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

S7424 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by 

$100. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment would simply reduce the 

defense budget by $100. Let me repeat 

that. This amendment would simply reduce the defense budget by $100 in fiscal year 1996. The savings is applied to 

the deficit reduction. 

Mr. President, I reserve the balance 

of my 30 seconds. 

Mr. DOMENICI. If I were you, I 

would, too. 

Mr. President, the sponsor of the 

amendment is here. I am willing to accept this amendment without a vote. 

Would the Senator agree to that? 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this 

amendment is ludicrous on its face. We 

will spend more than $100 printing the 

cost of this amendment and wasting 

time of this Senate. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1186 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1185

(Purpose: To reduce swine research spending 

by $100 to reduce the deficit) 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send 

a second-degree 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 New Mexico [Mr. DOMENICI], for Mr. CRAIG, proposes an amendment 

numbered 1186 to amendment No. 1185. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In lieu of the matter proposed, insert the 

following: 

On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by 

0. 

On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by 

0. 

On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by 

0. 

On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by 

0. 

On page 7, line 15, decrease the amount by 

0. 

On page 8, line 1, decrease the amount by 

0. 

On page 9, line 14, decrease the amount by 

0. 

On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by 

0. 

On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by 

0. 

On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by 

0. 

On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by 

0. 

It is the sense of the Congress that the 

functional levels assume that the swine research be reduced by $100.00. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

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

quorum call be rescinded. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa cannot reserve the 

right to object. 

Is there an objection to the dispensing of the quorum? 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are at a 

critical moment here. I would suggest 

that if the Senator from Iowa wishes to 

take $100 out of defense, the second degree-amendment, as I understand it, 

would take $100 out of swine research. 

I would suggest to both sides, why do 

we not agree to sensibly take $100 out 

of defense and $100 out of the swine 

program, and move the Senate ahead. 

Mr. DOLE. Or just raise $100. 

Mr. EXON. I will pay it myself. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the call of the 

quorum be rescinded. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The clerk will continue to call the roll. 

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

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska made a suggestion 

a few moments ago that is now being 

seriously considered. I would simply 

ask, since we are moving so rapidly, 

and since we are near completing this 

in the next 2 hours if we hang on, I 

would just suggest once again that we 

have a voice vote on the proposition 

that we take $100 out of the defense 

budget and $100 out of the swine research facility in Iowa. 

I suggest that be agreed to on a voice 

vote. I would like to know. We will put 

it in proper form if we can get approval 

of it on both sides. 

Informally, I would ask if anyone 

would object if the Senator would put 

it in written form, what I have just 

orally stated? 

Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there is no 

debate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the regular order, the question is on 

the amendment. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder for purposes of trying to move 

ahead with the budget, if the Senator 

might agree, and we will agree to take 

the two amendments, the one pending 

and the amendment to it, set it aside 

without prejudice and let us move 

ahead with some of the other amendments? 

Mr. EXON. We agree. I think that is 

a good suggestion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the request? Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Nebraska. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1187

(Purpose: To eliminate the firewall between 

defense and nondefense discretionary accounts) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk for Senators 

SIMON and BUMPERS, 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. SIMON, for himself, and Mr. BUMPERS, 

proposes an amendment numbered 1187. 

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

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 65, strike lines 13 through 18 and 

insert ‘‘$477,820,000,000 in new budget authority and $526,943,000,000 in outlays;’’. 

On page 65, strike lines 20 through 25 and 

insert ‘‘$466,192,000,000 in new budget authority and $506,943,000,000 in outlays;’’. 

On page 66, strike lines 2 through 7 and insert ‘‘$479,568,000,000 in new budget authority 

and $499,961,000,000 in outlays;’’. 

On page 66, strike lines 9 through 14 and insert ‘‘$477,485,000,000 in new budget authority 

and $502,571,000,000 in outlays;’’. 

On page 66, strike lines 16 through 21 and 

insert ‘‘$492,177,000,000 in new budget authority and $511,761,000,000 in outlays;’’. 

On page 66, strike beginning with line 23 

through line 3, page 67, and insert 

‘‘$496,098,000,000 in new budget authority and 

$517,258,000,000 in outlays; and’’. 

On page 67, strike lines 5 through 10 and insert ‘‘$495,498,000,000 in new budget authority 

and $518,160,000,000 in outlays.’’. 

On page 67, line 22, strike ‘‘sum of the defense and nondefense’’. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the SimonBumpers amendment eliminates the 

resolution’s provision that establishes 

a firewall between defense and nondefense discretionary accounts. The 

amendment does not change the levels 

of budget authority and outlays, and 

does not add a single cent to the deficit. 

The amendment simply assures that 

Congress maintains flexibility to respond to changing spending priorities 

in a prudent, fiscally sound way. That 

sort of flexibility is particularly important in light of the vast uncertainties 

concerning the Nation’s domestic and 

military commitments in the years 

ahead. 

As we debate the Nation’s priorities 

within the overall constraints of the 

balanced budget, we should not bind 

ourselves needlessly to subcategories 

within the discretionary caps. Removing the firewall is a vital step in 

achieving the necessary flexibility. 

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7425 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while 

this does not change the numbers, it 

permits the defense moneys and the 

nondefense moneys to be fungible and 

move back and forth between the two. 

The Budget Committee said we 

should not do that for the next 7 years. 

I believe they are right. 

I move to table the amendment. Mr. 

President, I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate we have lost about 10 or 15 minutes here. I would ask the clerk: At the 

end of the time we will turn in the 

scorecard. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to table the amendment. 

The yeas and nays are ordered. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. KASSEBAUM] is 

necessarily absent. 

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 65, 

nays 33, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 217 Leg.] 

YEAS—65 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Brown 

Bryan 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kyl 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Robb 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—33 

Akaka 

Biden 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Feingold 

Harkin 

Hatfield 

Hollings 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—2 

Kassebaum Mikulski 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1187) was agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might 

I suggest that Senators ought to take 

heed of this now. What we are going to 

do, there are three more amendments 

from that side that we are ready to 

take up. Senator EXON is going to explain each of the three. I will have a 

brief explanation. Then everybody 

ought to stay here because we are 

going to vote on them one after another. We are not going to have an explanation at the end of each one. So 

three explanations, three amendments, 

and vote on those three amendments in 

sequence and immediately upon completing one go to another, no time interval for explanations. 

Mr. EXON. I would just simply add 

then we will go on with the process 

that had been established by the majority leader for 10 minutes and 10 minutes only thereafter. That does not 

mean——

Mr. SIMON. Nine minutes. 

Mr. EXON. Nine minutes thereafter. 

That does not mean we are going to 

change. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Oh, no. 

Mr. EXON. Anything other than to 

maybe expedite things for just a moment. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Right. 

Mr. EXON. We are getting very close. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Right. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1188

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding the inclusion of reductions in 

Medicare spending in the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996) 

Mr. EXON. The first of the three 

amendments that have just been suggested by the Budget Committee chairman I send to the desk in behalf of Senator KENNEDY. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. KENNEDY, proposes an amendment numbered 1188. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REDUCTIONS IN MEDICARE SPENDING. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) Medicare protection is as important as 

Social Security protection in guaranteeing 

retirement security and is truly a part of Social Security; 

(2) senior citizens have contributed 

throughout their working lives to Medicare 

in the expectation of health insurance protection when they retire; 

(3) because of gaps in Medicare coverage, 

senior citizens already spend more than one 

dollar in five of their limited incomes to purchase the health care that they need; 

(4) low and moderate-income senior citizens will suffer most from Medicare cuts, 

since 83 percent of all Medicare spending is 

for older Americans with annual incomes 

below $25,000 and two-thirds is for those with 

annual incomes below $15,000; 

(5) at the present time, Medicare only pays 

68 percent of what the private sector pays for 

comparable physicians’ services and 69 percent of what the private sector pays for comparable hospital care; 

(6) piecemeal, budget-driven cuts in Medicare will only shift costs from the Federal 

budget to the family budgets of senior citizens and working Americans; 

(7) deep cuts in Medicare could damage the 

quality of American medicine, by endangering hospitals and other health care institutions that depend on Medicare, including 

rural hospitals, inner-city hospitals, and academic health centers; 

(8) deep cuts in Medicare will make essential health care less available to millions of 

uninsured Americans, by endangering the financial stability of hospitals providing such 

care; and 

(9) cuts in Medicare benefits should not be 

used to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. 

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

of the Senate that the provisions of this concurrent resolution assume that reductions in 

projected Medicare spending included in the 

reconciliation bill for fiscal year 1996 should 

not increase medical costs such as premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance or diminish access to health care for senior citizens, and further, that major reductions in 

projected Medicare spending should not be 

enacted by the Congress except in the context of a broad, bipartisan health reform 

plan that will not—

(1) increase costs or reduce access to care 

for senior citizens; 

(2) shift costs to working Americans; or 

(3) damage the quality of American medicine. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator 

KENNEDY’s amendment urges that any 

reductions in Medicare should not increase premiums, deductibles and coinsurance for senior citizens and that 

Medicare reductions should not be enacted except as part of a broader health 

reform. 

I send a second amendment to the 

desk. 

Mr. DOLE. Could I have an explanation of the one we just did, an explanation of the first Kennedy amendment? 

Mr. EXON. I thought we were going 

to do it in sequence. 

Go ahead. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. We interpret the 

Kennedy amendment to propose that 

we hold Medicare reform hostage until 

we have a national health care reform 

package. But I am going to move to 

table it at the appropriate time in any 

event. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1189

(Purpose: To restore $28,000,000,000 in outlays 

over seven years to reduce by $22,000,000,000 

the discretionary cuts proposed in elementary and secondary education programs 

and reduce the reconciliation instructions 

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources (primarily affecting student loans) 

by $6 billion by closing corporate tax loopholes) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk, a second 

amendment, offered by Senator KENNEDY. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the amendment. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. KENNEDY, for himself, Mr. DODD, Mr. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7426 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

SIMON, and Mr. PELL, proposes an amendment numbered 1189. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by 

$5,100,000,000. 

On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 

$3,600,000,000. 

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 

$3,800,000,000. 

On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by 

$4,100,000,000. 

On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by 

$5,100,000,000. 

On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by 

$3,600,000,000. 

On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by 

$3,800,000,000. 

On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by 

$4,100,000,000. 

On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by 

$5,100,000,000. 

On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by 

$3,600,000,000. 

On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by 

$3,800,000,000. 

On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by 

$4,100,000,000. 

On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by 

$5,100,000,000. 

On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by 

$3,600,000,000. 

On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by 

$3,800,000,000. 

On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by 

$4,100,000,000. 

On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by 

$28,300,000,000. 

On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 

$3,800,000,000. 

On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 

$3,600,000,000. 

On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by 

$3,800,000,000. 

On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by 

$4,100,000,000. 

On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by 

$5,100,000,000. 

On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by 

$3,600,000,000. 

On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by 

$3,800,000,000. 

On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by 

$4,100,000,000. 

On page 31, line 12, increase the amount by 

$28,300,000,000. 

On page 31, line 20, increase the amount by 

$3,800,000,000. 

On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by 

$3,600,000,000. 

On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by 

$3,800,000,000. 

On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by 

$4,100,000,000. 

On page 31, line 13, increase the amount by 

$5,100,000,000. 

On page 31, line 21, increase the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 32, line 4, increase the amount by 

$3,600,000,000. 

On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by 

$3,800,000,000. 

On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by 

$4,100,000,000. 

On page 64, line 9, decrease the amount by 

$1,100,000,000. 

On page 64, line 10, decrease the amount by 

$4,600,000,000. 

On page 64, line 11, decrease the amount by 

$6,000,000,000. 

On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by 

$26,700,000,000. 

On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by 

$4,000,000,000. 

On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by 

$3,000,000,000. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator 

KENNEDY’s amendment would restore 

$28 billion over the budget period for 

education, $6 billion to student loan accounts, $22 billion to restore funding to 

elementary and secondary education 

programs. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this 

increases taxes $22 billion and provides 

for the expenditure thereof without 

any assurance it will be spent that way 

under budget law. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1190

(Purpose: To add $8,871,091,316 in budget authority and $6,770,659,752 in outlays to 

Function 500 over 7 years to restore funding to the Pell Grant Program by closing 

tax loopholes) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send a 

third amendment by Senator KENNEDY

to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. KENNEDY, for himself and Mr. PELL, proposes an amendment numbered 1190. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by 

$13,049,296. 

On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by 

$137,045,490. 

On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 

$503,890,941. 

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 

$902,889,932. 

On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 

$1,300,174,427. 

On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 

$1,729,683,671. 

On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by 

$2,183,925,995. 

On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by 

$13,049,296. 

On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by 

$137,045,490. 

On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by 

$503,890,941. 

On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by 

$902,889,932. 

On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by 

$1,300,174,427. 

On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by 

$1,729,683,671. 

On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by 

$2,183,925,995. 

On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by 

$13,049,296. 

On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by 

$137,045,490. 

On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by 

$503,890,941. 

On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by 

$902,889,932. 

On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by 

$1,300,174,427. 

On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by 

$1,729,683,671. 

On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by 

$2,183,925,995. 

On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by 

$13,049,296. 

On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by 

$137,045,490. 

On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by 

$503,890,941. 

On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by 

$902,889,932. 

On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by 

$1,300,174,427. 

On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by 

$1,729,683,671. 

On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by 

$2,183,925,995. 

On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by 

$65,246,479. 

On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 

$430,766,179. 

On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 

$832,941,958. 

On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by 

$1,222,899,409. 

On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by 

$1,648,270,247. 

On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by 

$2,097,874,450. 

On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by 

$2,573,092,594. 

On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by 

$13,049,296. 

On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by 

$137,045,490. 

On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by 

$503,890,941. 

On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by 

$902,889,932. 

On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by 

$1,300,174,427. 

On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by 

$1,729,683,671. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7427 

On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by 

$2,183,925,995. 

On page 31, line 12, increase the amount by 

$65,246,479. 

On page 31, line 13, increase the amount by 

$13,049,296. 

On page 31, line 20, increase the amount by 

$430,766,179. 

On page 31, line 21, increase the amount by 

$137,045,490. 

On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by 

$832,941,958. 

On page 32, line 4, increase the amount by 

$503,890,941. 

On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by 

$1,222,899,409. 

On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by 

$902,889,932. 

On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by 

$1,648,270,247. 

On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by 

$1,300,174,427. 

On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by 

$2,097,874,450. 

On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by 

$1,729,683,671. 

On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by 

$2,573,092,594. 

On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by 

$2,183,925,995. 

On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by 

$65,246,479. 

On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by 

$13,049,296. 

On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by 

$430,766,179. 

On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by 

$137,045,490. 

On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by 

$832,941,958. 

On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by 

$503,890,941. 

On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by 

$1,222,899,409. 

On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by 

$902,889,932. 

On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by 

$1,648,270,247. 

On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by 

$1,300,174,427. 

On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by 

$2,097,874,450. 

On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by 

$1,729,683,671. 

On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by 

$2,573,092,594. 

On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by 

$2,183,925,995. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment is about something that we 

all know a great deal and have generally supported very well, Pell grants. 

This amendment, also sponsored by 

Senator PELL, would restore $8.8 billion over the budget period to protect 

the value of Pell grants against inflation and increasing college enrollments. Under the pending budget proposal, the Pell grants would decline in 

value by 40 percent over the next 7 

years. 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, again, 

we are going to raise taxes by $8.8 billion to spend that amount of money. I 

believe we have held firm on that heretofore, and I hope we do so again. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order that 

all three amendments be ordered to be 

for a rollcall vote. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do 

not waive a right to table the amendments, do I, with that? 

Mr. EXON. No, the Senator does not. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Fine. I have no objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection. Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we 

have a way to dispose of HarkinMcCain. I would add that as a fourth 

effort and move to table the underlying 

amendment—that will take care of 

both of them—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. 

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object to make sure we understand 

that——

Mr. DOLE. I have cleared it with 

Senator HARKIN. 

Mr. EXON. I believe what the majority leader just said has been agreed to 

by Senator HARKIN, but I do want to 

check with him. As I understand it, 

you on that side will offer a tabling 

motion. 

Mr. DOLE. I just did it. 

Mr. EXON. The Senator just did it. 

Mr. DOLE. To table both of them. 

Mr. EXON. And that will be the 

fourth of the series of votes that we 

have just scheduled. 

Mr. DOLE. Right. 

Mr. HARKIN. That is a motion to 

table Harkin. 

Mr. DOLE. Yes. 

Mr. EXON. Anyone may reserve the 

right to offer a motion to table. 

Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, were the 

yeas and nays ordered on the three 

amendments? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. They 

have not been ordered. 

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to 

object, is this the Harkin amendment? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 

a request pending. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, was the request granted that the yeas and nays 

will be in order on all three? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That request has been agreed to. 

Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and 

nays on all three. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the 

first Kennedy 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. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 1188

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to table the amendment. The yeas and 

nays have been ordered. The clerk will 

call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 58, 

nays 41, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.] 

YEAS—58 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kyl 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—41 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Specter 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1188) was agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote by which 

the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to table the second Kennedy 

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. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 1189

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to lay on the table amendment No. 

1189, offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY]. The yeas 

and nays have been ordered. The clerk 

will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 54, 

nays 45, as follows: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7428 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

[Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.] 

YEAS—54 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—45 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Chafee 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1189) was agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is the 

pending business the third pending 

amendment? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 

correct. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to table the amendment and I 

ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 1190

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. On this question, the yeas and 

nays have been ordered, and the clerk 

will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

ABRAHAM). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 55, 

nays 44, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.] 

YEAS—55 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—44 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1190) was agreed to. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 1185

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is now on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 1185. 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 73, 

nays 26, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.] 

YEAS—73 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Brown 

Bryan 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerry 

Kyl 

Leahy 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Reid 

Robb 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—26 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bumpers 

Conrad 

Craig 

Daschle 

Dorgan 

Feingold 

Grassley 

Harkin 

Hollings 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Levin 

Moseley-Braun 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Rockefeller 

Simon 

Snowe 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1185) was agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent—and I have talked to 

Senator DOMENICI about this—that we 

might recognize the Senator from California very briefly for a unanimous 

consent request that I think will be approved. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 

thank you very much. 

CHANGE OF VOTE

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent to change my 

vote on rollcall No. 220, amendment 

numbered 1190, from a ‘‘yea’’ to a 

‘‘nay.’’ It will not make a difference in 

the vote count. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

(The foregoing tally has been 

changed to reflect the above order.) 

AMENDMENT NO. 1191

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding the priority that should be given 

to renewable energy and energy efficiency 

research, development, and demonstration 

activities) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have an 

amendment submitted by Senator 

BINGAMAN and Senator JEFFORDS that 

expresses the sense of the Senate on renewable energy and energy efficiency 

technologies and research development 

and demonstration activities in these 

areas, and our priority within the Federal Energy Research Program. Cosponsors of this amendment are Mrs. 

MURRAY, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. LEAHY. I 

think it has been cleared on both sides. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we 

have no objection. We accept the 

amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send the 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. BINGAMAN, for himself, Mr. JEFFORDS, 

Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. LEAHY, 

proposes an amendment numbered 1191. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of title III, add the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE 

PRIORITY THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN 

TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION 

ACTIVITIES. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) section 1202 of the Energy Policy Act of 

1992 (106 Stat. 2956), which passed the Senate 

93 to 3 and was signed into law by President 

Bush in 1992, amended section 6 of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 

12005) to direct the Secretary of Energy to 

conduct a 5-year program to commercialize 

renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies; 

(2) poll after poll shows that the American 

people overwhelmingly believe that renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies should be the highest priority of 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7429 

Federal research, development, and demonstration activities; 

(3) renewable technologies (such as wind, 

photovoltaic, solar thermal, geothermal, and 

biomass technology) have made significant 

progress toward increased reliability and decreased cost; 

(4) energy efficient technologies in the 

building, industrial, transportation, and utility sectors have saved more than 3 trillion 

dollars for industries, consumers, and the 

Federal Government over the past 20 years 

while creating jobs, improving the competitiveness of the economy, making housing 

more affordable, and reducing the emissions 

of environmentally damaging pollutants; 

(5) the renewable energy and energy efficiency technology programs feature private 

sector cost shares that are among the highest of Federal energy research and development programs; 

(6) according to the Energy Information 

Administration, the United States currently 

imports more than 50 percent of its oil, representing $46,000,000,000, or approximately 40 

percent, of the $116,000,000,000 total United 

States merchandise deficit in 1993; and 

(7) renewable energy and energy efficiency 

technologies represent potential inroads for 

American companies into export markets for 

energy products and services estimated at 

least $225,000,000,000 over the next 25 years. 

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

Senate that the assumptions underlying the 

functional totals in this resolution include 

the assumption that renewable energy and 

energy efficiency technology research, development, and demonstration activities should 

be given priority among the Federal energy 

research programs. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, the amendment (No. 1191) is 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote by which 

the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. At the suggestion of 

the majority leader, we have engaged 

in taking three amendments in a row 

and explaining them in advance, and 

then voting on them one after another 

so that there is no time lost. Senator 

EXON is going to offer three amendments, all three Bradley amendments. 

We know what they are. 

I ask unanimous consent that it be in 

order now for the managers to explain 

each of the three in sequence and 

thereafter, when the explanations are 

completed, each of the amendments be 

voted in sequence and that time for 

each amendment be 10 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my 

colleague for the explanation. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1192

(Purpose: To establish a process to identify 

and control tax expenditures by setting a 

target for cuts) 

Mr. EXON. I send an amendment to 

the desk, the No. 1 Bradley amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. BRADLEY, for himself and Mr. DASCHLE, 

proposes an amendment numbered 1192. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 79, between lines 3 and 4, insert 

the following: 

SEC. . IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF TAX 

EXPENDITURES. 

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

order in the Senate to consider any concurrent resolution on the budget (or amendment, motion, or conference report on such a 

resolution) that does not include—

(1) appropriate levels for the budget year 

and planning levels for each of the 6 fiscal 

years following the budget year for the total 

amount, if any, tax expenditures should be 

increased or decreased by bills and resolutions to be reported by the appropriate committees; and 

(2) tax expenditures for each major functional category, based on the allocations of 

the total levels set forth in the resolution. 

(b) CBO.—The Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall include alternatives for allocating tax expenditures in accordance with national priorities as required 

by section 202(f)(1) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974. 

(c) WAIVER.—This section may be waived 

or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. 

(d) APPEALS.—Appeals in the Senate from 

the decisions of the Chair relating to any 

provision of this section shall be limited to 1 

hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of 

the concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative 

vote of three-fifths of the Members of the 

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

the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 

raised under this section. 

(e) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—

For purposes of this section, the levels of 

new budget authority, outlays, new entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal 

year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget 

of the Senate. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this 

amendment makes a very simple point: 

we can spend money just as easily 

through the Tax Code as we can 

through the appropriations process or 

through the creation of mandatory 

spending programs. 

The amendment that I have offered 

would simply require that in our annual budget process we establish targets for reducing tax loopholes—just as 

we do for all other types of spending. 

Those targets would be enforced 

through a separate line in our budget 

reconciliation instructions for reductions in tax loopholes. We already do 

this for other entitlement programs. 

There is no reason not to do so for tax 

loopholes. The Senate would pass a 

budget resolution asking the Finance 

Committee to reduce tax loopholes, for 

example, by $10 billion a year or $20 billion or whatever the Senate decides is 

prudent. It would be up to the Finance 

Committee to meet those targets 

through the reconciliation process. 

This separate tax expenditure target 

would not replace our current revenue 

targets. Instead, it would simply ensure that the committee take at least 

the specified amount from tax loopholes. In other words, we would ensure 

that the committee would not raise the 

targeted amount from rate increases. 

I think we should be honest about the 

hundreds of billions of dollars that we 

spend each year through tax loopholes. 

Spending is spending, whether it comes 

in the form of a government check or 

in the form of a special exception from 

the tax rates that apply to everyone 

else. 

Tax expenditures are a large and rapidly growing form of spending by the 

Federal Government. According to the 

Budget Committee, in 1996, tax expenditures will cost over $480 billion; left 

unchecked, we will spend roughly $4 

trillion on tax expenditures between 

now and 2002. In 1986, we dramatically 

scaled back these loopholes. However, 

since that time, they have grown at an 

astronomical rate. At a time when we 

are properly talking about other spending cuts, I do not believe that tax expenditures should be off the table. 

Tax expenditures or tax loopholes 

allow some taxpayers to lower their 

taxes and leave the rest of us paying 

higher taxes than we otherwise would 

pay. By requiring that Congress establish specific targets for tax loopholes 

as part of the budget reconciliation 

process, this amendment simply places 

tax loopholes under the same budgetary scrutiny as all other spending 

programs. 

Tax loopholes do not, as some would 

say, simply allow people to keep more 

of what they have earned. Rather, they 

give the few a special exception from 

the rules that oblige everyone to share 

in the responsibility of the national defense and protecting the young, the 

aged, and the infirm. 

Mr. President, in the face of a Federal debt rapidly approaching $5 trillion, we cannot afford to be timid. Our 

children’s way of life is dependent upon 

our acting on the Federal deficit today 

and tomorrow and every year thereafter until we restore fiscal sanity to 

our budget. We cannot wait until we 

grow our way out of the debt. And we 

should not and cannot wait until deficits start drifting up in the latter half 

of this decade before we do something. 

The Congressional Budget Office tells 

us that by 2004 the national debt held 

by the public will rise to roughly $6 

trillion. At that time, the national 

debt will equal almost 55 percent of our 

gross domestic product. By 2004, interest payments on that debt will be approximately $334 billion, or over 3 percent of our gross domestic product. One 

recent report stated that these interest 

payments will cost each of today’s children over $130,000 in extra taxes over 

the course of their lifetime. Our national debt is nothing less than a mortgage on our Nation’s, and our children’s, future. 

Mr. President, let us not kid ourselves. As we have seen from this 

week’s debate, addressing our burgeoning debt will not be easy. If it was, 

we would have done it years ago. Instead, it will require a very thoughtful, 

and sometimes difficult, debate over 

our Nation’s priorities and what sacrifices 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7430 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

we are willing to make in order to balance the budget. This means that we 

are going to have to take a hard look 

at what we spend the taxpayers’ money 

on. And that means all of our spending 

programs—tax expenditures included. 

The purpose of this amendment is 

simply to try to draw the Senate’s attention to the very targeted spending 

we do through the Tax Code—spending 

that is not subject to the annual appropriations process; spending that is not 

subject to the executive order capping 

the growth of mandatory spending; 

spending that is rarely ever debated on 

the floor of the Senate once it becomes 

part of the Tax Code. The preferential 

deductions or credits or depreciation 

schedules or timing rules that we provide through the Tax Code are simply 

entitlement programs under another 

guise. Many of them make sense, Mr. 

President. And I would be the first to 

admit that. Many, however, probably 

could not stand the light of day if we 

had to vote on them as direct spending 

programs. 

Given our critical need for deficit reduction, tax spending should not be 

treated any better or worse then other 

programs. It should not be protected 

any more than Social Security payments or crop price support payments 

or Medicare payments or welfare payments. 

What am I really talking about? I am 

talking about provisions that allow 

wealthy Americans to renounce their 

citizenship in order to avoid paying 

their fair share of U.S. taxes. That is 

already in the Tax Code. I am talking 

about letting wealthy taxpayers rent 

their homes for 2 weeks a year without 

having to report any income. That is 

already in the Tax Code. I am talking 

about providing production subsidies in 

excess of the dollars invested for the 

production of lead, uranium and asbestos—three poisons on which we spend 

millions of dollars each year just trying to clean up. That is already in the 

code. I am talking about tax credits for 

clean-fuel vehicles, cancellation of indebtedness income for farmers or real 

estate developers, special amortization 

periods for timber companies’ reforestation efforts, industrial development 

bonds for airports or docks, special 

treatment of capital construction 

funds for shipping companies, et 

cetera, et cetera. 

Mr. President, let me be clear that 

this bill does not pinpoint specific programs and I am not suggested that we 

eliminate all tax expenditures. In fact, 

I support many of them. Instead, I am 

simply suggesting that we subject 

them to the same level of scrutiny as 

all other entitlement programs. 

If we are serious about deficit reduction—and for our Nation’s future I sincerely hope that we are—then every 

segment of spending will have to be examined. We cannot do it fairly through 

discretionary spending cuts alone. Indeed, that is an area of the budget that 

is shrinking in terms of gross national 

product. Likewise, we cannot do it fairly through entitlement cuts alone. In 

order to achieve equitable, lasting deficit reduction, we will need to consider 

tax loopholes as well. 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for 

nearly a decade now, one of our primary tasks has been to leash the burgeoning budget deficit and keep it 

under control. As my colleagues well 

know, the process of reducing the deficit is a painstaking one, during which 

every item of direct spending is scrutinized. Even entitlements are today facing the budget ax—for example, this 

budget resolution envisions $256 billion 

in Medicare cuts alone. 

This scrutiny, however, is reserved 

for direct spending items. Yet, one of 

our largest areas of spending in the 

Federal budget is tax expenditures—exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, preferential rates, and deferrals of 

tax liability. While, at the margin, we 

can debate exactly what constitutes a 

tax expenditure, these items will drain 

about $480 billion from Federal revenues this year. 

Let me make it clear that I do not 

support a massive elimination of tax 

expenditures without regard to merit. 

However, this very large and important 

part of Federal spending—for, clearly, 

that is what it is—deserves the same 

scrutiny as direct spending. 

Currently, tax expenditures receive 

only minimal attention on an annual 

basis. Nowhere is this information incorporated in the budget process in a 

meaningful way—a way that spurs action to limit this form of spending. 

There are no targets for tax expenditures called for in the budget resolution, and there is nothing to force 

members to view tax expenditures by 

budget function, comparing aggregate 

spending in any given area through 

both direct spending and tax expenditures. 

The Bradley amendment would require the annual budget resolution to 

set forth the total amount, if any, by 

which tax expenditures should be increased or decreased. The resolution 

would have to include such totals both 

for the upcoming fiscal year and, for 

planning purposes, for the following 6 

fiscal years. additionally, the total 

level of tax expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year would need to be 

broken out among the major functional 

categories. The budget resolution 

would be subject to a point of order if 

it failed to include the information on 

tax expenditures that is required by 

the Bradley amendment. 

I applaud Senator BRADLEY for his 

continued leadership on this very important issue, and I urge my colleagues 

to join me in supporting his amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Very briefly, this Bradley 

amendment requires Congress to set 

targets for reduction in tax expenditures similar to targets it set for mandatory spending in our budget resolution instructions. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is 

going to be subject to a point of order. 

It establishes a whole new process in 

treating budget resolutions and tax 

bills, and I do not believe we ought to 

be doing it here on the floor. When it is 

appropriate, I will raise the point of 

order. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1193

(Purpose: To restore cuts in Medicare and 

NIH by raising the tobacco tax by $1 a pack) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I submit 

the second Bradley amendment to the 

desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. BRADLEY, proposes an amendment numbered 1193. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of title III, add the following 

new section: 

SEC. —. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING OFFSETTING NIH AND MEDICARE CUTS 

WITH TOBACCO TAX REVENUES. 

(a) TOBACCO TAX.—It is the sense of the 

Senate that the Senate Committee on Finance, in meeting the committee’s revenue 

instruction under section 6, will increase the 

Federal tax on cigarettes by $1.00 a pack, tax 

smokeless tobacco products at the same rate 

as cigarettes, and increase the tax on all 

other tobacco products by a factor of 5.1667 

and that the resulting revenues will be allocated as provided in subsection (b). 

(b) USE OF REVENUES.—The revenues resulting from the taxes provided in subsection 

(a) shall be allocated as follows: 

(1) 90 percent of the revenues 

($75,900,000,000) to offset medicare cuts, reducing the total amount of cuts by 30 percent. 

(2) 9.4 percent of the revenues 

($7,900,000,000) to offset the entire reduction 

to the NIH budget. 

(3) 0.6 percent of the revenues, $530,000,000 

to assist tobacco farmers and communities 

in converting to new crops. 

On page 63, line 7, strike the period and insert the following: ‘‘. The Senate Committee 

on Finance shall report changes in laws 

within its jurisdiction to increase revenues 

$12.5 billion in fiscal year 1996, $61.8 billion 

for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 

2000, and $84.3 billion for the period of fiscal 

years 1996 through 2002.’’. 

On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by 

$12.8 billion. 

On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 

$12.2 billion. 

On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 

$11.8 billion. 

On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 

$11.4 billion. 

On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by 

$11.1 billion. 

On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by 

$12.8 billion. 

On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by 

$12.2 billion. 

On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by 

$11.8 billion. 

On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by 

$11.4 billion. 

On page 3, line 26, increase the amount by 

$11.1 billion. 

On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7431 

On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by 

$12.8 billion. 

On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by 

$12.2 billion. 

On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by 

$11.8 billion. 

On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by 

$11.4 billion. 

On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by 

$11.1 billion. 

On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by 

$12.8 billion. 

On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by 

$12.2 billion. 

On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by 

$11.8 billion. 

On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by 

$11.4 billion. 

On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by 

$11.1 billion. 

On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 

$12.8 billion. 

On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by 

$12.2 billion. 

On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by 

$11.8 billion. 

On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by 

$11.4 billion. 

On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by 

$11.1 billion. 

On page 6, line 3, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 6, line 4, increase the amount by 

$12.8 billion. 

On page 6, line 5, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 6, line 6, increase the amount by 

$12.2 billion. 

On page 6, line 7, increase the amount by 

$11.8 billion. 

On page 6, line 8, increase the amount by 

$11.4 billion. 

On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by 

$11.1 billion. 

On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by 

$12.8 billion. 

On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by 

$12.2 billion. 

On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by 

$11.8 billion. 

On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by 

$11.4 billion. 

On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by 

$11.1 billion. 

On page 7, line 3, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 7, line 4, increase the amount by 

$12.8 billion. 

On page 7, line 5, increase the amount by 

$12.5 billion. 

On page 7, line 6, increase the amount by 

$12.2 billion. 

On page 7, line 7, increase the amount by 

$11.8 billion. 

On page 7, line 8, increase the amount by 

$11.4 billion. 

On page 7, line 9, increase the amount by 

$11.1 billion. 

On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 22, line 24, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 23, line 7, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 23, line 8, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 23, line 15, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 23, line 23, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 24, line 7, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 24, line 8, increase the amount by 

$0.08 billion. 

On page 33, line 19, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 33, line 20, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 34, line 2, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 34, line 3, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 34, line 9, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 34, line 10, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 34, line 16, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 34, line 17, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 34, line 23, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 34, line 24, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 35, line 5, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 35, line 6, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 35, line 12, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 35, line 13, increase the amount by 

$1.13 billion. 

On page 35, line 20, increase the amount by 

$11.3 billion. 

On page 35, line 21, increase the amount by 

$11.3 billion. 

On page 36, line 2, increase the amount by 

$11.6 billion. 

On page 36, line 3, increase the amount by 

$11.6 billion. 

On page 36, line 9, increase the amount by 

$11.3 billion. 

On page 36, line 10, increase the amount by 

$11.3 billion. 

On page 36, line 16, increase the amount by 

$11.0 billion. 

On page 36, line 17, increase the amount by 

$11.0 billion. 

On page 36, line 23, increase the amount by 

$10.6 billion. 

On page 36, line 24, increase the amount by 

$10.6 billion. 

On page 37, line 5, increase the amount by 

$10.2 billion. 

On page 37, line 6, increase the amount by 

$10.2 billion. 

On page 37, line 12, increase the amount by 

$9.9 billion. 

On page 37, line 13, increase the amount by 

$9.9 billion. 

On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by 

$1.2 billion. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1193

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this 

amendment would eliminate 30 percent 

of the proposed Medicare cuts and the 

entire cut to the NIH budget. These 

cuts would be offset with revenues generated by increasing the tobacco tax. 

Mr. President, my amendment presents a win-win-win situation. It will 

improve not one, not two, but three 

threats to our national health. First, it 

dampens the incredibly harsh blow 

which the proposed budget will deal to 

our Nation’s oldest citizens. Second, it 

ensures that the NIH will be able to 

continue its current efforts to develop 

life-saving technologies. And finally, it 

will encourage our citizens—particularly our children and teenagers—to 

avoid the addiction, sickness, and 

death which result from tobacco use. 

The first national health threat 

which my amendment seeks to improve 

involves the proposed Medicare cuts. 

We are all aware that the budget resolution would reduce spending for the 

Medicare program by $256 billion over 7 

years. This means that seniors will 

have to find an average of $3,447 more 

dollars to pay for their health care 

over the next 7 years. In my home 

State of New Jersey, seniors will have 

to come up with an additional $932 in 

the year 2002 alone just to pay for the 

additional Medicare costs which this 

budget imposes on them. For many 

seniors across the country, these new 

costs will be extremely difficult to 

bear. In 1992, the median income of seniors in this country was only about 

$17,000 a year, and over 20 percent of 

this income already goes for health-related costs. For the millions of seniors 

across the country who live on fixed incomes, finding an additional $3,447 over 

7 years will mean having to give up 

something else which is important to 

them. It is estimated that there are already nearly 8 million seniors nationwide who are forced to choose each 

month between paying for their medications and paying for food. I can’t 

help wondering how many millions 

more seniors will be faced with this 

horrible choice once the proposed cuts 

go into place. 

Increased financial burdens on seniors is only one of the negative consequences which will result from the 

proposed Medicare cuts. Along with 

having to pay more, seniors will likely 

find that their ability to choose their 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7432 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

own doctor restricted—perhaps not explicitly, but because financial limitations leave them with no choice but to 

join a managed care plan. Also, doctors, hospitals, and other providers are 

all likely to face reduced payments. 

They already receive far lower payments from Medicare than from private insurers, and if Medicare rates are 

reduced much further some may find 

that they can no longer afford to take 

Medicare patients. Those which do 

keep taking Medicare will be forced to 

shift even more costs onto their privately insured patients, creating a hidden tax on employers and individuals. 

Mr. President, the proposed Medicare 

cuts are bad news for seniors; they are 

bad news for health care providers; and 

they are bad news for employers and 

individuals nationwide. My amendment 

will make this bad news a little better. 

It does this by offsetting 30 percent of 

the proposed Medicare cuts with revenues generated by increasing the Federal tax on tobacco products. This 

means that $76 billion will be restored 

to the Medicare Program. It reduces 

the amount of additional money which 

each senior must find from $3,447 to 

$2,413 over 7 years. I understand that 

$2,413 is still an enormous amount of 

money for anyone on a fixed income to 

part with. But $2,413 is at least better 

than $3,447. 

Mr. President, Medicare cuts are just 

one of the national health threats 

which my amendment seeks to improve. The second threat is the proposal, contained in this resolution, to 

cut the budget of the National Institutes of Health by 10 percent next year 

and then freeze it through the year 

2002. 

Mr. President, cutting the NIH budget is shortsighted policy at its worst. 

NIH-funded research impacts the lives 

of millions of Americans every day. 

Technologies and drugs developed with 

NIH funds not only improve Americans’ quality of life; they also save 

lives. Without the basic research which 

is funded by the NIH, in a few years the 

private sector will have limited fundamental research upon which to base its 

own efforts. The result will be a dramatic slowdown in the development of 

life-improving and life-saving technologies. I have no way of knowing 

which of us in this room, or which of 

our loved ones, could benefit in the future from technologies which NIH is 

developing today. But I do know that 

we owe it to all present and future 

Americans to ensure that their access 

to these technologies is not limited due 

to shortsighted budget cutting. 

For those who are not convinced that 

NIH’s role in improving and saving 

lives warrants restoring its budget, let 

me make one final point: Much of NIH 

research reduces health care spending. 

For example, the NIH recently estimated that approximately $4.3 billion 

invested in NIH research had the potential to realize annual savings of between $9.3 and $13.6 billion. This translates into a 200- to 300-percent annual 

return. I challenge my colleagues to 

find any type of Federal spending 

which provides an annual return of at 

least 200 percent. Given that payoff, we 

can’t afford to not invest in the NIH. 

My amendment recognizes these immense benefits generated by NIH, and 

seeks to ensure that this research can 

continue at its present level into the 

future. To do this, the amendment restores the entire $7.9 million which the 

Republican resolution cuts from the 

NIH budget. 

Finally, Mr. President, this amendment addresses the national health 

threat created by tobacco use. It seeks 

to encourage our citizens—particularly 

our children and teenagers—to avoid 

the addiction, sickness, and death 

which results from using tobacco. 

Mr. President, I have been on this 

floor many times talking about the 

dangers of tobacco use. I have repeatedly stated that tobacco use kills well 

over 400,000 Americans every year—

more than alcohol, heroin, crack, automobile and airplane accidents, homicides, suicides, and AIDS combined. 

Furthermore, secondhand tobacco 

smoke will cause tens of thousands of 

additional deaths. This year, one out of 

every five Americans who dies will die 

from tobacco use. 

But of all the sad stories which can 

be told about the impact of tobacco use 

in this country, perhaps the saddest is 

the alarming rate at which children 

and teenagers are being hooked on tobacco products. Over 90 percent of new 

users of tobacco in this country are 

teenagers or younger. The tobacco 

companies know children and teenagers are easy targets, so they specifically aim their advertising at them. 

And their efforts are succeeding. Every 

30 seconds, a child or teenager in the 

United States smokes for the first 

time. 

In addition to the enormous human 

costs of tobacco use—the addition, suffering, and death which could have 

been avoided—tobacco contributes substantially to health care costs every 

year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health 

care expenditures caused directly by 

smoking totaled $50 billion in 1993, and 

$22 billion of those costs were paid by 

Government funds. 

My amendment seeks to reduce both 

the human and the economic costs created by tobacco use. It does this by increasing the Federal excise tax on most 

tobacco products by a factor of five, 

which translates to an increase of $1 

per pack of cigarettes. In addition, my 

amendment would tax smokeless tobacco products at the same price as 

cigarettes, in order to eliminate cost 

incentives for people to switch from 

cigarettes to smokeless. By raising the 

Federal excise tax on tobacco, we can 

discourage people—especially children—from starting the tobacco habit, 

and we can encourage others to quit. 

Conservative estimates predict that a 

10-percent increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce overall smoking by 

about 4 percent. And for kids, who are 

more price sensitive than adults, the 

impact is even greater. 

The benefits of such decreased demand cannot be overstated. First, and 

most importantly, thousands of lives 

will be saved and the unnecessary suffering will be avoided. In addition, both 

public and private health insurers will 

save billions of dollars each year, due 

to reduced costs for treating tobaccorelated diseases. Finally, the increased 

tax will yield $84 billion in Federal revenues over 7 years. Over half a billion 

of this amount will be used to help tobacco farmers convert to other crops. 

The rest of the money will go to help 

decrease the national health threats 

posed by the drastic Medicare cuts and 

by the reduction in the NIH budget. 

These revenues will enable the entire 

cut to the NIH budget to be offset, and 

the proposed Medicare cuts to be decreased by 30 percent. 

Some persons may question whether 

it is appropriate to ask smokers to absorb part of the blow which the proposed budget designates for seniors and 

providers. My response to that question is an unequivocal ‘‘yes.’’ According to a former Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare, tobacco use is the largest single drain on the Medicare trust fund. 

This is the trust fund which is predicted to go insolvent in 2002. It strikes 

me as quite appropriate to ask persons 

who choose to use tobacco to help offset some of the costs of their choice. 

And it strikes me as quite inappropriate to ask other persons—such as 

nonsmoking seniors and providers—to 

accept reductions at the same time 

that they are forced to help pay for the 

costs of other people’s unhealthy 

choices. 

By discouraging tobacco use, decreasing Medicare cuts, and restoring the 

NIH budget to its current level, my 

amendment presents a win-win-win situation. Our children and teenagers win, 

because they will be discouraged from 

starting down the road of addiction, 

sickness, and death caused by tobacco 

use. Health insurers and employees 

win, because health costs for tobaccorelated diseases will be reduced. Health 

care providers and employers win, because this amendment will reduce payment cuts and cost-shifting. Seniors 

win, because the amendment will reduce the financial strains and the concerns about quality and access which 

will result from steep Medicare cuts. 

And we all win, as the NIH will be able 

to continue its current efforts to develop lifesaving technologies. For the 

sake of all these affected Americans, I 

urge my colleagues to support this 

amendment. 

Mr. EXON. This Bradley amendment 

is to offset NIH and Medicare cuts with 

tobacco tax revenues. 

The Bradley amendment raises tobacco tax $1 per pack of cigarettes. It 

also taxes smokeless tobacco products 

at a similar rate. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7433 

The revenues from the increased tax 

are used to restore $76 billion in Medicare cuts, restore the entire cut in the 

National Institutes of Health budget, 

$7.9 billion, without the Hatfield discretionary reduction, and assist tobacco farmers in converting to other 

crops $500 million. 

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, is it in 

order to announce that the Senator is 

going to table this now, make a motion 

to table now, or wait until the vote 

comes? 

Mr. DOMENICI. Wait until the vote 

comes. 

Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just 

remind the Senate that even though 

this sense-of-the-Senate resolution 

talks about all these good things, essentially you raise a tax and then it is 

up to the Senate and the Congress to 

decide what they would do with it. Senator FORD will move to table that. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1194

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send to 

the desk on behalf of Senator BRADLEY

the third Bradley amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. BRADLEY, proposes an amendment numbered 1194. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the appropriate place, insert the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX 

RATES AND TAX LOOPHOLES. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) lower tax rates lead to increased economic activity and increased economic opportunity; 

(2) lower tax rates lead to a more efficient 

economy, with less tax avoidance and investment patterns that rely on competitive market returns and not advantages produced by 

tax law; 

(3) the tax code still retains billions of dollars worth of special tax breaks which are 

available to only limited groups of taxpayers 

and investors; 

(4) federal policy should encourage the development of fully competitive markets and 

not create unique advantages for individual 

investors, companies or industries. 

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

of the Senate that—

(1) the Congress should, to the maximum 

extent practicable, remove tax loopholes; 

(2) the Congress should use the savings 

from the closing of special interest tax loopholes to reduce tax rates broadly for all 

classes of taxpayers. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment is a sense of the Senate 

that Congress should remove tax loopholes and use savings to reduce the 

rates for individual taxpayers. 

Mr. DOMENICI. From what we gather, in order to reduce tax rates 1 percent, you would have to raise $100 billion from things like the home mortgage deduction and the like. I will 

move to table that also. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays on the three amendments that we have just discussed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to ordering the yeas and nays 

on all three? 

Mr. BYRD. I ask that it be in order 

to order the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Is there a sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

make the point of order this amendment is not germane under the Budget 

Act and it should fall. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

waive the Budget Act for consideration 

of the pending amendment, and I ask 

for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO WAIVE THE BUDGET ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to waive. The yeas and nays have been 

ordered. The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 44, 

nays 56, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.] 

YEAS—44 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Stevens 

Wellstone 

NAYS—56 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 56. 

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the 

affirmative, the motion is rejected. 

The amendment is not restrictive. The 

point of order is sustained. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 1193

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is a 

tax increase of some 1,100 percent. On 

that basis, and on behalf of myself, 

Senators ROBB, HOLLINGS, NUNN, THURMOND, HELMS, MCCONNELL, FAIRCLOTH, 

COVERDELL, THOMPSON, WARNER, and 

FRIST, I move to table this amendment 

and ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to lay on the table amendment No. 

1193, offered by the Senator from New 

Jersey [Mr. BRADLEY]. The yeas and 

nays have been ordered. The clerk will 

call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

The result was announced—yeas 62, 

nays 38, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.] 

YEAS—62 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Coats 

Cochran 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Ford 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kyl 

Lott 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Smith 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—38 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Chafee 

Cohen 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Jeffords 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lugar 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Simpson 

Snowe 

Specter 

Wellstone 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1193) was agreed to. 

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to table the pending amendment 

and I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

THOMPSON). Is there a sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 1194

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

of the Senator from New Jersey. On 

this question, the yeas and nays have 

been ordered, and the clerk will call 

the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced— yeas 53, 

nays 47, as follows: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7434 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

[Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.] 

YEAS—53 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Bryan 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Dodd 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McConnell 

Mikulski 

Murkowski 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—47 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dole 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Grassley 

Harkin 

Hutchison 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

McCain 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Pell 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Simon 

Snowe 

Specter 

Wellstone 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1194) was agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe 

we have reached consensus to take the 

next three up. I will leave it to the explanation of the chairman of the Budget Committee. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we 

are going to put three measures up now 

in the same manner we have done. 

Then, I would inform the Senate, we 

have only four amendments left after 

that. So we are getting there. 

The measures will be Senator DORGAN on the motion to recommit; Senator WELLSTONE on veterans and tax 

loopholes; and Senator WELLSTONE on 

defense. 

If my colleague will explain them, we 

will stack the votes by unanimous consent. 

Mr. EXON. For the information of all 

Senators, the Senator summed it up 

very well. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we 

have order? There is not order in the 

Senate yet, and we are about to hear a 

very important explanation as to what 

these next three votes are all about. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee has outlined this. Just let me summarize so all 

understand where we are. We are moving very well. At the outside, we have 

six or seven amendments left. At the 

inside, I think it might be as low as 

five that will require that many more 

votes, of course. 

Following the pattern that has just 

been set, after this pattern of three, 

then we would try to bundle the last 

three in the same fashion. So I certainly ask unanimous consent it now 

be in order to offer those three, as 

agreed to by the chairman of the Budget Committee. I will proceed at this 

time to offer those three with brief explanations. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

MOTION TO RECOMMIT

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send a 

motion to the desk on behalf of the 

Senator from North Dakota, Mr. DORGAN. It is a motion to recommit. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. DORGAN, moves to recommit Senate Concurrent 

Resolution 13 to the Committee on the Budget with instructions. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The motion is as follows: 

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. DORGAN] moves to recommit Senate Concurrent 

Resolution 13 to the Committee on the Budget with instructions to report to the Senate, 

within 3 days (not to include any day the 

Senate is not in session), a revised concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 

that provides (in compliance with Section 

13301(a)(2) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 

1990) for a budget surplus in fiscal year 2002 

without counting the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 

Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund. 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to 

move that the Senate send the budget 

resolution back to the Budget Committee. I do this because I would like 

to see the Committee report a new 

budget that is truly and honestly balanced in 2002. 

As my colleagues know, although the 

resolution before the Senate is described as a balanced budget resolution, it actually is not balanced. On 

page 7 of the resolution, it says that 

the actual deficit will be $114 billion 

dollars in the year 2002. 

Why is there this confusion? Because 

those who claim this budget is balanced are using the surplus in the Social Security System to mask the size 

of the budget deficit. 

That is bad policy. It is bad accounting. And it goes against budget law. 

Camouflaging the budget deficit in 

this way is bad policy because we intended that Social Security surplus to 

be used for another important purpose. 

In 1983, with the Social Security 

changes we made that year, Congress 

decided to build up the Social Security 

trust fund so that we could meet the 

retirement claims of the baby boom 

generation in the 2010’s and 2020’s. We 

were trying to force the Nation to save 

for that time. To use the surplus for 

other purposes contradicts the intent 

of the 1983 law—a law that enjoyed bipartisan support. 

It is also bad policy because it breaks 

faith with the American people. We 

have assured America’s workers that 

the payroll tax that they pay is going 

into a trust fund and will be used for 

trust fund purposes only. Well, we 

break that promise if we count the Social Security surplus as reducing the 

deficit. 

If using the Social Security trust 

fund surplus is bad policy, it is even 

worse accounting. If you take over a 

trillion dollars in the next decade, put 

it in the Social Security trust fund, 

and also count that as deficit reduction, you are making one dollar do two 

things. Double-entry accounting does 

not mean using the same dollar twice. 

In my view, that kind of bookkeeping 

is better described as book cooking. 

Last, the use of the Social Security 

surplus to mask the size of the budget 

deficit goes against the law. Section 

13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 

1990, which is similar to provisions that 

I had offered in the House, forbids the 

Congress from including the Social Security surplus in the budget resolution. 

However, the report accompanying 

this budget says, on page 6, that the 

budget will be in surplus in 2002. The 

only way this budget balances in that 

year is by using the Social Security 

trust fund surplus. The law says you 

cannot do that. 

Now, Mr. President, my colleagues on 

the Republican side of the aisle will 

say that my motion requires them to 

find additional further deficit cuts in 

order to balance the budget. They are 

right. It does. 

My Republican colleagues will ask 

where my deficit reduction plan is. 

Well, I will remind my colleagues that 

I submitted over $800 billion in deficit 

reduction recommendations to the 

Budget Committee. If you put the 

Domenici budget and the options that I 

recommended together, and we do not 

set up a slush fund for tax cuts, then 

you can balance the budget in 2002 

without using the Social Security trust 

fund surplus. 

I do not like the Domenici budget because I think its priorities are wrong. 

That is why I have supported a Democratic alternative that achieved greater deficit reduction than the Republican plan. And it did so without making deep cuts in Medicare and student 

loans or by doling out billions in tax 

cuts to the wealthiest in this country. 

However, the Senate defeated that 

amendment, so the pending budget resolution is the Domenici plan. 

Let me repeat my point. I hope I will 

not hear anyone say that I have not offered a plan to do this. If you put my 

recommendations together with the 

Domenici recommendations, you are 

able to meet my motion’s requirements. 

So in closing, I would hope that my 

colleagues would support honest budgeting. I hope they will stand up for 

making good policy, for using accurate 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7435 

accounting principles and for following 

the law. 

I hope my colleagues will support my 

motion, and I yield the floor. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I wish to 

add Senator HOLLINGS as a cosponsor of 

this amendment—this Dorgan-Hollings 

motion—which is to recommit, and 

this motion would recommit the budget resolution to the Budget Committee 

with instructions to report back a 

budget that is balanced in the fiscal 

year 2002 according to section 301 of the 

Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, the Senator from South 

Carolina is added as a cosponsor. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as a 

matter of inquiry, why did the clerk 

read that amendment? We have not 

been reading the amendments. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was a 

motion to recommit. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, and 

fellow Senators, this is a motion to recommit. This budget resolution before 

us complies with the law. The resolution is presented to Congress just as 

every other budget resolution has been 

presented, and just as the President 

presents budgets to us. I see no reason 

to recommit. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1195

(Purpose: To restore $74 million in FY 1996 

spending for veterans programs by reducing spending for tax expenditures.) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk in behalf of 

Senator WELLSTONE, and I 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. WELLSTONE, proposes an amendment 

numbered 1195. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 64, line 24, decrease the amount by 

$74,000,000. 

On page 63, line 7, strike the period and insert the following: ‘‘. The Senate Committee 

on Finance shall report changes in laws 

within its jurisdiction to increase revenues 

by $74,000,000 in fiscal year 1996.’’

At the end of title III, insert the following: 

SEC. . SENSE-OF-THE-SENATE REGARDING TAX 

EXPENDITURES. 

It is the sense of the Senate that the Committee on Finance, in meeting its reconciliation instructions for revenue, will limit or 

eliminate excessive and unnecessary tax expenditures, including those tax expenditures 

which provide special tax treatment to a single taxpayer or to a group of taxpayers. 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE 

DELIVERY OF VETERANS’ SERVICES. 

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

in this resolution relating to Veterans’ Programs include the assumption that the delivery of veterans’ services will continue to be 

improved, including further progress in the 

timely delivery of such services. 

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the 

amendment I am proposing is simple 

and straightforward, but vital to Minnesota veterans and veterans around 

the country. It calls for using $74 million in fiscal year 1996 funds earmarked 

for tax expenditures—in plain English, 

tax breaks, loopholes, and even giveaways to oil and tobacco companies, 

and other corporate behemoths—to restore projected cuts in VA spending 

that would have damaging, if not devastating effects, on timely delivery of 

important services to veterans. 

According to the VA, if these cuts 

should occur there would be a sharp 

rise in claims backlogs and delays in 

resolving veterans’ claims for benefits, 

increases in already excessive time 

lags in providing disabled veterans 

with vocational rehabilitation and employment services, and an inability to 

provide veterans with timely education 

benefits earned under the GI bill. For 

this to happen to those who have 

served our Nation bravely and without 

question while corporate welfare remains untouched would be unconscionable and clearly unacceptably to the 

American people. 

Mr. President, while I deplore the 

damage that would be done to service 

for our veterans in each of these areas, 

I would like to focus particularly on 

the potential negative impact on the 

timely processing of veterans claims. 

In the countless meetings I have had 

with Minnesota veterans over the last 4 

years the issue of unacceptably long 

delays in VA claims processing has 

consistently been at or near the top of 

their list of priority concerns. As a 

consequence, it has been and continues 

to be a major concern of mine. In 1993, 

I introduced a bill to improve and 

streamline VA’s system of processing 

and adjudicating claims which was particularly aimed at reducing delays 

which had then reached crisis proportions. 

Fortunately, as a result of the leadership of Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Jessie Brown, the VA has made 

progress recently in reducing backlogs 

in processing veterans claims for compensation. At the end of 1993 the VA 

had an overall backlog of 575,000 claims 

which is expected to be reduced by the 

end of this year to 400,000 claims—a decline of over 30 percent. Similarly the 

average time for a VA regional office 

to process an original claim dropped 

from 212 days in May 1994 to 166 days in 

March 1995, a decline of about 22 percent in just 10 months. And I’m pleased 

to note that the St. Paul, MN VA Regional Office has made significant 

gains over the past 18 months, reducing 

claims backlogs from approximately 

7,500 to 5,000 and average claims processing times from 214 days to 122 days. 

I would like to see the St. Paul VA 

Regional Office and others like it 

around the country given the support 

they need from Congress to continue to 

improve timeliness—to improve services for veterans. I hope to see the St. 

Paul office process claims in under 100 

days on average. That’s a worthy goal. 

What I don’t want to see is Congress 

cutting funding for claims processing 

at a time when it is needed most to 

continue improving services and when 

it can only nullify the gains the VA 

has made in this area. 

Unfortunately, the progress the VA 

has made in addressing this difficult 

and complex problem is being seriously 

imperiled by the estimated $74 million 

cut in funding for the operating budget 

of the VA’s Veterans Benefit Administration in fiscal year 1996. In fact, it 

would reverse the recent progress that 

has been made in this area, with the 

VA estimating that if the cut is implemented the claims backlog would revert to over 500,000 cases and average 

claims processing times would soar to 

over 1 year. 

Mr. President, there is much more to 

this issue than the cold statistics I’ve 

cited. There are sometimes enormous 

human costs too—cost that I can only 

describe as heart rending. About 18 

months ago we distributed a questionnaire to Minnesotans to elicit their 

views about the backlogs in the veterans claims and adjudication process. 

I found and still find many of the comments received with the questionnaire 

to be terribly disturbing and I want to 

share a few of these with you. One veteran, for example, stressed that the 

issue of backlogs was a crucial one ‘‘because it sometimes leads to the death 

of a veteran by suicide over frustration 

and injustices suffered.’’ In other 

words, this veteran believes that some 

veterans are committing suicide because they are so frustrated by waiting 

long periods of time for their claim to 

be resolved. In a similar vein, a county 

veterans service officer lamented that 

some ‘‘veterans * * * die before their 

claims have been adjudicated,’’ and a 

VA psychologist reported that ‘‘veterans are losing their homes, selling 

personal belongings, and committing 

suicide while waiting * * * for their 

claims to be adjudicated.’’ This is what 

I was told a year and a half ago by people who work every day with the VA 

adjudication system. Since then, as I 

have said, timeliness has improved at 

local VA regional offices. So, the last 

thing we should do is cause the backlogs to increase and reverse the trend 

of progress, re-creating the crisis from 

which we are just emerging. 

In addition to the personal trauma, 

excessive delays in processing veterans 

claims represent a breach of faith with 

our veterans who while serving in our 

Armed Forces are led to believe they 

will receive fair and timely compensation if they incur a service-connected 

disability. Should this cut be implemented, we would be moving in precisely the wrong direction in terms of 

improving timeliness. We all know that 

justice deferred is justice denied. Let 

us not do anything to make the adjudication system any slower or to add to 

the claims backlog. 

Mr. President, permit me to quote 

from an eloquent letter recently sent 

by the National Commander of the 

American Legion to Chairman DOMENICI, copies of which all of my colleagues 

should have received: 

Mr. Chairman, reducing General Operating 

Expenses (GOE) within the Veterans Benefits 

Administration will seriously handicap VA’s 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7436 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

ability to reduce the extraordinary backlog 

in veterans claims and appeals cases. VA has 

made some improvements in this area over 

the past year. To reduce GOE funding will 

setback all of the progress VA had made and 

further delay benefit decisions for veterans 

and their dependents. A significant part of 

the problem that has existed in the processing of claims was caused by budget-related staff reductions. 

I could not agree more. If the budget 

cuts are implemented we will be taking 

a giant step backward, canceling the 

progress that has been made and returning to a situation wholly unacceptable to our veterans, their families, 

and to all Americans. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

amendment, thereby keeping faith 

with the men and women who have 

served this country faithfully and ensuring that welfare for corporations 

doesn’t come at the expense of the welfare of our veterans. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment would restore projected 

cuts of $74 million in the Department 

of Veterans Affairs funding for the fiscal year 1996 that would have damaging 

effects on the timely delivery of important service to veterans, including 

processing of veterans’ compensation 

claims, providing disabled veterans 

with vocational rehabilitation and employment services, and further education benefits earned under the GI 

bill. It would urge the Finance Committee to cut excessive and unnecessary tax expenditures of $74 million for 

fiscal year 1996. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no explanation. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1138

(Purpose: To reduce FY 1996 defense spending 

by $10 billion and apply the savings to deficit reduction) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I can sum 

up very briefly the amendment number 

1138 which is at the desk. This amendment would reduce defense spending by 

$10 billion in fiscal 1996 budget authority and $5 billion in outlays. 

It expresses the sense of the Senate 

that such reductions should come from 

low-priority defense programs, and 

should, to the maximum extent possible, preserve funding for programs 

and activities which directly affect 

force readiness, or the quality of life of 

service members and their families. 

The savings would be used solely to reduce the deficit. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the 

Wellstone amendment cuts $10 billion 

from defense. I think that is enough 

said. 

Mr. EXON. I ask unanimously that 

the motion and the two amendments 

have rollcall votes. I ask that that be 

in order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the 

Senator send up the second amendment? 

Mr. EXON. I call up the motion and 

the two amendments for a vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. WELLSTONE, proposes an amendment 

numbered 1138. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by 

$5,000,000,000. 

On page 7, line 15, decrease the amount by 

$5,000,000,000. 

On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by 

$5,000,000,000. 

On page 65, line 14, decrease the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 65, line 15, decrease the amount by 

$5,000,000,000. 

At the end of title III, insert the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DEFENSE SPENDING. 

It is the sense of the Senate that in reducing defense spending by the amount provided 

for in this amendment, Congress shall focus 

on low-priority programs, and to the maximum extend possible should preserve funding for any programs and activities that directly affect force readiness or the quality of 

life for service members and their families. 

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 

today I am offering an amendment as 

part of a series designed to highlight 

clearly my budget priorities, as opposed to those provided for in the pending budget resolution. While I believe 

our Nation must be kept free and secure, and I do not overlook the many 

risks we face, I am deeply troubled 

that of all the huge spending cuts in 

this budget, none come from the military budget. That must change. Defense, like everything else, must bear 

its share of the deficit reduction burden. This amendment is designed to 

begin to address that problem, at least 

for the coming year. 

Even with the ethnic and nationalist 

conflicts that have spawned terrible 

human tragedies in Bosnia, Somalia, 

the Middle East, the former Soviet 

Union, Haiti, and elsewhere, requiring 

increased peacekeeping and other 

forms of assistance from the United 

States, we can and should scale back 

our post-cold-war defense spending substantially. Likewise, continued concerns about the proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons 

are real. But they require us to think 

in new and imaginative ways about the 

possibilities of using smart diplomacy 

rather than smart bombs, of placing a 

greater emphasis on multilateral efforts to keep the peace, of relying more 

on a strengthened United Nations, and 

other multilateral bodies like NATO, 

to maintain a safe, secure, and prosperous world. 

Instead of this approach, what we 

have been too often from defense policymakers is bureaucratic inertia, a residual unilateralism, and a clinging to 

the cold war status quo. Despite huge 

cuts elsewhere in the budget, there are 

no cuts provided for in military spending. Defense spending continues to 

grow, even in the face of our new postcold-war reality. 

This budget provides for no cuts from 

huge and expensive weapons systems 

that are now obsolete. None from postcold-war intelligence spending that 

should be curtailed. None from increased contributions from our allies, 

or burdensharing. None from the billions in wasteful spending that the 

Pentagon can’t even account for, as 

widely reported recently by the Federal Government’s own watchdogs, and 

in the press. In recent years, they’ve 

spent so much money over at the Department of Defense, with such sloppy 

bookkeeping, that they can no longer 

even keep track of it all. The other day 

a major Pentagon procurement and 

contracting official declared that he 

was giving up on even trying to account for it all. That speaks volumes 

about how much wasteful and unnecessary defense spending could still be 

wrung from this system. These reports 

reveal clearly that the Pentagon is 

still one of the largest sources of 

wasteful and unnecessary spending in 

the Federal Government. 

The U.S. military needs will-trained 

and well-equipped forces tailored to the 

threats and risks of today. Excessively 

large forces that were based on warfighting strategies of another era, or 

on implausible assumptions that the 

United States could be required to 

fight two regional wars of about the 

same size as the Persian Gulf, simultaneously, with no help from our allies, 

cannot be responsibly maintained at 

high levels of military readiness. The 

Pentagon’s current budget projections, 

including elements of the much-touted 

Bottom-Up Review, too often fail to 

question these kinds of basic assumptions. And the result is wasteful and 

unnecessary weapons or delivery systems like the B–2 bomber, star wars, 

the C–17, the Seawolf submarine, the 

Trident missile, the Milstar satellite 

system, and a host of other low-priority post-cold-war programs, many of 

which are now obsolete. Under current 

budget constraints, we simply can no 

longer afford these, if ever we could. 

Scaling them back would save billions 

in the coming years. But we must have 

the courage to make these tough decisions now. 

Mr. President, my amendment would 

require a modest cut of $10 billion from 

the military budget in 1996. That’s only 

$10 billion out of a projected defense 

budget of over $260 billion. While many 

other Federal programs are being 

slashed by 30, 40, even 50 percent, or 

more, the defense budget cannot remain immune to budget pressures. The 

amendment would apply all of the savings from these account to deficit reduction. It is designed to: First, ensure 

that the modest cuts it provides for 

will be made in low-priority programs; 

second, protect the readiness of our 

forces, and third, preserve the living 

standards of servicemenbers and their 

families. Adopting this amendment 

would be a small but important step 

toward a more responsible Federal 

budget in which all sectors of society 

bear their fair share of deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to support 

it. I yield the floor. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7437 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, those are 

the three amendments that we have 

agreed to package in a form similar to 

that which we have had previously 

today. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that it be in order 

to have the yeas and nays on the motion to recommit and the amendments. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Is there a sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO RECOMMIT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to recommit. On this question, the 

yeas and nays have been ordered, and 

the clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 40, 

nays 60, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.] 

YEAS—40 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—60 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bond 

Bradley 

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 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moseley-Braun 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

So the motion was rejected. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York. 

CHANGE OF VOTE

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that my vote on 

the Grams amendment No. 1182 be 

changed from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’ This 

change will not affect the outcome of 

the vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair. 

(The foregoing tally has been 

changed to reflect the above order.) 

VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1195

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to amendment 

No. 1195. The yeas and nays have been 

ordered. The clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

The result was announced—yeas 45, 

nays 55, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.] 

YEAS—45 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—55 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

So the amendment (No. 1195) was rejected. 

VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1138

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to amendment 

No. 1138, the amendment offered by the 

Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 

WELLSTONE]. The yeas and nays have 

been ordered. The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 12, 

nays 87, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.] 

YEAS—12 

Boxer 

Daschle 

Feingold 

Grassley 

Harkin 

Kennedy 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—87 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the amendment (No. 1138) was rejected. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move 

to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am sorry 

to tell the Senate that we were down to 

three votes and now we are back up to 

four. As near as we can tell, we have 

four remaining votes. We have agreed 

to yield back a portion of the time that 

we previously agreed to for closing arguments after the votes are over and 

before final passage. 

I suggest, and I think my colleague, 

the chairman of the committee and I 

have agreed that we will package the 

four remaining votes. If I understand 

it, there is one by Senator SNOWE, two 

by Senator WELLSTONE, and one for 

Senator BRADLEY. And we can do these 

in an expeditious matter and put the 

four together. If that is agreeable to 

the chairman of the committee it is 

agreeable on this side. 

Mr. DOMENICI. So we understand, 

there are no amendments beyond these. 

Mr. EXON. No amendments beyond 

these. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could 

we agree we have no second-degree 

amendment to your amendment? 

Mr. EXON. It may be a good idea to 

phrase it as a unanimous-consent, that 

there will be no more than the four 

amendments that have just been identified, and there would be no second-degree amendments. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

think it was stated beautifully. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1136

(Purpose: To direct the Committee on Finance to further reduce the deficit by limiting or eliminating excessive and unnecessary tax expenditures) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. WELLSTONE, proposes an amendment 

numbered 1136. 

The amendment is as follows: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7438 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

On page 63, line 7, strike the period and insert the following: ‘‘. The Senate Committee 

on Finance shall report changes in laws 

within its jurisdiction to increase revenues 

$10,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 

$50,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 

1996 through 2000, and $70,000,000,000 for the 

period of fiscal yeas 1996 through 2002.’’. 

At the end of title III, insert the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX 

EXPENDITURES. 

It is the sense of the Senate that the Committee on Finance, in meeting its reconciliation instructions for revenue, will limit or 

eliminate excessive and unnecessary tax expenditures, including those tax expenditures 

which provide special tax treatment to a single taxpayer or to a group of taxpayers. 

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 

today I am offering an amendment 

which would direct the Finance Committee to close $70 billion of narrowly 

focused tax breaks and loopholes over 

the next 7 years, and apply the savings 

solely to deficit reduction. This $70 billion figure is more than double the 

amount of savings from tax expenditures assumed in the House Budget 

Committee’s budget resolution. Unfortunately, the Senate Budget Committee did not include any savings 

from tax expenditures in the budget 

resolution we are debating today. I believe that is a serious mistake, because 

unless it is changed it virtually ensures 

that powerful, well-heeled special interests who have fought so hard for so 

long to protect their special tax breaks 

could be held harmless under this budget. 

We must take steps now to reduce 

the Federal budget deficit in a way 

that is fair, responsible, and that requires shared sacrifice. This amendment would help us along that path. 

The amendment requires the closing of 

$70 billion of special interest tax loopholes and other breaks which have received far too little scrutiny in this 

budget process. Senator BRADLEY, Senator FEINGOLD, and others have described in detail the problems posed by 

these huge tax breaks, and the savings 

which could be generated from these 

sources. Since a number of amendments have been defeated which would 

apply at least some of the savings generated by closing corporate loopholes 

and other tax breaks to other priority 

domestic programs, the time has now 

come to put to the test the proposition 

that at least some of these savings 

ought to be used exclusively for deficit 

reduction. That is why the savings generated by this amendment would be 

used exclusively to reduce the deficit. 

When this budget resolution slashes 

funding for Medicare and Medicaid, 

when we are cutting education programs and student loans, when we are 

slashing Federal spending for veterans 

and farmers, when we are causing great 

pain for children and the most vulnerable in our society, it seems only fair 

that we should ask wealthy individuals 

and corporations to pay their fair 

share. That is why we should plug 

many of the narrowly focused tax 

breaks and loopholes which allow the 

privileged few to escape paying their 

fair share, forcing everyone else to pay 

higher taxes to make up the difference. 

It is a simple question of fairness. 

Let me make a simple point here 

that is often overlooked. We can spend 

money just as easily through the tax 

code, through what are called tax expenditures, as we can through the normal appropriations process. Spending 

is spending, whether it comes in the 

form of a Government check or in the 

form of a tax break for some special 

purpose, like a subsidy, a credit, a deduction, or an accelerated depreciation 

for this type of investment or that. 

Some tax expenditures are justified, 

and should be retained. But some are 

special interest tax breaks that should 

be eliminated, or loopholes that should 

be plugged. These are what this amendment is design to go after. 

These special interest tax expenditures are simply special exceptions to 

the normal rules, rules that oblige all 

of us to share the burden of citizenship 

by paying our taxes. All of these special tax breaks distort, to one degree or 

another, economic investment decisions, usually in favor of wealthy individuals and corporations with the highest paid lobbyists in Washington. 

It is time to end these special interest tax breaks and close these tax loopholes. Various groups from all ideological perspectives—from the National 

Taxpayers Union and the CATO Institute to the Progressive Policy Institute to the Citizens for Tax Justice—

have prepared lists of tax expenditures 

which they believe should be eliminated. Special interest tax breaks are 

simply a subcategory of the larger 

group of tax provisions called tax expenditures. The Congressional Joint 

Tax Committee has estimated that tax 

expenditures cost the U.S. Treasury 

over $420 billion every single year. And 

they also estimate that if we don’t hold 

them in check, that amount will grow 

by $60 billion to over $485 billion by 

1999. That’s why tax breaks must be on 

the table along with other defense and 

domestic spending as we look for 

places to cut the deficit. But despite 

the logic of this approach, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

have refused to even consider the possibility of cutting tax breaks for wealthy 

corporate and other interests, making 

them bear their fair share of the deficit 

reduction burden. Instead, they have 

chosen to pursue the path of least political resistance, slashing programs 

for the broad middle class, the vulnerable elderly, and the poor. 

Now, not all tax expenditures are 

bad. Not all should be eliminated. 

Some serve a real public purpose, such 

as providing incentives to investment, 

bolstering the nonprofit sector, encouraging charitable contributions, allowing people to deduct State and local 

taxes, and helping people to be able to 

afford to buy a home through the mortgage deduction. But some of them are 

simply tax dodges that can no longer 

be justified. At the very least, all of 

these should undergo the same scrutiny as other Federal spending, and 

should bear their fair share of deficit 

reduction. 

It is only fair, since these special tax 

breaks for certain companies and industries force other companies and individuals to pay higher taxes to make 

up the difference. Some of these tax 

breaks allow privileged industries such 

as the oil and gas industry to avoid 

paying their fair share of taxes. All distort, to one degree or another, economic investment decisions, usually in 

favor of companies with the highest 

paid lobbyists in Washington. In many 

cases, doing away with these special 

tax breaks for certain industries would 

allow a more efficient allocation of 

economic resources. 

I think it is a simple question of fairness. If Congress is really going to 

make the over $1.4 trillion in spending 

cuts and other policy changes that 

would have to be made to balance the 

Federal budget by 2002, then those on 

the other side of the aisle should make 

sure that wealthy interests in our society, those who have political clout, 

those who can hire high-priced lobbyists to make their case every day here 

in Washington, are asked to sacrifice 

at least as much as regular middle 

class folks whom you and I represent. 

We should represent those who receive 

Social Security or Medicare or veterans benefits, and not just those special interests who can afford to pay 

high-priced hired guns to lobby for 

them. 

I am amazed that many in the majority party have proposed, among other 

things, expanding corporate tax breaks 

at the very same time that they are 

slashing Government spending on programs for the poor, for children, for 

education, and for the most vulnerable 

in our society. They have proposed tax 

cuts for the wealthy which, according 

to the Treasury Department, would 

cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and 

at the same time they refuse to subject 

a broad range of new tax breaks to 

scrutiny in the budget process. And 

these are the ones who call themselves 

deficit hawks? 

Some will charge that by closing tax 

loopholes and restricting special interest tax breaks we re somehow proposing to raise taxes. And they will say 

that over and over and over until some 

will begin to believe it. They are 

wrong. What they fail to understand is 

that even with the reforms of the mid1980’s, which closed many of the most 

egregious tax loopholes, the presence of 

the tax breaks in the current tax system forces middle class and working 

people to pay more in taxes than they 

otherwise would have to pay. While 

some are paying less then their fair 

share in taxes because of these special 

tax subsidies, others are being forced 

to pay more in taxes to make up the 

difference. Closing tax loopholes is not 

raising taxes. Of course, these subsidies 

are hidden in the tax code because it 

would be too hard to get the votes in 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7439 

Congress, in the full light of day, to directly subsidize these industries—especially under current budget constraints. 

It is a simple matter of fairness. In 

our attempts to reduce the federal deficit, all sectors of our society must 

make some sacrifices. Specific industries and the wealthy are the ones who 

often benefit most from special interest tax breaks and loopholes. If we do 

not treat tax breaks the same as direct 

spending, the wealthy will avoid making any sacrifices as we cut spending 

programs for the middle class and the 

poor. Just because some special interest has the means to hire a high-priced 

tax lobbyist to get a special tax break 

written into legislation does not give 

them the right to avoid sharing in 

whatever sacrifices are necessary to reduce the budget deficit. 

The General Accounting Office issued 

a report last year, and has issued several others on tax expenditures. It was 

titled ‘‘Tax Policy: Tax Expenditures 

Deserve More Scrutiny.’’ I commend it 

to my colleagues’ attention. It makes a 

compelling case for subjecting these 

tax expenditures to greater congressional scrutiny, just as direct spending 

is scrutinized. The GAO report reminds 

us that spending through special provisions in the tax code should be treated 

in the same way as other spending provisions. 

At a time when we are talking about 

potentially huge spending cuts in meat 

inspections designed to insure against 

outbreaks of disease; or in higher education aid for middle class families; or 

in protection for our air, our lakes, and 

our land; or in highways; or in community development programs for states 

and localities; or in sewer and water 

projects for our big cities; or in safety 

net programs for vulnerable children; 

or to eliminate the school lunch program, we should be willing to weigh 

these cuts against special tax loopholes 

that could cost hundreds of billions 

each year. This amendment will have 

the Finance Committee close merely 

$70 billion worth of these special interest tax breaks and loopholes—a modest 

$10 billion per year for the next 7 years. 

Under congressional budget rules, the 

details of which specific tax breaks to 

eliminate must be left to the Finance 

Committee. That is the way it should 

be. But even though I am not a tax lawyer, I have been able to identify a number of tax breaks for elimination, and 

loopholes which should be closed. For 

example, for much too long the oil and 

gas industry has enjoyed special tax 

breaks not available to other industries. These special tax loopholes include the ability to expense oil and gas 

exploration costs and the so-called 

Special Percentage Depletion Allowances. It is time to end these costly 

special tax privileges for a single industry. Why should the oil and gas industry receive special treatment in the 

tax code which is not available to other 

kinds of companies? Closing these special interest tax loopholes could save 

as much as $10.6 billion over 5 years. 

Other tax loopholes which should be 

closed relate to the taxation of multinational corporations. Through complex accounting shell games involving 

their foreign subsidiaries, and by locating their plants overseas, multinational corporations can avoid paying 

most of their U.S. taxes. According to 

some estimates, closing these loopholes could save as much as $10 to $15 

billion over 5 years. Still other special 

tax breaks allow Americans working 

overseas to receive their first $70,000 of 

income absolutely tax free, at a cost of 

$8.6 billion over 5 years. We should also 

close the loophole which allows billionaires to renounce their U.S. citizenship 

and avoid paying taxes on the value of 

property which increased while they 

were U.S. citizens. The savings from 

closing this loophole would be at least 

$1.7 billion over 5 years. Finally, we 

should stop the fancy stock swap loophole which allowed DuPont and Seagrams to avoid paying over $1.5 billion 

in taxes that would otherwise be due to 

the Treasury. And we should consider 

further scaling back, or eliminating 

outright, section 936 of the Internal 

Revenue Code designed to subsidize 

certain investments in Puerto Rico. 

That provision alone would generate an 

estimated $19.7 billion, according to 

the Congressional Budget Office. Eliminating these provisions alone would 

generate about $50 billion in savings 

over the next 5 years, with billions 

more to be saved from other sources. 

As I have said, it is a simple question 

of tax fairness. If Congress is really serious about making the painful spending cuts and other policy changes that 

would have to be made under this budget resolution, than those on the other 

side of the aisle should join us in voting to make sure that wealthy interests in our society, those who have political clout, those who can hire highpriced lobbyists to make their case 

every day here in Washington, are 

asked to sacrifice at least as much as 

regular middle class folks whom you 

and I represent. Just because some special interest has the means to hire a 

high-priced tax lobbyist to get a special tax break written into legislation 

does not give them the right to avoid 

sharing in whatever sacrifices are necessary to reduce the budget deficit. In 

our efforts to shrink the Federal budget deficit, we just cannot let these special interest tax dodges continue. 

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues 

to support the amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment would instruct the Senate 

Committee on Finance to report 

changes in the laws within its jurisdiction; to increase revenues by $10 billion 

in fiscal year 1996; $50 billion in the 

years 1996 through 2,000; and $70 billion 

for the year 1996 to the year 2000; to be 

generated by scaling back or eliminating outright a number of unnecessary, excessive or inefficient tax expenditures, including those which provide special tax treatment to a single 

taxpayer or a group of taxpayers. 

The $70 billion goes to deficit reduction. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President I want 

to respond. This is $130 billion tax increase. I move to table the amendment. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1141

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding low-priority domestic discretionary funding to be reduced in order to 

pay for partial restoration of funding for 

the National Institutes of Health) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], 

for Mr. WELLSTONE, proposes an amendment 

numbered 1141. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of title III, insert the following: 

‘‘It is the sense of the Senate that the lowpriority discretionary funds to be reduced in 

order to offset funds restored for programs 

and activities of the National Institutes of 

Health should come from eliminating lowpriority Federal programs like the Space 

Station, and not from high-priority programs for education, food and nutrition for 

low-income children, anticrime efforts, veterans programs, job training, health care, infrastructure, and other such investment programs.’’

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 

while I was an original cosponsor of the 

Hatfield amendment to restore critical 

funding to the National Institutes of 

Health, I would like to offer a sense of 

the Senate that would ensure that we 

do not jeopardize other valued programs in order to accomplish this goal. 

In the budget resolution, funding for 

the NIH would have been reduced by 

nearly $8 billion over 7 years. Such a 

reduction would have decimated the 

biomedical research effort of this country and could not be permitted. But the 

offsets necessary to restore funding to 

the NIH as proposed by Mr. HATFIELD

should be taken from low-priority domestic discretionary programs like the 

Space Station, and not from high-priority programs like food and nutrition 

programs for low-income children, 

anticrime efforts, veterans programs 

infrastructure, and other such investment programs. Education, health 

care, and labor accounts have been protected by the Hatfield amendment but 

I include further protection for them in 

my amendment as well. 

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to point out that the NIH serves 

as the focal point for health research in 

this country. It supports the work of 

over 50,000 scientists at over 1,700 institutions, as well as conducting biomedical and behavioral research and 

research training in its own facilities. 

The mission of the NIH is the pursuit 

of science ‘‘to expand fundamental 

knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems, to apply that 

knowledge to extend the health of 

human lives, and to reduce the burdens 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

resulting from disease and disability’’. 

To pursue this mission, which is one 

that is essential to the future of America, requires adequate financial resources, scientists, and infrastructure. 

The Hatfield amendment will assure 

that these functions will be able to 

continue to improve the lives of the 

American people. 

What would the impact have been if 

the originally proposed reductions in 

NIH funding had been permitted to 

occur? The NIH is now able to fund 

about 24 percent of all research proposals submitted each year. A 5-percent budget cut would have resulted in 

an ability to fund between 12 and 18 

percent of such proposals, according to 

Dr. Harold Varmus, Director of NIH. A 

10-percent cut, as proposed in the Senate budget resolution, would have 

meant that fewer than 1 proposal in 10 

submitted to the NIH would have received funding. In some areas, where 

funding is already tight, such as mental health, fewer than 1 proposal in 20 

would have received funding. This 

would have clearly been a tragedy. 

With such a low rate of funding for research, clearly less and less research 

would have been performed. 

Just as important, however, would 

have been the effect on the research 

work force. Young people considering a 

career in biomedical research are unlikely to choose to do so when they realize that they only have 1 chance in 10 

or 20 to be funded to do their work. The 

loss of young, creative researchers, 

once it had occured, would taken decades to replace. 

The NIH agenda for the coming years 

includes a focus on HIV/AIDS, breast 

cancer and other women’s health 

issues, minority health, tuberculosis, 

brain disorders, gene therapy, drug design, and disease prevention, among 

other topics. Are these important national problems? Is progress being 

made through research? Let’s look at 

some examples: 

First, breast cancer continues to be 

the cancer most frequently diagnosed 

in the United States. In the decade of 

the 1990s, it is estimated that more 

than 1.5 million new cases of breast 

cancer will be diagnosed and nearly 

500,000 American women will die of 

breast cancer. Recent research, however, has led to the discovery of a gene 

linked to breast cancer, and the development of more precise screening techniques to detect breast cancer. Between 1989 and 1992, the overall death 

rate for breast cancer in American 

women declined 4.7 percent—in large 

measure due to these and other associated breakthroughs. Vital and successful programs that must be continued. 

Second, Parkinson’s disease and 

other neurologic diseases are continuing to devastate the lives of sufferers and their families. Parkinson’s 

disease currently afflicts over one million Americans, and I have seen its effects firsthand. Both my mother and 

father had Parkinson’s disease, and its 

manifestations seemed incredibly cruel 

to me. My father was a writer, and at 

the very end of his life I remember seeing him in the study trying to type 

with his hand just shaking—he was unable to do it. Soon thereafter he was 

unable to walk, and was barely able to 

speak. At the time of his death, he was 

confined to bed, unable to communicate, and drained of the dignity with 

which he lived. 

What is encouraging is that Parkinson’s disease is on the threshold of substantial scientific breakthroughs. The 

new science of molecular biology has 

brought forth dramatic and exciting 

developments that have given Parkinson’s patients new hope. Scientists are 

closer to discovering the cause—or 

causes—of this disease * * * tissue implants into the brain have been shown 

to replace the dopamine that is missing 

in the brain of afflicted patients * * * 

genetically engineered medication or 

even gene therapy might provide longlasting, sustainable, side-effect-free 

improvements, or even a cure. Similar 

dramatic advances have occurred in 

the understanding and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Restoring funding to 

the NIH, as accomplished by the Hatfield amendment, will help assure that 

these breakthroughs will be pursued, so 

that no person, and no family need to 

suffer as my parents, and my family 

did, with neurodegenerative diseases. 

These are just two examples, and 

there are many others that illustrate 

the value of the biomedical research effort, and the tragedy and human suffering that would occur if it is not supported. 

A little appreciated benefit of NIH 

work is a reduction of health care 

costs, by early diagnosis, more effective treatment, and disease prevention. 

For example, the NIH recently developed a vaccine against a common bacterial infection—Haemophilus influenzae type B—that afflicts children. 

When severe, this infection can cause 

meningitis, and result in mental retardation, at a great cost in suffering to 

the patient and family, and financially 

to society as well. The vaccine that 

was developed will prevent this illness. 

It is projected that this breakthrough 

alone will save Americans over $400 

million a year. 

Critics of the NIH note that funding 

has doubled in the past 10 years, and, 

therefore, claim that cuts could be 

made without harming programs. Although NIH’s budget has increased almost every year, the available money 

has not grown as rapidly as the demand 

for it to conduct research, largely because of the opening up of so many 

new, promising fields of research in 

biomedical sciences over the past two 

decades. Between 1984 and 1993, for example, applications for research 

projects support increased 33 percent. 

The number of awards made during 

this time, however, fluctuated greatly 

from year to year. The result has been 

unpredictable variability, with a downward trend, in the fraction of projects 

submitted, that are awarded grants. In 

1987, 34.8 percent of grants were funded, 

but this has steadily fallen to 25 percent in 1994 overall, and lower in some 

Institutes of the NIH. 

In addition to the disastrous effects 

on investigators, cuts in the NIH budget of the magnitude proposed would 

have had an equally devastating effect 

on the Nation’s medical schools. About 

half of NIH’s extramural budget ends 

up in medical schools, directly to support research, and indirectly to help 

maintain the infrastructure necessary 

to carry out the research. 

The Hatfield amendment will assure 

that medical schools have the resources they need to continue their efforts in research. I hope that my colleagues will also support my amendment to assure that low-priority discretionary funding is used to restore 

the critically needed funds to the National Institutes of Health. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment expresses the sense of the 

Senate that low-priority domestic programs and activities of the Federal 

Government, including the space station, should be reduced in order to 

meet the requirement of the Hatfield 

National Institutes of Health amendment. 

It ensures that the high-priority programs, including education, food and 

nutrition for low-income children, 

anticrime efforts, veterans programs, 

job training, health care, and other 

similar investments be protected. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to note 

that the tax loopholes that could be 

closed could include the interest deduction on home mortgage. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1196

(Purpose: To propose a substitute) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. BRADLEY, proposes an amendment numbered 1196. 

(The text of the amendment appears 

under today’s RECORD under ‘‘Amendments Submitted.’’) 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we all 

know that years and years of Federal 

budget deficits are a real threat to the 

future of our economy. 

We know that they cut into the private savings and investment we need to 

provide for a better future. 

We know that they require us to borrow from other countries, increasing 

our exposure to the changeable winds 

of the global economy. 

And, Mr. President, we know that 

those deficits contribute to the perception that Government does not work, 

that it cannot do its own job, that we 

cannot get our own House in order. 

When I introduced my own balanced 

budget amendment over 10 years ago, 

and when I voted for the balanced 

budget amendment earlier this year, I 

did so in the conviction that regaining 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7441 

control of our Federal finances must be 

at the top of our priorities. 

But I said when I cast my vote that, 

a crucial reason for my concern about 

the deficit is that its very real importance threatens to overwhelm our ability to make rational—and yes, compassionate—choices for the future of our 

country. 

By its sheer size and seriousness, the 

Federal deficit is driving all other policy choices. It is dictating the terms of 

debate as we consider what we can do 

about crime, health care, welfare reform, our decaying infrastructure, 

military readiness, and the place of our 

country in a changing world. 

Now, Mr. President, it is completely 

appropriate for us to subject every policy, every dollar we spend, to the 

strictest standards of cost effectiveness. 

That should be our standard, no matter what shape our books are in. 

But as I said when I voted for the balanced budget amendment, Mr. President, we must achieve that standard in 

a way that is fair, and that covers everything in the budget, including tax 

expenditures. 

And, Mr. President, we must understand that a shortsighted focus on the 

bottom line, on simply cutting spending without a thought for its impact on 

the future, can threaten our future just 

as surely as continued deficits. 

Mr. President, we must continue on 

the path we began 2 years ago toward 

lower and lower deficits—but we must 

also continue to commit our scarce resources where they can do the greatest 

good, for the greatest number of our 

citizens, over the long run. 

Unfortunately, Mr. President, the 

Republican budget plan is not fair, and 

it fails to meet our obligation to invest 

in the future. Therefore, I cannot support it. 

I regret that I cannot support that 

budget plan, that on paper—if a lot of 

heroic assumptions work out—aims at 

a zero deficit by the year 2002. 

But the refusal to accept amendments—amendments, Mr. President, 

that would not have changed that zerodeficit goal of a balanced budget by the 

year 2002—has left us with a budget 

plan that is not fair and that sacrifices 

our future for shortsighted savings 

today. 

And, I am sorry to say, Mr. President, it leaves us with a budget plan 

that puts the burden of deficit reduction on those who are least able to bear 

it. That unfairness, I believe, will have 

real economic costs that could be 

avoided by a more careful considered 

path toward the balanced budget goal. 

Let us remember, Mr. President, that 

the amendments that were rejected 

would not have increased the deficit—

they would have continued the path toward a zero deficit—but they would 

have achieved that goal while maintaining our commitment to investments vital for the future of our economy and society. 

I supported an amendment by Senator ROCKEFELLER to restore $100 billion in Medicare cuts, and I cosponsored Senator JOHNSTON’s amendment 

to restore two-thirds of the Medicare 

cuts. These amendments would still 

have eliminated the deficit by 2002. 

But, instead of tax cuts—tax cuts not 

for the middle class but for those who 

do not need them—these amendments 

would have preserved Medicare for 

those seniors on fixed incomes. 

Unfortunately, both Medicare amendments failed. And, the effect of the underlying Republican budget would be to 

increase the costs of Medicare for the 

average senior citizen by $900 in the 

year 2002. I believe this is neither desirable nor necessary to balance the Federal budget. 

In the same way, Mr. President, the 

Republican budget plan cuts $21 billion 

from a program to reward work that 

President Ronald Reagan called the 

best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, 

the best job creation measure to come 

out of the Congress, the earned income 

tax credit. 

Senator BRADLEY’s attempt to restore that cut—to repeal that tax increase on the working poor—was defeated. 

The Republican cuts in the earned income tax credit come with no thought 

about how they would affect the pressing need for real welfare reform. 

Now we all agree, Mr. President, that 

the central question in welfare reform 

is how to get people off the dole and 

back to work. But by increasing the 

tax burden on low-income working 

families, the cuts in the earned income 

tax credit will make work less attractive for the very families that are at 

the greatest risk of falling into the 

welfare system. 

The Republican budget says, ‘‘cut 

first,’’ Mr. President, ‘‘and ask questions later.’’

The Republican budget is shortsighted in other ways, Mr. President. It 

makes education more expensive, and 

cuts away at crucial supports for the 

research programs that have—up to 

now—kept our country in the lead 

internationally in the most critical 

factor needed for future competitiveness—knowledge. 

I cosponsored and supported amendments that would restore funding to 

student loan programs and to the funds 

available for medical and other research programs that could sustain our 

country’s international leadership in 

the production of that knowledge. 

In all of these areas—providing 

health care, promoting work over welfare, supporting education, and research—I voted for amendments to the 

Republican budget plan. These changes 

would have achieved the balanced 

budget goal we all seek, but without 

the unwise and unnecessary cuts that 

will weaken the foundations for stronger economic growth. 

Those changes I supported, Mr. President, would have also assured that 

more Americans could participate in 

that future growth. 

Those amendments would have 

achieved the same balanced budget 

goal as the Republican plan, but in a 

way that shared the sacrifice more 

fairly now, and would provide a fairer 

distribution of the future benefits from 

that sacrifice. 

When I saw the many weaknesses in 

the Republican plan, Mr. President, I 

resolved to join with Senator BRADLEY

in offering an alternative balanced 

budget plan that would achieve the 

benefits from eliminating deficits in 

ways that did not sacrifice fairness or 

the foundations of economic growth. 

As I said, Mr. President, among my 

first concerns was the unwise and unnecessary cuts in Medicare that are the 

real cornerstone of the Republican 

budget plan. Without those cuts, there 

is no Republican plan for balancing the 

budget. 

The Bradley-Biden amendment restores $175 billion of the Republican 

cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Our 

plan would increase Medicare 8 percent 

annually over the next 7 years. 

However, it is our hope that we can 

reduce the cost of Medicare in that 

time through comprehensive health 

care reform—not with arbitrary cuts 

like those proposed in the Republican 

budget. 

By controlling the underlying growth 

in health care costs—which is the real 

cause of the increase in Medicare 

costs—comprehensive health care reform would be a benefit not only to 

Medicare recipients but to all Americans. And the offshoot is that down the 

road, we can save money in the Medicare Program—savings that we hope 

will not require cutting how much 

Medicare pays to doctors and hospitals, 

and even more importantly, savings 

that will not mean higher costs to senior citizens on fixed incomes. 

The irony is that Republicans have 

been using the annual report of the 

Medicare Board of Trustees to justify 

their draconian cuts in Medicare. But, 

the Republicans are ignoring the 

Board’s recommendation to Congress 

to save the Medicare system as part of 

broad-based health care reform. 

But beyond the fact that the Bradley-Biden plan would honor our country’s commitment to provide health 

care for our elderly, there are other, 

more fundamental differences between 

our program and the Republican budget. 

For example, we demand restraint in 

the growth of tax expenditures, among 

the fastest-growing reasons we continue to pile up deficits. 

Now, Mr. President, this plan imposes a hard freeze on domestic spending—no increase in the dollars spent—

and then cuts an additional $15 billion. 

And this plan cuts an additional $10 

billion from the current projections for 

defense spending. 

This is strong medicine for our persistent deficit disease. 

Unfortunately, we now must take 

such dramatic—and painful—steps in 

those areas. 

But in the name of fundamental fairness, Mr. President, how can we ask 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

the children, the poor, the elderly, of 

our country to sacrifice without demanding that those who have prospered under the current system, and 

have continued to prosper as deficits 

have built up over the years, to participate in restoring balance to our country’s finances? 

Make no mistake, tax expenditures 

have the same effect on our deficits as 

any other kind of Federal program—

they increase the gap between what we 

spend and what we take in. Why don’t 

we examine them with the same critical accountant’s eye that we must 

apply to defense spending, agricultural 

programs, education, health, and research? 

Incredibly, Mr. President, the Republican plan refuses to touch this rapidly 

growing drain on the Treasury, choosing instead to permit what will be a $4 

trillion entitlement program between 

now and the year 2002 to go untouched. 

Let me repeat that Mr. President. 

Tax entitlements—exemptions, deductions, loopholes, call them what you 

will—will total $4 trillion between now 

and the year we seek to achieve a balanced budget. 

In their search for ways to reduce 

Federal deficits, the Republicans have 

taken on spending for children, for the 

elderly, for the working poor, for education, for scientific and medical research. But they won’t touch tax expenditures that will cost the Treasury 

three times what it will take to balance the budget over the next 7 years. 

What Senator BRADLEY and I would 

do is subject those tax entitlements to 

the same scrutiny that we apply to the 

rest of the budget—no more sacrifice 

from that source than from others, but 

no less, either. 

All told, we would cut only $197 billion over 7 years from that $400 billion—a 5-percent reduction over the 7 

years. 

Of course, not all tax deductions and 

exemptions have to be cut to achieve 

that modest goal. Our plan would not 

touch the home mortgage deduction, 

the deduction for State and local taxes, 

or the deduction for contributions to 

charities. 

Let me repeat that before I hear that 

those worthwhile and necessary items 

are at risk under our plan. They are 

not. We do not need to touch them to 

achieve our balanced budget goal in the 

year 2002. 

But we would slow the growth—not 

eliminate, but slow the growth—in 

such tax expenditures as the quick tax 

write-off for timber that will cost us 

$2.3 billion over the next 5 years. 

I believe that most Americans would 

agree that such programs—programs 

that lose money from the Treasury as 

surely as any other—could share some 

of the restraint needed to restore balance to the Federal budget. 

By cutting this and other tax breaks, 

we would save $197 billion that can be 

used to bring the Federal deficit to 

zero by the year 2002. 

By refusing to take on the huge tax 

expenditure budget, Mr. President, the 

Republican plan must find its savings 

by raising Medicare premiums by $900, 

by adding $3,000 to the cost of a student 

loan, and by increasing taxes by $21 billion on working families. 

These are cuts that the BradleyBiden plan does not have to make, Mr. 

President, because it spreads the costs 

of deficit reduction more equitably, 

and thereby requires less sacrifice of 

those who can least afford it. 

In addition to sharing the near-term 

sacrifice more evenly, this plan also 

builds a foundation for future economic 

growth that will be more widely 

shared, as well. 

Our plan provides for full funding of 

student loans, and makes reckless cuts 

in our Nation’s scientific and medical 

research unnecessary. It provides for 

prudent levels of investment in the 

equipment, the information, and the 

people who will lead our economy—and 

the world’s economy—into the next 

century. 

And, Mr. President, the BradleyBiden plan permits—once a real deficitreduction plan is in place and its benefits can be accurately predicted and 

scored by the Congressional Budget Office—it permits a $10,000 college tuition 

tax deduction for middle-class families. 

It helps to underwrite our competitive future, and it helps to underwrite 

a key element of the American dream. 

Mr. President, ours is a plan that 

would achieve the goal we all share—a 

balanced budget. But we should aspire 

to more, Mr. President—we should 

dream of a better future, and we should 

take the actions now that are needed 

to make that dream a reality. 

Without continued support now for 

education, scientific and medical research, health care, public infrastructure, and other investments, we will be 

poorer in the long run, whatever shape 

our Federal finances are in. 

The Bradley-Biden balanced budget 

plan not only achieves the mundane, 

but essential, goal of restoring balance 

to the Government’s books. It makes 

the investments necessary to keep 

alive our faith in the future. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Bradley amendment reduces defense spending by $5 billion; reduces nondefense 

discretionary by $15 billion more, than 

a hard freeze; restores $100 billion of 

the $256 billion Republican Medicare 

cut; $85 billion from a $1 a pack increase in the tobacco tax; restores $75 

billion of the $175 billion Republican 

Medicaid cut; retains Republican agricultural cuts; restores funding of student loans; restores $60 billion of the 

$86 billion in income assistance cut by 

the Republican budget plan; reduces 

the tax loopholes for corporations and 

the wealthy by $197 billion. 

If the fiscal dividend materializes, 

using $70 billion to restore a portion of 

the spending cuts from the Republican 

proposal; and lastly, uses the remaining $100 million of fiscal dividend, if 

available, to provide a middle-class tax 

cut. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this 

proposes $282 billion in tax increases 

over 7 years. I think that is the record 

setter. It cuts outlays in the agricultural programs and others. 

I believe it is pretty late to have a 

full budget before the Senate today. I 

move to table it. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1197

(Purpose: To reduce the reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Labor and 

Human Resources (primarily affecting student loans) from $13,795,000,000 in outlays 

over 7 years, to $4,395,000,000 by closing tax 

loopholes) 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send 

an amendment to the desk and ask for 

its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SMITH). The clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. DOMENICI], for Ms. SNOWE, for herself, Mr. SIMON, 

Mr. COHEN, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. JEFFORDS, 

Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. DODD, Mr. WELLSTONE, 

Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. HARKIN, 

proposes an amendment numbered 1197. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Close tax loopholes and corporate subsidies 

by the following amounts: 

On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by 

$875,000,000. 

On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by 

$1,100,000,000. 

On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 

$1,250,000,000. 

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 

$1,400,000,000. 

On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by 

$1,675,000,000. 

On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by 

$875,000,000. 

On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by 

$1,100,000,000. 

On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by 

$1,250,000,000. 

On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by 

$1,400,000,000. 

On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by 

$1,675,000,000. 

Restore cuts in student loans by the following amounts: 

On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by 

$875,000,000. 

On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 

$1,100,000,000. 

On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 

$1,250,000,000. 

On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by 

$1,400,000,000. 

On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by 

$1,675,000,000. 

On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by 

$875,000,000. 

On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by 

$1,100,000,000. 

On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by 

$1,250,000,000. 

On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by 

$1,400,000,000. 

On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7443 

On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by 

$1,675,000,000. 

On page 31, line 12, increase the amount by 

$875,000,000. 

On page 31, line 20, increase the amount by 

$1,100,000,000. 

On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by 

$1,250,000,000. 

On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by 

$1,400,000,000. 

On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by 

$1,675,000,000. 

On page 31, line 13, increase the amount by 

$875,000,000. 

On page 31, line 21, increase the amount by 

$1,100,000,000. 

On page 32, line 4, increase the amount by 

$1,250,000,000. 

On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by 

$1,400,000,000. 

On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by 

$1,550,000,000. 

On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by 

$1,675,000,000. 

On page 64, strike beginning with line 7 

through page 64 line 12, and insert the following: 

‘‘Human Resources shall report changes in 

laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $266,000,000 in 

fiscal year 1996, $2,990,000,000 for the period of 

fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and 

$4,395,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 

1996 through 2002.’’

At the appropriate place insert the following: The assumption underlying the functional totals include that ‘‘It is the sense of 

the Senate that cuts in student loan benefits 

should be minimized, and that the current 

exclusion of income of Foreign Sales Corporations should be eliminated.’’

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I was extremely happy to see that the Senate 

passed the Snowe-Simon amendment 

restoring $9.4 billion for the student 

loan program. The Senate has agreed 

to fund this amendment by closing corporate tax loopholes. I want to emphasize, however, that the specific loophole mentioned in the amendment was 

not binding in any way and was intended to serve only as one of many 

possible suggestions. Indeed, on the 

basis of the very persuasive arguments 

made by Senators MURRAY, KERRY, 

KENNEDY, and BIDEN about the hightech industry in their States and in the 

nation, I have been persuaded to work 

with the Finance Committee to find a 

different tax loophole to use as a funding source. 

Ms. SNOWE. I understand the concerns 

of my colleagues, as well. I too will 

work with the Finance Committee to 

find a source of revenue for the student 

loan program that best serves all the 

interests of my colleagues. I want to 

thank Senators MURRAY, KERRY, KENNEDY, and BIDEN for their help in restoring funding for the student loan 

program. And I especially thank my 

Republican cosponsors—Senators 

COHEN, KASSEBAUM, CAMPBELL, and 

JEFFORDS) for their help and assistance 

on this important amendment. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am 

delighted that the Senate returned to 

its tradition of bipartisan support for 

education to restore $9.4 billion to student loan accounts by an overwhelming 

majority. These funds provide vital 

support for the Nation’s college students. 

I also welcome the statement of my 

colleagues Senators SIMON and SNOWE

concerning the offset and our willingness to work closely with members of 

the Committee on Finance to insure 

that the most appropriate offset is developed. Clearly, tax expenditures 

should bear their fair share of any serious effort to balance the budget. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, while 

I strongly support the goal of the 

Snowe-Simon amendment to lessen the 

cuts in the education function, I cannot vote for this approach because it 

proposes to raise taxes. 

Although the authors of this amendment claim that this will be accomplished by closing a tax loophole for 

foreign sales corporation, which I 

would support in the context of fundamental tax reform or overall tax reduction—as, indeed, I strongly favor closing many tax loopholes, and will work 

to so when a tax bill is under consideration—the practical legislative effect 

of this amendment would be to instruct 

the Senate Finance Committee to raise 

tax revenues by about $9.4 billion over 

5 years through any means. 

Mr. President, that could mean higher taxes on working families, the elderly or others whose economic future I 

care about. Out of the some $12 trillion 

we will spend under this budget, I believe that over the next 7 years, we can 

find the additional dollars to fully protect needy students by cutting corporate welfare and unnecessary spending. That is why I worked with Senator 

SNOWE yesterday on an amendment 

that would protect student loans by 

cutting spending. 

Having said this, if this amendment 

should pass, I will support this budget 

resolution and strongly encourage the 

conferees on the budget to retain this 

resolution in student loan funding, but 

do so by cutting spending in other 

areas. Further, in my position as a 

member of the Senate Labor and 

Human Resources Committee I will 

work to ensure that the Guaranteed 

Student Loan Program is fully funded 

under any circumstances I yield the 

floor. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this 

amendment reduces the reconciliation 

instruction to the Committee on Labor 

and Human Resources, primarily affecting student loans, from 

$13,795,000,000 in outlays over 7 years to 

$4,395,000,000 over the same period of 

time by closing tax loopholes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I think I 

have a little time left. With regard to 

this, we favor the Snowe amendment 

and urge its support. It would restore 

funding needed for student loans. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this point to 

ask for the yeas and nays on the four 

remaining amendments that have been 

outlined with one request for the yeas 

and nays, which I request at this juncture. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Is there a sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to table the first Wellstone 

amendment and ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me ask 

Members to stay right here because we 

are going to go as quickly as we can, 

hoping to do it in less time. We had an 

hour debate. We are going to ask consent, and I ask now unanimous consent 

to reduce that to 40 minutes instead of 

1 hour on behalf of the managers on 

each side. Then we will have final passage of the budget and then we will 

move to the terrorism bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on the motion. 

Mr. DOLE. Did we get the agreement 

on the 1 hour to 40 minutes? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 1136

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to table amendment No. 1136. 

The yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

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

necessary absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 84, 

nays 15, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 228 Leg.] 

YEAS—84 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moseley-Braun 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7444 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

NAYS—15 

Boxer 

Bryan 

Conrad 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Harkin 

Hollings 

Kennedy 

Moynihan 

Pell 

Reid 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1136) was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question now occurs on amendment No. 

1141 offered by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. WELLSTONE]. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 1141

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

of the Senator from New Mexico to lay 

on the table the amendment of the 

Senator from Minnesota. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 81, 

nays 18, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 229 Leg.] 

YEAS—81 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Breaux 

Brown 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Leahy 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—18 

Biden 

Bradley 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Conrad 

Dorgan 

Feingold 

Harkin 

Kennedy 

Lautenberg 

Levin 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So, the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to table the Bradley amendment. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 1196

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to lay on the table amendment No. 

1196, offered by the Senator from New 

Jersey [Mr. BRADLEY]. The yeas and 

nays have been ordered. The clerk will 

call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 86, 

nays 13, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 230 Leg.] 

YEAS—86 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kyl 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

NAYS—13 

Biden 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Kennedy 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Pell 

Rockefeller 

Simon 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1196) was agreed to. 

VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1197

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to amendment 

No. 1197 offered by the Senator from 

Maine [Ms. SNOWE]. 

The yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

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

necessary absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 67, 

nays 32, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.] 

YEAS—67 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Graham 

Grassley 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Warner 

Wellstone 

NAYS—32 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Burns 

Coats 

Coverdell 

Craig 

Dole 

Faircloth 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Gregg 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Smith 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the amendment (No. 1197) was 

agreed to. 

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WARNER). The majority leader. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are 

going to have 40 minutes of debate 

now. 

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we 

have order so we can understand? 

Mr. DOLE. Forty minutes and then 

final passage. I think it would be helpful if all Members remain in their 

seats, or if they do not care to listen to 

final debate, then remove themselves 

from the Chamber. We hope to start 

the vote about quarter of 6, or 10 of 6. 

I think the first speaker will be the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, 

Senator EXON. 

So I urge my colleagues to give the 

managers our attention here for the 

next 40 minutes. 

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the time allotted to 

our side. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

think we should have order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Chair respectfully asks all Senators to 

take their seats. 

The Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we 

reach closure——

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

make my request again. I think we 

should have order in the Senate. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7445 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s point is well taken. The Chair 

requests all Senators to cease conversation. 

The Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we come 

to the closure of debate on this very, 

very important budget matter, I want 

to start out my closing remarks by 

taking a moment to thank the Budget 

Committee staffs, the majority staff 

and the minority staff, for what I think 

was a truly wonderful job. It takes a 

lot of hard work and they performed it 

so very, very well, whether in the minority or majority. I think we all recognize that while we have fractious debates from time to time, our staffs do 

a particularly outstanding job in working together. 

Senators on this side of the aisle are 

certainly most grateful for the contribution of our minority staff and also 

the important role and relationship we 

have had with the Senators on that 

side, headed by my good friend, Senator DOMENICI, and his excellent staff. I 

guess few realize the truly monumental 

task and the intricate time demands 

and the details—the daunting task, if 

you will, of budgeting. It was much 

tougher this year than it was in previous years, when we were obviously 

more restrained about our expenditures. 

I want to take a moment if I can, 

then, just to run through some names 

here that I shall be forever indebted to. 

I think the Senate will be as a whole. 

The American people should know it 

was an able staff headed by my chief of 

staff, Bill Dauster, whom everyone recognizes is one of the true experts on 

our budget. I thank Bill for all he has 

done. And the excellent staff he has assembled to work with. 

I want to thank: deputy chief of staff 

Jerry Slominski; analyst for Transportation and Justice Andy Blocker; analyst for Veterans and Commerce Kelly 

Dimock; special assistant to the ranking member Tony Dresden; analyst for 

government, community and regional 

development Meg Duncan; general 

counsel Jodi Grant; senior analyst for 

Energy and environment Matt 

Greenwald; LBJ fellow Nancy Harris; 

senior analyst for income security, social security and Medicaid Joan Huffer; 

chief economist Jim Klumpner; staff 

assistant Nell Mays; director of budget 

review and analysis and analyst for 

Mecdicare Sue Nelson; presidential 

management intern Susan Ross; and 

assistant director for revenue and natural resources David Williams, and the 

others who played key roles in our 

budget staff. 

Mr. President, let me take a few minutes, if I can, to sum up the feelings 

this Senator has after a lot of work and 

effort by a lot of people. 

I come down to the final debate on 

the 1996 budget resolution with a lot of 

thoughts and with a lot of appreciation 

for all the help I have had. I was just 

thinking the other day, though, that 

this will be my 17th budget that I have 

debated in the U.S. Senate. I voted for 

some good, creditable budgets, like the 

one in 1993 that provided nearly $500 

billion in deficit reduction. I voted 

against others that I believed were fiscally unsound and were not in the best 

interests of our great Nation. Each of 

those budgets was important, but perhaps none as important as this one at 

this particular time. 

As Nebraska draws me closer to 

home, I think more about the country 

I want to leave my fellow citizens. I 

think about their day-to-day struggle 

for a better life. I think about their 

grandchildren and the uncertainties 

they face, I think about how I want to 

leave them a country with shoulders 

broad enough to build a family and a 

future on. 

This Republican budget may convey 

that legacy to some, but not to this fiscally conservative Nebraskan. It is a 

budget that makes a devil’s bargain 

over tax cuts at a time when we should 

be appealing to our better angels. We 

should make sure we balance the budget before we make a real or phony commitment to the politically popular 

promise of a tax cut. 

It is a budget that takes away unfairly from our seniors, children, and 

least fortunate, but disproportionately 

and unfairly lines the pockets of the 

wealthiest among us. 

It is a budget that keeps the most affluent fling first class, but puts rural 

America in a tail spin. 

It is a budget that turns a blind eye 

to working Americans who play by the 

rules. 

In the final analysis, it is a budget I 

cannot support. 

I know what a tough task my good 

friend, the chairman of the Budget 

Committee, has had. I salute him for 

the masterful job he has done. And he 

has my condolences for the job that 

lies ahead that will require the wisdom 

of Solomon and the patience of Job. 

We may disagree on the shape of this 

budget. But the Senator from New 

Mexico and I truly believe, both of us, 

in balancing the budget. For us, and 

many of our colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle, this is not an abstraction. We 

want to make a decisive attack on our 

country’s budget crisis. 

I wanted a bipartisan balanced budget where all of us would share, and 

share equally, in the painful decisions 

and sacrifices that are necessary to 

bring the budget into balance. I wanted 

a balanced budget that was driven by 

fairness. 

On many occasions, before and during this debate, I offered the olive 

branch to my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle. In spite of the heated 

rhetoric, I thought that cooler heads 

could prevail. I offered compromise and 

reason. I offered unity instead of division. I though we could fine tune this 

budget and redistribute the cuts within 

its framework. I thought that we could 

work together to produce a balanced 

budget that most Republicans and 

Democrats could support. 

But the past 50 hours have proven me 

wrong. The Republicans froze us out of 

the process, basically. We were persona 

non grata as far as they were concerned. I didn’t expect my Republican 

colleagues to accept all of our amendments. But they did not give serious 

consideration to barely any of the constructive and reasonable amendments 

we offered. And none, and I repeat none 

of the amendments I supported would 

have kept us from balancing the budget 

by the year 2002, which is the central 

element, I think in the plan offered by 

the majority. 

The Republican majority put a fence 

around their budget. We were blocked 

at every turn. We were rebuffed on 

each critical amendment. It was ‘‘No’’

to softening cuts on Medicare. It was 

‘‘No’’ to the earned income tax credit. 

It was ‘‘No’’ to education. It was ‘‘No’’

to rural America. It was ‘‘No’’ to fairness. It was ‘‘No’’ to shared sacrifice. 

Mr. President, this is not a budget 

for all seasons, and is certainly lacking 

in reason. This is not a budget for all 

Americans. This is not a budget of 

shared sacrifices. This is not a budget 

on which our fellow citizens in Nebraska, or elsewhere can build a better 

life. This is a budget that I cannot support. 

Where do we go from here? To something workable and more constructive? 

Given the budget presented us by the 

House, and this one concocted in the 

Senate, we go to conference with little 

hope of a final budget that will have 

any semblance of bipartisan support. 

It follows that the reconciliation bill 

and the appropriations measures will 

be so bound in advance by this unworkable budget that the end product will 

also be devoid of any real semblance of 

bipartisan support. 

There are those who seemingly have 

reveled in the charges that the President is ‘‘irrelevant’’ in the budget considerations. They will find out how ‘‘irrelevant’’ he really is should he veto—

and, in my opinion, properly so—the 

end product of all of this partisanship. 

Beginning now, and up to the point of 

a possible veto, I will be working with 

my President and my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle to attempt to 

fashion a workable bipartisan compromise that will not be painless, but 

will be fair to all Americans and, most 

importantly, to America. 

I reserve the remainder of my time. 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 

a few Senators who requested time. 

Maybe I will do that before I give my 

closing remarks. Senator GRAMM asked 

for some time, and I will give him 2 

minutes. Senator ROBB, who is not 

here, asked for 2 minutes, and I am 

going to give him 2 minutes. And Senator NUNN asked for 3 minutes; I am 

going to give him time. Then I will get 

back to my time. 

Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7446 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized to speak 

for 2 minutes. 

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, there 

are many things to praise in this budget, and I want to begin by praising the 

man who made it happen, and his name 

is PETE DOMENICI. 

I think he has provided great leadership in the Senate, and given the numbers we had to work with, given the 

disposition of our Members, I do not 

think anybody can have anything to 

say about PETE DOMENICI other than to 

give him the credit he is due. 

But I want all my colleagues to understand exactly where we are as we 

pass this budget. With the adoption of 

the Snowe amendment, this budget 

now before the Senate spends $184 billion over the 7-year period, more on 

nondefense programs than the budget 

that was adopted in the House. That is 

$184 billion worth of additional nondefense program spending that is going 

to have to be taken out in conference, 

if we are going to have any opportunity 

to have a real cut in taxes for working 

families, and if we are going to have 

any real opportunity to provide incentives for growth. 

I want my colleagues to know that I 

am going to vote for this budget. I 

want to urge every person in the Senate who wants to balance the Federal 

budget to vote for this budget, and I 

hope we get a sound vote. 

But I want my colleagues to understand that unless we cut this excessive 

spending out, unless we let working 

families keep more of what they earn, 

unless we provide incentives for 

growth, and unless we balance the 

budget while doing those things in the 

final product that will come out of the 

House Senate conference, I am not 

going to vote for that budget. I believe 

we can do these things. 

Our House colleagues have shown us 

that it can be done. And I am hopeful, 

when we go to conference with the 

House, that we will look at our mandate from the election, we will look at 

what our colleagues in the House did, 

we will take heart and leadership from 

them, and that we will come back with 

a budget that is balanced over a 7-year 

period, that lets working families keep 

more of what they earn, and that provides incentives for people to work, 

save, and invest. That is what I favor. 

I believe that is what the American 

people favor. And by passing this budget today, we have an opportunity to 

begin to make that happen. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to 

Senator NUNN. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized. 

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, first I 

want to commend my friend from New 

Mexico, Senator DOMENICI, and my 

friend from Nebraska, Senator EXON, 

for handling the management of this 

bill under very difficult circumstances. 

I have been in that place many times, 

and I know how difficult it is and what 

a challenge it is. 

Second, I would like to commend the 

Senator from New Mexico, Senator 

DOMENICI, for real leadership in putting 

on the table for all of us to both contemplate, vote on, and study in the future, and the American people to contemplate, all the untouchables that 

have not been in budget resolutions before. 

This is first time that I have seen all 

elements of spending on the table except Social Security. It is my view that 

will have to be on the table at some 

point in the future. But that one is not 

on the table today. 

I disagree with a number of the priorities in this resolution, and I have 

voted differently from my friend from 

New Mexico on a number of amendments because I do believe that we 

have not earned any tax dividend at 

this point. I do not believe we ought to 

have a tax dividend until we really get 

the budget under control. I think that 

is essential, and that is a priority. And 

I think that is what the American people want. 

I think moving to reduce taxes before 

we get spending under control, and before we really earn the dividend, is 

kind of like going on the wagon by 

starting off chug-a-lugging a bottle of 

whiskey. I do not think that is the way 

to proceed. However, having said that, 

I do think this budget is in the right 

direction. I think it moves in the right 

direction. 

I am going to vote for it for that reason, because it does move in the right 

direction. And moving in the right direction in terms of tackling entitlements, in terms of restraining growth 

and spending in those programs that 

have been clearly out of control, as difficult as that is going to be to do, I 

think the direction is enormously important. It is important for our children. It is important for our grandchildren. It is important for our economy. It is important to increase savings, and thereby investment and productivity, and thereby the real income 

of the American people over a period of 

time. 

Finally, I think that this direction is 

enormously important for the credibility of this Congress and the credibility of our Federal Government. 

So I commend my friend from New 

Mexico for real leadership, and I will 

vote for the final passage of this resolution. 

Like the Senator from Texas, I will 

be watching the conference very closely, perhaps from a slightly different 

perspective. 

Mr. President, again, I rise today to 

announce my support for the fiscal 

year 1996 budget resolution. I commend 

my good friends, Senator PETE DOMENICI and Senator JIM EXON, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate 

Budget Committee, for their floor management of this bill. Having been a 

member of the Senate Budget Committee and having worked with Senator DOMENICI on a 10-year balanced 

budget plan in our Center for Strategic 

and International Studies [CSIS] 

‘‘Strengthening of America Commission,’’ I know how daunting a task it is 

to produce a plan to reach a balanced 

unified budget by 2002. I know that my 

friend PETE DOMENICI had to make 

many difficult decisions and fall back 

on many of his own priorities to forge 

a majority coalition on this bill. This 

type of leadership is often given sufficient recognition or praise. 

I have followed this debate closely. 

This is a historic moment. This resolution marks the first time the Senate 

Budget Committee has reported a 

budget resolution that in my view 

deals with all the elements on the 

spending side of the budget that must 

be addressed to have any hope of balancing the budget. I commend my 

friend from New Mexico for the courage 

and the leadership he has exhibited in 

crafting this resolution. 

The most significant improvement 

over past attempts to balance the 

budget is the Senate Budget Committee’s inclusion of recommendations to 

restrain significantly the projected 

growth of Federal mandatory or entitlement spending, which now represents 50 cents of every dollar the 

Federal Government spends. 

For years, Congress and the executive branch have tried to achieve a balanced budget by cutting the defense 

and domestic discretionary programs 

that are appropriated by the Congress 

and signed by the President, and by 

raising taxes. At the same time these 

budget efforts time after time allowed 

the mandatory or entitlement programs, which are on autopilot, to grow 

faster than inflation, faster than discretionary programs were being cut, 

and faster than taxes could be raised. 

In the 1990 budget summit, half the 

savings came from cutting the defense 

budget. While large defense savings 

were possible due to the end of the cold 

war—and those savings which were 

made are still contributing to deficit 

reduction today—that kind of historic 

opportunity is a one-shot deal. That 

agreement predictably did not balance 

the budget because defense represented 

at that time 24 percent of the overall 

budget. As a result of that agreement, 

defense is only 18 percent of the budget 

today, and under this resolution it will 

fall to 14 percent by the end of the century. 

Over half the deficit reduction in the 

1993 reconciliation bill came from tax 

increases. Once again, reductions in 

the growth of entitlements contributed 

only a small portion of the deficit reduction. Tax increases and defense cuts 

will never balance the budget as long 

as the entitlement programs remain 

unrestrained. 

These previous attempts, because 

they failed to address the largest and 

fastest growing part of the budget, 

were virtually doomed to fail. In my 

mind, our previous attempts to balance 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7447 

the budget without seriously addressing the out of control growth of spending in entitlement programs were analogous to Bonnie and Clyde robbing 

parking meters. 

Mr. President, this budget resolution 

finally goes where the money is. Fifty 

percent of the deficit reduction in this 

plan comes from reducing the projected 

growth in spending—not the actual 

spending levels—in entitlement programs. Compared to CBO’s baseline 

projections, it provides spending reductions totaling $1.3 trillion over the 7- 

year period ending in 2002. These reductions are achieved through reductions 

in two principal areas: entitlements 

and nondefense discretionary programs. 

This resolution recommends that entitlement spending growth be reduced 

by $650 billion, that nondefense discretionary spending be reduced $350 billion, and defense will be reduced by another $100 billion below CBO’s baseline. 

Due to these reduced Federal expenditures, it is estimated that interest payments on the debt will be lessened by 

$200 billion. 

Mr. President, over the last few days, 

many of my colleagues have attempted 

to amend the resolution to correct 

what they believed to be flaws in this 

proposal. I share many of their concerns, and, if I had my way, I would 

make a number of changes, including: 

First, holding the defense budget stable over this period rather than having 

it continue to decline as called for in 

both this resolution and President 

Clinton’s budget; 

Second, setting a goal of balancing 

the budget without using the surpluses 

from the Social Security Trust Fund, 

even if it takes 10 years rather than 7. 

Third, reducing some of the cuts 

from projected growth in the Medicare 

and Medicaid programs to make the required reforms more achievable and 

sustainable; 

Fourth, reducing the proposed cuts in 

Federal education programs to acknowledge that human capital is our 

most precious resource; 

Fifth, restoring some of the proposed 

reductions in the Earned Income Tax 

Credit, which is essential in helping 

low-income working people and in 

making work more attractive than 

welfare; 

Sixth, mitigating to some extent the 

proposed cuts to agriculture and veterans programs; and 

Seventh, keeping the National Service program alive and viable. This program is proving to be both an important and efficient way of delivering 

human services, and it is also serving 

as a catalyst for community service by 

thousands of American young people. 

Mr. President, I will continue to 

fight to address these priorities as this 

process continues and we debate the 

specific details in the reconciliation 

legislation that will carry out this 

plan. I also believe that tax expenditures should not be exempt from review 

as we legislate in the summer and fall. 

Balancing the budget requires shared 

sacrifice, and as we cut spending we 

should also review revenue-losing tax 

breaks which may not be justified. For 

these reasons I supported the Conrad 

alternative to the Committee-reported 

budget resolution. 

Notwithstanding these reservations, 

I will vote for the Domenici budget resolution. We will debate the details for 

months to come, and we could vote and 

debate forever in search of a perfect solution, but the general direction required is clear. If there was an easy 

way to balance the budget without cutting spending on popular programs, we 

would have done it long ago. But that 

is simply not possible. This plan gives 

the American people a realistic look at 

what it takes to balance the budget 

with spending cuts alone. 

I believe this resolution points us in 

the right direction. Mr. President, 

most of this debate has focused on specific elements of this plan, but what 

sometimes gets lost in the debate is 

the fact that the status quo is not painless either—in fact it is not even sustainable. We simply cannot continue to 

pile $200 to $300 billion in additional 

debt each year on our children and 

grandchildren. 

I also hope that I will also be able to 

support the conference report, but that 

depends on its content. I consider the 

House’s action in beginning a $1.2 trillion budget cutting exercise by reducing taxes by over $300 billion over 7 

years to be fiscally irresponsible. I am 

pleased that more than two-thirds of 

my colleagues voted to overwhelmingly defeat this tax cut in the Gramm 

amendment, which have made the tax 

cuts contained in the House passed 

Contract With America part of this resolution. The House approach is like an 

alcoholic promising to go on the wagon 

right after gulping one last bottle of 

whiskey. 

In this resolution, there is a reserve 

fund that makes the fiscal dividend resulting from enactment of a balanced 

budget plan available for tax cuts. This 

dividend was the focus of most of the 

proposed amendments to this resolution. In my view, the Senate should 

have adopted the Feingold amendment, 

which would have applied that dividend 

to deficit reduction and given us a 

cushion that would allow us to balance 

the budget even if the economy does 

not perform as well as CBO has projected. 

The budget resolution contains an invitation to use this fiscal dividend for 

tax reductions rather than applying it 

to deficit reduction. I oppose this part 

of the resolution and I voted against 

the amendment which strengthened 

this invitation from may to shall. The 

Senate will address this question again 

before any such tax cut passes. If the 

Senate is unwilling to apply this fiscal 

dividend to the deficit then I prefer 

using the dividend to ease the most severe impacts of the spending reductions Medicare, education, and programs for low-income working people, 

rather than for tax cuts. My votes on 

several amendments reflect this. But 

my first choice was to take a more conservative approach by applying the fiscal dividend to deficit reduction as proposed by the fiscally responsible path 

in the Feingold amendment. 

This budget resolution is tough medicine, and it will be very difficult to 

carry out some of the reductions called 

for. I suspect the reductions in the 

growth rate of spending in Medicaid 

and Medicare, education, agriculture 

and other areas that are required if we 

are to balance the budget will generate 

more and more opposition from substantial segments of America before 

the cuts are passed by Congress, and 

certainly before they are fully implemented. There is also a probability 

that in cutting projected spending by 

over $1 trillion dollars in a 7-year period Congress will inadvertently make 

some serious errors which will have to 

be corrected. For these reasons, I believe that reducing taxes by the 

amount produced in the fiscal dividend 

would be inequitable and premature 

until the spending cuts and restraints 

have been locked in. 

I would remind all of my colleagues 

who believe, as I do, that we should be 

balancing the budget without using the 

Social Security surplus, that leaving 

the fiscal dividend alone and applying 

it to deficit reduction, as we would 

have done if the Feingold amendment 

had been adopted, would also help 

move us toward the goal of a real balanced budget. Balancing only the unified budget by continuing to borrow 

the Social Security surplus simply 

postpones the day of pain when the 

general fund must repay the Social Security Trust Fund. 

The budget resolution before us balances the budget in 2002, including the 

Social Security surplus. But without 

that surplus, the deficit in 2002 would 

still be about $100 billion. While the 

exact size of the fiscal dividend would 

depend on what savings and enforcement provisions were enacted in a reconciliation bill, CBO’s previous estimate of the fiscal dividend in 2002 was 

about $50 billion. If we had applied that 

to deficit reduction, we could have cut 

the deficit in 2002, excluding Social Security, in half, from about $100 billion 

to $50 billion. 

Today, the general fund already owes 

the Social Security Trust Fund $500 

billion. By 2002, when we finally get the 

budget back in balance including using 

these Social Security surpluses, the 

general fund will owe the Social Security Trust Fund $1.1 trillion. When the 

baby boom generation starts retiring 

around the year 2015, just 20 years from 

today, we will owe the Social Security 

trust fund about $3 trillion. 

We all know that Congress and the 

President have to face up to the Social 

Security problem. We all know the Social Security system is not going to be 

the same for those who are in their 20s, 

30s, and 40s today as it is for people 

who are already retired and receiving 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7448 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

Social Security benefits 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. Unfortunately, this budget resolution 

does not meet that test or even have 

that goal. 

Mr. President, in closing, I want to 

congratulate Senator DOMENICI for his 

leadership on this budget resolution. 

This budget resolution is but the first 

step of a long and difficult journey, but 

we are headed in the right direction—

the direction that will bring our budget 

into balance. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 2 

minutes to the Senator from California. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized. 

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague. 

I want to say that, as I look at the 

Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Nebraska, I want to say my 

friend from New Mexico, the chairman 

of the committee, if I could get his attention, that I think the Senator from 

New Mexico and the Senator from Nebraska really are a model for this U.S. 

Senate. You can disagree without being 

disagreeable. I think we have had a 

tough and important debate, and I congratulate both of them on it. 

I want to say that, from my perspective as a Senator from California who 

ran because I wanted to fight for the 

people of California, that this budget 

as it comes before us now is the broadest retreat on the American dream 

that I have ever seen in my time as an 

adult. 

I will say that we tried to change 

this budget. We at every chance said 

that the tax cuts should go to the middle class, not to the wealthy. We offered broad restorations to education. 

We tried to make this better. We tried 

to ease the pain on the seniors, on the 

students. And I say to my friends on 

both sides of the aisle that if ever we 

were here to fight for anyone, should it 

not be the children? Should it not be 

the elderly? Should it not be the hardworking middle-class families who will 

have a tax increase, those who earn 

$28,000 a year and less? 

So this budget turns its back on 

those people while maintaining tax 

loopholes, keeping military spending 

harmless and, frankly again, retreating 

from the American dream that I was so 

fortunate to be a part of in my lifetime. 

I hope as this process continues we 

will have enough votes to turn back 

some of these priorities. I hope we will 

bring common sense to the debate in 

the days that lie ahead. 

I will be voting against this budget. 

If it does anything, it shows the difference between the parties. I think 

that is good for this country, to see the 

differences between the parties. 

I wish to thank my colleague and 

again the committee chairman for 

working with me, although we have 

disagreed many times. I think the staff 

on both sides have just been extraordinary as well as the chairman and the 

ranking member. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to 

Senator D’AMATO from New York. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized. 

Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, I am 

proud to support this budget. Senator 

DOMENICI and the Budget Committee 

deserve to be commended. Senator 

DOMENICI’s plan, for the first time, 

meets what the American people have 

been asking for—responsible and courageous leadership. 

It is not easy to balance the budget. 

It is not easy to cut those programs, 

yes, that the people want and get used 

to. It is not easy to tackle Medicare. 

But let me tell you something. We were 

not elected and sent here to do things 

the easy way. That program will be 

bankrupt. We owe it to today’s seniors 

and those in the future to protect it, 

preserve it, to strengthen it. We owe it 

to our children in the future to give 

them the opportunities we have had. 

Unless we achieve a balanced budget 

and cut spending, that will not be the 

legacy we leave to them. 

There are those who preach fear and 

divisiveness. I have heard talk already 

about how this is going to help the 

wealthy. It seems to me, when we balance the budget and reduce interest 

costs that make it possible for people 

to have jobs and opportunity, we are 

helping America. 

I do not believe that the administration or my Democratic friends for the 

most part have given the kind of leadership that this Nation needs. Criticize, 

create fear, create doubt, turn their 

backs on their own reports, a report 

that this administration came down 

with, which indicated that Medicare 

would run out of funds within the next 

6 or 7 years. 

We have an obligation to move boldly. We are. It is the right time, and it 

is about time, and I hope we can pass 

this budget overwhelmingly. I support 

it. 

I commend Senator DOMENICI and all 

who have worked with him to bring us 

to this point. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator 

from New York. I yield 2 minutes to 

Senator ROBB. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator ROBB would 

like 2 minutes on my time. 

I yield 2 minutes. 

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Mexico will yield 2 minutes, I would be very pleased. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized. 

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the 

Chair, and I thank the chairman and 

the ranking member of the Budget 

Committee for their leadership and the 

long, hard work that brought us to this 

particular point. 

If this were a budget and not a budget resolution, Mr. President, I might 

take a different course of action. I happen to believe that most of the choices, 

most of the priorities that we establish 

in terms of guidelines as to how we get 

to our destination are not the priorities that I would embrace and, indeed, 

I have voted with my Democratic colleagues on a number of occasions to try 

to change those priorities. But we did 

not prevail. 

I believe that Republicans were 

wrong in 1993, when they felt as strongly as they did about deficit reduction, 

not to try to assist President Clinton 

and Democrats. And feeling as strongly 

as I do about the importance of deficit 

reduction, I believe it would be wrong 

for me not to assist with the heavy lifting. 

Mr. President, the lifting is going to 

be very, very heavy. I do not think 

many of the Members who may be fully 

supportive of this resolution have considered all of the implications that are 

ultimately going to have to be considered when making the tough individual 

choices about cutting specific programs or cutting tax expenditures, 

raising revenues, whatever the case 

may be. But I am prepared to assist in 

that effort. I think it is important 

that, to the extent we can, we engage 

in this most important task on a bipartisan basis. 

So, Mr. President, I will be pleased to 

vote for this resolution, notwithstanding significant differences with 

respect to the distribution of the burden and the pain and a very significant 

difference with respect to whether or 

not we ought to have any tax cuts in 

this measure at this time. 

Nonetheless, I applaud the leadership 

for moving us to this point, for setting 

a very clear and important goal. I am 

embracing the destination and not the 

road as to how we get there, and I am 

going to work to try to make some 

course directions as we move down 

that road. 

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I 

thank the ranking member as well as 

the chairman of the Budget Committee 

for their hard work, and I yield the 

floor. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator 

for the remarks. And I thank the Senator for the support with the vote 

today. 

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have no 

ill will at all toward some of the Democrats, some of my closest friends and 

associates, but I have tried to conduct 

this matter with a sense of dedication 

but still in good humor. I just want to 

say that if there are any Republicans 

who wish to vote against the budget, I 

will be glad to yield them time if they 

come to the Senate as quickly as possible. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7449 

I yield 2 minutes to my colleague 

from Rhode Island. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I regret to tell the 

Senator he will have to do it all himself. 

Mr. EXON. I so anticipated. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized. 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the fiscal 

year 1996 budget resolution marks the 

beginning of the end of an era. There 

can be no avoiding of the fact that the 

resolution in many ways lays out a 

plan for the effective dismantlement of 

progressive government as we have 

come to know and benefit from for half 

a century. 

This I believe is a lamentable turn of 

events in my view, all the more so because I believe we could bring the Federal budget under control by less extreme and less destructive means. 

When I came to the Senate in 1961, 

the political climate was keyed to national circumstances far different from 

those prevailing today. Most of us had 

vivid memories, first, of the era of active, interventionist government that 

resulted from the economic stresses of 

the 1930’s; and second, of the dominant 

role of the Federal Government in the 

successful prosecution of our role in 

World War II, a role which was to continue through the cold war era. 

From that basis of a dominant Federal role in opposition to foreign tyranny, there was a natural evolution to 

the historic role of the Federal Government in greatly expanding our national 

commitment to social justice at home. 

This found expression in the civil 

rights revolution of the 1960’s, and in a 

host of other fields, including health, 

education, welfare, occupational safety, and environmental protection to 

name only a few. 

To be sure, there were excesses and 

mistakes that were committed in the 

name of an activist central government, and their elimination is one of 

the benefits of the current swing of the 

pendulum of history back in the direction of less government and less intervention. 

But as one who has been privileged to 

serve here during this remarkable 

cycle, I want to record the view that 

there is much that we have done over 

the past four decades that has made 

our country a better place, and those 

accomplishments should not be rejected in a willy-nilly rush to diminish 

the role of government. 

Unfortunately, the budget resolution 

lays the groundwork for just such an 

evisceration of progressive government 

and I, therefore, cannot support it. 

I am appalled at the implications of 

drastic cuts in the international affairs 

account, presaging a trend to isolationism and withdrawal from a half 

century of activist leadership in world 

affairs. This resolution envisions a progressive phasing back of assessed contributions for United Nations peacekeeping, as well as drastic cuts in foreign aid. These are radical and regressive changes and I reject them. 

I am likewise dismayed at the assumed reduction in Federal spending 

for education by as much as $32 billion 

over 7 years. This would place at risk 

or threaten curtailment of a number of 

worthy programs which have evolved 

over the past 30 years to assert a Federal interest in this most basic area of 

public investment. So these cuts too 

are not acceptable. 

I deeply regret also the assumptions 

underlying this resolution which would 

curtail the National Endowment for 

the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and AMTRAK, while at the same time threatening to turn back the clock of postWatergate reform by abolishing the 

Presidential campaign financing system. I hope the Senate amendment restoring the funding for this system will 

prevail. 

These are but a few of the programs 

now in jeopardy in which I have a special interest. In combination with 

other provisions which likewise cancel 

out or curtail major elements of the 

Federal commitment to social justice—

provisions such as the Medicare cutbacks and the cut in funding for the 

earned income tax credit—they serve 

to demonstrate how negative and regressive this resolution truly is. 

The pity is, Mr. President, that much 

of this programmatic slaughter may be 

needless. The fact is that it was ordained by a commitment to suspect 

goals which were dictated by political 

expediency rather than national selection, namely, the idea that the Federal 

budget must be brought into exact balance, and the corollary idea that it 

must be brought into balance in the arbitrary time frame of 7 years. 

With all due respect to the leadership 

of my own party, I must simply say 

that in my view these goals are specious and should not be the driving 

force for this sweeping revision of Federal policy. 

When I opposed the balanced budget 

amendment to the Constitution earlier 

this year, I took the position that the 

Federal budget is not supposed to be in 

perpetual balance, but that, as John 

Maynard Keynes wisely noted, it 

should remain a flexible instrument of 

national economic policy, registering a 

surplus in good times and engaging in 

stimulative spending in downtimes. 

The resolution before us puts us on 

an inflexible course, both in terms of 

achieving absolute balance and doing 

so by a date certain. It makes no allowance for all of the unforeseen contingencies, including natural disasters, 

international emergencies, or economic recessions, that might require 

us at some point in the next 7 years, to 

engage in unexpected spending and 

thus not meet the goal so confidently 

embraced. 

And even if the magical goal were 

somehow to be reached, there is a respectable body of opinion that warns 

that the deliberate withdrawal of $1.3 

trillion in Federal spending in the arbitrary timeframe of 7 years could wreak 

havoc with the economy. 

It seems to me that the far wiser 

course would be to continue a vigorous 

but more reasoned program of deficit 

reduction that would not rule out revenue increases and certainly would not 

exempt defense from further budget 

cuts. I would generally avoid tax cuts, 

although I must say that I continue to 

believe that a more liberal treatment 

of capital gains would have a beneficial 

effect in promoting economic growth. 

Further, it seems to me that we 

ought to substitute flexible and rational measures of deficit control for the 

arbitrary goals which I believe have 

been too hastily accepted as a basis for 

a wholesale change of approach of Government. One useful measure is the 

ratio between the annual deficit and 

gross domestic product. Just as any 

prudent household should limit debt in 

proportion to income, it would make 

sense for the Federal Government to do 

likewise with respect to its annual deficit. 

For the present, we must act on the 

basis of goals and assumptions that, 

while widely accepted, may not be 

valid. To my mind, the budget resolution takes us in the wrong direction 

and does so for the wrong reasons. I 

hope the time will come when others 

will see the matter in the same light. 

OPPOSITION TO CHANGES IN THE EARNED INCOME

TAX CREDIT—A TAX INCREASE ON WORKING

FAMILIES

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise 

today to speak in opposition to the 

proposed cut in the earned income tax 

credit [EITC]. 

The other day I spoke about this 

budget, its attacks on Medicare and 

how it affects senior citizens and their 

families. Today, I rise to speak about 

how the reduction in the earned income tax credit will affect their families and their children. 

Today, I want to speak about how 

this is also a fight for the children and 

grandchildren of the senior citizens 

who are hit by cuts in Medicare. 

In 1993 we dramatically increased the 

earned income tax credit, which cut 

taxes for middle and lower income families. 

We cut taxes for parents working 

hard to stay out of poverty and off welfare. The first step to welfare reform is 

to make work pay. The EITC helps us 

to make work pay. 

If this budget resolution passes we 

will increase taxes on millions of working parents. What do we say to these 

mothers and fathers? What do we say 

to any working family making less 

than $28,000 a year? 

Who is affected? A mother who 

makes ends meet by waiting on tables. 

A mother who counts on every tip, 

every nickel and quarter left on the 

lunch counter. A mother who can make 

ends meet because of the earned income tax credit. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

A father who lost a good-paying factory job and lost a piece of the American dream. A father who works a second job just to support his children, 

but still makes less than $28,000. 

This budget cuts taxes for the 

wealthy by taking $21 billion from the 

EITC and the families who use it. This 

budget cut will hit over 12 million taxpayers, 199,000 in Maryland alone. For 

those Marylanders making $28,000, they 

will pay $1,500 in taxes if the EITC is 

cut. 

This is not welfare reform. We cannot 

tell people to get off welfare and then 

cut what they will get in a paying job, 

and cut their Medicaid. 

We cannot tell a mother on welfare 

to take a low-paying job that will be 

even lower paying if we cut this program. We must reward people who 

work. 

It is time that we returned to the bipartisan spirit of this tax break. Let us 

return to the support that had President Reagan praise the EITC as, ‘‘the 

best antipoverty and pro-family’’ measure to ever come out of Congress. 

When I spoke the other day on another occasion, I reminded the audience of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt 

and how she explained that this is ‘‘no 

ordinary time.’’ This is no ordinary 

time. It is a time to fight for these 

families who have worked hard and 

have earned a break. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I reluctantly voted against the budget resolution, but I believe it does represent 

a serious, and significant statement on 

my highest priority: deficit reduction. 

My own 82-point plan reduces the deficit further and faster than this budget 

resolution does, and I cosponsored and 

voted for an alternative on the floor of 

the Senate that reduces the deficit 

more and achieves true balance sooner 

than the budget resolution. Nevertheless, the budget resolution does achieve 

significant deficit reduction, and if 

nothing else, it clearly demonstrates 

that we do not need to change our Constitution in order to balance the Federal books. 

The purpose of a budget resolution is 

to establish the boundaries within 

which we formulate the details of the 

Federal budget. The most significant 

flaw in this resolution is that those 

boundaries effectively preclude us from 

going after three sacred cows: tax cuts, 

tax loopholes, and the defense budget. 

If those three areas had been left on 

the table, we could have taken a much 

more balanced approach to deficit reduction, lessening the severity of the 

cuts to those on Medicare and Medicaid, farmers, students, veterans, and 

others, while also eliminating the deficit by the year 2000, not 2002 or 2004 or 

2008. 

There were some bright points to the 

resolution. One important improvement the Senate resolution makes to 

the one passed by the House is the 

elimination of what has been called the 

crown jewel of the Contract With 

America: the fiscally irresponsible $350 

billion tax cut. In a resounding, bipartisan vote of 69 to 31, the Senate rejected an amendment to implement 

that reckless policy. 

There are also a number of provisions 

assumed in the resolution that rightly 

slate outdated, wasteful, or low priority programs for cuts or elimination. 

I was particularly pleased to see the 

Helium program terminated under this 

budget resolution. I introduced legislation on the first day of the 104th Congress to kill the national helium program, and this budget resolution is an 

important step in eliminating this vestige of the 1920’s. 

Though the broad budget outlines established by this resolution are 

skewed, I very much hope we will approach the details of the budget with 

the kind of bipartisan spirit demonstrated by the strong, bipartisan 

vote defeating the reckless House Republican tax cuts. 

If the Senate takes that approach to 

the specific budget bills, and especially 

the reconciliation legislation that will 

determine how cuts are made to Medicare and Medicaid, we may be able to 

fashion a sensible budget that achieves 

the significant deficit reduction envisioned in the resolution without harming the most vulnerable. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1150

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise 

today to express my deep regret that 

the amendment offered by Senators 

ROTH and LIEBERMAN seeking to protect one of the last pristine wilderness 

areas of this Nation, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR], was defeated. 

In 1980, the 96th Congress approved 

the Alaska National Interest Land 

Conservation Act. This important law, 

which set aside over a million acres of 

Federal land for national parks, wildlife refuges, and other conservation 

areas, prohibited oil and gas development in 1.5 million acres of ANWR’s 

coastal plain, leaving the fate of this 

land in the hands of future Congresses. 

Since 1980, the Congress has vigorously and consistently expressed its opposition to oil and gas leasing in the 

biological heart of the Arctic Refuge. 

This area on the coastal plain of 

ANWR, often referred to as the ‘‘American Serengeti,’’ is home to about 165 

different species of animals. It is the 

calving ground for the Porcupine Caribou herd, the denning area for the 

Beaufort Sea polar bear population, 

and the nesting habitat for a variety of 

waterfowl and shorebirds, including 

snow geese, tundra swans and black 

brant. 

There is little doubt that extensive 

development of this sensitive wilderness area would have a negative impact 

on the vast wildlife resources located 

there. A 1987 report prepared by the Department of the Interior and submitted 

to the Congress stated that oil development in ANWR would result in longterm changes in the wilderness environment, wildlife habitat, and Native 

subsistence hunting opportunities. 

In my view, it is critical that we as a 

nation do not allow the destruction of 

one of our last remaining unprotected 

ecosystems. The Republican budget 

proposal recommends that the Federal 

Government lease 8 percent of ANWR 

for oil and gas development. While this 

backdoor assault on the Arctic Refuge 

claims to affect only a small portion of 

the wilderness area, oil development 

activity will affect the entire coastal 

plain. In addition, the expectations for 

oil and gas finds are excessive. The 1987 

Interior Department report found there 

to be only a one in five chance of finding an economically viable oil field on 

the coastal plain. 

Wilderness areas constitute only 2 

percent of all land in the United 

States. If we fail to protect the integrity of the Arctic Refuge now, its 

wealth of natural beauty and treasures 

will be lost to future generations. This 

is too precious a resource to squander. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1166

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 

this amendment was submitted on behalf of myself, Senators ROCKEFELLER, 

MURRAY, HARKIN, WELLSTONE, REID, 

DASCHLE, and MIKULSKI. 

The Senate considered this amendment yesterday. Mr. President, this 

amendment could not be more simple. 

It closes the ‘‘Ex-Patriots’’ billionaires 

tax loophole and takes the money and 

restores some of the drastic cuts in 

veterans programs contained in this 

resolution. I call this amendment—

take from ‘‘ex-patriots and give to 

American patriots.’’

This is the same amendment that I 

offered in committee. While this 

amendment failed on a tie 11 to 11 vote, 

it did enjoy bi-partisan support. The 

distinguished junior Senator from 

Maine [Senator SNOWE] voted for my 

amendment. 

Mr. President, we have now all heard 

about this so-called ‘‘Benedict Arnold’’

tax loophole. This loophole allows billionaires and multi-millionaires who 

have made their fortunes in this country to renounce their citizenship and 

avoid paying Federal taxes like estate 

taxes and flee to some Caribbean island 

with their money. 

This is no minor loophole. It costs 

the Treasury more than $3 billion over 

10 years. And as a recent story in Fortune Magazine showed, wealthy individuals deliberately look at using this 

loophole to avoid paying taxes. 

My amendment will close this loophole. And it will take the proceeds and 

put them into restoring the massive 

cuts in veterans programs contained in 

the Republican budget. 

This Republican budget cuts discretionary spending on veterans programs 

by a whopping $26 billion over the next 

7 years. But this is only discretionary 

spending on items like VA hospitals 

and outpatient clinics. 

This budget also cuts veterans’ entitlement programs by $10 billion over 7 

years. That is a $36 billion slap in the 

face to our Nation’s veterans. 

What kind of reward is this for our 

Nation’s veterans? Isn’t it ironic that 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7451 

on the 50th anniversary of V–E Day, we 

are destroying the VA system for those 

heros who saved us from Fascism? 

The Republican budget will force 

cuts in veterans’ pensions, payments to 

those with service-connected disabilities, the GI bill, and numerous other 

health and benefit programs. 

My amendment will help alleviate 

some of these cuts. It will not restore 

all of the funding but it will make a 

start in trying to cushion the coming 

blow. 

Mr. President, the men and women 

who have put their lives on the line for 

this country deserve better. They deserve to be treated with respect. 

Their benefits should not be cut 

while we are providing tax cuts for the 

rich. The Republican budget represents 

the wrong priorities. 

Mr. President, I want to deal with 

one issue up front. Republicans may 

argue that we passed an amendment in 

the Budget Committee to close the 

Benedict Arnold tax loophole. 

The fact is we did not. We passed a 

nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate amendment concerning this issue. However, 

we did not change any numbers in the 

resolution to force the Finance Committee to in fact close this loophole. 

So the Finance Committee can do as 

it wishes regarding this tax loophole. It 

will not be required to do this in any 

way. So if Republican say that they already voted to get rid of the loophole, 

they are not shooting straight with the 

American people. 

This amendment again poses the 

same question to the Senate as other 

amendments. The question is, ‘‘Whose 

side are you on?’’

Are you on the side of billionaires 

who revoke their citizenship to avoid 

paying taxes? Or are you on the side of 

our Nation’s veterans—the men and 

women who have fought for their country—who have laid their lives on the 

line to defend freedom? 

I stand firmly with American Patriots not ex-patriots. 

I hope my colleagues will do the 

same. The veterans of our country deserve much better than the cuts contained in this Republican budget. 

(The following statement was inadvertently omitted from the RECORD of 

May 24, and appears here at the request 

of Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1166

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

join with my colleagues, Senators LAUTENBERG, DASCHLE, MIKULSKI, 

WELLSTONE, MURRAY, HARKIN, and 

REID, in cosponsoring an amendment to 

the budget resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 13. 

This amendment—known as the ‘‘ExPatriots to Patriots’’ amendment—

would assume the repeal of the tax 

loophole that enables U.S. citizens to 

renounce their citizenship to avoid 

paying U.S. taxes. This would generate 

$3.633 billion in revenues for the Treasury over 10 years, from 1995 to 2005. Our 

amendment would restore funds from 

this revenue—$1.7 billion over the 7 

years covered by the resolution—to 

Function 700, veterans programs, so as 

to offset some of the $15.4 billion in reductions contained in the budget resolution. 

Mr. President, emigration and expatriation are fundamental rights of all 

Americans. They are guaranteed by the 

American Constitution and international human rights laws. Expatriation to avoid taxation is permitted by 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

We believe this provision in the Tax 

Code should be repealed for several reasons. First, it is unfair to all Americans who work hard every day to support their families and who pay taxes 

to support their country. It offends our 

sense of justice that some of the 

wealthiest Americans—who can afford 

to pay taxes, whose fortunes blossomed 

in the freedom and bounty of our Nation—can take such a drastic measure 

to avoid paying their fair share. Second, at a time when we are all committed to reducing the Federal deficit, 

the Treasury losses significant revenue 

because of the actions of the approximately 25 individuals a year who 

choose expatriation to take advantage 

of this tax loophole. And finally, if 

these funds were available, they could 

be targeted toward needed programs 

and services which are in jeopardy—

and which benefit far more than 25 people. 

Mr. President, the matter of this 

‘‘Ex-Patriots’’ tax loophole has come 

before the Senate earlier in this session 

of Congress and is on the table again. 

We passed the ‘‘Ex-Patriots’’ provision 

as part of the small business health 

care deduction bill in March, but it was 

dropped in the House-Senate conference in April. Later, the Senate 

voted again to repeal this tax loophole, 

this time by a vote of 96–4 in a senseof-the-Senate resolution. And on May 

15, Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, as 

passed by the Budget Committee, does 

repeal this tax loophole for wealthy 

Americans. However, it does not go far 

enough, it does not target any of the 

revenue for veterans’ programs. 

On May 11, Senate LAUTENBERG wisely linked the two issues—repeal of the 

expatriates’ tax break and restoration 

and funding to America’s true patriots—in Budget Committee action. The 

tie vote of 11–11 demonstrated the bipartisan support for changing the tax 

code and helping maintain veterans’

programs. Our amendment links the repeal of the tax loophole for expatriates 

to the restoration of funds for America’s true patriots—her veterans. It 

does so because approximately $15 billion in reductions for veterans programs—including health care services 

for service-connected veterans and 

poor veterans—are on the chopping 

block. As ranking minority member of 

the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, I believe the patriotism demonstrated by the men and women who 

have worn our country’s uniform—

those who put themselves in harm’s 

way, those whose lives have been irrevocably changed by injuries sustained in 

the line of duty, those who lost comrades in the heat of battle—speaks for 

itself. The repeal of the expatriates’

tax loophole makes sense, and our veterans deserve no less. 

Let us remember once again, in this 

50th anniversary year of the end of 

World War II, the persons who enlisted 

in service to their country when tyranny threatened to obliterate peace 

and prosperity for generations to come. 

Science fiction writers and filmmakers 

have conjured up images of the unimaginable—what the world would 

have been like had our soldiers and 

sailors not made the world safe for democracy, safe for their children and 

grandchildren. Thankfully, many of 

these men and women are alive and 

well. But while many have their memories, their honor, and their dignity, 

they may not have their health or the 

material wealth with which to purchase the care they need. 

Mr. President, I want my colleagues 

to understand some of the ways the underlying budget resolution, as reported 

by the Budget Committee, will affect 

the people who use the VA health care 

system. Under the resolution, VA 

would be forced to operate at a level 

below current services. In human 

terms, almost 150,000 eligible veterans 

would be denied inpatient and outpatient care in 1996 alone, and almost 1 

million veterans would be denied care 

in 2002. In terms of VA’s capacity to 

provide a full range of health care services nationwide, the equivalent of 5 VA 

hospitals would have to be shut down 

in 1996, and 35 VA hospitals would have 

to close their doors in 2002. In the first 

year of implementation, 8,200 VA 

health care professionals would lose 

their jobs, and by the end of this 7-year 

period, 53,000 VA medical facility employees would lose theirs. 

Another equally disturbing effect of 

the Budget Committee’s action would 

be the cut in VA research programs of 

$15 million and 142 FTEE. This 

amounts to 10 percent of all VA research projects, or 150 fewer medical 

research projects each year. VA research is geared toward some of the 

special illnesses and disabilities which 

affect veterans, among them blindness, 

posttraumatic stress, and spinal cord 

injury. These and other subjects of VA 

research endeavors—everything from 

Alzheimer’s disease to heart disease to 

women’s health—also benefit the general population by finding the causes of 

disease and aiding in developing the 

best diagnostic, treatment, and preventive methods. Today’s research results 

are tomorrow’s cures. By eliminating 

the opportunity for our Nation’s medical professionals—VA research is conducted by VA clinicians and researchers and also by those from our Nation’s 

medical schools which are affiliated 

with VA medical centers—we cut off a 

source of knowledge that is crucial to 

the health of our Nation’s citizens. 

Last, Mr. President, under the resolution, VA’s construction program 

would be affected beyond repair. In 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7452 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

fact, the program would be decimated. 

This program, which upgrades and 

maintains VA’s $25 billion physical 

plant infrastructure, should cease to 

exist. All 200 pending projects, totaling 

$3.4 billion, would have to be canceled. 

These are not new projects, new hospitals, or new buildings. These are essential modernization projects. They 

are essential because 65 percent of VA 

medical centers, or 114 hospitals, are at 

least 30 years old. And 73 percent of VA 

hospital, domiciliary, and nursing 

home beds, that is more than 74,000 

beds, do not comply with patient privacy standards. In this day and age, no 

hospital should have more than two 

beds per room, congregate bathing facilities, or inadequate space. If we suspend all work on these projects, VA’s 

plans to upgrade its patient environment will never be realized. 

Mr. President, because this amendment is budget neutral, there is every 

reason why we should use these new 

funds to minimize the negative impact 

on veterans’ programs of the Budget 

Resolution. The link between the two, 

thoughtfully and rightfully, proposed 

by Senator Lautenberg should be 

adopted by the full Senate. It is within 

our power to do so, and it is the right 

to do. As ranking minority member of 

the Veterans Affairs Committee, I urge 

my colleagues to support our amendment. 

(The following statement was inadvertently omitted from the RECORD of 

May 24, and appears here at the request 

of Ms. MIKULSKI.) 

AMENDMENT NO. 1166

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise 

in support of the amendment offered by 

Senators LAUTENBERG and ROCKEFELLER that would partially restore 

funding for VA programs by closing the 

ex-patriot tax loophole. 

The ex-patriot tax loophole is a provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 that allows billionaires to renounce their citizenship and avoid paying Federal taxes. By closing this loophole, an additional $3.6 billion will be 

added to the Treasury between 1995 and 

2005. I think it is appropriate, Mr. 

President, that we apply the revenues 

generated by closing the ex-patriot 

loophole to help restore funding for 

veterans programs. 

In supporting the Lautenberg/Rockefeller amendment, I rise in defense of 

the GI Joe generation—the World War 

II generation—our fathers who fought 

on the battlefront overseas and our 

mothers who fought on the homefront 

here in our communities. 

Those wonderful Rosie the Riveters 

who kept the United States of America 

running while the men fought for democracy around the world. 

These are the women—the Rosies—

who made sure that not only the 

schools and businesses operated, but 

that we built airplanes, mobilized our 

defenses. 

Mr. President, these are the men who 

fought from the shores of Normandy to 

Iwo Jima. America’s veterans fought to 

save Americans; they fought to save 

Western civilization; and they fought 

to save the very principles that this 

country was founded upon. 

And when the war was over, the GI 

Joe generation went back home to 

raise their families and contribute to 

the greatest prosperity that this country has ever known. 

Mr. President, we would not be here 

as a nation today, we would not be a 

superpower today, if it had not been for 

the GI Joe generation. 

We just commemorated V–E Day. In 

a few months we will commemorate V–

J Day and the end of World War II. And 

now, here we are on the eve of Memorial Day. 

And, how are we remembering these 

gallant men and women? With our 

thanks, with our commitment, with 

our compassion? 

No, Mr. President. With this budget 

resolution, we are telling the GI Joe 

generation that promises made are not 

promises kept. We are telling these 

brave men and women that we intend 

to cut VA medical care by more than 

$5.5 billion over the next 7 years. 

What we are telling our mothers and 

our fathers is that we are going to 

close 35 VA medical centers and that 

we are canceling 200 medical construction projects needed to bring existing 

facilities up to current health delivery 

standards. 

Mr. President, this budget resolution 

will force the VA to eliminate 53,000 

full-time jobs including physicians, 

nurses, lab technicians, x-ray technicians, and mental health counselors. 

Treatment will be denied to over 1 

million patients, including deep reductions in patient visits for primary care, 

acute medical and psychiatric care, 

treatment for the chronically mentally 

ill, post-traumatic stress disorder, cardiovascular disease, and extended care. 

In addition, this budget resolution 

adds insult to the injury we would inflict on our veterans. By forcing the 

elimination of almost 1,000 VA jobs in 

benefit services, the VA claims backlog 

will increase from 500,000 to over 1 million claims. Having served on the front 

lines, we will now ask our veterans to 

stand in line for 2 to 4 years in order to 

receive their benefits. 

Finally, this budget resolution would 

limit future benefits for disabilities to 

those resulting directly from a veteran’s performance of military duty, 

would phase in higher veteran prescription copayments, and increase the 

amount a servicemember must contribute in order to be eligible for benefits under the Montgomery G.I. bill. 

Mr. President, we have gone from the 

New Deal and the Fair Deal—to the 

raw deal in this budget. I urge my colleagues to honor our veterans this Memorial Day with more than parades, 

plaques, and platitudes. Let us honor 

the GI Joe generation with our gratitude and our commitment. Let us 

stand and fight for them, the way they 

fought for us. 

I urge my colleagues to vote for the 

Lautenberg-Rockefeller amendment. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1179

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, earlier 

today, the Senate adopted an amendment, numbered 1179, proposed by Senator LEVIN, to express the sense of the 

Senate that overhead expenses of defense agencies should be reduced in fiscal year 1996 by at least 3 percent. I 

supported that amendment. 

With the serious and continuing decline in the defense budget, it is imperative that every defense dollar be spent 

wisely. Cutting back on overhead expenses by 3 percent, or even more, is 

necessary to ensure that more of our 

scarce defense resources will be available for high-priority military requirements. Because the level of defense 

spending provided in the fiscal year 

1996 budget resolution is, in my view, 

seriously inadequate to meet our national security needs, I supported the 

amendment to minimize low-priority 

and wasteful administrative expenses 

of the Department of Defense and defense agencies. 

However, because of the rather vague 

language of the amendment, there may 

be some confusion as to its intent. Let 

me state my understanding of the content of the amendment. 

The amendment merely expresses the 

sense of the Senate that unnecessary 

overhead costs be reduced by 3 percent 

this fiscal year. The amendment makes 

no change whatsoever in the functional 

totals for National Defense, function 

050, nor does it reduce the total 

amount of discretionary spending 

available for defense in fiscal year 1996. 

It is my understanding that, since 

the amendment did not explicitly reduce either the defense functional totals or the discretionary spending cap 

for defense, savings achievable by reducing overhead expenses will remain 

available for defense programs. Certainly, this understanding was central 

to my support for the amendment. 

I will work to reduce the overhead 

expenses of all defense agencies and departments, as I will do for all Federal 

agencies. Unnecessary expenditures of 

taxpayer dollars, in whatever account, 

should be eliminated. However, any 

savings from reduced overhead, in DOD 

may, under this amendment, be reallocated to other defense programs. In my 

view, such savings must be used to 

fund force modernization, readiness, 

and quality of life programs which are 

inadequately funded under the Clinton 

adminsitration defense budget proposals incorporated into this resolution. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President. I cannot 

support Senate Concurrent Resolution 

13, the congressional budget resolution 

which has been presented to the Senate 

by the Republican majority. That 

budget proposal which the Senate will 

likely approve today, has been described by our Republican colleagues as 

balanced in the year 2002 although it 

will not be. It relies heavily on surpluses in the Social Security trust 

funds to achieve balance. In fact, in 

2002, there will remain, under the 

terms of the budget before us, a more 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7453 

than $113 billion deficit, masked by the 

use of the Social Security trust funds. 

This is one crucial reason that I supported the Conrad substitute which 

would have reduced the deficit even 

farther than the Republican budget by 

2002 and which is truly balanced, without the use of Social Security funds, by 

the year 2004. 

The Republican proposed budget resolution before us is unbalanced in another important way. The budget blueprint penalizes middle-income working 

families, reduces our investment in 

education, and penalizes our senior 

citizens, in order to provide for a tax 

reduction which will benefit mostly the 

wealthiest of Americans. The budget 

before us has its priorities wrong. It is 

simply a question of fairness. 

The Conrad substitute and the Bradley substitute, each while not the 

budget in every respect that I would 

have crafted, reflected a more equitable set of priorities than the Republican budget. 

One of the most inequitable aspects 

of the Republican proposal before us is 

that to pay for tax cuts which will 

principally benefit the most well off 

among us, it raises taxes on working 

families. The proposal to cut back the 

earned income tax credit for working 

families making less than $28,000 per 

year would, for instance, raise taxes by 

$354 on a single parent with two children making only $8,840 a year. That is 

minimum wage. 

The earned income tax credit has a 

long history of bipartisan support. 

President Reagan called the EITC, 

‘‘The best anti-poverty, the best profamily, the best job creation measure 

to come out of the Congress.’’ The 

EITC has played an important role in 

providing incentives to keep people 

working who are struggling to get on 

the lowest rungs of America’s economic ladder and to stay off the welfare roles. 

The budget resolution before us aims 

a $21 billion tax increase at the working families. In Michigan, this means a 

$457 million tax hike over 7 years on 

nearly 316,000 hard-working taxpayers 

making less than $28,000 a year. Over 

the next 7 years, they will pay an average of nearly $1,500 more. 

While working families making less 

than $28,000 pay more, there is no effort 

in this budget to control the growth of 

corporate tax deductions, no effort to 

restrain the growing tax breaks for the 

largest and wealthiest among us. 

The Republican budget also hits our 

senior citizens very hard. Medicare 

would be cut by $256 billion, by far the 

largest Medicare cut in history. It is 

the most vulnerable who are hit hardest. Nearly 83 percent of Medicare benefits go to beneficiaries with incomes 

less than $25,000. Two-thirds are below 

$15,000. Only 3 percent go to individuals 

or couples with incomes in excess of 

$50,000. 

I supported the Rockefeller amendment which would have restored $100 

billion for Medicare to the budget, 

without changing the target date for a 

balanced budget, and without increasing the deficit, by cutting funds the 

Republicans have earmarked for a tax 

cut for the wealthiest among us. The 

Rockefeller amendment was also defeated on a near party line vote. 

Another $175 billion, under the Republican budget, is cut from Medicaid. 

Many people don’t realize that 70 percent of Medicaid costs are long-term 

care for the elderly and the disabled. 

Many middle-income elderly wind up 

relying on Medicaid for nursing home 

and other care after their resources are 

expended. 

The Conrad substitute, which I supported, provided more funds for Medicare and Medicaid, reduced the deficit 

by more than the Republican budget 

does by 2002, and would have balanced 

the budget honestly without using the 

Social Security trust fund to mask the 

real deficit. 

Another way in which the Republican 

priorities are wrong is that in order to 

pay for a tax increase for the most 

well-off among us, they have cut funding for college loans and educational 

improvement. This is perhaps the most 

short-sighted aspect of their budget 

proposal. Investment in the education 

of our children is investment in America’s future. There are few ways to better and more efficiently spend our dollars than educating America’s future 

generations. 

The Republican budget before us 

would increase college loan costs for 

four million students each year, by 

eliminating the in-school interest subsidy. The average student could pay 

$2,000–$3,000 more for his or her education and an additional 1 million college students could lose their financial 

aid or have their aid drastically reduced under the plan to freeze Pell 

grants. 

I supported the Harkin-Hollings 

amendment which would have used 

funds which the Republicans have reserved for a tax cut for wealthier 

Americans to restore $40 billion in 

funds for affordable student loans and 

for better schools. That amendment 

which was rejected on a near party line 

vote would have provided the additional funding to invest in the education of our children without adding 

to the deficit or changing the target 

date for a balanced budget. The Conrad 

substitute which I also supported 

would include more funding for education and would balance the budget 

without using funds from the Social 

Security trust fund as the Republican 

budget does. 

The majority also made clear their 

intentions when they rejected the 

Boxer amendment on Wednesday. That 

amendment, which I supported, would 

have assured that any tax cut be targeted to middle-income people. The 

Boxer amendment was defeated on a 

near party line vote. 

Mr. President, the issue before us is 

not whether the Federal budget should 

be balanced in years ahead. The issue is 

how we do that. What are the priorities 

and who bears the burden. I believe 

that the priorities in the budget which 

our Republican colleagues have proposed are wrong. They place the burden 

squarely on the backs of the elderly, 

students in school, and working families, while cutting taxes for the most 

well off. That budget is simply not fair. 

And, Mr. President, it fails to get the 

job done. It continues to use the Social 

Security trust fund to hide the real 

deficit. 

I have supported many amendments 

aimed at improving the budget resolution, making it more fair, without affecting the deficit reduction Virtually 

all were rejected by the Republican 

majority along nearly straight party 

lines. I cannot support the resolution 

before us. 

THE BUDGET RESOLUTION AND THE

AGRICULTURE BUDGET

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I 

would like today to make a very simple 

point. It is a point that I and other of 

my colleagues have been making over 

the course of recent weeks since the 

‘‘Chairman’s Mark’’ of this fiscal year 

1996 budget resolution was issued. My 

point is this. The cuts to the agriculture category of spending in this 

budget resolution will cause significant 

harm—harm both to rural America and 

to low-income Americans throughout 

the country. That is why I have been 

voting for a number of amendments to 

reduce the size of the cuts to agriculture spending in this resolution. 

As my colleagues know, the resolution proposes dramatic cuts to the agriculture category of the Federal budget. It proposes cuts of $28 billion over 5 

years to the agriculture category, and 

suggests cuts of $45 billion over 7 years. 

Mr. President, these cuts will seriously reduce farm income, and they 

will damage our rural economy. They 

will drive down agricultural land values, and they will diminish conservation benefits that are important to our 

quality of life—both in the present and 

in the future. Reductions of this magnitude will take from $380 to $400 million from farmers in my State over just 

5 years. Furthermore, if we pass cuts 

this dramatic, we will devastate nutrition programs such as food stamps, the 

WIC Program, and the Child Adult Care 

Feeding Program. 

Cuts to nutrition programs are contained in the same budget category as 

cuts to farm programs. As a result, it 

is clear that reductions as drastic as 

those in this resolution—$28 billion 

over 5 years, to be found by the Agriculture Committee—will pit struggling 

farmers against low- and moderate-income families for increasingly scarce 

Federal dollars. 

We all support Federal deficit reduction. Every farmer knows the value of 

lower interest rates, which would be 

one result of Federal fiscal responsibility. Indeed American agriculture 

and rural America have contributed a 

heavy share to deficit reduction. They 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7454 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

will continue to do their share to reduce the deficit, and they will do so 

willingly. 

But why must this budget impose the 

most pain on those for whom it will be 

most difficult to bear? Why are we not 

cutting more unneeded military and 

corporate-welfare spending? Why are 

we not eliminating lucrative tax 

breaks for special interests? Why are 

we, in fact, considering a tax cut for 

wealthy Americans? This resolution 

makes the wrong choices and takes our 

country in the wrong direction. 

Mr. President, now is not the time to 

abandon rural America or the nutritional needs of struggling families. I 

share with the President and the Secretary of Agriculture a desire to have a 

real debate on a real 1995 farm bill—not 

just a budget-cutting exercise. There 

are exciting prospects for rural America, and we are at a crucial historic 

moment for the social and economic 

health of our rural communities. We 

cannot simply slash and burn in such 

an important area of Federal policy 

and the Federal budget. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as I pointed out in my remarks earlier this 

week, this is not the first budget resolution to project a balanced budget. In 

fact, it is the fifth budget resolution to 

do so. The budget resolutions of 1980, 

1981, 1982, and 1991 also purported to 

balance the Federal budget. The latest 

of these prior budget resolutions, 1991, 

was passed by both Houses of Congress 

after the 1990 Budget Summit was completed. That budget resolution conference report (101–820) purported to 

balance the Federal budget over a fiveyear period without using the Social 

Security surplus. In fact, for the fifth 

year of that budget resolution—fiscal 

year 1995—the 1991 budget resolution 

conference report showed a surplus of 

$20.5 billion without using the Social 

Security surplus. 

As has been noted repeatedly during 

the debate on the pending budget resolution, it does not balance the budget 

even at the end of seven years without 

using the Social Security surplus. In 

other words, the budget resolution before the Senate purports to balance the 

Federal budget in the year 2002 and, in 

fact, shows a surplus in that year of 

$1.3 billion, but only does so by using 

the Social Security surplus to mask 

the true deficit. The committee report 

on page 5 states that if one does not 

use the Social Security surplus to 

mask the deficit, there will in fact be a 

deficit of $113.5 billion in the year 2002. 

As I also noted in my earlier remarks, all of the previous efforts to 

achieve a balanced Federal budget, 

while being undertaken based on the 

best information available at the time 

of passage of the budget resolutions 

that purported to balance the budget, 

nevertheless failed to do so. This is because human beings cannot accurately 

predict the future and, therefore, cannot accurately project inflation, interest rates, revenues, etc., for a period of 

even one year, much less for a period of 

five years or seven years, as the pending budget resolution attempts to do. 

Having said that, however, I again 

applaud the chairman of the Budget 

Committee, Senator DOMENICI, for his 

efforts to reduce the Federal deficit by 

as much as $1 trillion over the next 

seven years. 

I do not agree in a number of areas 

with the specific proposals contained in 

the pending budget resolution. For example, the budget resolution proposed 

by the Budget Committee would not 

make any cuts in military spending 

over the next seven years, but would 

cut non-military discretionary spending by $190 billion below a freeze, or 

$300 billion below the amounts contained in the President’s budget. This 

amounts to an overall non-military 

discretionary spending cut of almost 

one-third. Further, the existing holdharmless provisions under the Budget 

Enforcement Act would be eliminated, 

thereby jeopardizing even the reduced 

funding levels for non-military discretionary spending contained in the resolution. Additionally, emergency spending in the future, in order to be exempt 

from the discretionary caps, would require 60 votes in the Senate. 

For these reasons, plus the fact that 

this resolution would take a so-called 

‘‘fiscal dividend’’ of $170 billion and 

apply that phantom dividend toward a 

massive tax cut for the wealthy, I shall 

vote against the pending budget resolution. 

In doing so, however, I am not unaware of the fact that we must continue our efforts to achieve a balanced 

budget just as quickly as is prudently 

possible. But, we must do so in a way 

that is fair and in a way that does not 

negatively impact on the overall economy. 

I believe that the alternative budget 

by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. 

CONRAD] which I cosponsored, laid out 

a far superior blueprint for balancing 

the Federal budget by the year 2002 (if 

one uses the Social Security surplus to 

offset the deficit), and by 2004 without 

using the Social Security surplus. 

Under the Conrad amendment, which 

I was pleased to co-sponsor and for 

which I voted, non-military discretionary spending would be frozen over 

seven years. This would have amounted 

to an increase of $190 billion above the 

committee-reported budget resolution. 

Medicare would have been reduced by 

$156 billion, or $100 billion less than 

under the committee-reported resolution. No tax cut would have been provided for under the Conrad amendment, 

rather $228 billion in additional revenues would have been achieved through 

the closing or tax loopholes for the 

wealthy and big corporations. Four 

trillion dollars was projected to be 

spent on tax preferences over the next 

seven years. The Conrad amendment 

would have limited the growth in such 

preferences by $228 billion, or 5.7 percent. In other words, even under the 

Conrad amendment, tax preferences 

would have still grown at the rate of 

inflation plus one percent. 

For all of these reasons, the Conrad 

amendment was, in my view, a far 

more rational, fair, and even-handed 

approach toward balancing the Federal 

budget. It would have removed many of 

the deficiencies in the committee-reported budget resolution by restoring 

funding for investments in the nation’s 

future through discretionary spending 

on physical and human infrastructure, 

and it would have been far less devastating to the nation’s elderly and 

those who could least afford to take 

cuts necessary to balance the Federal 

budget. Rather, it required those who 

are the wealthiest in our nation to pay 

their fair share. 

Finally, the Conrad alternative budget proposal proved the point that I 

have made repeatedly during debate on 

the constitutional balanced budget 

amendment—namely, that Congress 

does not need a constitutional amendment to enable it to balance the Federal budget. Rather, as I have pointed 

out, the Conrad amendment did all 

that is humanly possible in attempting 

to balance the Federal budget based on 

the best information available at this 

time in a fair, responsible, and evenhanded way. 

It is for these reasons that I voted for 

the Conrad ‘‘Fair Share Balanced 

Budget Proposal’’ and why I shall vote 

against the committee-reported budget 

resolution. 

FUNCTION 150

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President—

Once upon a time the oceans were moats 

around our bastions. Once upon a time it was 

a miracle to travel round the world in 90 

days. Now it is done in as many hours. Once 

upon a time we were a comfortably isolated 

land. Now we are unavoidably the leader and 

the reliance of freemen throughout this free 

world. We cannot escape from our prestige 

nor from its hazard * * * There is no longer 

such a thing as isolated security. 

In 1949, when the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, 

made these remarks he was urging his 

colleagues to ratify NATO. He made his 

case before a reluctant Senate, one 

weary of the costs of war in blood and 

treasure. But, Vandenberg understood 

that the defense of our Nation and the 

conduct of its foreign policy were the 

unique responsibilities of the Federal 

Government. He persuaded his colleagues not only to support NATO, but 

pay the costs of containment spelled 

out in the Truman Doctrine and the 

Marshall Plan. 

Senator Vandenberg was not indifferent to his colleagues caution. He 

took note of their objections—he understood that many of President Truman’s initiatives, and NATO in particular, were considered by some a 

sharp departure from our historic foreign policy of nonentanglement in the 

affairs of others. 

Senator Vandenberg was a Republican who closely cooperated with a 

Democratic President and his administration. That bipartisan cooperation 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7455 

secured the foundation for treaties and 

alliances that continue to guard our interests to this day. That cooperation 

rebuilt Europe yielding trade, prosperity, and stability. 

Today, the challenge is to rebuild Armenia and Ukraine, not Belgium and 

France. Our challenge is to include Poland and the Czech Republic and other 

nations in a new European security alliance. 

Our challenge is a choice much like 

that faced by the Senate in 1949—to 

provide the resources to support American resolve, to secure American interests. 

Today, the choice is to advance democracy and free markets or retreat in 

our fight against the threats of international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, crime, and narcotics. Today, we 

win exports, jobs, and partners in peace 

or we lose to ethnic genocide, trade 

wars, terrorists, and tyrants. 

I am not so naive as to believe the 

choices we face are simple and stark. 

In some ways, if the choices were crystal clear, absolutely obvious, support 

for foreign aid and our global role 

would be much stronger. But it is the 

murky ambiguities of this day and age 

that give rise to both confusion and a 

general apathy about our place in the 

world. And, it is that confusion that 

risks our isolation. 

In his State of the Union Address in 

January 1945, President Roosevelt 

issued a sharp warning to the Nation. 

‘‘Let us not forget that the retreat to 

isolationism a quarter of a century ago 

was started not by a direct attack 

against international cooperation but 

against the alleged imperfections of 

the peace.’’

Every one of us has been critical of 

the imperfections of foreign aid. Every 

Member has expressed opposition to 

waste, fraud, and abuses. A majority 

could identify programs, embassies, 

and consulates which could be shut 

down. 

But, the costs of these imperfections 

should not be our international leadership. We must not pay the permanent 

price of retreat from the world, because 

we were troubled by the inefficiencies 

or problems in our foreign aid program. 

Foreign aid must be fixed. It must 

more clearly serve our national political, economic, and security interests. 

The public must understand exactly 

what we do with the 1 percent of the 

Federal budget foreign aid expends. 

Like many of my colleagues, I hear 

from constituents who are uncertain 

about why we have a foreign aid program at all. To each of them, I offer 

my firm commitment that we will reduce spending by eliminating unnecessary programs, consolidating responsibilities, and assuring we only spend 

our spare resources where we can 

achieve concrete results. 

I believe foreign aid is an important 

tool essential to maintaining our leadership around the globe. We cannot 

preserve, let alone promote, our interests for free. 

And, why should that matter. First, 

we are a compassionate nation by tradition; in fact it is one of our finest 

traditions as exemplified by the outpouring of support for Oklahomans. 

But for the moment let’s set aside altruistic motives—set aside what I like 

to call the CNN syndrome—where they 

broadcast a famine, funds will naturally follow. 

Effective foreign assistance serves 

our interests. Let me review what I 

think we lose by the cuts proposed in 

the budget resolution. 

First and foremost, the budget resolution assumes we will cut nearly $800 

million from the trade promotion activities. Programs at the Export Import Bank, OPIC, and the Trade Development Agency are not lining the 

pockets of foreigners. These are programs which directly affect American 

jobs and exports. 

Over the past 2 years Ex-Im has supported over $32 billion in exports and 

300,000 jobs. In key sectors, such as 

power, telecommunications, and major 

construction, Ex-Im financed accounts 

for close to 30 percent of all new sales 

to developing countries and 15 percent 

of all U.S. production. In high growth 

developing markets, Ex-Im is financing 

anywhere from 10 to 40 percent of all 

U.S. capital goods. 

That is why the Coalition for Employment through Exports is supporting an increase in the Function 150 

account—a Coalition that is a broad 

based organization of exporters, labor 

unions, and State governors enjoying 

substantial bipartisan support. That is 

why I have heard from bankers and 

businessmen across the country supporting an increase in the Function 150 

account. They understand that this is 

about American jobs, American exports, American income. 

But there are other constituents who 

are concerned about the budget resolution cuts. The resolution assumes all 

aid to Eastern Europe and the Baltic 

nations will be zeroed out. Let me tell 

you what that means for just one country—Poland. After considerable effort 

by Congress, I think the administration has turned the corner and made 

the commitment to expand NATO. Poland is clearly first in line of the potential entrants. Just as the point where 

we are likely to make this offer, we 

zero out military assistance and training key to the effective integration of 

their forces. 

Criteria under consideration for admission to NATO is civilian control of 

the armed services and transparency of 

the defense budget. Here too, we would 

be cutting off parliamentary exchanges, expanded IMET and democratization initiatives key to meeting 

these admission standards. 

The budget resolution also assumes 

we will cut our program to the NIS 

from nearly $800 to $100 million. Just 

at the point when we are finally shifting emphasis from Russia to the other 

republics, we gut the program. Armenia and Ukraine are important partners in the region. Millions of Americans trace their roots to these countries—nations which deserve our support as they struggle down the perilous 

road of economic and political reforms. 

For the benefit of some of my colleagues who may not know about this 

constituency, let me offer a few statistics drawn up by the census bureau. 

Central and Eastern Europeans constitute: 18 percent of Pennsylvanians; 

17 percent of New Jersey; 12 percent of 

Ohio; 18 percent of Connecticut; 15 percent of Illinois; 11 percent of Massachusetts; and nearly 2 million Californians. 

Which one of us wants to apologize to 

our children for a nuclear catastrophe 

because we failed to help Ukraine safeguard its aging Chernobyl reactors? 

Which one of us wants to answer to the 

American Armenian with a grandmother in Yerevan who has not had 

heat or light for months? Which one 

will shrug their shoulders at the market opportunities to a region of hundreds of millions of people? 

And, let’s not forget Russia. With 

over 5,000 organized criminal enterprises with tentacles reaching our 

shores and access to nuclear material, 

do we really want to terminate the 

FBI’s joint training and investigation 

efforts? 

Mr. President, the budget resolution 

decimates support for these new republics and that is why many of us have 

heard from local, State, and national 

organizations representing Americans 

of European descent who support increasing the level of the 150 account to 

guarantee adequate funding for foreign 

aid programs. The Central and Eastern 

European Coalition which includes the 

Armenian Assembly, the Estonian 

World Council, the Lithuanian American Community, the Polish American 

Congress, the Ukrainian Congress Committee, the Ukrainian National Association, the Joint Baltic American National Committee, the U.S. Baltic 

Foundation, the Hungarian American 

Coalition, the Czecho-Slovak Council 

of America, the National Federation of 

Hungarian Americans, and several 

other groups all support this amendment. 

I have only highlighted some of my 

specific concerns about the assumptions included in the budget resolution. 

I did not mention the fact that it assumes a cutoff of assistance to Greece 

and Turkey. I did not detail the devastating impact it will have on development assistance, peacekeeping, and 

the National Endowment for Democracy. I did not review country by country the consequence of terminating 

international lending to the world’s 

poorest countries. I have only highlighted my concerns—concerns shared 

by many of our constituents. I hoped 

that this discussion would help all of 

us understand that this is not a debate 

about giving away tax dollars to foreigners or pouring our money down rat 

holes. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7456 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

Our constituents recognize, as I do, 

that the budget resolution before the 

Senate will leave this President, the 

next President, our Nation and citizens 

with virtually no options except military intervention. In the last decade 

foreign aid has already suffered a 40- 

percent reduction. The reductions in 

the budget resolution, to an account 

that already represents only 1 percent 

of our spending, amounts to eliminating foreign aid. 

I think that is a mistake which jeopardizes our interests. Eliminating foreign aid does not eliminate crises and 

needs. Eliminating foreign aid will not 

constrain a President from addressing 

these reqirements—from carrying out 

his policies, from serving our national 

interests. 

Eliminating foreign aid will simply 

transfer the burden directly to the 

Pentagon. The costs DOD assumed for 

taking care of Cuban and Haitian refugees at Guantanamo will become routine, not rare. We can support private 

voluntary organizations carrying out 

feeding missions in Rwanda or we can 

deploy our National Guard. We can 

help train the military in Mexico to 

interdict narcotics, or we can drain the 

Pentagon’s accounts to patrol our borders intercepting drug flights. We can 

fund the FBI’s work with their Russian 

counterpart’s to combat criminal organizations engaged in smuggling chemical, biological, and nuclear material, 

or the Pentagon can pay a price to 

manage the threat. 

Crisis prevention costs less than crisis. 

Much has been made by the administration of the isolationist symptoms 

twitching in this body. And there certainly are Members, Senators who I 

have a deep respect for who believe the 

United States should withdraw from 

the world stage. 

But, I do not believe we have that option any more. The world is no longer 

conveniently divided into cold war 

camps. Our friends and allies, the 

emerging democracies, all turn to the 

sole remaining superpower for leadership and support. A time when the 

international landscape is troubled and 

confused is precisely the wrong time to 

withdraw. It is precisely the wrong 

time to create a vacuum for the Saddam Husseins and other ambitious tyrants to fill. We can pay a small price 

now to secure American interests or we 

will surely pay an enormous cost later. 

Mr. President, Senator SARBANES and 

I had intended to offer an amendment 

to increase the level of the function 150 

account. We were supported in this effort by Senators HATFIELD, LEAHY, and 

other members of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee and Foreign Relations Committee who were concerned 

about the budget resolution’s impact. 

We had worked hard to achieve a bipartisan base of support for an amendment to raise the level of resources for 

function 150. Unfortunately, these efforts were undercut by comments made 

by Secretary Christopher before the 

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. 

The Secretary made clear he was concerned about the level of resources the 

Congress might make available. Nonetheless, when I asked him, as I had 

asked the Administrator for A.I.D. and 

other members of the Clinton administration, to work to secure congressional support to increase the account, 

he declined. He made it absolutely 

clear to all of us that the administration intended to sit on the sidelines as 

the resolution was debated. 

I believe this reluctance directly affected our support for an amendment. 

many Members I spoke with commented that if it isn’t important 

enough to the President and the State 

Department to work to improve the 

resolution, why should I go out on a 

limb to increase foreign aid? 

Ironically, just yesterday the President decided to lash out and threaten 

to veto the House bill which authorizes 

priorities and policies related to foreign assistance spending. The President is a day late and is attacking a 

bill that the budget process leaves billions of dollars short. 

He refused to weigh in at the time 

that the crucial battle was being 

fought—the administration simply did 

not show up to participate in a bipartisan effort to secure adequate funds to 

administer our Nation’s foreign affairs. 

On other occasions in the course of 

our history similar mistakes have been 

made. By the time Gen. J.E.B. Stuart 

showed up at Gettysburg, General Lee 

had not only lost the battle, but ultimately the war. Stuart had wandered 

Pennsylvania aimlessly, leaving his 

commander blind to the strength and 

the position of Union troops. 

This week, we saw aimless wandering 

not in the hills of Pennsylvania, but 

down the Avenue. Many of my colleagues understood the importance of 

the budget battle—understood it has 

significant implications for our longterm national interests. But the critical support for an effort to save the 

150 account failed to arrive in time. 

TRANSPORTATION CUTS

Mr. EXON. Mr. President the Senate 

proposal before us reduces transportation spending significantly more 

than the House. The difference between 

the Senate and the House is primarily 

attributable to unrealistic savings associated with privatizing certain air 

traffic control functions of the FAA. 

Beginning in 1997, the Senate assumes 

that this proposal will achieve savings 

of $3.675 billion a year. 

The feasibility of the Senate Republican’s air traffic control privatization 

proposal is highly suspect because it 

asks users to pay twice. Not only will 

users continue to pay the Federal Government, via the ticket tax, but users 

will have to pay an additional tax to 

the new private entity. 

While the Republican plan may help 

reduce the deficit, it is clearly not fair. 

Asking users to continue to pay the 

ticket tax to help reduce the deficit 

and then asking them to pay an additional tax to pay for an air traffic control service they already receive is asking too much and has little chance of 

succeeding. 

Given the fact that the Senate Republican’s FAA proposal is totally unrealistic, the Department of transportation would then be forced to virtually eliminate new highway, Transit, 

and Airport Improvement Grant funding in fiscal year 1997 to even get close 

to achieving its Senate fiscal year 1997 

budget 

In addition, deep cuts of 20 percent or 

more in Coast Guard and FAA operations would be required to actually 

make the cuts proposed in Senate 

budget for fiscal year 1997. 

We should not jeopardize the safety 

and viability of the Nation’s transportation system with unrealistic budget 

assumptions. Let’s have a more realistic budget for transportation, a budget that won’t put vital transportation 

functions at risk. 

PRIVATIZATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, for 50 

hours, we have debated the real impacts of the Republican budget proposal. I have talked at length about the 

Republican budget, and I won’t restate 

my objections here. I do, however, 

want to point out the folly of one part 

of this plan. 

All too often around here, someone 

hears an idea and runs with it. Buried 

in this budget is an assumption that 

the air traffic control services now provided by the Federal Aviation Administration will be privatized. The savings, 

through the year 2000, are projected to 

be $14.7 billion. The assumption raises 

many serious concerns, not the least of 

which are the potential impacts on 

safety, the traveling public, the airline 

industry, and travel and tourism. 

Travel and tourism is the largest 

service export of the United States, 

producing a $22 billion export surplus. 

The industry employs six million 

Americans, and generates a $99.2 billion payroll. Travel and tourism is dependent on a U.S. aviation industry 

that over the last 5 years has lost $13 

billion. We have seen carriers like 

Eastern Airlines and Pan American 

Airways, which paved the way for 

international aviation in the world, 

shut their doors. In reviewing the 

Domenici budget, and in particular the 

assumption to privatize air traffic control, it is important to bear in mind 

the tourism industry’s importance to 

our economy and the airlines’ current 

financial morass. 

No matter what, we know that air 

traffic control services and the other 

FAA safety programs must continue. 

Someone will have to pay for those 

services. Right now, the users pay 

money into an airport and airway trust 

fund. It is a dedicated fund. The users 

pay approximately $6 billion per year 

into the trust fund. 

Under the Domenici assumption, 

Federal spending for the FAA would be 

cut by a total of $14.7 billion, or $3.7 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7457 

billion per year. We can cut the Federal Government’s outlays for the 

FAA, but the need for the services does 

not end. This is not one of those 

unneeded services or programs that 

ceases as soon as Federal funding 

stops. Air traffic control services will 

need to be provided and paid for no 

matter what happens under the Budget 

resolution. Yet, Senate Concurrent 

Resolution 13 asks the users to continue to pay $6 billion to the Federal 

Government, but then calls for air traffic control services to be privatized. As 

a result, the Federal Government will 

not use the trust fund for those services, and the users must pay again for 

them. Essentially, the users will get 

double billed. We could solve the deficit very quickly if we charged every 

industry twice for the service provided 

by the Government, or simply continued to charge them for services that 

the Federal Government would no 

longer provide. 

Over the last year, there has been a 

prolonged battle over the future of the 

FAA. The administration came up with 

a proposal to split up the FAA into a 

successor FAA and a Government corporation for air traffic control, which I 

and many others oppose. The plan was 

never proposed as a way to save money, 

but rather as a way to modernize the 

system and to maintain the current 

safety standards of the system. The 

Secretary of Transportation did not 

state that he expected huge savings 

from the breakup; instead he expected 

a more effective organization. The 

commercial aviation industry, initially 

thought to favor the air traffic control 

corporation, ultimately concluded that 

it could not endorse the Secretary’s 

program. The general aviation sector 

also said no. So has Congress. 

Now we get an assumption to privatize a key element of the FAA in this 

budget plan. What are we talking 

about? There are many privatization 

options that I can think of, but all of 

them would wreak havoc with the 

world’s safest air transportation system. For example, do we really want to 

create a Postal Service for the air traffic control system? I get mad when letters are misplaced, but to think of misplacing aircraft is something else. 

Should we consider contracting out 

these services to a private group? Do 

you really want your air traffic control 

system being run by the lowest bidder? 

In the alternative, we could auction off 

the system to the highest bidder, gaining lots of revenue for the Federal Government. Stop and think about those 

two possibilities. Consider the winner 

of the auction—the winning bidder 

would need to recoup its investment, 

operate and modernize the system, and 

earn a return on the investment. Doing 

a little shorthand math, let’s say the 

air traffic control system is worth $15 

billion, and using the Domenici assumption of $14.7 billion, it would cost 

another $15 billion to modernize and 

operate the system. The company also 

would want at least a 10 percent return 

on the investment. Congress would 

have created a winning formula for 

helping the aviation industry—a $30–

$35 billion increase in costs. Remember, the industry lost $13 billion over 

the last 5 years. An industry further 

weakened could result in safety problems. 

In addition, the winner of the auction 

would then be running a monopoly. Do 

we really want to have a complete laissez-faire attitude toward safety? Let’s 

stop and think about this for a minute: 

a monopoly would need to be regulated—fees for air traffic control services would need oversight and safety 

functions would need monitoring. Are 

we really willing to tell the traveling 

public that the Government is no 

longer responsible for aviation safety? 

This proposal to privatize does not create efficiencies or facilitate competition for air traffic control services. It 

merely turns over to a private entity 

the function of providing those services. That corporation would have no 

incentives to make the system efficient—it would be a monopoly. 

We could avoid the monopoly situation by creating competing air traffic 

control systems, so that New York 

could have its own system, Chicago another, and so on. Of course, small communities might have trouble paying for 

high quality air traffic control services. So they would either have to sacrifice safety by providing inferior services or close down their airports for 

lack of services. The free market can 

be counted on to eliminate inefficiencies, but our constituents can’t be 

blamed for not applauding such results. 

Let’s begin by understanding that 

the air traffic control system is the 

heart of the safety network that the 

Government provides to people who fly. 

Admittedly, the system is not perfect, 

but most agree that it is by far the best 

in the world. Comparisons to other 

countries that have privatized air traffic control services are irrelevant and 

ridiculous. These countries—New Zealand, Switzerland, and Germany—combined probably have less air traffic 

than Atlanta. Our system is much 

more complex, much more integrated. 

Privatization of the air traffic control 

system is opposed by the vast majority 

of aviation industry experts. 

The General Aviation manufacturers 

Association [GAMA] recently wrote to 

me and reminded me that the Office of 

Technology Assessment in 1988 stated 

that ‘‘the ATC function is inextricably 

linked with aviation safety and is a 

central component of an integrated 

FAA safety system.’’ The GAMA letter 

went on to say that the Aviation Safety Commission, appointed by President 

Reagan, ‘‘stressed that the Federal 

government must continue to play the 

central role in ensuring safe operation 

of the U.S. aviation system.’’ The 

GAMA letter included the following 

quotation from that Commission’s report: ‘‘Since the Commission is not inclined to gamble in sorting out conflicting assertions about whether safety regulatory functions can be separated organizationally from air traffic 

control and facilities operations activities, the Commission cannot endorse 

the proposition that the air traffic control function should be privatized.’’

The Senate Budget Committee’s assumptions take that gamble. 

We do not want to put the safety of 

the national air transportation system 

at risk. Ask the controllers who toil 

throughout the country if they want to 

privatize. Those folks work hard to 

make sure that all of us get home safely. They oppose privatization and seek 

meaningful reform. 

I look forward to working with my 

colleagues on meaningful reform—not 

privatization or corporatization of air 

traffic control services. The process 

should proceed with caution before we 

assume in this or any budget that we 

should destroy the safest air traffic 

control system in the world. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on 

March 29 of this year, the Senate 

unanimously adopted a resolution I offered opposing any measure that would 

increase the number of hungry or 

homeless children. Now, less than 2 

months later, here we are considering a 

budget resolution that would drastically cut funding for important nutrition programs, including the Food 

Stamp Program and the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program. The cut 

would be $20 billion over 5 years in 

these programs. 

This budget represents a massive setback in fighting hunger in this country. We do know the following about 

who is hungry in this country: 

In 1991 FRAC’s Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project estimated that there are 5.5 million children under 12 years of age who are hungry in the United States. 

The group Second Harvest estimated 

that in 1993, the emergency food programs served 10,798,375 children. 

The U.S. Council on Mayor’s Status 

Report on Hunger and Homelessness in 

America’s Cities: 1994 found that 64 

percent of the persons receiving food 

assistance were from families with 

children. 

A Tufts University Center on Hunger, 

Poverty and Nutrition Policy Study estimated that 12 million children were 

hungry in the United States in 1991. 

A Carnegie Foundation study found 

that 68 percent of public school teachers in 1987 reported that undernourished children/youths are a problem in 

school. 

There is a serious problem with hunger in this country—particularly for 

children. Our reaction should be outrage, but instead we are responding by 

cutting the most important nutritional 

program this country has. These two 

programs are critical supports to children’s nutrition. 

The Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP] is designed to ensure 

that children up to age 12 enrolled in 

child care centers, family care centers, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7458 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

before-and-after school programs, as 

well as Head Start centers receive nutritious meals. In 1994 the program cost 

about $1.3 billion and served slightly 

more than two million children. The 

budget proposal will cut at least $1.9 

billion over 5 years and $3.21 billion 

over 7 years. This is the only program 

that is easily accessible to family day 

care centers, the majority of day care 

providers in this country. The CACFP 

is the single biggest incentive for family day care providers to become licensed or registered. 

The chairman’s assumption is that 

the savings will come from targeting 

lower income children through census 

tract eligibility. I worry how such a 

strategy will work in Minnesota, where 

rural districts can be rich or poor depending upon a very small number of 

people. The alternative that these 

homes will have is to means test each 

family monthly, an appalling paperwork morass for such small operations. 

We are afraid these homes may go back 

underground by leaving the program. 

An even larger concern is the impact 

of this budget resolution on the Food 

Stamps Program. Food Stamps is the 

program that feeds the hungry in this 

country. 

Who are the people on Food Stamps? 

Well, we know that over half of Food 

Stamp recipients are children. Some 13 

million children received benefits in 

1992. Families with children received 

81.9 percent of food stamp benefits. Elderly and disabled households received 

12.9 percent of food stamp benefits. The 

program targets the population in need 

very well with 56 percent of food 

stamps benefits going to households 

with gross incomes below half of the 

poverty line and 76 percent are at or 

below the poverty level. So you see, 

most of the people we will be cutting 

off or restricting benefits to will be the 

most vulnerable, the poorest in our society. And yet again we are making 

poor children pay. Over half of these 

benefits go to poor children, but that is 

the program we pick to slash. 

The Food Stamp Program works. A 

recent overview of the literature indicated there is considerable evidence 

that the Food Stamp Program is an 

important factor in helping low-income 

households have better nutrition intakes. Participants have a higher level 

of recommended dietary allowances 

than do eligible nonparticipants. 

Under-nutrition has serious health consequences and is associated with an 

array of medical problems including 

longer healing of wounds and injuries, 

susceptibility to disease and extended 

recovery time when contracted. In children, under-nutrition is associated 

with cognitive deficits and impaired 

development. 

This is a temporary program for the 

majority of recipients. Half of all food 

stamp recipients leave the program 

within 6 months and two-thirds leave 

within 1 year. This is not a dependency-producing subsidy, a point of 

great concern to many. 

Yet the program does this with very 

little money. In 1994, the program provided an average benefit of $69 per person per month, or 76 cents per person 

per meal. The maximum benefit—received by less than 23 percent of households—is $368 for a family of four or 

$1.06 per person per meal. All food assistance programs represent only 2.4 

percent of Federal outlays and this percentage is expected to decline slightly 

in the future as a share of total spending. 

This is not to say that the Food 

Stamps Program does not have its 

problems. There is evidence of fraud 

and waste, yet one estimate is that the 

amount of money saved by fraud will 

only make up 0.1 percent of the savings 

the House welfare reform bill intends 

to gain by cutting the food program. I 

certainly agree with those who would 

like to reduce fraud through reasonable 

means. Those who waste these benefits 

or who fraudulently use them are wasting taxpayers’ money. I am afraid that 

the desire to cut this program is too 

strongly influenced by a run-away desire to correct this wrong-doing, with 

little examination of the consequences 

to those in need. 

People will go without because of the 

reductions proposed in this resolution, 

and we need to recognize that. These 

cuts are massive, and will dramatically 

reduce the money available to feed 

hungry people. Given the very real possibility that this body will pass a welfare reform bill which ends the AFDC 

entitlement, food stamps will be the 

only program with entitlement status 

that will cushion our poor families 

against recessions. We are shortsighted 

in taking food from those who need it 

to pay for tax cut primarily for 

wealthy people and corporations. 

I urge my colleagues to oppose these 

unwise reductions, and to support 

amendments to restore critically needed food assistance to children and others who rely on these programs. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield to 

Senator GRAMS. 

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the time and effort 

the majority leader has put into this 

bill. 

Mr. President, during my campaign 

for the Senate, I promised the people of 

Minnesota I will do everything that I 

can do to get government off their 

backs and out of their back pockets. I 

told them my fight for them was to 

turn legislation like my families first 

plan, and its $500 per child tax credit 

and economic growth incentives, into 

law. I believe that this tax credit 

should be available starting next year 

for all children under age 18. Today, I 

am pleased that the U.S. Senate has 

taken the first step to provide families 

with the tax relief they want and deserve. The budget resolution reported 

out of the Budget Committee included 

a substantial fiscal dividend which may 

have been used for family tax relief. 

The Grams-Abraham amendment guarantees that the dividend will be used 

for family tax relief. Mr. Leader, I 

would like you to clarify the phrase 

‘‘tax relief.’’

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator for 

his inquiry. While the phrase ‘‘family 

tax relief’’ is not specific, my interpretation is that the phrase could include 

a $500 per child family tax credit. It is 

of course up to the Finance Committee 

to determine exactly how the fiscal 

dividend will be given back to Americans in the form of tax cuts. But I can 

assure you that as a senior member of 

the Finance Committee and its former 

chairman, and a majority leader, when 

the Finance Committee determines 

how to provide specific tax cuts, I will 

be there fighting for tax credits for 

children, such as that provided by the 

$500 per child credit. We should provide 

tax credits for families that adopt children, expanded IRA’s for homemakers, 

estate tax relief for family businesses, 

and other benefits targeted to the family. 

The amendment also calls for the fiscal dividend to be used for tax incentives for savings and investment, job 

creation and economic growth. I would 

work to ensure that, as a result of the 

Grams-Abraham amendment, we cut 

the capital gains tax to stimulate economic growth and create jobs. 

Mr. GRAMS. Also, on behalf of Senator HUTCHISON, I would like to ask if 

spousal IRA’s would be included in the 

definition of ‘‘family tax relief’’? 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would say 

while the specifics of family tax relief 

and incentives to increase savings and 

investment will be determined by the 

Finance Committee, expanded spousal 

IRA’s would certainly be considered in 

the context of providing family tax relief. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Would the majority 

leader yield for another question? 

Mr. DOLE. Certainly. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Like the Senator 

from Minnesota, I also campaigned on 

a platform that emphasized tax relief 

for all Americans including the $500 per 

child family tax credit, and savings and 

investment incentives such as estate 

tax reform for family-owned businesses. The fiscal dividend included in 

the budget resolution will provide approximately $79 billion in tax relief 

over the next 5 years. Now, our amendment directs the Committee on Finance to use this dividend for family 

tax relief and incentives to stimulate 

savings, investment, job creation, and 

economic growth. By including these 

directions, I believe we have substantially improved the Senate’s position 

when entering into negotiations with 

the House over tax cuts. Is it the majority leader’s intention to work for 

additional tax cuts in the budget resolution conference to ensure that the 

largest possible family and pro-growth 

cuts are enacted this year? 

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator for 

the question. Let me indicate as I have 

before, I have always said that balancing the budget is my first priority. 

But we can balance the budget and cut 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7459 

taxes too. The Senate budget resolution will ensure that we do both. Any 

fiscal dividend that results from enacting balanced budget legislation will be 

returned to the American people in the 

form of reduced taxes. There are significant differences between the House 

and Senate budget resolutions, and I 

will encourage the Senate conferees to 

increase the deficit reduction achieved 

in this budget to the maximum extent 

possible. If we achieve even more savings, then I will fight to ensure that 

further tax cuts are provided to the 

American people. 

Let me just say to both my colleagues from Minnesota and Michigan 

that I appreciate their willingness 

throughout the last several days to try 

to come to some agreement that would 

provide the relief that they were seeking. This does not quite reach everything they wanted, but I commend 

them for their efforts. 

I think this is a very significant 

amendment that was adopted today on 

the floor, with bipartisan support, I 

might add. And it was due to the efforts of the Senator from Minnesota 

[Mr. GRAMS], and the Senator from 

Michigan [Mr. ABRAHAM]. 

If I can say one word that would follow the statement of the Senator from 

Delaware on the antiterrorism bill, I 

thank Senator HATCH and Senator 

BIDEN for their willingness to try to 

pass this bill. I urge my colleagues, 

particularly on this side of the aisle, to 

help us enter into some time agreements to make it possible. It might 

be—and it may not happen—that we 

can reach a time agreement on a number of amendments and not be in very 

long tomorrow. We will have a couple 

of votes, and we will take it up the day 

we are back. I promised we would take 

up telecommunications on that day. 

Without an agreement, I do not have 

any idea how long it will take if we 

bring up or continue on this bill when 

we come back on June 5. 

I will be working with Senators 

DASCHLE and BIDEN and HATCH. We 

promised the President we would bring 

this up before the Memorial Day recess, and we have done that now. We 

have not completed action, but we have 

had a little debate. Had we been able to 

start on this last night, we may have 

been able to finish it tonight or tomorrow. It may not be possible to do that 

now. I know colleagues have other 

commitments starting early afternoon 

tomorrow, and some have them in the 

morning. I hope that on both sides we 

can have the cooperation of our colleagues working with the chairman of 

the committee, Senator HATCH, and the 

ranking Democratic member, Senator 

BIDEN. 

Mr. BIDEN. While the majority leader is still on the floor, I can say for the 

minority that I am confident we can 

agree on time agreements on all of the 

amendments I am aware of thus far. We 

are continuing to hotline this to see if 

there are any amendments other than 

the ones that I am aware of. 

I doubt whether we can get an agreement on a final passage time. But I 

would suggest that if we can get narrowed down time agreements tomorrow 

on each of the amendments, we should 

do all we can to lock it in. I thank the 

leader for honoring his commitment to 

bring this up. It was a bit beyond his 

control, having 50 some votes in the 

last 2 days. To the best of my knowledge, the House has not acted on this 

at all. Even if we passed a bill tonight, 

we are not in a position to be able to 

send it to the President or even go to 

conference. I do not think there is any 

damage done by not doing that. 

Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized. 

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. 

f 

IMPACT STATEMENTS ON 

FUNDING FOR THE NIH 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on 

May 18 of this year, the Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Health, Human Services, Education and Labor held a hearing on the funding for the National Institutes of Health, and at that time a 

request was made by the representatives of the various units of the NIH to 

submit impact statements as to what 

the budget reductions would do. A good 

bit of this information was used by me 

in my statement on an amendment offered by Senator HATFIELD. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

RECORD contain these impact statements. 

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

RECORD, as follows: 

A GUIDE TO THE IMPACT STATEMENTS ABOUT

NIH BUDGET REDUCTIONS

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) 

has identified 15 specific areas of research 

that would be severely affected by the cuts 

recommended by the Senate Budget Committee. These are only a representative sampling of the many research activities that 

would be significantly slowed, halted, or 

never started due to the proposed reductions. 

The effects are likely to be especially dramatic and long-lasting for several reasons: 

NIH now funds less than one in four grant 

applications, so that any reduction in support would affect only those investigators already judged by expert peer reviewers to be 

among the best in the nation. 

It is in the nature of medical research to 

find that the most important discoveries are 

made in unexpected places. If funding is reduced to what are deemed bare essentials, 

much of the best research may be eliminated 

because it is not obviously connected to immediate medical goals. 

Over 80 percent of the NIH budget supports 

research at many colleges, universities, medical schools, and institutes in every state in 

the country. These awards are essential not 

only for generating new knowledge; they 

also improve the quality of medical care and 

training, help to recruit new biomedical scientists, and strengthen educational programs. A major reduction in funding will undermine these important aspects of American life; the effect will be felt for many 

years. Bright, young people, recognizing that 

the future for biomedical research has 

dimmed, would pursue other career options. 

The research that NIH supports in the 

areas discussed in our samples is different 

from the kind of work conducted at biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms, where 

a commercial product is the central goal. 

Without the basic knowledge generated by 

NIH-sponsored investigators, our international leadership in the industrial sector 

will be threatened. 

IMPACT STATEMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL

INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

Alcoholism. 

Alzheimer’s Disease. 

Anti-Cocaine Agent. 

Blinding Diseases. 

Breast Cancer. 

Cancer Vaccines. 

Conquering Genetic Diseases (mapping the 

human genome). 

New and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases. 

The Obesity Gene. 

Otitis Media (a serious childhood infection). 

Parkinson’s Disease. 

Prostate Cancer. 

Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 

Sickle Cell Disease. 

Stem Cell Research. 

Stroke. 

Vaccines to Prevent Stomach Ulcers and 

Stomach Cancer. 

IMPACT OF NIH BUDGET CUTS ON PEOPLE’S

HEALTH

Alcoholism: Naltrexone, the first medication approved for treating alcoholism in 

forty years, is a major step forward. 

The Promise: Researchers supported by the 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) have 

shown that naltrexone, an opiate-blocker 

used for treating heroin addiction, is an effective treatment for alcohol addiction. The 

combination of naltrexone and skilled counseling resulted in alcohol-dependent people 

staying sober twice as long as placebo-treated patients. Even if naltrexone-treated alcoholics drank, they rarely ‘‘binged.’’

The Next Steps: Naltrexone is the first 

medication approved for the treatment of alcoholism in forty years. However, that approval is only for three months of use in any 

patient. Further research is needed to make 

this treatment more effective and to exploit 

what insights it may provide into underlying 

biological and behavioral mechanisms. NIH 

is currently studying naltrexone’s longerterm use, side effects, and most importantly, 

how naltrexone—an opiate blocker—reduces 

alcohol craving. 

Improved technologies are also aiding in 

the study of alcohol addiction. New brain imaging systems can actually show what alcohol craving looks like, including blood flow 

changes. Computer-aided design of new drugs 

to treat alcoholism has begun, using recently discovered information on how alcohol affects the surface of nerve cells. And investigators are narrowing in on the genes 

which account for inherited vulnerability to 

alcoholism. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: The clinical trials 

of the longer-term use of naltrexone would 

have to be curtailed or not initiated. Other 

promising leads in alcoholism research 

would either have to be delayed or dropped. 

Alcohol kills over 100,000 Americans every 

year. Some 20 to 40 percent of adult hospital 

beds in large urban hospitals are occupied by 

people being treated for alcohol-caused 

organ damage. Alcoholism and alcohol abuse 

costs the Nation about $100 billion every 

year in medical costs, social costs, and loss 

of productivity. Slowing advances in the 

treatment of alcoholism could cost tens of 

billions of dollars. 

Comment: Alcohol addiction is the number 

one drug problem in the United States. New 

treatments to help alcohol-dependent people 

stay sober are showing positive results, and 

the biological roots of alcoholism are being 

uncovered. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS