S7422 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

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

preferences, and tax breaks to increase 

by almost 50 percent over the next 7 

years. 

B. The Fair Share Budget corrects 

this imbalance by limiting direct 

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

spending and interest over the next 7 

years), but also by slowing the growth 

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

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

the cuts only to wealthy corporations 

and wealthy taxpayers (couples earning 

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

VI. IS NOT ABOUT RAISING ANYBODY’S TAXES

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

categories of Federal spending. The 

Fair Share Balanced Budget resolution 

does not reduce these entitlements. It 

only slows their growth to inflation 

plus 1 percent. 

B. The Republicans cannot have it 

both ways. They cannot claim, on the 

one hand, that the Fair Share Budget’s 

proposed slow-down in the growth of 

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

other hand, claim that their slow-down 

in the growth of the earned income tax 

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

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

big corporations, they must also admit 

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

class and poor working families. 

While not perfect, this Democratic 

alternative plan achieves the goal of a 

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

not ask the wealthiest corporations 

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

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

mostly wealthy people, the Republican 

budget trades away investments in our 

future—in education, infrastructure, 

and research and development—investments in our children. 

Remember that the main reason 

given for eliminating the deficit is that 

we are doing it for our children. But, if 

we free our children from the burden of 

the Federal deficit by depriving them 

of the education and training that they 

will need to compete and succeed in the 

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

not been responsible. 

Education programs, for example, are 

especially important to New Mexico. 

My State has the third highest rate of 

children living in poverty of any State 

in the Nation. More than one in four 

children in New Mexico live in families 

with incomes below the poverty line. 

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

English. Its school-age population has 

grown tremendously, and a 12-percent 

increase in New Mexico’s population of 

school-age children is projected over 

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

schools by about 30 percent over the 

next seven years; that translates into 

tens of millions of dollars that New 

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

problems. 

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

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

New Mexico’s students could lose the 

opportunity to go to college. That 

would be devastating to their futures 

and to the future of our State. In New 

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

Grants. 

I do not believe that America will be 

well-served by the Republican budget, 

nor do I feel that most Americans 

would agree with the specific proposals 

contained within it. And that is why I 

am proud to have cosponsored the fair 

share balanced budget alternative and 

to vote for it today. 

In conclusion, I want to remind the 

Senate that the passage of any budget 

resolution today is only the beginning 

of a long process that will determine 

the priorities of our Government. The 

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

as they spend the summer determining 

specific spending levels for agencies 

and programs. 

Throughout this process, I pledge to 

continue to fight for proper funding for 

programs that will contribute to providing educational opportunities for 

our children, meet the health care 

needs of our senior citizens, and reward 

work and encourage innovation in the 

marketplace. 

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the 

floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 2 

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

be the second largest tax increase in 

American history. I do not think we 

ought to adopt it. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

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

The bill clerk called the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 39, 

nays 60, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.] 

YEAS—39 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Feingold 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

NAYS—60 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the amendment (No. 1183) was rejected. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was rejected, and I move to 

lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

want to say to the Senate, I apologize 

for the delay I caused. I thought I 

voted before I left. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE TWO HOUSES 

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

turn to the adjournment resolution, 

House Concurrent Resolution 72. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

Providing for an adjournment of the two 

Houses. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution? 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the concurrent 

resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution. 

The concurrent resolution (H. Con. 

Res. 72) was agreed to. 

The concurrent resolution is as follows: 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the 

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

May 25, 1995, it stand adjourned until noon 

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

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7423 

the second day after Members are notified to 

reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; 

and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, 

May 25, 1995, Friday, May 26, 1995, or Saturday, May 27, 1995, pursuant to a motion made 

by the Majority Leader or his designee, in 

accordance with this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, 

June 5, 1995, or until noon on the second day 

after Members are notified to reassemble 

pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the 

Majority Leader of the Senate, acting jointly 

after consultation with the Minority Leader 

of the House and the Minority Leader of the 

Senate, shall notify the Members of the 

House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

f 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 

THE BUDGET 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1184

(Purpose: To eliminate section 207 of the 

budget resolution) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. SIMON, for himself, Mr. PELL, and Mr. 

