering of those already 
affected.
  More than 500,000 people are affected annually by strokes with 3 
million people disabled. This cost is about $25 billion a year.
  Strokes are the Nation's third leading killer.
  Many patients survive stroke. There has been great progress since 
1990. The number of strokes were reduced as some risks were clarified.
  Doctors have adapted new preventive techniques.
  New drugs have been developed for limiting and possibly preventing 
stroke damage.
  One and a half million Americans are afflicted with Parkinson's 
disease. The cost is about $6 billion a year.
  This disease is a slow progressive degenerative brain disease. 
Researchers have developed innovative ways to pinpoint damaged nerve 
cells.
  By the year 2000 at least one and possibly several major new drugs 
will be in human trials.
  Screening for Parkinson's is likely, and new gene therapy should be 
available.
  I will include in the Record at the end of my statement an article 
from the Philadelphia Inquirer written by Dr. Leon Cooper, the winner 
of the 1972 [[Page S7219]] Nobel Prize in physics, and James Watson, 
the winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine for 1982.
  The article further expands on the importance of this research.
  I will also include a summary of recent brain research by the DANA 
Alliance.
  I would like to urge my colleagues to support this resolution which 
will ensure that this vital research is continued and that additional 
breakthroughs become reality.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article by Dr. Cooper and the DANA 
Alliance summary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          (By Leon N. Cooper)

       The growth in our knowledge of the brain over the last five 
     years has exceeded anything we imagined when Congress first 
     authorized and President Bush proclaimed the ``Decade of the 
     Brain'' in 1990. Now at the midpoint of the decade, we are on 
     the threshold of a new era that holds great promise for 
     individual health and vitality.
       For all three stages of life--early development, maturity 
     and aging--new and anticipated discoveries about the brain 
     offer unprecedented opportunities to relieve suffering, 
     improve the quality of life of those suffering neurological 
     and psychiatric disorders, and lower health-care costs.
       The question today is whether or not the American public 
     through its elected representatives will continue to make 
     brain research a priority, so as to continue to reap the 
     benefits of the nation's spectacularly successful investment 
     in basic research.
       Neurological and psychiatric disorders together account for 
     more hospitalization and more prolonged care than almost all 
     other diseases combined. Patient care and social spending 
     caused by brain-related disorders represent a 
     disproportionate amount of all health-care costs.
       In part because of prior successes of medical research, we 
     have become very good at keeping people alive to older and 
     older ages by treating or preventing respiratory, 
     circulatory, reproductive and other assaults. But our aging 
     population presents increasing challenges to the health-care 
     system because of the vulnerability of the aging brain.
       In the remaining five years of this decade, scientists are 
     optimistic that even more exciting advances will be made 
     across the broad front of brain research. Work just coming 
     off laboratory benches should enable us to intervene early in 
     or medicate some of today's incapacitating brain diseases and 
     disorders.
       Brain-related disorders cost this country billions of 
     dollars per year for patient care, hospitalizations and loss 
     of savings. These costs could be significantly lowered if we 
     could effectively treat the disorders, some of which began at 
     or before birth and may last a lifetime.
       A new report by the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives--an 
     organization of 135 neurosurgeons who champion research in 
     the field--offers a few examples of impressive gains in 
     various areas that we may see during the rest of this decade 
     if adequate support for research continues:
       Childhood: More effective treatments for muscle spasticity 
     in cerebral palsy and the prevention of a significant 
     proportion of CP cases arising from low birthweight. The 
     development of new medications for schizophrenia. The 
     identification of several more genes that contribute to 
     inherited forms of blindness, deafness and mental 
     retardation.
       Adulthood: New insights into the cause of multiple 
     sclerosis and the testing of new therapeutic approaches that 
     alter the natural course of the disease. Understanding the 
     molecules in the brain to which drugs of abuse bind should 
     make it possible to develop more effective cocaine-blocking 
     agents. Improved clinical care has already increased the 
     proportion of patients with spinal-cord injuries who are able 
     to return to their communities; this should continue and, in 
     time, lead to the first effective methods to repair the 
     injured spinal cord.
       Later years: Our growing knowledge of genetics and 
     pathology of Alzheimer's disease should allow us to 
     rationally design drugs to treat the disease. Some of those 
     drugs may well be in clinical trials before the end of the 
     decade. A cell transplant therapy for Parkinson's disease 
     will probably emerge as a practical procedure for individuals 
     who do not respond to L-dopa treatment. New drugs that 
     increase resistance to brain-cell damage in cases of stroke 
     will be available and begin to be tested in clinical trials.
       What do these advances hold for average Americans? The same 
     kind of hope and solace that members of Congress would wish 
     for their own families and for themselves.
       Ask Sen. John Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) what it means to 
     watch the relentless destruction of a parent from Alzheimer's 
     disease or Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), who underwent 
     surgery for a brain tumor.
       But it would be impossible to talk to all those members of 
     Congress who have known the heartbreak of substance abuse by 
     a family member, or the agony of manic-depressive illness, or 
     the frustration of children with learning disabilities, or 
     developmental disorders. They would tell you how they want 
     these agonies banished from their lives forever.
       What all these illnesses and difficulties have in common is 
     that they all involve the brain, and only brain research can 
     unlock the secrets that will give those who suffer from these 
     disorders (and their families) some hope.
       Sen. Mark Hatfield (R., Ore.), when announcing the 
     introduction of the ``Mo Udall Bill'' to fund Parkinson's 
     research, personally lamented the fact that federal dollars 
     for basic medical research are proposed to decrease in the 
     administration budget by more than a billion dollars by the 
     year 2000.
       Is that the message to the research community--that what 
     has already been achieved in brain research, and what you are 
     confident of achieving in the near future is not a national 
     priority?
       No one doubts that neuroscience's achievements to date are 
     just the vanguard of even greater discoveries to come. The 
     explosive growth of technology--particularly imaging--is 
     providing unprecedented insight into the brain.
       The exciting developments in genetics will benefit brain 
     research perhaps more than any other area of medicine, since 
     about half of all our genes are involved in the development 
     and operation of our brain.
       The message of the Dana Alliance report--to be presented in 
     Congress tormorrow--is one of opportunity and hope. What will 
     be Congress' message to the scienific community?
                                                                    ____

        DELIVERING RESULTS: A PROGRESS REPORT ON BRAIN RESEARCH

                                Summary

       The most important and productive medical research 
     happening today is the study of the brain. Since the Federal 
     government declared the Decade of the Brain in 1990, 
     researchers have solved some of the most stubborn riddles of 
     the brain, and have created and improved treatments for the 
     disorders that afflict it. The stunning progress of the last 
     five years gives future researchers a higher vantage point on 
     which to stand while scanning the horizon for cures.
       How does this affect you? One in five Americans is 
     struggling with a brain-related problem at any given time; 
     each of us will face such a struggle at some time in our 
     lives. It may be pain, depression, memory loss, or one of the 
     many problems like these that can be chronic and recurring. 
     It may be swift, like head injury and stroke; or it could be 
     degenerative and fatal, like Alzheimer's and Huntington's 
     diseases. Or a lifetime of anguish could result from a child 
     or grandchild's battle with addiction or schizophrenia. Some 
     of these afflictions are life-ending; all of them are life-
     diminishing. The cost in personal terms is beyond measure, in 
     hard economic terms, it is more than half a trillion dollars 
     a year.
       But now, the human brain is no longer a ``black box''--the 
     misunderstood and mysterious source of self, its maladies 
     misdiagnosed and undertreated. Today, at the midpoint of the 
     Decade of the Brain, it is clear that a new era has begun for 
     individual health and vitality. For all three of the major 
     stages of life that you and your family will experience--
     childhood, adulthood, and the later years--discoveries about 
     the brain's mechanisms, how it forms, grows and ages, how to 
     heal and strengthen it, are raising our expectations for 
     dealing with brain-related difficulties, giving you the 
     realistic chance to avoid suffering.
       If your maternal grandmother died with dementia, the most 
     common symptom of Alzheimer's, should you worry that your 
     later years will be marred by this disease? Scientists are 
     discovering ways to find out. Also, by the time you reach the 
     average age of onset, these same scientists could be able to 
     fend off the disease.
       The causes of cerebral palsy, retardation and learning 
     disabilities are being revealed, increasing the chances that 
     it will be possible to prevent these horrible conditions in 
     your own children.
       The discovery of drug binding sites in the brain is 
     enabling researchers to work towards potential treatments for 
     addiction, so that the lure of drugs will be much less likely 
     to steal the youth, or the life, of someone you love.
       Most of the brain afflictions that can severely alter your 
     life, by affecting you or someone close to you, are yielding 
     to researchers. For all those who cry, ``Why me?'' when they 
     are confronted with a brain disease, scientists are 
     approaching the day when they will be able to answer. As the 
     progress snowballs, and the discoveries come more quickly, 
     the likelihood of your life being destroyed by a neurological 
     ailment continues to shrink.
       Beyond the personal aspects, our nation itself has a 
     massive stake in brain research. Today, neurological and 
     psychiatric disorders together account for more 
     hospitalizations and more prolonged care than almost all 
     other diseases combined. No surprise there: Over the last 
     hundred years, we got better at keeping people alive and 
     ambulatory as far as their respiratory, circulatory, 
     digestive and reproductive systems were concerned, but we 
     were stymied by the brain.
       Now neuroscience is catching up. In the next five years, we 
     will help brain and nervous system patients in large numbers, 
     and because these patients number in the millions of people, 
     developments in brain science will transform our assumptions 
     in planning for the future. In particular, at the 
     [[Page S7220]] societal level, the view of crippling, 
     chronic, long term, and mental illnesses will be much 
     different.
       When the expanding numbers of aging Americans have less to 
     fear from the brain diseases of aging, and when disorders 
     that begin at or before birth, and last a lifetime, are 
     progressively fewer and less disabling, then the lost work 
     days (by patients and those who care for them) will fall, and 
     leisure activities will rise. Reduced social spending, 
     decreased work absences and improved quality of life all give 
     relief to a troubled economy.
       The achievements outlined in our report, however, are just 
     the vanguard of greater things to come. One of the most 
     significant facts about the progress we have made in brain 
     research is that more brain scientists today are working on 
     questions of basic science. This accounts for the diversity 
     of disorders we have been able to address in such a short 
     time. Clinicians focusing on specific diseases now have 
     better odds of finding the keys to the disorders they are 
     researching because there is so much more information to draw 
     upon.
       That is precisely what makes brain research so exciting. We 
     understand it better each day. And because of that, we will 
     solve problems of affliction that have truncated our lives 
     since the dawn of humankind. Everything lying ahead of us is 
     opportunity and hope.
       Here are some highlights of the progress report, and some 
     predictions for the next five years. Join us in celebrating 
     the hope offered for current and future victims of brain 
     disorders:
                               childhood

       Researchers believed that a major reduction of spasticity 
     in cerebral palsy and prevention of one-third of all CP cases 
     arising from low birthweight will occur within five years.
       New findings point to a family of drugs that may correct 
     drug-induced developmental abnormalities in children.
       Thanks to recent public health studies, psychiatry now 
     classifies schizophrenia as a developmental disorder, and 
     promises more effective medications by the year 2000.
       Researchers identified genes that contribute to inherited 
     forms of blindness and deafness and several forms of mental 
     retardation, including the most common inherited form among 
     males (Fragile X Syndrome). Growing evidence suggests that 
     genes also play a role in learning disabilities and 
     schizophrenia.

                               adulthood

       The first drug to block craving in alcohol addiction--
     Naltrexone--has recently been approved as an adjunct to 
     psychotherapy.
       Success in treating depression now approaches 90% with more 
     precise antide- pressant drugs which avoid unwanted side 
     effects.
       Obsessive-compulsive disorder has become treatable.
       For the first time ever, researchers have identified a 
     treatment (and are testing another) which alters the natural 
     course of multiple sclerosis.
       Researchers have identified the sites where drugs of abuse 
     bind in the brain, and by 2000 hope to have effective 
     cocaine-blocking agents.
       Recent refinements to treatments leave many more epileptics 
     seizure-free.
       Discovering serotonin-responsive proteins led researchers 
     to develop sumatriptan, an effective treatment for migraine 
     headaches.
       Improved clinical care now returns some 94 percent of 
     patients with spinal cord injuries to their communities. 
     Researchers may have the first treatment to enhance spinal 
     cord repair by 1996.
       Genetic research has identified specific genes that cause 
     Huntington's disease and familial Lou Gehrig's disease. New 
     findings show that genes may also play a role in addiction, 
     manic-depressive illness, depression and epilepsy.

                            the later years

       Several genes have been found that lead to Alzheimer's 
     disease. Cognex (tacrine), approved in 1994, is the first 
     drug for treating Alzheimer's symptoms. A combination of 
     genetic testing and position emission tomography (PET) 
     scanning may yield an early diagnostic test for Alzheimer's. 
     Also possible: an eye-drop diagnostic test and a spinal fluid 
     analysis test.
       The first animal model of Alzheimer's disease (a transgenic 
     mouse) has recently been produced, and it is already being 
     used to test drugs to slow the progression of Alzheimer's.
       An effective approach to gene therapy for Parkinson's 
     disease will emerge before 2000. Relief from Parkinson-like 
     symptoms has been achieved in monkeys using dopamine-
     enhancing drugs.
       A new bloodclot-dissolving drug can improve the outcome of 
     stroke, if administered within two hours of onset.
       A chili pepper extract, capsaicin, now helps relieve 
     chronic pain (even in cancer). Within five years, scientists 
     expect to have developed non-addictive pain relievers.
       Recently discovered proteins that nourish, repair and 
     promote the growth of nerve cells are leading to drugs (some 
     already in trials) that increase resistance to stroke.
                               TECHNOLOGY

     Imaging:

       Now, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allows 
     doctors to view the active brain, and at their desktops to 
     interactively scan entire brain structures.
       Using charged Xenon gas, laboratory scientists improved MRI 
     signal strength by a factor of 10,000, producing more clearly 
     defined pictures in animals.

     Disease models:

       Scientists are working with living organisms in laboratory 
     settings to test compounds and find new directions for 
     investigation. Animal models available today include:
       Alzheimer's disease
       Developmental disorders
       Several different forms of epilepsy
       Multiple sclerosis
       Pain
       Traumatic brain injury

                          SOURCES FOR NUMBERS

The Developing Brain
       Developing Disorders (cost and patients): National 
     Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 1993.
       Schizophrenia (patients): National Institute on Mental 
     Health, Update August 1993.
       Schizophrenia (cost): NIMH, 1995.
The Mature Brain
       Blindness/vision loss (cost and patient numbers): National 
     Eye Institute, 1994.
       Deafness/hearing loss (patients): National Institute on 
     Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders, 1992.
       Deafness/hearing loss (cost): Hallworth, R, et al. ``Hair 
     Cells and Hearing'' Press Conference, Society for 
     Neuroscience Annual Meeting October 26, 1992.
       Depression (patients): National Institute on Mental Health, 
     Update August 1993.
       Depression (cost): Rice, Dp and Miller, LS. ``The Economic 
     Burden of Affective Disorders'' Advances in Health Economics 
     and Health Services Research 1993.
The Aging Brain
       Alzheimer's Disease (patient numbers): ``News Notes.'' 
     National Institute on Aging, 1989.
       Alzheimer's Disease (cost): National Institute of 
     Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 1993.

  Mr. STEVENS. I commend to the Senate the decade of the brain and urge 
the Senate to become familiar with what is happening in this research 
area. My amendment merely assumes that we will continue this support, 
this endeavor, the research of the decade of the brain in the last half 
of this decade as we have in the first. I ask that the amendment be 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. EXON. I think the matter has been cleared on both sides. I urge 
its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1129) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Under the previous arrangement, I believe the Senator from 
Arkansas is finally ready to be recognized.

                           Amendment No. 1130
  (Purpose: To strike the proposed change in the budget process rules 
  which would permit the scoring of revenue derived from the sale of 
                            federal assets)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I must say, sitting around here all 
evening waiting to offer an amendment can be a very frustrating 
experience. I have concluded that this is no way to run a railroad. I 
have watched this process now for 5 days and I have listened to a lot 
of powerful speeches. There are plenty of opportunities for press 
releases back home proving that you are a budget deficit hawk.
  But as a result of that, there are a lot of good amendments that are 
not going to be debated because we are running out of time tomorrow. 
This process should permit those people who have honest-to-goodness, 
legitimate amendments to offer and debate them. We should have a lot 
less--in this case about 30 hours--of political speeches. When debate 
on the budget resolution is complete, there are going to be a lot of 
amendments, many of which that would have improved the budget 
resolution, that will fail because their proponents will not have had 
time to present their case to the Senate.
  Mr. President, I do not know of a single amendment that has been 
offered on this side of the aisle that would increase the budget $1. We 
have tried to rearrange some of the priorities, but we have not tried, 
and would not try, to torpedo the legitimate goal of trying to balance 
the budget by the year 2002.
  My own amendment, Mr. President, goes to a rule change that is 
proposed in the budget resolution that I think is disastrous. This 
proposed rule change involves the sale of assets that belong 
[[Page S7221]] to the United States, where the taxpayers get a one-time 
windfall. The rule change would permit revenues derived from the sale 
of these assets to be scored for Budget Act purposes.
  When I was Governor, we had revenue sharing. The Senator from 
Kentucky seated here was Governor of his State at the same time I was, 
and the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee was 
Governor of his State. Three Governors here on the floor tonight who 
served together.
  One morning I went to my office and there was a check on my desk for 
$21 million made out to Dale Bumpers. I told my aide, ``Call the 
airport, tell them we will be there in 15 minutes.'' And $21 million 
was the first revenue-sharing check we got.
  I sent it to the Arkansas Highway Department because I knew they 
would use it for things that would only be a one-time shot. To put that 
$21 million into the operating budget would have been irresponsible. I 
knew revenue sharing at some time was going to end and I would have had 
to raise taxes to continue the services that we were providing with 
that $21 million.
  I do not believe there is a single Governor in the United States that 
would take a one-shot windfall amount of money and put it into an 
operating budget. It is lunacy to do it.
  In 1987, the U.S. Congress, under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II, adopted 
the proposition that revenue derived from asset sales would not be 
scored. In short, the rule was intended to prevent the use of asset 
sales for operations.
  Since 1986, every budget resolution that has come to the floor of the 
U.S. Senate and been adopted by both Houses of Congress said 
specifically that revenue derived from asset sales could not be used to 
offset the deficit. In other words, revenue from asset sales could not 
be scored.
  Yet here we have a proposed budget which changes this long-time 
sensible rule and assumes the sale of a whole host of Government 
assets, including the Presidio, an Army base in San Francisco; the 
strategic petroleum reserve, the Naval petroleum reserve; the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
  Now, Mr. President, my amendment would simply strike one section in 
the budget resolution in order to restore the old rule which prohibits 
revenue from asset sales to be scored.
  Mr. President, I have no objection to asset sales per se. We sell 
assets all the time. My amendment does not suggest that we cannot sell 
an asset. However, it suggests we cannot come in here with a big 
platter full of asset sales in order to balance the budget, where the 
Senate has not debated those items and simply say, ``Here's $4 billion 
in deficit reduction.'' The budget resolution assumes that we will sell 
thousands of barrels of oil we have in the strategic petroleum reserve. 
It anticipates the sale of the Presidio in San Francisco, and that will 
never fly because San Francisco has so many ordinances nobody would 
give anything for it because it will never be able to be developed.
  If the proposed change in these long-standing budget rules is 
permitted to take place, let me tell Members where we will be headed. 
First of all, every budget reconciliation bill that comes before this 
body is going to have a whole host of asset sales.
  We are going to have a national yard sale. National parks, wildlife 
refuges, national forests, highways, power marketing administrations, 
water projects--all up for sale in order to balance the budget.
  Many asset sales do not even make financial sense. Assume we get $1 
billion for the sale of the power marketing administrations. We cut the 
deficit $1 billion in 1996. If you assume that these assets, if 
retained under Federal ownership, would produce $100 million a year in 
revenue, by the year 2020 we will have lost revenues of $2.5 billion in 
exchange for the one-shot deal in 1996. No businessman in his right 
mind would do such a thing.
  Mr. President how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes and 50 seconds.
  Will the Senator send the amendment to the desk?
  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Bradley, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Baucus, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1130.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike line 7 on page 76 through line 12 on page 77.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the House had a budget task force which 
recently adopted a Heritage Foundation recommendation that we should 
keep only those national parks and wilderness areas of national 
significance. It may be that the senior Senator from Alaska seated on 
the floor and his junior colleague may decide that Denali is not of 
national significance and throw it in the budget reconciliation bill--
it would be gone.
  If we are only going to keep national parks and wilderness areas of 
national significance, who is going to decide that? Congress? It will 
be very tough if the budget is in dire need of revenue and no one wants 
to raise taxes. Here is where we could wind up.
  First of all, we could make the Grand Canyon available for sale. That 
could be the first to go.
  Then take Mount Rushmore. I have been out to Mount Rushmore. They 
have a thriving number of visitors out there. I think we can probably 
put a McDonald's and maybe a Marriott there at Mount Rushmore. There is 
no telling what that place would bring.
  After we get rid of Mount Rushmore and Grand Canyon, here is the 
jewel, we would sell the Statue of Liberty.
  Now, Mr. President, that all sound very humorous. There is absolutely 
no reason whatever under this budget resolution, which allows the 
scoring of revenue from the sale of national assets, to believe that 
some things just as precious as the Statue of Liberty will not be put 
on the auction block.
  Last year I was Chairman of the National Parks Committee. I went out 
to see the Presidio. I had never seen it except at a distance. It is 
one of the most remarkable pieces of property left in the United States 
and certainly the most remarkable piece of property left in an urban 
area. Here we have already put it up for sale. Who knows where we go 
after that?
  Mr. President, I have offered the Bumpers-Bradley-Murray amendment 
this evening not only because the proposed rule change in the budget 
resolution would permit the sale of our national treasures, but because 
it is also bad economic policy, bad social policy and bad culture 
policy. We ought not to do it. We have lived very well for 205 years 
without trying to balance the budget by selling assets.
  Finally, my amendment does not alter the bottom line of the budget 
resolution one bit. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee would 
still be required to find whatever amount of money the budget 
resolution instructs the Committee to find.
  I can tell you, Mr. President, again, you put this proposition to the 
people of this country, Do you think we ought to start selling off 
wilderness areas, national forests, some of our treasured national 
parks? I can just see it now. You cannot see all the Grand Canyon from 
the rim. We need a highway down through it so you can really enjoy it.
  We need a new Holiday Inn down at the bottom of the Grand Canyon so 
we can make more money.
  These things are disastrous.
  I hope a majority of the Senate tomorrow morning, when we vote on 
this, will agree that this is a terrible, terrible change in budgeting. 
It is a terrible change in national policy.
  I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Washington, 
Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arkansas.
  The budget resolution before us has been termed an historic document. 
It certainly is. For the last decade, the Congress of the United States 
has recognized that our public lands are too precious to sell unless 
their sale is in the best interest of the public. That is good policy 
and one that has enjoyed strong bi-partisan support.
  But it is a new day. Today, we may well vote to sell our children's 
heritage to pay our debts. I reject that approach [[Page S7222]] to 
debt reduction and I reject that approach to disposition of our Federal 
assets.
  What is at risk? Potentially on the sale block are assets ranging 
from oil supplies beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; to 
battlefields reminding us of the pain and sacrifice of the Civil War; 
to Power Marketing Associations that provide hydroelectric energy, 
transportation, and resource protection; to endangered wildlife living 
in our National Wilderness Preservation System; to toll-free interstate 
highways present in every State in the Nation; to public timber sold 
primarily to small businesses dependent upon National Forests for their 
wood supply.
  These assets should not be sold to reduce the deficit. And they, 
certainly, should not be sold to provide a tax cut to wealthy 
Americans. Instead, our Federal assets should be sold only when, after 
reasoned debate and a full public airing, we decide their sale is in 
the best interest not only of this generation--but of every generation 
that follows. We owe our children much more than a balanced budget. We 
owe them their heritage.
  I urge my colleagues to vote first for Senator Bumper's amendment 
precluding scoring of the sale of all Federal assets.
  While I have the floor I want to just mention two other amendments I 
will be offering tomorrow that my colleagues will be voting on.

              sense of the senate resolution on impact aid

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, tomorrow I will send an amendment to the 
desk.
  Mr. President, my amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate that the Federal 
Government should live up to its responsibility to educate the children 
of our women and men in uniform through the impact aid program.
  At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent to add my good 
friend, the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, as well as Senators 
Pressler, Akaka, Hutchison, Levin, Bingaman, Pell, Dorgan, Baucus and 
Kerrey of Nebraska as cosponsors.
  Mr. President, you see, this amendment enjoys strong bipartisan 
support because the impact aid program is a vital component of the 
education portfolio of 48 States.
  It has strong support because Senators on both sides of the aisle 
know how important this program is to their States and to the country.
  More than 40 years ago, the Federal Government established the impact 
aid program.
  Forty years ago--great, forward-thinking legislators recognized that 
the Federal Government has a responsibility to communities which have 
been adversely impacted by Federal activities.
  Mr. President, this is exactly the underpinning of the legislation we 
passed earlier in this Congress. The unfunded mandates bill corrected a 
large-scale shift of costs from the Federal Government to the States 
and to local communities.
  Impact aid is a good program for States--it lives up to the true 
spirit of local control of education.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not been living up to the 
spirit of the Impact Aid program.
  Funding levels for impact aid have been so far below authorized 
levels that we have unfairly shifted a large portion of funding for 
Federally connected students to local taxpayers.
  The end result is that, now--in many States--this program covers less 
than half of the costs to educate each student. The Federal Government 
has just been shifting its responsibility to the States to make up the 
difference.
  Mr. President, when I review the last several years of funding and 
rescissions, I am outraged with the trend I see developing--we have 
been abandoning responsibility to our kids by cutting funds for this 
program.
  And, there is no question that the importance of this program has 
increased over its 40 year history.
  Its importance has increased not just because it directly affects 
over 2 million students in our Nation--but also because of the tight 
budgets facing our States today.
  And, some States--such as my home state of Washington--do not rely 
upon an income tax for State funding. You see, Mr. President, the loss 
of property tax revenues makes State and local education funding even 
more difficult.
  Mr. President, let me take a moment to tell you about a school 
district near Tacoma, WA--it's called Clover Park.
  Fort Lewis is in the Clover Park school district. Women and men in 
uniform are assigned by the Federal Government to serve our Nation 
there. And, their kids--like all American children--deserve to be 
educated.
  They should not be abandoned because their parents live on Federal 
property.
  Impact Aid makes up 7 percent of Clover Park's budget. In Clover 
Park, this money goes directly to the school district and is free of 
bureaucracy.
  It provides basic support to the school district whose local school 
board determines how to use the funds.
  Now, Mr. President, if impact aid funds were cut off, school 
districts would have to increase taxes in the Tacoma community. Or, 
Clover Park would have to cut teachers and close buildings. Or, the 
schools would have to double-shift students.
  That is wrong. That is a total abdication of the Federal 
responsibility to our kids.
  Of course, we all recognize the budget constraints facing the Federal 
Government today.
  I know tough choices must be made.
  However, Mr. President, I believe we can achieve meaningful deficit 
reduction without passing on this huge unfunded mandate. And, without 
compromising our responsibility to our schools and our communities.
  Mr. President, I want to be sure that adequate resources are put into 
impact aid. And, this sense-of-the-Senate reconfirms our commitment--on 
both sides of the aisle--to making that happen.
  I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and support 
this amendment.

                      children's health insurance

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, tomorrow I will send an amendment to the 
desk. My amendment is very straightforward.
  It allows the Senate to think twice before we pass reforms to the 
Medicaid system that would result in more uninsured American children.
  This amendment does not call for one dime of new spending. It is, by 
definition, revenue neutral.
  This amendment simply creates a point of order against any 
legislation which would cause children currently eligible to receive 
Medicaid to lose their health care benefits.
  And, that point of order is easily waived by a simple majority vote.
  Mr. President, as you know, this year, the Medicaid program covers 
health care services for over 36 million low-income Americans.
  Close to half of those Americans are children. Children who have no 
access to health care insurance on their own. Children with complex 
health care needs. And, children, I will say, Mr. President, who don't 
have well financed lobbyists up here fighting for their interest.
  Most of the children covered by Medicaid live in low-income, working 
families.
  Mr. President, we are talking about families who have to choose 
between putting food on the table, or getting health care treatment for 
their child.
  I have visited Children's Hospital in Seattle many times.
  Mr. President, I have witnessed first-hand the decisions these 
parents face.
  A typical family on Medicaid is a young, happy family, whose life is 
suddenly disrupted when they find out their child has been diagnosed 
with cystic fibrosis or leukemia or severe asthma or cancer.
  One parent has to quit his or her job to stay home and take care of 
the child. On just one income, family finances become increasingly 
difficult.
  Soon the health insurance runs out, and the family is forced to spend 
down to be able to receive Medicaid, just so their child can receive 
critical medical attention.
  The cost of care for the child will be passed along to the American 
taxpayer. Doctor and hospitals will simply raise their rates. Insurance 
companies will do the same.
  Everyone agrees that there are problems with the Medicaid system that 
need fixing, and everyone agrees with the need to reduce the Federal 
deficit.
  But, I am concerned that we don't become lulled by the mantra of cut, 
cut, cut. [[Page S7223]] 
  As the Congress cuts spending, I just want to make sure we raise a 
red flag when children's health care is concerned.
  Medicaid is every child's health insurance safety net.
  My amendment just makes us think twice before we yank that safety net 
away.
  You will hear some arguments against my amendment today, arguments 
that--frankly--make little sense.
  You will hear that this amendment is impeding deficit reduction, and 
impeding the actions of the Senate.
  On the contrary, the point of order in this amendment can be waived 
by a simple majority vote--just 50 votes.
  We have points of order against the mandates of environmental laws--I 
just want to make sure we have a point of order to protect the most 
vulnerable of our population--our children.
  You will also hear that this amendment says that we do not trust our 
Governors to protect children when Medicaid is block granted. Trust?
  Block grants, by definition, shift all responsibility to the States. 
If any kind of emergency or disaster happens in a State, such as an 
earthquake in California or flooding in the Midwest.
  I just want to make sure our overburdened Governors do not allow 
health care for our children to go by the wayside. This amendment 
simply makes us think twice about children.
  This is not a question of trust--it is a question of insurance. That 
is all.
  Finally, Mr. President, you will hear that this issue will be dealt 
with in the Finance Committee after the budget resolution is passed.
  We listened to a prolonged debate this morning on the EITC--which 
will also be a topic in the Finance Committee's deliberations. If today 
is a good day to talk about EITC, today is a good time to talk about 
children's health insurance.
  Let me conclude with a few words about priorities.
  When I offered this amendment in the Budget Committee, we were 
immediately subjected to a lengthy diatribe by the other side that 
sounded more like Presidential campaign speeches than a statement about 
our children's health insurance.
  That happens all too often. As soon as we talk about children, the 
debate is trivialized. The discussion is kidnapped.
  And, so, I stand here again today and ask--what better time is there 
to talk about the future of our children than during this historic 
debate?
  We need to know if actions we take here today will hurt our children.
  My sincere goal with this amendment is to look out for the most 
vulnerable of our population.
  I know they do not vote. I know they do not give money to political 
campaigns. But they continue to get sick because their parents cannot 
afford to get them vaccinated.
  Congress cannot turn its back on its children.
  My amendment simply ensures that before Congress makes any changes to 
the Medicaid system, we will take a hard, thoughtful look at the 
possible damage these changes will cause.
  Let us put a little bit of conscience back into this budget.
  Let us protect our future.
  Let us protect our children.
  I urge all my colleagues to join Budget Committee members on my side 
of the aisle and agree to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to take 
2 minutes from the time controlled by this Senator, to briefly speak on 
the subject at hand.
  I first would like to ask if the Senator from Arkansas has added me 
as a cosponsor to his amendment or not? If he has not, I would like to 
be added as a cosponsor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to add Senators Murray and 
Bradley as my chief cosponsors, the Senator from Nebraska, Senator 
Exon, Senator Wellstone, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein--all as 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. I also ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor to 
the amendment just addressed that the Senator will be offering 
tomorrow, the Senator from Washington, with regard to impact aid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
                           amendment no. 1130

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator 
Bumpers to strike the changes made to the asset rule in the budget 
resolution. The recent push to sell off physical assets in an effort to 
generate short-term budget savings is not a wise move.
  The asset rule was put in place in order to discourage these sorts of 
proposals which do not result in any structural decline of the deficit. 
In fact, many of the recommendations included in this budget resolution 
will not yield any budget savings over the long term.
  The savings resulting from the selling off of physical assets in this 
resolution will end up generating only $3.5 billion in receipts over 
the next 7 years. Many of these proposals end up costing the Government 
money in the out-years.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this 
effort to rid the use of this sort of budget gimmickry in an attempt to 
balance the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe there is 10 minutes reserved on 
this side. I yield myself 5 minutes to begin with.
  Is there not 10 minutes reserved for this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am reminded of what President Reagan 
said once, ``Here we go again. Here we go again.''
  I have just heard these speeches that sound as though this is 
something that has been dreamed up by this side of the aisle. The 
President requested this. Is the other side of the aisle going to 
abandon the President again? The President asked for $8 billion in his 
budget. He specifically asked for this language. This language is the 
President's language.
  What does it do? It allows scoring of the sales of assets that are 
already authorized by law to be sold.
  I would be ashamed to come here with pictures of places in this 
country that are loved by all citizens, and imply that anything in this 
budget resolution will sell one national park or refuge. It is an 
authorization to score the sale of assets. It is necessary to carry out 
the President's budget. It is also a fact that people have used this 
budget gimmickry to prevent the leasing of 1.5 million acres on the 
North Slope of Alaska, one of the last great deposits of oil and gas in 
the United States, because it is considered to be the sale of an asset 
when it is leased.
  The Arctic coastal plain must be authorized by law to be leased. It 
has already been subject to three environmental studies. There is no 
opposition that I know of to the concept of the Mineral Leasing Act. 
That law has already been passed. This land should be leased.
  Oil and gas leases are called a sale under the concept of the Budget 
Act. And since you cannot score that sale, the act of leasing costs 
money and, guess what, that prevents us from proceeding to lease the 
land because you cannot score the money that comes in from the lease. 
But it costs you money to lease it. An absurd conclusion.
  The President came in and asked for a change in this law. He asked 
that we change this in his budget this year and he assumed $8 billion 
in asset sales--that must be authorized by law--as part of that budget. 
I notice the picture of the Grand Canyon is right-side-up now, but even 
so the Grand Canyon, if someone wanted to propose to sell it, they 
would have to come here and secure the passage of a law. The things the 
President wants to sell must be authorized by law to be sold. What we 
want to lease in Alaska must be authorized by law to be leased. I never 
have heard such a ludicrous argument in my life.
  I have seen some of this stuff from the extreme environmental 
organizations that send this baloney all over the country and charge 
people fantastic sums of money. They rival the AARP in terms of the way 
they raise money and really convince people they are doing good when 
they are really paying themselves and sending these stupid letters out 
that imply that [[Page S7224]] somehow the President wants to sell the 
Grand Canyon. It is the President's language. It is not my language. It 
is not the Alaskan language. It is the President's request.
  I cannot believe what I am hearing on the floor of the Senate. I 
really cannot.
  Why do you not recognize the income from the sale of assets? The 
lease of the Alaska oil reserve lands would bring in over $1.4 billion 
in a 4-year period. If it is leased that is money that comes into the 
Federal Treasury. It is not a sale. It is what is paid for the 
privilege of producing oil and gas from Federal lands.
  Somehow or other, people have assumed that there is something sort of 
seditious in this concept of the President's, that we are going to 
count money that comes into the Treasury as money.
  I have heard arguments on the floor of the Senate that embarrassed me 
before but I am embarrassed for those who offer this amendment.
  In the first place, they attacked their own President, not us. In the 
second place, it makes no fiscal sense to say when we sell an asset 
that produces billions, that we have to go out and borrow money in 
order to balance the budget because we cannot count that money that 
comes into the Treasury--not in a budget sense. It is there in a 
physical sense but it is just added to the Treasury. You cannot count 
it under these stupid budget rules that finally even the President of 
the United States recognized are just that. They are stupid. It is time 
to change them. It is time for us to stop this Mickey Mouse business.
  Look, a ``For Sale'' sign on the Statue of Liberty. Would the 
President suggest selling the Statue of Liberty? Have we suggested 
selling Mount Rushmore? My God, I really cannot believe the depth of 
this argument, when it comes down to just say anything to scare people 
throughout the country. ``We are going to sell the national parks.'' It 
is stupid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes off the time of 
this Senator.
  I would simply correct my friend from Alaska. The President of the 
United States, in his budget, suggested selective sales, including the 
Power Marketing Administration. This Senator and many on this side 
strongly disagree with the President on the selling of the Power 
Marketing Administration.
  We went down and had a meeting with him and we will fight that here 
and we will fight it all the way through this budget process. Certainly 
I think we can disagree. I believe the Senator from Arkansas made it 
very clear in his remarks that he realizes we are not suggesting this, 
but the main thing the Senator from Alaska is overlooking is the 
proposition in this budget changes the rules that could allow this to 
happen. They cannot happen under the rules the way they are.
  We objected to the President of the United States, our President, as 
you say, doing that. And we certainly object to the Republican Budget 
Committee going along in unison with the President of the United 
States, which in and of itself is quite unusual.
  We oppose your doing it. We opposed the President in doing it. And we 
hope we are alerting the Senate of the United States to this serious 
mistake.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator wish?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 6 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. I am sorry, I thought the Senator was out of time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska misunderstands 
what this debate is about. It is not about what the President 
recommended. I could not disagree with the President more. I went down 
to the White House and told him, along with the Senator from Nebraska 
and a host of others. This is bad policy and I told the President that. 
He is my friend but that does not mean I have to agree with him on 
everything and he understands that better than anybody.
  The fact that the President has proposed asset sales in his budget 
does not make it good policy. It is bad policy. I do not care who 
recommended it.
  The Senator from Alaska says he is embarrassed. He is embarrassed by 
this amendment. What we are trying to do is to restore the law where it 
has been for 10 years. I never heard the Senator from Alaska in the 
last 10 years say under the budget rule not scoring assets was an 
embarrassment. Now it is an embarrassment. The Senator from Alaska is 
my friend. He has been trying to get ANWR opened up for oil drilling 
since, as we say, ``the memory of man runneth not.'' I am not for it, 
and I don't expect to be for it in the foreseeable future.
  This resolution assumes that we are going to charge the oil companies 
$1.4 billion over the next 7 years for the right to drill in ANWR. What 
do you do after the scoring period to make up for the lost oil after 
the first 7 years? You are going to cut discretionary spending again.
  The budget resolution assumes $1.4 billion from the sale of the power 
marketing administrations. That is a bad proposition from a business 
standpoint. No businessman in his right mind would decide whether to 
sell an asset by only considering the lost revenues associated with 
that asset for a period of 7 years.
  I will tell you something. If you are willing to sell the Presidio, 
the Grand Canyon cannot be very far behind.
  So, Mr. President, I plead with my colleagues not to buy into this 
idea that you can take these one-shot, one-time windfalls from the 
leasing of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the selling of the 
Presidio, the selling of these power marketing administrations.
  As I said in the opening of my remarks, my amendment does not 
preclude asset sales. It simply says deal with them in the usual course 
of business and do not score them for budgeting purposes.
  I am not only not embarrassed, I have never been prouder of an 
amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is it in order now, before using all of 
my time, to 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. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and retain the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 5 minutes, and 
the Senator from Arkansas has 1 minute 48 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Out of the 5 minutes, I yield 3 minutes to Senator 
Stevens from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to put in the 
Record section 5 of the President's bill indicating how he would treat 
the proceeds from the sale of transfer of lands under his proposal.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                proceeds

       Sec. 5. Proceeds from a sale or transfer under this Act 
     shall be recited to miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. 
     If the President so designates, the net proceeds shall be 
     included in the budget baseline required by the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and shall be 
     counted for the purposes of section 252 of that Act as an 
     offset to direct spending, notwithstanding section 257(e) of 
     that Act.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am embarrassed for the proponents of 
this amendment. I am not embarrassed by the President. I think the 
President is trying to make some sense out of the Budget Act, and it is 
time that we considered that.
  This is an attack on a proceeding to lease the Alaska oil reserve. It 
is not standing up straight. It is a duplicitous amendment. It is an 
amendment intended to kill the provision in the budget resolution that 
considers it a requirement of the Energy Committee to raise money. One 
of the ways they can raise that money is by bringing forth a bill to 
proceed to lease the one and one-half million acres on the Arctic 
coastal plain that has a fantastic potential for oil and gas.
  Furthermore, the Senator from Arkansas said, what happens in the next 
year? Hopefully in the next year you [[Page S7225]] would discover oil. 
The last time I remember people standing on this floor saying there is 
no oil was when we were considering legislation to allow leasing on the 
North Slope of Alaska, when they said that it would only produce about 
1 billion barrels at the most. Mind you, that would have been the 
largest deposit on the North American continent. But, as a matter of 
fact, we have already produced 10 billion barrels. Ten billion barrels 
came out of that bill that came before the Senate. The argument went 
for days. Finally, the tie had to be broken by the Vice President of 
the United States.
  Now, we are in the same situation here. Mr. President, you are going 
to see more wildcats coming across this floor when ANWR is brought up 
than anything you have here. They have more things they can warn the 
public of. Look at that. They say we are trying to sell the Statue of 
Liberty. It is absolutely ludicrous again I say. I have never heard an 
argument stretched to that point.
  This resolution does not authorize the sale of anything. All the 
President wants to do is count the money when it is authorized to lease 
or to sell something, and there already are a series of things 
authorized. The President is going to send up a bill to authorize the 
further sale of some of the assets on the Presidio at Monterey in 
California. As a matter of fact, it has already been leased. Do you 
know who it is leased to? Former Senator Cranston and the former leader 
of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gorbachev. They have leases there in the 
Presidio already.
  Now, when you look at it, all the President is saying is that in the 
process of acquiring money from the sale or lease of assets that are 
authorized by law, we ought to count them in the budget process. This 
amendment would deny the President that right. It would mean that he 
could not count the $1.4 billion that will come in the first 4 years of 
the leasing of ANWR.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his courtesy.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Alaska, my 
amendment does not stop the leasing of ANWR. That is not what this 
amendment is all about. You can go ahead and lease ANWR. But do not 
score it in the budget. That has been the law of the land for 10 years.
  All of a sudden we get this budget resolution presented to us and 
they say we are going to change the rules. If you can get $2 billion 
for Presidio, count it, score it. You have $4 billion in here, and next 
year you may not have $4 billion in asset sales so you are going to 
have to find it elsewhere. Why, I say to the Senator, you might even 
have to pay royalties on hard rock mining next year.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for just one question? We are 
closing almost 50 bases in the United States. Why should we not count 
as income those portions of the bases we are going to sell? This 
amendment would not allow that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there is not a Governor in the United 
States, including the person sitting in the chair at this moment, who 
is a former Governor, in my opinion, that will take an asset sale or 
one-time windfall and put it into his operating budget. My amendment 
does not prohibit the sale of those bases. It just says, let's not 
change the budget rules to mask the deficit by scoring the revenues 
derived from these asset sales.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Bumpers have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-one seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair very much.
  Mr. President, let me suggest there really are two arguments here. I 
think the paramount one is to get rid of any authority that the Energy 
Committee might have in its reconciliation instructions to direct that 
we begin leasing of ANWR. While asset sales generally seem to be the 
subject matter, I think that is the prime focus.
  And let me suggest for a minute a bit of arrogance about the United 
States, a bit of arrogance about those who think we can just continue 
to lock up our assets because we are so wealthy it does not matter. How 
does $180 billion worth of American assets called ``oil'' sound to 
average Americans--$180 billion worth? We will buy it from other 
countries because we think we are so strong, so powerful, so 
economically self-sufficient we can just throw away our assets--$180 
billion.
  Now, I know that people do not like to think of America as being 
arrogant about anything; we are humble people. But I submit, Mr. 
President, it is arrogance to think that we can throw away $180 billion 
and say we will buy it from the Saudis. After all, it was only ours so 
why not just lock it up.
  Now, if there was harm coming to ANWR, many who will vote against 
Senator Bumpers would vote with him. But that argument about how much 
damage is going to be done there just will not play too much longer.
  Now, let me make a second point. Let me make a second point on this 
issue. Mr. President, what happens if we fail to balance the budget and 
the American dollar keeps coming down? Do you know what might happen, I 
say to the Senator from Alaska? The Saudi Arabians may say, ``Pay us in 
yen.'' How does that strike you? ``We do not want your American 
dollars. They are not good enough.''
  Mr. STEVENS. For oil.
  Mr. DOMENICI. For oil. Pay us in yen. We will pay them in yen and 
guess what will happen. Oil prices go up 300 percent in America.
  Why should we not use our own rather than depend totally upon them?
  I yield the floor, and if we have no remaining time, I assume we are 
finished with this amendment and it will be appropriately stacked 
tomorrow by our leader.

                          ____________________
```