KENNEDY, proposes an amendment numbered 

1184. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike section 207 in its entirety. 

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a littlenoticed provision of the budget resolution will make it more likely that student loan cuts will come out of the 

pockets of students, rather than banks, 

bureaucrats, and other middlemen. 

Section 207 changes the way the loan 

costs are scored in the budget by requiring administrative costs—such as 

collection expenses—to be counted on a 

long-term—accrual—basis, rather than 

on a cash basis over the 5-year budget 

window. While this may sound like a 

reasonable change, it is accomplished 

in a manner that is inconsistent and 

biased. 

Section 207 is not applied consistently to all loan programs. Instead, it 

targets student loans in particular. 

Furthermore, this type of end-run 

around the Budget Act is not appropriate on a budget resolution. 

Section 207 is biased. There are a 

number of problems with the way that 

loans are scored in the budget. Section 

207 only fixes one of them, skewing the 

scoring against direct student loans. 

This makes it more difficult to achieve 

savings without eliminating the inschool interest exemption or increasing 

fees and other student costs. A complete reform of the budget scoring rules 

for loan programs would consider: 

Cost-of-funds. The most significant 

item that overstates the cost of direct 

lending is the discount rate that is currently used. The interest rates that 

students pay vary annually, and the 

subsidized rates that the Federal Government promises to banks vary each 

quarter. A Council of Economic Advisors memorandum of April 30, 1993, 

points out that ‘‘a multiple year loan 

with an interest rate that resets each 

year should be treated for pricing purposes as having a maturity of one 

year,’’ meaning that a short-term rate 

should be used. But CBO and OMB assume that the Government’s cost-offunds is a higher, long-term rate, the 

10-year bond. This makes direct lending appear much more costly than it 

really is. Indeed, in a February 8, 1993, 

letter, GAO pointed out that using 

shorter term interest rates would have 

more than doubled the direct loan savings. 

Tax-exempt bonds. Many student 

loan secondary markets use tax-exempt bonds, costing the Federal Treasury an estimated $2.3 billion over 5 

years. This cost is not considered when 

the Congressional Budget Office determines how much direct lending saves, 

or how much the guarantee program 

costs. 

Taxpayer bailouts. When guaranty 

agencies agree to share the risk under 

FFEL by paying a larger portion on defaulted loans, they are using money 

that belongs to the Federal Government—so the Federal Government is 

essentially sharing with itself. Furthermore, when any agency can’t pay 

its share, the Federal Government 

steps in. These costs aren’t currently 

considered. 

I would hope that the chairman 

would reconsider this provision prior to 

conference. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment simply strikes section 207 

in order to keep all of our options open 

to avoid imposing costs on college students and their families. 

The amendment has no cost impact. 

The amendment strikes budget scoring 

rules in the budget resolution that single out a particular program. 

This amendment will allow committees of jurisdiction to look at these 

issues in a comprehensive manner. 

First, last, and always, this amendment protects students. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 

a slightly different impression. The 

Simon amendment would strike language in the resolution that corrects a 

bias against guaranteed student loans. 

If adopted, the Simon amendment 

would favor the Clinton administration 

policies for direct Government student 

lending. The budget resolution does not 

do that. 

I move to table the amendment and 

ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered, and 

the clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 56, 

nays 43, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 216 Leg.] 

YEAS—56 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—43 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Specter 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1184) was agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move 

to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1185

(Purpose: To reduce military spending by 

$100 to reduce the deficit) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON] for 

Mr. HARKIN, proposes an amendment numbered 1185. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

On page 7, line 15, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

On page 8, line 1, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

On page 8, line 10, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

On page 9, line 14, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS