```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7281-S7343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will resume consideration of 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 13.
  The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for the 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.

       Pending:
       (1) Harkin-Bumpers amendment No. 1126, to reduce 
     unnecessary military spending, holding military spending to a 
     freeze in overall spending over 7 years protecting readiness 
     and modernization activities and shifting the savings to 
     education and job training, restoring a portion of the 
     reductions proposed for those programs in the resolution.
       (2) Feingold-Hollings amendment No. 1127, to strike the 
     budget surplus allowance provision (Section 204) from the 
     resolution to eliminate the use of the fiscal dividend for 
     further tax cuts.
       (3) Snowe amendment No. 1128, to increase funding for 
     mandatory spending in function 500 (Education).
       (4) Bumpers amendment No. 1130, to strike the proposed 
     change in the budget process rules which would permit the 
     scoring of revenue derived from the sale of federal assets.

                           Amendment No. 1128

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would ask my chairman of the committee if 
it would be in order for me at this time to yield 10 minutes off the 
bill in opposition to the Snowe amendment to the Senator from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  How much time remains on the Snowe amendment?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Snowe has 67 minutes; the 
opposition has 35 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would prefer to yield 10 minutes off the opposition 
to the amendment. Is that what the Senator wanted?
  Mr. EXON. The Senator from Ohio wants 10 minutes.
  I would start out today by saying to all the Senators that we are 
extremely strapped for time. Five minutes here, ten minutes there, 
under ordinary circumstances would be in order. I think we have about 
what--4 hours maximum left? How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three hours and 45 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, 3 hours and 45 minutes, with about 70 
amendments. We will have to extremely limit our time. I think that the 
requests--may I suggest that we yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts and 8 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And 8 minutes to the senior Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I might ask if I could have 4 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me see how the opposition goes. I have none for 
myself at this point. Then I will see.
  I yield 8 minutes to Senator Kennedy, 8 minutes to the junior Senator 
from Ohio, and 8 minutes to the senior Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. President, one of the most important aspects of the whole budget 
resolution is what it does in the areas of higher education, as well as 
education generally.
  I took a few moments of the Senate's time just 3 days ago to outline 
where I thought we were on the whole issue of education in this 
country. We take pride in our higher education system. Of the top 149 
universities worldwide, 127 of them are here in the United States. Our 
system works well. We provide superb higher education in this country. 
If there is a basic problem, it is the cost of higher education. We 
have tried to address this problem at the Federal level.
  Our Federal education policies have been worked out in a bipartisan 
way over the period of years since the early 1960's when a judgment was 
made that it was in the national interest to support higher education.
  Individual contributions, private sector contributions, and Federal 
assistance have created the world's best education system. Together, we 
support educational opportunities for our Nation's citizens, and at the 
same time, [[Page S7282]] we support the outstanding research that is 
going on in places like the NIH, the National Science Foundation, and 
other research agencies. Our system is working, and it is working well.
  The charts we reviewed a few days ago in this Chamber show that 
providing higher education to our citizens contributes to this country 
immeasurably. The clearest example of this was the cold war GI bill 
which returned $8 for every $1 that was invested in education. 
Investments in education continue to be an investment in our country.
  Now, the Budget Act that is before the Senate today effectively cuts 
$65 billion from education, $30 billion of it out of higher education, 
and the remainder out of other education support programs over the 
period of the next 7 years.
  That is a one-third cut in higher education. The suggestion by 
members of the Budget Committee that these cuts are not going to touch 
the Pell grants, that we are going to hold them harmless, is basically 
hogwash. Even when we hold the Pell grants harmless, we see a 40-
percent reduction in what has been a lifeline for young people to go on 
to higher education.
  Mr. President, 70 percent of all the young people in my State need 
some kind of assistance to go to the fine schools and colleges, the 4-
year colleges and the 2-year colleges in my State. And 75 percent of 
that assistance comes from Federal support to higher education.
  What is amazing to me is that after we have had this dramatic cut, 
and the Senate has rejected the efforts by Senator Harkin, Senator 
Hollings, and others, to restore education funding, we now have this 
amendment that restores a meager 10 percent of the proposed reduction 
in Federal support to higher education.
  The explanation about how we are going to avoid instructions to the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee that will be charged with going 
ahead with these cuts is enormously interesting to me.
  We had a debate here on the floor of the U.S. Senate about how we 
ought to eliminate home equity--farm home equity and home equity of 
young people--in our calculations of student assistance eligibility. 
Why? Because the value of the farms have gone up over the period of 
recent years. That has been true in the heartland of this Nation, just 
as it has been true in the increased value of homes as a result of 
inflation that students have nothing to do with. Including home equity 
in calculations for student aid eliminated the sons and daughters of 
working families whose principal problem is the value of their farm 
went up or their home went up.
  A second debate we had here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, 
supported by Republicans as well, was to give young people a few months 
after they get out of college to find a job.
  We wanted to make sure that they were not going to have to repay 
their loans for a short period of months--and we are talking a few 
months--after they graduate, when they are trying to find a job. That 
decision had the support of Republicans and Democrats alike. Now we are 
finding out that this grace period will be gone as well. Students are 
going to be penalized again.
  I do not know how it is in other parts of the country, but I can tell 
you the job market in my State is not flourishing for young people who 
are graduating from college. They are able to get jobs, but it takes 
them a little while and their salaries to begin are low. Now the 
Republicans want to penalize them for that.
  If you want to talk about a figleaf over a problem, the Snowe 
amendment is just that. This is a 10-percent restoration from the 
budget cut. Some will say, given the fact we have been voted down and 
voted down and voted down, we ought to grab this, because it is the 
only thing we are going to get. The fact of the matter is, this 
amendment proposes to find offsets from travel, bonuses, and other 
agencies, but these are not binding instructions. The appropriators 
decide on those instructions. There is nothing to guarantee that 
education will be off limits.
  So on the one hand, the Snowe amendment may restore some benefit to 
those who need Stafford loans, but you are taking money away from the 
sons and daughters of working families who need the help and assistance 
provided in a title I program or a school-to-work program. There are no 
guarantees here that you are not going to just put it back in one part 
of education and sacrifice another part.
  So we should be thankful for any kind of restoration of funds to 
education. But I must say to the parents who are watching this debate 
that what they ought to understand is that we are going to see a one-
third cut in the area of education, a $65 billion loss over the period 
of the next 7 years. The effect of this amendment, if it is successful, 
will be a restoration of $6 billion of those funds.
  The Senator from Connecticut, myself, the Senator from Minnesota, and 
others will be offering, at an appropriate time, a very modest 
amendment to restore $28 billion, not the full amount, but just $28 
billion, with offsets from corporate welfare and tax provisions.
  It is extraordinary to me that once again we talk about educating 
children in this country, but the Budget Committee could only find $20 
billion out of $4 trillion reductions in tax expenditures to turn to 
this important venture. We could have gotten the $60 billion. You would 
have thought they could find the billionaires' tax cuts where you find 
billionaires turning into Benedict Arnolds, where they make fortunes, 
hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, and then give up their 
citizenship and go overseas and avoid any kind of taxes. You would have 
thought they could find----
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself another minute.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has no more time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yielded myself 8 minutes and I was given 10, I 
believe.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is incorrect. The time of the Senator 
has expired.
  Senator DeWine.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in very strong opposition to 
the amendment of my friend, the Senator from Maine. This amendment, 
frankly, will hurt the very people it purports to help, our young 
children.
  The Snowe amendment would support programs that are, in fact, 
meritorious. But it would do so with an offset that would cause serious 
harm to the future of U.S. competitiveness in a very important high-
technology industry. It would do so with an offset that would cause 
serious harm to U.S. competitiveness in an increasingly tough and 
competitive world. The offset assumes a reduction of $1.124 billion in 
aeronautic research and development.
  Let me explain the real world consequences this cut would have, and 
especially what it would do to some very important programs at NASA.
  One of the programs has to do with the advanced subsonic technology. 
This program addresses future technology needs covering the whole 
spectrum of subsonic aviation, from commercial jets to small aircraft.
  First of all, this program has already perfected techniques for 
detecting and evaluating corrosion and cracks in aircraft. These 
techniques have now become a part of the industry. If we make this cut, 
the cut proposed in the Snowe amendment, our future ability to increase 
air safety will be seriously impaired.
  Second, our ability to decrease the harmful environmental effects of 
aircraft will also be seriously impaired. To remain globally 
competitive, U.S. aviation has to stay ahead of international 
environmental standards. Thanks in part to the advanced subsonic 
technology program, we are doing that today. It would be wrong to lose 
our competitive edge in this area.
  Third, our ability to improve satellite air traffic control would 
also be seriously hurt by a cut in this program.
  All of these areas--aircraft safety, the environment, air traffic 
control--are legitimate concerns of the Federal Government and have 
been an area where the Federal Government has been involved for 
decades. In these areas, NASA is engaging in high-risk research that 
individual companies simply cannot and will not undertake.
  Furthermore, Federal investment in this technology has important 
roots in the history of our country, as I will explain in a few 
moments. NASA's role, really, is to develop high-risk, high- 
[[Page S7283]] payoff, precompetitive technologies so they can then be 
passed along to private industry. This is something that only NASA can 
do. And this investment is essential to the future of the U.S. aircraft 
industry. The continuing growth of U.S. market share depends on our 
ability to ensure that aircraft are safe, cost effective, and able to 
comply with ever more stringent environmental regulations.
  There is a long history of Government involvement in basic, 
precompetitive research. Back in 1917, the United States established 
the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics to engage in basic 
precompetitive research. The NACA was a precursor of NASA and did the 
same kind of forward-looking work that would be cut under this 
amendment.
  Earlier this month we, of course, celebrated the 50th anniversary of 
the end of World War II. Every single airplane that helped win that war 
was made possible by NACA's testing facilities. No single corporation 
had enough money to be able to invest in the kind of wind tunnels that 
were used to test these planes. NACA's Ames facility did have those 
resources. No single corporation had the resources to do the basic 
research on how wings should be shaped. NACA did have the resources.
  For almost eight decades, NACA, and its successor agency, today's 
NASA, have been making the kind of investment in America's aviation 
knowledge base that no corporation could possibly match. Every single 
plane in America today has NASA's technology somewhere in it. The 
little piece of wing that juts out perpendicular from the wing tip--
known as a winglet--was designed by NASA. The winglet increases the 
fuel efficiency of an airplane by 5 percent, and that 5 percent can 
make a big difference in making U.S. planes competitive.
  Just this week the Boeing 777 was unveiled. Major components in that 
plane were designed some 15 years ago in NASA's laboratories, not with 
a view toward the product line of any particular corporation, but 
because, over the long run, the long term, America needs that 
technology know-how.
  Another research project threatened by this amendment is NASA's high-
speed research program. Before investing the roughly $20 billion that 
might be necessary to develop a high-speed civil transport aircraft, 
private companies need to know whether such a plane could be built in 
compliance with environmental and safety standards.
  If we allow the United States to fall behind in the quest for this 
technological breakthrough, the U.S. share of the long-range global 
aircraft market could drop below 50 percent. It would be a horrible 
blow to the trade deficit, to high-technology jobs, and to something in 
many respects even more important, our national sense that America is 
leading the world in the future of high technology.
  America's ascent to the role of global superpower was made possible 
in large part by the ability of America's aviation pioneers to invest 
in the future.
  Education--so ably advocated by my good friend from Maine--has to do 
with preparing our children for the challenges of the future. This 
program--the program that would be cut by this amendment--is building 
that future. I think cutting this program would be a very shortsighted 
measure--and the losers would be our children.
  Tens of thousands of American children can grow up to work in high-
technology aviation jobs--if we do not foreclose that option by making 
shortsighted decisions today.
  In aviation, there is a truly global market. Over the next 15 to 20 
years, the global demand is expected to be between $800 billion and $1 
trillion.
  A recent study by DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that a 1-percent gain in 
U.S. market share creates 9,000 new jobs--and $120 million in Federal 
revenues--each year.
  Aviation already contributes over $25 billion a year to the U.S. 
balance of trade. That's more than any other U.S. manufacturing 
industry.
  And aviation already generates almost a million high-quality jobs in 
this country.
  If we allow this cut to go forward, we will fall behind in our effort 
to develop technologies that will keep America on top of this global 
market.
  I think we should continue to invest in a high-technology future for 
this country.
  I think NASDA's research on aviation plays a fundamental and 
irreplaceable role in that process.
  That is why I will be voting ``no'' on the amendment proposed by the 
Senator from Maine. To vote ``no'' on this amendment is to say ``yes'' 
to a high-technology future for Amercia's children.
  I will conclude by summarizing as follows: We hear a lot of talk on 
this floor about making sure our children have good jobs, high-paying 
jobs, high-technology jobs, and they should not be confined, as some 
people on both sides of the aisle have said, to flipping hamburgers. 
This type of research gives these good high-paying jobs to our 
children.
  I urge, therefore, a ``no'' vote on the Snowe amendment. I urge a 
vote for our future.
  I see my time is almost expired. I see my friend and colleague from 
Ohio, who has a tremendous amount of experience in this area, has risen 
to speak and will be speaking in just a moment. I look forward to 
listening to his comments.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I regret we have such a short time here 
this morning to deal with this.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by 
Senators Snowe, Abraham, Grassley, Brown, Kassebaum, Cohen, Lott, and 
Chafee.
  I support the goal of the amendment--to provide increased funds for 
higher education. My record is clear and unequivocal on education 
funding. These funds must be increased, but not in the way proposed by 
the proponents of this amendment.
  I do not know that there has been an education bill which I voted 
against since I have been in the Senate for over 20 years. My record is 
very clear in that regard.
  I want to speak about the offsets that are required here that would 
provide the money for this particular amendment. I would like to speak 
about two of the offsets that the amendment identifies and discuss the 
impact which these cuts would have on our economy and our Federal 
workers.
  First, the amendment would zero out two important NASA programs. This 
Nation has gotten to be what it is because we put more into research, 
and the inquiry into the unknown, into pushing back the frontiers of 
science, and then we develop the industry and the business once that 
has occurred. That has been the hallmark of America. We have been the 
envy of the world in doing that; the envy of the world.
  So these programs in our R&D are seed-corn type programs that whole 
industries benefit from. We have seen in the past money spent at NASA 
in aeronautical research which in particular had led to the development 
of an aircraft industry in this country that has been leading in 
exports second only to farming, to agricultural products, in years 
past.
  Dan Goldin, the Administrator of NASA, was given aid by the 
administration, and was tasked to downsize some, and he went ahead and 
did it. He did it, and he has a program in NASA, a 5-year budget, which 
was about $122 billion in fiscal 1993. The 1996 request is now $82 
billion for the next 5 years. So they have been cut by one-third in 
just 2 years.
  NASA has stepped up to the plate to reduce bureaucracy and improve 
the way it does business. These programs are the R&D or seed-corn type 
programs which many of my colleagues have heard me speak about in the 
past. This amendment would zero out NASA's High-Speed Research Program, 
and NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology Program.
  Before I talk about these specific programs, I would like to observe 
that NASA has already absorbed more than its share of budget cuts. A 
couple of figures will illustrate what I am talking about. In fiscal 
year 1993, NASA's 5-year budget request was about $122 billion. The 
fiscal year 1996 request is now $82 billion for the next 5 years. NASA 
has been cut by one-third in just over 2 years.
  Dan Goldin's leadership of the agency is currently going through a 
painful process of reducing its budget by $5 billion over the next 5 
years. Mr. Goldin [[Page S7284]] believes that this can be achieved 
without eliminating programs. He has a tough row to hoe to achieve this
 and he just cannot do it if we impose another cut like this on his 
budget over there.

  These programs are valuable. They are not something that we just pick 
up and lay down as a whim. Further cuts in NASA's budget will simply 
result in the elimination of current programs.
  And Mr. President, I suggest that, if this amendment is approved, the 
future of NASA's three aeronautic research centers--Lewis Research 
Center, Ames Research Center, and Langley Research Center will be in 
jeopardy.
  Now, let me talk about the High-Speed Research Program first. The 
goal of this program is to help develop the technologies industry needs 
to design and build an environmentally compatible and economically 
competitive high-speed civil jet transport for the 21st century. The 
technology developments are to reach an appropriate stage of maturity 
to enable an industry decision on aircraft production by 2001.
  Mr. President, the technologies currently needed to develop such a 
transport are beyond the state of the art. NASA estimates that industry 
will need to invest more than $20 billion to bring such a transport to 
market. A $20 billion industry just with this one development alone; 
$20 billion we are talking about, and we are talking about cutting back 
the research that will make that possible.
  Studies have identified a substantial market for a future supersonic 
airliner to meet rapidly growing demand for long-haul travel, 
particularly across the Pacific.
  Those that have been to the Southeast Asian area recently know how 
that area is really expanding economically. Over the period from 2005 
to 2015, this market could support 500 to 1,000 aircraft, creating a 
multibillion sales opportunity for its producers. Such an aircraft will 
be essential for capturing the valuable long-haul Pacific rim market.
  As currently envisioned an HSCT aircraft should be designed to carry 
300 passengers at Mach 2.4 on transoceanic routes over distances up to 
6,000 nautical miles at fares comparable to subsonic transports.
  Now let me talk about the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program.
  The goal of NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology program is to 
develop, in cooperation with the FAA and the U.S. aeronautics industry, 
high-payoff technologies to enable a safe, highly productive global air 
transportation system that includes a new generation of environmentally 
compatible, economical U.S. subsonic aircraft. Some of the technologies 
and issues being studied and developed in this program include:
  First, fly-by-light/power-by-wire: a fully digital aircraft control 
system which would be substantially lighter, more reliable and 
efficient than current control systems.
  Here is one that ought to get the attention of every single person 
who is hearing my voice, and every single person in this Chamber: Aging 
aircraft. My colleague from Ohio mentioned that a moment ago.
  Second, aging aircraft: To develop new ways of inspecting aircraft to 
determine their airworthiness.
  When you see a black storm cloud on the horizon the next time you are 
taking off out of Washington National or Dulles in a 727 aircraft over 
20 years old, I think you would be interested in this kind of research 
NASA wants to do.
  New approaches are being developed to determine the residual strength 
in airframes using advanced nondestructive technologies. It might be 
worth thinking about this program the next time you are sitting in a 
727 that's 20 years old waiting to take off on a cross-country flight.
  Third, noise reduction: This program is developing technologies to 
reduce aircraft noise by 10 decibels or more by the year 2000.
  Fourth, terminal area productivity: Technologies, chiefly involving 
air traffic control, that can improve the efficiency of operations on 
the ground at busy airports.
  Fifth, integrated wing design: New concepts, design methodologies, 
model fabrication and test techniques are being developed to provide 
industry an integrated capability to achieve increased aircraft 
performance at lower cost.
  Sixth, propulsion: Technologies to improve fuel efficiency of future 
commercial engines by at least 8 percent and reduce nitrogen oxides by 
70 percent over current technology.
  These are only some of the technologies being developed under the 
program which the amendment's propents would completely gut.
  It is a truly shortsighted amendment that would eliminate these 
important applied technology programs.
  Mr. President, it is no secret that aerospace business is a 
government-private sector partnership. Historically our government has 
funded aeronautics R&D, and industry has taken this basic technology 
and developed aircraft that have dominated the world market. Over the 
last decade or so, other governments have gotten into the act. 
Currently, the U.S. market share is about 65 percent, down from about 
91 percent in the 1960's.
  We had 91 percent of the world's commercial aircraft market in the 
1960's. We are now being competed with more vigorously than we have 
ever been in the past.
  Cutting these two important programs will not help us regain this 
market share--quite the opposite. We will be sending a signal that the 
U.S. aircraft industry will be less competitive. I do not want to see 
that happen.
  In summary, the advanced subsonic technology: meets future technology 
needs for next generation aircraft; enables NASA to develo high-risk, 
high-payoff, precompetitive technology to prove feasibility so that 
industry may complete development and apply technology to specific 
products; will result in accomplishments in noise prediction codes for 
quieter engines, non-destructive evaluation techniques for detecting 
corrosion, cracks and disbonds; analytical tools to understand aircraft 
wake vortices for safe landings; and assists in preserving 1 million 
U.S. high quality jobs and $25 to $30 billion in annual positive 
balance of trade for U.S. aviation.
  How can we possibly take a chance on knocking something like that 
down?
  The High-Speed Research Program will: enable NASA to develop early, 
high-risk technology for future environmentally compatible, 
economically competitive high-speed civil transport aircraft 
(technologies needed are beyond state of the art); industry will take 
NASA technology and invest $20 billion to actually develop aircraft; 
and if the United States is first to market, the U.S. market share 
could grow to 80 percent, achieve $200 billion in sales, and create 
140,000 new U.S. jobs.
  Thank you Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Snowe-Abraham amendment.
  I think, while I support the goal of getting more money for 
education, I certainly do not support taking it out of these forward-
looking research programs that have served us so well in the past, and 
will in the future.
                          impact on nasa lewis

  NASA's zero-based review announced last week will have a significant 
impact on Lewis Research Center outside of Cleveland, OH. Lewis will be 
given primary responsibility for aeronautics research, especially 
aeropropulsion research. Other programs would be shifted away from 
Lewis, including work on expendable launch vehicles.
  Mr. President, if the proposal by the Senator from Maine is accepted, 
I think it could be the death knell for Lewis Research Center. I use 
these words carefully. But when an agency like NASA is downsizing, and 
the chief mission of a given facility is eliminated--and this amendment 
would eliminate high-speed research and advanced subsonic technology 
research, which will be Lewis' bread and butter--then I think my words 
are accurate.
  If Lewis closes, the impact on my State will be significant. 
According to NASA, Ohio has the second largest number of aeronautics 
jobs in the country, behind California. This is due primarily to NASA 
Lewis, Wright Patterson, the Ohio Aerospace Institute, and Ohio's 
university system. Anchoring these jobs is Lewis. It attracts world 
class scientists and engineers to world class facilities.
  Did the Senator from Maine and her cosponsors consider this impact 
when they put together their amendment? I do not think so. 
[[Page S7285]] 
  Mr. President, Lewis employs directly about 4,500 people. About one-
third of these are in some way connected to aeronautics research. But 
the multiplier effect is significant. The people employed at Lewis 
attract other businesses, or help form new ventures and stimulating the 
economy. Gutting these two programs would have a serious impact on this 
dynamic system.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several relevant 
documents be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of 
           the Administrator,
                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: I am writing to express NASA's 
     strong objection to the recommendation by the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) in its February 1995 Report to the House 
     and Senate Committees on the Budget, ``Reducing the Deficit: 
     Spending and Revenue Options,'' to eliminate NASA's Advanced 
     Subsonic Technology and High Speed Research programs. I 
     request that this recommendation not be included in 
     assumptions supporting the Committee's forthcoming FY 1996 
     Budget Resolution.
       In making its recommendation, CBO contends that these 
     programs develop technologies which should be developed by 
     the private sector, namely large aircraft companies. The 
     aeronautics program conducted by NASA and its predecessor, 
     the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, has, since 
     1917, developed a wide range of precompetitive technologies 
     to address safety, environmental, and aviation system 
     capacity issues, as well as aircraft performance. The 
     research and technology results, used by other U.S. 
     Government or commercial entities, directly benefit air 
     travellers and the general public while contributing to U.S. 
     economic strength and national security. NASA's role is to 
     develop high-risk, high-payoff technologies to a point where 
     feasibility is proven and transfer those to FAA, DOD and U.S. 
     industry. It is up to U.S. companies to make the substantial 
     investments to validate the technologies and incorporate them 
     into specific products and systems. Individual companies 
     simply cannot undertake the high-risk research and technology 
     development NASA does; investments are unrecoverable and 
     often beyond the capability of a single company.
       Estimates for global aircraft market demand over the next 
     15 to 20 years range from $800 billion to $1 trillion. 
     However, this market could be much smaller if it is 
     constrained by safety and system capacity and/or an inability 
     to meet more stringent environmental standards. Part of 
     NASA's aeronautics research addresses these issues, i.e., to 
     ensure the largest possible market for which U.S. companies 
     will compete. U.S. companies currently hold about two-thirds 
     of the global market; their primary competitor, Airbus 
     Industries, is aiming to capture a full half of the market in 
     the next 10 years. A recent study by DRI/McGraw-Hill 
     estimates that a 1 percent gain in U.S. market share 
     generates 9,000 jobs (40 percent in aerospace and 60 percent 
     in supporting industries), $360 million in sales, and $120 
     million in
      Federal tax revenue each year. Aviation contributes between 
     $25 and $30 billion annually to the U.S. balance of trade, 
     the largest of any U.S. manufacturing industry.
       I believe CBO is inaccurate in stating ``the benefits from 
     the R&D supported by the NASA programs in question fall 
     almost exclusively to aircraft manufacturers, their 
     suppliers, and airlines.'' These enabling advances provide 
     the basic tools for U.S. industrial innovation. While NASA 
     R&D contributes to a stronger U.S. aviation industry, the 
     benefits are broader. Terminating these important technology 
     programs would have repercussions far beyond the short-term 
     profitability of U.S. aircraft manufacturers and airline 
     operators. Joint NASA-FAA efforts to safely increase the 
     capacity of the airspace system, eliminating costly and 
     unproductive delays, would end. Technologies to ensure that 
     the aging aircraft fleet remains safe and cost-effective 
     would not be developed. U.S. efforts to develop rational 
     positions on proposed international environmental regulations 
     governing airline operations would be severely hampered, and 
     new technologies to meet increasingly stringent environmental 
     requirements would not be developed. The Nation's only 
     precompetitive technology development for general aviation, 
     commuter, and civil tiltrotor aircraft would end.
       NASA understands the continued budget pressures facing the 
     Nation. In fact, NASA has led the Federal Government by 
     reducing its outyear budget by 30 percent since 1993 and is 
     engaged in a major effort to identify an additional $5 
     billion in reductions between FY 1997 and FY 2000. We shall 
     continue to seek efficiencies and streamline our processes to 
     ensure that the Nation has the best possible civil 
     aeronautics and space program, conducting cutting-edge 
     research and technology which will lead the United States 
     into the 21st century.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Daniel S. Goldin,
     Administrator.
                                                                    ____

    Response to CBO Recommendation To Eliminate NASA's Support for 
                   Producers of Commercial Airliners

       CBO criticizes NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) 
     Program's goal of maintaining current U.S. market share in 
     subsonic aircraft.
       Aviation generates almost one million high quality jobs in 
     the U.S. and contributes between $25 and $30 billion annually 
     to the U.S. balance of trade--the largest of any U.S. 
     manufacturing industry.
       U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers must compete 
     effectively on both cost and technical capability with 
     government-subsidized foreign competition. Airbus already 
     claims more than one-third of the commercial aircraft market; 
     their goal is 50% by 2005.
       The AST program addresses future technology needs not only 
     in next-generation subsonic aircraft, including small general 
     aviation aircraft and civil tiltrotor as well as large 
     transports, but also for safety and capacity of the evolving 
     airspace system and environmental concerns.
       NASA's role is to develop high-risk, high-payoff 
     precompetitive technologies to a point where feasibility is 
     proven and transfer those to FAA, DOD and U.S. industry. 
     Industry picks up the technologies, and with its own 
     resources continues development, performs systems-oriented 
     research and applies them to specific products.
       CBO criticizes NASA's role in High Speed Research (HSR).
       The technologies required for an environmentally 
     compatible, economically viable High Speed Civil Transport 
     (HSCT) aircraft are beyond today's state-of-the-art. Before 
     industry can decide whether to invest the roughly $20 billion 
     required to develop an HSCT, some level of confidence must be 
     established that it could meet noise and emissions standards 
     and that airlines could operate it profitably. The HSR 
     program was designed to develop precompetitive technologies 
     to eliminate the highest technology risks for a future HSCT, 
     ensuring U.S. leadership.
       The first to market a successful HSCT stands to gain $200 
     billion in sales and 140,000 new jobs.
       CBO criticizes NASA's work in technologies that will allow 
     the continued operation of aging jet aircraft.
       25% of planes flying today are more than 20 years old, 
     beginning to exceed their design life. The trend is to fly 
     aircraft 30 years or more; as airlines continue to operate on 
     the edge of profitability they cannot afford new aircraft. It 
     is essential that these aging aircraft remain safe.
       CBO contends that ``the benefits from the R&D supported by 
     the NASA programs in question fall almost exclusively to 
     aircraft manufacturers, their suppliers, and airlines.''
       A recent study by DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that a 1% gain 
     in U.S. market share will generate 9,000 jobs (40% in 
     aerospace and 60% in supporting industries), $360 million in 
     sales and $120 million in Federal tax revenue each year.
       NASA's programs address critical issues of safety, airspace 
     system capacity, and environmental aspects of flight which 
     benefit air travellers and the general public.
       CBO contends that noise and atmospheric pollutants 
     generated by air travel are unpaid ``costs'' that travellers 
     impose on the public at large and therefore air travellers 
     should pay the full cost, including R&D for aircraft.
       Air travel is global, not national, just as the aircraft 
     market is global. Airline operators will buy the best 
     aircraft at the best price. If U.S. manufacturers were to 
     incorporate the price of meeting international, government-
     established environmental regulations into their products 
     they would quickly go out of business competing against 
     government-subsidized competition.
                      advanced subsonic technology

       National investment in high-risk, high-payoff technologies 
     will help ensure continued U.S. leadership in aviation, which 
     brings significant economic and national security benefits to 
     the Nation. Aviation generates almost one million high 
     quality jobs in the U.S. and contributes between $25 and $30 
     billion annually to the U.S. balance of trade--the largest of 
     any U.S. manufacturing industry.
       NASA addresses a broad range of advanced technology needs 
     for both civil and military aviation. The Advanced Subsonic 
     Technology (AST) program specifically addresses future 
     technology needs in next-generation subsonic aircraft (from 
     large commercial jets to small general aviation aircraft) and 
     the evolving airspace system. NASA's role is to develop high-
     risk, high-payoff precompetitive technologies to a point 
     where feasibility is proven and transfer those to FAA, DOD 
     and U.S. industry. Industry picks up the technologies, and 
     with its own resources continues development, performs 
     systems-oriented research and applies them to specific 
     products.
       Recent accomplishments in the AST program include:
       The first integrated engine noise prediction code was 
     delivered to industry for use in designing quieter engines to 
     meet future noise standards.
       Nondestructive evaluation techniques for detecting 
     corrosion, cracks and disbonds in aircraft have been licensed 
     to industry to help keep the aging aircraft fleet 
     safe. [[Page S7286]] 
       Tropospheric climatology data has been collected, to assist 
     in understanding long-term changes in nitrogen oxides in the 
     lower atmosphere caused by aircraft.
       Analytical tools to understand aircraft wake vortices are 
     being developed, which will contribute to revised safe 
     aircraft landing separation standards.
       An experimental database is improving understanding the 
     relative acoustic and aerodynamic benefits of different rotor 
     configurations for future civil tiltrotors.
       FY 1995 Budget: $125.8 million.
       FY 1996 Budget: $188.4 million.
       Possible impact of significant reduction/termination:
       Efforts to develop technologies to increase the capacity of 
     the airspace system, increasing safety and expanding the 
     aircraft market, would be severely curtailed. Weather and 
     capacity delays cost airline operators $3.5 billion a year, 
     and cause untold hours of unproductive time for the 
     travelling public.
       Technologies to ensure that the aging aircraft fleet (25% 
     of planes flying today are more than 20 years old) remains 
     safe and cost-effective would not be developed.
       U.S. efforts to develop rational positions on proposed 
     international environmental regulations would be hampered by 
     not developing better understanding of aircraft noise and 
     pollution effects and technologies to minimize those effects.
       The only technology development efforts in the U.S. for 
     general aviation, commuter and civil tiltrotor aircraft would 
     be terminated.
       The ability of U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers to 
     compete effectively on both cost and technical capability 
     with government-subsidized foreign competition would be 
     seriously hampered. Airbus already claims more than one-third 
     of the commercial aircraft market, and their goal is one-half 
     by 2005.

                          high speed research

       NASA's High Speed Research (HSR) Program is performing the 
     early, high-risk technology development for an 
     environmentally compatible, economically competitive high 
     speed civil transport (HSCT) aircraft. Such a plane would fly 
     at more than twice the speed of sound and carry 300 
     passengers over 5000 nautical miles at fares close to today's 
     subsonic aircraft (747, DC-10, etc.). Before industry can 
     decide whether to make the roughly $20 billion investment to 
     develop an HSCT, some level of confidence must be established 
     that it could meet international noise and emissions 
     standards, and that airline operators would be able to 
     operate it profitably. The technologies to achieve this are 
     beyond today's state-of-the-art. The HSR program was designed 
     to eliminate the highest risks and ensure U.S. leadership in 
     this important arena.
       Recent accomplishments:
       Completed research campaign in the South Pacific to 
     characterize the stratosphere for incorporation in 
     atmospheric simulation models which will be used to determine 
     the potential impact of future HSCT aircraft.
       Achieved test goal for low-emission engine combustors 
     (NOX level of 5g/kg fuel burned--the Concorde emissions 
     index is 20g/kg)
       Demonstrated a process to fabricate up to 10 feet per 
     minute of fiber/resin composite material suitable for high 
     temperature use, making the essential use of these materials 
     for an HSCT affordable.
       FY 1995 Budget: $221.3 million.
       FY 1996 Budget: $245.5 million.
       Possible impact of significant reduction/termination:
       Interim assessment of atmospheric effects of a supersonic 
     aircraft fleet would not be completed. This assessment is to 
     support work by the International Civil Aviation Organization 
     (ICAO) on setting an HSCT emissions standard.
       Engine noise reduction tests and analysis to determine 
     whether an HSCT could comply with strict international noise 
     standards (Annex 16, Chapter 3 set by ICAO) would be stopped.
       The U.S. share of the global long-range aircraft market 
     could drop to under 50%, if technology development is stopped 
     and Europe is first to market with a successful HSCT. This 
     would result in larger trade deficits and the loss of 
     hundreds of thousands of high-skill, high-wage jobs. If the 
     U.S. is first to market, the U.S. market share could grow to 
     nearly 80%, and crate $200 billion sales and 140,000 new 
     jobs.
                                                                    ____

    FISCAL YEAR 1996 ESTIMATED TOTAL AERONAUTICS EMPLOYMENT BY STATE    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Total      Funding 
   OA rank                   State                employment  (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1..........  California........................      4,783       $382.6
 2..........  Ohio..............................      2,564        205.5
 3..........  Virginia..........................      1,466        117.3
 4..........  Washington........................        519         41.5
 5..........  Maryland..........................        356         28.5
 6..........  Texas.............................        263         21.0
 7..........  Connecticut.......................        193         15.4
 8..........  Wisconsin.........................        171         13.7
 9..........  District of Columbia..............        165         13.2
10..........  Georgia...........................        113          9.0
11..........  Massachusetts.....................        106          8.5
12..........  New York..........................         84          6.7
13..........  Pennsylvania......................         73          5.8
14..........  Florida...........................         70          5.6
15..........  Indiana...........................         60          4.8
16..........  Missouri..........................         56          4.5
17..........  Colorado..........................         39          3.1
18..........  Illinois..........................         38          3.0
19..........  Tennessee.........................         28          2.2
20..........  North Carolina....................         26          2.1
              Other.............................        226         18.2
                                                 -----------------------
                Total...........................     11,399        911.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from New Mexico has 
13 minutes, and the Senator from Maine has 17 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, does 
she need all 17 minutes? We are trying to expedite things.
  Ms. SNOWE. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we might reach this agreement. I understand 
there is one second-degree amendment contemplated. I assume that we 
could enter into a unanimous-consent agreement about that.
  Let me ask Senator Snowe, could she get by with 10 minutes?
  Ms. SNOWE. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I could use 10 minutes. Then we could move to a second-
degree amendment by Senator Dodd for 5 minutes on a side.
  Mr. EXON. First, the second-degree amendment by Mr. Dodd, as I 
understand it, is the same second-degree amendment being considered by 
the Senator from Minnesota, and also the Senator from Massachusetts. Is 
that correct? We are talking about one second-degree amendment?
  Mr. DODD. Yes.
  Mr. EXON. Certainly, we would agree. We will need about 2 minutes for 
the negotiations that are going on. I think we are pretty close to 
making an arrangement along the lines that you outlined.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to get somebody to come to the floor, but I 
leave this suggestion. I must attend a meeting on the final wrap-up on 
this bill now, but we would be willing to have 5 minutes on a side on 
the Dodd amendment, which I have seen, which essentially is a change on 
the tax side of the equation, and spend the tax money in two ways, part 
of it on entitlement programs for education and part on discretionary, 
and we would take 5 minutes on our side on that, 10 minutes each here. 
Then I would authorize somebody to enter into that agreement in my 
behalf in my absence.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I wonder if I might get a 
couple of minutes on the Snowe amendment itself. Is that a possibility? 
Of the time you have?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I cannot hold the Senator to this, but 
if the Senator will talk about the Snowe amendment and not about 
education in general, that would be fine. The Senator wants to speak 
against that amendment?
  Mr. DODD. I do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If I am going to give the Senator time against it, I 
want him to be against it.
  Mr. DODD. I intend to be against the Snowe amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And the Senator will speak against it?
  Mr. DODD. Absolutely.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right, I yield Senator Dodd 2 minutes of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if my colleague from New Mexico, upon 
condition that I speak against the Snowe amendment, would grant me 
time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will give the Senator 2 minutes of my time.
  How much did I give the Senator?
  Mr. DODD. The Senator did not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I give the Senator 2 minutes of my time. Each Senator 
gets 2 minutes in opposition and that will keep 6 for me, and then 
Senator Snowe has the full 10 minutes to speak to the Senator's 
amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Is that in the form of a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator said he needed some time. Is he willing to 
do that?
  Mr. EXON. That is agreeable to those on this side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let us give it a try.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to 
object, will the result of that proposal ensure that we will have an 
opportunity to vote on the Dodd amendment in a timely way?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. We will not amend it. We do not guarantee that 
somebody will not table it, but we will have a vote on it and we will 
agree to stack it in the normal way that we are doing the others.
  Mr. KENNEDY. So it would be treated as a second-degree amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Exactly.
  Mr. KENNEDY. In that particular order.
  [[Page S7287]]
  
  Mr. DOMENICI. Correct.
  Let us try this, Mr. President. First of all, I am going to yield 2 
minutes in opposition to the Snowe amendment to Senator Dodd, 2 minutes 
to Senator Wellstone, and I reserve the remainder for myself.
  The total amount of time that is going to be used on the Snowe 
amendment--and we yield back whatever other time we have--is 10 minutes 
by Senator Snowe and a total of 10 minutes in opposition, of which 4 
have just been allocated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me move on then to a unanimous-consent request. 
There will only be one second-degree amendment. It shall be an 
amendment offered by Senator Dodd which has been described here and 
presented to the Senator from New Mexico. There will be 5 minutes on a 
side, 5 minutes by Senator Dodd, 5 minutes in opposition, either by 
myself or Senator Snowe. We will then proceed to an amendment by 
Senator Hatfield immediately after that. And when the time has expired 
on the second-degree amendment--there shall be no other second-degree 
amendments--we will then stack the second-degree amendment pursuant to 
the previous understanding, that the leader will arrange the order and 
there will be a vote on or about the Dodd amendment in the stacked 
order.
  Mr. EXON. I certainly do not object. I would just simply wish to 
expand this in order to move things along. We are prepared to consider 
time agreements now on both the Hatfield amendment and the amendment 
following that to be offered by Senator Boxer.
  Is the Senator from New Mexico in a position to talk about time 
agreements on the Hatfield amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to a meeting right now at which I think the 
Senator will be in attendance, and I will seek some relief on time.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to express my objection 
to the Snowe-Abraham amendment. This amendment proposes to restore some 
$6.3 billion in education, specifically to reduce the Labor Committee's 
instruction by this amount in an effort to stave off severe cuts in 
student loans.
  Let me at the outset say I appreciate the fact that there is at least 
some recognition of the fact we ought to be trying to restore some of 
these critical funds in education.
  Education has always been an issue that has transcended politics in 
many ways. There has been a deep commitment historically to it on both 
sides of the aisle, and yet the Budget Committee proposal that is 
before us, even with the Snowe-Abraham amendment, offers education too 
little too late, I would say, Mr. President.
  It is too little in that it offers students an umbrella in the midst 
of the hurricane they face with this budget proposal, even if this 
amendment were to be adopted. It will provide some protection but it is 
the thinnest of fig leaves in that the committee will still have to 
eliminate $7.5 billion from student loan programs.
  I have been through a number of reconciliations on the Labor 
Committee and make no mistake about it--there is only one place you can 
find $7.5 billion, and that is in student loans. There is no other 
place within our committee's jurisdiction. And so we will be faced with 
looking ways to cut loans for working-class families, middle-class 
families many who do not qualify for Pell grants, do not have the 
personal affluence, and yet long for the better life that higher 
education can offer their children. And these will be the Americans who 
bear the brunt of these cuts.
  Now, these cuts may take many forms. It could come from the 
elimination of the in-school interest subsidy which can amount to 
additional costs of as much as $4,000 for a working family in this 
country; it could come through increased fees, through the elimination 
of the 6-month grace period, or an increase in the interest on student 
loans or any combination of those, again all money out of students' 
pockets. The bottom line is students and families are going to pay 
dearly as a result of what is in this budget, even if we adopt the 
Snowe-Abraham amendment.
  This amendment is also too late, Mr. President, because the amendment 
only addresses the end of the education pipeline, higher education. Our 
world class higher education sector is in no way secure if our efforts 
in college preparation, elementary and secondary schools, Head Start 
and other areas are going to be severely undercut.
  This amendment is sort of the double whammy for these critical 
discretionary programs. Not only does it not address the cuts proposed 
in these programs, it also further cuts into discretionary programs to 
offset the reduction it makes on the mandatory side.
  Mr. President, we will offer a second degree amendment as an 
alternative which offsets $28 billion in cuts in education with very 
specific plugging of corporate loopholes which we can identify 
specifically, which Mr. Kasich on the House side identified as areas 
that should be looked at in the effort to balance our Federal budget.
  So I would urge rejection of this amendment, with all due respect. We 
will have a substitute that will allow for this body to vote on truly 
whether or not they want to see these working-class families in this 
country get a break when it comes to education.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last year in Minnesota over 14,000 
students received assistance from the Federal Stafford Loan Program--
14,000 students.
  I just rise to speak in opposition to the Snowe amendment and say 
that I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Dodd amendment.
  Mr. President, this is, indeed, too little too late. What we are 
faced with right now are some really draconian cuts that will do 
irreparable harm to higher education in America. In the second-degree 
amendment we are going to introduce, we focus on corporate welfare or 
tax expenditures.
  Mr. President, I would far prefer for some of the oil companies, some 
of the large pharmaceutical or insurance companies or large financial 
institutions to be tightening their belts and to be a part of the 
sacrifice than I would go forward with deep cuts in financial 
assistance for higher education.
  I cannot think of a more important middle-class issue as a former 
college professor than this issue.
  I do not have time, but if I had time I could recite story after 
story after story after story of students who have written letters to 
me and made phone calls saying for God sake, please do not deny us the 
opportunity to have an affordable higher education. No matter how you 
cut it, that is what these cuts are all about. I do not even have a 
chance in the 2 minutes to talk about earlier education which is, of 
course, equally important.
  These cuts in higher education are myopic. These cuts are profoundly 
mistaken for our country. These cuts will have an accrual effect on 
students all across the across the nation from Ohio to Minnesota, and 
the Snowe amendment in that respect is really just a little bit more 
than symbolic--too little, too late. We can do much, much better in how 
we sort out our priorities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 10 minutes. The 
opposition now has 6.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I would yield such time as the 
Senator from Maine may need on the available time.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I found quite interesting the debate that has been offered 
here today on my amendment.
  First of all, just to recap my amendment, it is to restore $6.3 
billion in the education account. And, yes, we do provide specific 
offsets. That should be no [[Page S7288]] surprise if you are 
attempting to provide a credible alternative.
  And that is why I am somewhat confused by the debate here this 
morning, because I heard from the Senator from Ohio that my offsets are 
binding but then we heard from the Senator from Massachusetts that they 
are not binding.
  Well, I think we all understand the true nature of the budget process 
in the Congress. No, the instructions in the budget resolution are not 
binding. But if you are attempting to provide real numbers to 
demonstrate that they are credible, then it is responsible to recommend 
some specific offsets.
  It is also true the committees do not have to follow those 
instructions. I understand that and the cosponsors of this amendment 
understand that. But we want to make sure that everybody understands 
that there is a way to reach those numbers. That is what is important.
  The second issue is whether or not you live in a fiscal fantasy land. 
The difference between the amendment that I am offering here today with 
the cosponsors of this amendment and those who oppose it is we support 
a balanced budget. If you support a balanced budget, you have to make 
some choices. If you do not support a balanced budget, you do not have 
to make any choices. You can spend in an unlimited fashion.
  The amendment that they will be offering will recommend reducing 
corporate welfare and tax loopholes. You cannot object to that. But 
exactly how are we going to reach that goal? They do not specify. No, 
they do not want to specify, because they do not want to receive any 
opposition to those specific offsets, just as they do not support a 
balanced budget because they do not want to make any real choices as to 
how we get there. So that is the difference.
  My amendment is a credible amendment. It restores specific funding 
for specific issues with respect to student loan assistance. Yes, I 
would like to do more. But there are those on my side saying, ``You are 
doing too much,'' and then I hear from the other side of the aisle who 
say, ``No, you are not doing enough.'' Well, I think my amendment is 
somewhere in the middle. Hopefully, we will do more in the final 
analysis.
  The amendments that have been offered to restore funding for 
education have used the illusory dividend. Well, that is just gimmickry 
at this point. That dividend may come down at the end of this process 
when reconciliation is in place. That does not give adequate 
instructions to the committee. It is not money that they can use right 
now and everybody knows it.
  So if we really want to restore funding to education, if we really 
want to address the home and farm equity issue so that it is not used 
to determine one's income eligibility for student loans, if we want to 
keep the origination fee at 3 percent, if we want to have an adequate 
grace period, then you support the Snowe amendment.
  And, I should add who the cosponsors are of my amendment: Senator 
Kassebaum, Senator Lott, Senator Cohen, Senator Abraham, Senator Brown, 
Senator Grassley, Senator Chafee, and Senator Kempthorne.
  In fact, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kempthorne from Idaho 
as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 6 minutes to my friend from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. President, last night, when we were watching the discussion take 
place, a comment was made by the Senator from Wyoming that the debate 
is getting redundant on this budget; that we have heard about every 
argument there is to hear and now we are working on repetition to try 
to drive it in.
  It occurred to me that it sounded very much like the debate that we 
had on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. At that time, 
people were standing up and saying, ``Well, give us the details. Give 
us the details. Where do you want to make cuts? What do you want to do 
with Medicare and Social Security,'' and all the contentious items that 
we can so easily demagog?
  I can suggest right now we have the details. But I wanted to take a 
couple of minutes this morning to share one thing with you, and that is 
we know pretty much how it is going to come out. We know who is going 
to vote for it and who is going to vote against it. And we know why.
  First of all, the argument has been used that there are cuts. We have 
talked about this over and over again. They are not cuts in the 
Medicare system. We are talking about a growth factor that is built in. 
And the same thing is true with all the other areas that people are 
very much concerned with.
  What we are trying to do is take this one last golden opportunity 
that we have--this is it, our chance to fulfill that obligation that 
the American people gave to us back on November 8 with a mandate. The 
No. 1 mandate was to balance the budget. This is an opportunity to do 
it. The House has already done theirs. All we have to do is do it here. 
I think the votes are here to do it.
  But I have heard people stand up, such as one Senator the other day, 
and say every Senator wants to balance the budget. I suggest, Mr. 
President, that is not true. I suggest that they want people to think 
they want to balance the budget, but what it gets down to is they are 
basically traditional big spenders and big taxers and they want the 
status quo. They want to keep Government going as it has been going.
  To demonstrate this, I am going to tell you, Mr. President, who is 
going to be voting against this. The same people who will be voting 
against it today are the ones that voted for and are the right-to-know 
supporters. These are the ones that did not want a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution.
  So during that debate, I characterized who these people are who do 
not want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and today do 
not want a balanced budget. I suggest to you they are the ones that can 
be identified with a voting behavior of taxing and spending.
  And I use as my examples the tax bill of 1993, the tax bill that was 
a Clinton bill that some people are touting as the great deficit 
reduction bill. In fact, it did not reduce any programs. All it did was 
increase taxes, the largest tax increase in history--$267 billion. That 
is not what the American people wanted. It was an increase in taxes on 
all segments of society, a Social Security tax increase for thousands 
of Social Security recipients. It was a 70-percent increase. Yet, these 
individuals who will vote today against this balanced budget are the 
ones who voted for that tax increase.
  Then along came the Clinton stimulus program. It was characterized by 
a Democrat in this body as the largest single spending increase in the 
history of public finance in America or anywhere in the world. Such 
things as the $2.5 billion for swimming pools, parking lots, ice rink 
warming huts, alpine ski lifts, and other pork barrel projects; $1 
billion for summer jobs, $1.1 billion for AIDS treatment and food 
distribution, on and on and on, all these spending increases that 
supposedly were going to stimulate the economy.
  So I characterized those individuals who voted for those two bills 
and also who are rated as big spenders. There are a number of 
corporations that rate big spenders. The main one is the National 
Taxpayers Union. So I looked at those individuals who cosponsored the 
Right To Know Act which was the one to demolish, to do away with, the 
balanced budget amendment and stop our effort for a balanced budget.
  I found, of all the 41 cosponsors, all 41 voted yes on the biggest 
spending bill in the history of this body. And all 41 of those 
individuals had a National Taxpayer Union rating of D or F.
  So, Mr. President, I think that we have had a lot of debate on this. 
But when it gets right down to it, the bottom line is this: Those 
individuals who are trying to hold on to the past, those 
[[Page S7289]] who are trying with white knuckles to hold on to the 
status quo, those who did not hear the mandate that was so loud and 
clear on November 8, 1994, are going to be voting for big spending, big 
government, tax increases, spending increases and vote against the 
balanced budget that we have up before us today.
  I believe it will pass, because those individuals who are for the 
status quo are now in a minority.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two seconds in opposition; and 6\1/2\ 
minutes for the Senator from Maine.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Six-and-a-half minutes remaining for the Senator from 
Maine?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six-and-a-half minutes remaining.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, since I have a few remaining moments on my 
amendment, I think it is important to restate the case of how essential 
it is to restore funding to education, and the difference in the 
amendments that are being offered this morning is a difference between 
being able to realistically restore funding to education or not, 
because you will hear from the other side in presenting an amendment 
that there will not really be any specific offsets. While it is true 
that my offsets are not binding on the committee, at least we are being 
responsible in the approach that we are taking.
  I think this amendment is critical because it does provide $6.3 
billion. It will be protecting some very serious student loan 
assistance programs, and I want to make sure that the low- and middle-
income families are not affected by any changes in the student loan 
programs.
  I also want to ensure that the Labor and Human Resources Committee 
has the ability to protect the student loan assistance programs in the 
way that we have recommended in this amendment, so that they will not 
feel compelled to include home and farm equity in determining one's 
income eligibility, they will not feel compelled to raise the 
origination fee from 3 to 5 percent, and they will not feel compelled 
to eliminate an adequate grace period.
  I know there are some who are opposed to the offsets, but the 
committees are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the way in 
which we provide the restoration of funds. They have the options to 
pursue other courses.
  The fact of the matter is, we have to take a responsible course by 
recommending ways in which we can reach our goals as identified in this 
amendment.
  I think that it is very, very important that we restore some of the 
funding in the education accounts. It is something that I argued within 
the Budget Committee during the time in which we were assembling this 
resolution. I wish it were more, but I also understand the delicate 
balance in crafting this budget resolution to reach the historic goal 
of balancing the budget by the year 2002.
  I wish that we could identify other areas and perhaps that will 
ultimately develop in the process. Maybe the dividend down the road, 
but that dividend is not here today, and I think everybody should 
understand that. The dividend is not available to be used because it is 
not there yet. We have to pass a balanced budget plan and 
reconciliation has to become law for the Congressional Budget Office to 
score a potential dividend. That will materialize over 7 years, so that 
is not money that can be used by the Appropriations Committee or 
considered by the authorization committees as they develop their 
programmatic changes.
  So it does not make sense and it is gimmickry to suggest that we are 
going to use an illusory estimate. So if you hear about amendments, as 
we will hear from others this morning, about restoring funding by using 
this dividend, it means nothing because it is not available and it is 
not there yet.
  So if you support restoring $6.3 billion in education and doing it in 
a responsible way, then I hope you will support the Snowe amendment 
that is cosponsored by 10 Members of the Senate.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Dodd second-degree amendment is, in 
effect, an increase in taxes and I am opposed to any increase in tax.
  However, I am also opposed to the Snowe amendment.
  Let me begin by stating that I am a strong supporter of educational 
funding. I am firmly opposed to the drastic cuts in educational 
programs and funding which is outlined in the House 
resolution. I believe that these cuts, while well-
intentioned, are shortsighted. Such cuts ignore the long-term benefits 
of preparing America's children to assume their position in the world 
market, and for that reason I oppose those cuts.
  By the same token, however, I believe that Senator Snowe's amendment 
is shortsighted. I believe that we, as guardians of our children's 
future, are charged with the moral obligation to not only educate our 
children but also to insure that there will be jobs available for them 
to assume once they have been educated. To ignore either is 
irresponsible.
  Now let us take a look at what is on the table. The High-Speed 
Research Program was designed to develop precompetitive technologies 
for high-speed civil transport aircraft. Once developed, the technology 
is transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department 
of Defense, and U.S. industry. It is estimated that the first 
organization to market such an aircraft stands to gain $200 billion in 
sales and 140,000 new jobs. In short, this program accomplishes three 
goals that are vital to the United States' financial solvency: First, 
it increases new jobs, which increases the country's tax base; second, 
it generates sales for U.S. industry, which increases the country's 
GNP, and, in so doing, increases the country's tax base; and third, it 
insures the United States' continued leadership in this field, thus 
forecasting future revenues.
  Likewise, the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program generates 
substantial long-term revenue benefits. This program is designed to 
protect the United States' market share in subsonic aircraft, an area 
which generates almost a million high quality jobs in the United States 
and contributes between $25 and $30 billion annually to the U.S. trade 
balance--which, incidentally is the largest of any U.S. manufacturing 
industry. These programs are moneymakers, and to eliminate them for any 
reason is fiscally irresponsible.
  This is particularly true under the present circumstances, where the 
chairman's budget adequately addresses the concerns raised by Senator 
Snowe. Senator Snowe's amendment seeks to restore $6.3 billion over 7 
years for undergraduate loans--$1.124 billion of this from the 
termination of the NASA programs.
  However, the chairman's resolution protects undergraduate student 
loans. Under Chairman Domenici's resolution, interest on loans for 
undergraduate education does not accrue until graduation. So, for all 
students who enter the work force immediately after college, nothing 
has changed. With regard to individuals who choose to pursue graduate 
or professional coursework, interest would not accrue on their college 
debt until they complete this coursework. Chairman Domenici's 
resolution does change the present student loan program with respect to 
deferring interest payments accruing upon graduate and professional 
coursework. However, this burden is lessened by the chairman's budget 
by preserving the benefits of capped interest rates on student loans, 
federal guarantees, opportunities to defer payments in case of economic 
hardship, and Federal fellowship programs targeted specifically toward 
graduate students.
  The Snowe amendment ignores the long-term impact that terminating 
these programs would have upon the U.S. balance of trade, the GNP and 
its consequent U.S. Treasury implication, and the generation of jobs in 
America. Consequently, I oppose this amendment, and urge my fellow 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
                           Amendment No. 1128

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Senator Snowe and others that [[Page S7290]] would reduce 
funding for NASA's Aeronautics Program by $1.1 billion over the next 5 
years. The $1.1 billion reduction proposed in the Snowe amendment for 
Aeronautics is in addition to the $800 million reduction proposed for 
NASA's Aeronautics Program that is included in the chairman's mark.
  The effect of the Snowe amendment would be to eliminate NASA's 
Advanced Subsonic Technology Development and High-Speed Research 
programs which make up the core of NASA's Aeronautics program.
  Mr. President, the aeronautics industry contributes over 1 million 
high quality jobs to the U.S. economy and generates $20 to $30 billion 
in exports each year. But U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers must 
compete on both cost and technical capability against government-
subsidized foreign competition.
  The European Airbus Consortium already claims more than one-third of 
the commercial aircraft market, a market once dominated by U.S. 
manufacturers. The goal of Airbus is to control 50 percent of the 
global market by the year 2005.
  I do not intend to let the Europeans accomplish their goal, Mr. 
President. That is why, when I was chair of the VA-HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee, I pushed NASA to expand their research and technology 
efforts in aeronautics.
  NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology program specifically addresses 
future technology needs in next-generation subsonic aircraft--from 
large commercial jets to small general aviation aircraft--and the 
evolving airspace system. NASA's role is to develop high-risk, high-
payoff pre-competitive technologies to prove technical feasibility and 
then transfer these new technologies to the FAA, DOD, and U.S. 
industry.
  Elimination of the Advanced Subsonic Technology program would 
terminate NASA's efforts to develop technologies to increase the 
capacity of the airspace system, to ensure that the existing aging 
aircraft fleet remains safe and cost-effective, and that the 
technologies needed for U.S. industry to meet international 
environmental, noise, and pollution regulations are available.
  Mr. President, the Snowe amendment would also wipe out NASA's High 
Speed Research program which is conducting the early, high-risk 
technology development needed for an environmentally compatible and 
economically competitive high speed civil transport (HSCT). The goal of 
this program is develop a plane that would fly at more than twice the 
speed of sound and carry 300 passengers over 5,000 nautical miles at 
fares competitive with existing subsonic aircraft.
  Mr. President, the stakes associated with the development of the HSCT 
are enormous. If the Europeans are the first to market an HSCT, it will 
cost the U.S. larger trade deficits and the loss of hundreds of 
thousands of high-skilled, high-wage jobs. If the U.S. wins this race, 
the U.S. market share for commercial aircraft could grow to nearly 80 
percent, and create $200 billion in sales and 140,000 new jobs.
  Mr. President, I happen to believe that the best social program is a 
job, and that job creation in America must be linked to our 
manufacturing base. Manufacturing in the new economy of a post-cold war 
era will require high technology and competitiveness in the global 
marketplace.
  America's future in manufacturing begins and ends with aeronautics. 
Commercial aviation is one of the few areas of manufacturing where the 
U.S. continues to export more than we import, and where we are able to 
provide high-skilled, high quality jobs for American workers.
  Mr. President, I do not intend to let our commercial aviation 
industry go the way of the VCR, the automobile, or the textile 
industry. I intend to fight to keep the U.S. aeronautics industry 
competitive so that we preserve the jobs we have and the job 
opportunities needed for the 21st century.
  The Snowe amendment would reduce funding for NASA's Aeronautics 
Program by two-thirds over the next 5 years. The amendment is 
shortsighted and threatens our ability to develop a manufacturing 
strategy for this Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by my 
distinguished colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. I, too, am concerned 
about the deep cuts--$14.6 billion over 7 years--in the William D. Ford 
Federal Direct Loan and Federal Family Education Loan Programs which 
make it possible for many of our young people to pursue a higher 
education.
  However, I cannot support an amendment to restore funding for 
mandatory programs, such as the $6.3 billion for these student loan 
programs, by cutting nonmilitary discretionary programs by an equal 
amount. In other words, it would not cut military spending at all, even 
though it is the only area of the discretionary budget that will not be 
cut under this budget resolution. Not only is this robbing Peter to pay 
Paul, it violates the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 which prohibits 
offsetting tax cuts or mandatory program expansions with cuts in 
discretionary programs.
  In addition, it is not growth in nonmilitary discretionary programs 
which is driving up the Federal deficit. This spending has been at a 
hard freeze or below since 1993. The budget resolution before us would 
cut nonmilitary discretionary programs nearly $200 billion below a 
freeze over the next 7 years. Meanwhile, mandatory programs and tax 
expenditures will continue to grow--the latter with no restraint at all 
under this budget resolution.
  No one understands the value of a higher education better than I, but 
I cannot support this amendment which would set an unacceptable 
precedent for funding mandatory programs with nonmilitary discretionary 
program cuts.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, has all time been yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of our 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maine yield back her 
time?
  Ms. SNOWE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

                Amendment No. 1131 to Amendment No. 1128

(Purpose: To restore $28 billion in outlays over seven years to reduce 
by $16 billion the discretionary cuts proposed in education and reduce 
  the reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources (primarily affecting student loans) by $12 billion by closing 
                        corporate tax loopholes)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a substitute 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 Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     Harkin, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Pell, 
     Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Simon, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1131 to amendment No. 1128.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after line 1 and insert:
       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 $4,00,000,000.
       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. 
     [[Page S7291]] 
       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 $7,900,000,000.
       On page 64, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $12,000,000,000.
       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 $2,400,000,000.
       On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this substitute amendment to the 
Snowe-Abraham amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Harkin, 
Hollings, Kennedy, Jeffords, Pell, Wellstone, and Simon.
  As I understand it, there are now 5 minutes to be allocated on either 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment which will restore 
$28 billion to our education programs. This is substantially less than 
the amendment that was offered yesterday by several of my colleagues, 
but this amendment would reduce the committee's instruction and, 
thereby, the cuts in student loans by $12 billion and restore $16 
billion in discretionary cuts in education.
  This amendment is also deficit neutral. While certainly in these 
resolutions it is ultimately up to the committees of jurisdiction as to 
where specifically they will make their cuts, I offset this $28 billion 
and suggest specifically four areas within the Tax Code that would 
provide up to $65.7 billion in revenues currently lost through 
corporate tax loopholes.
  These areas were identified in a list of corporate tax loopholes 
compiled by the chairman of the Budget Committee on the House side, Mr. 
Kasich from Ohio. Let me identify them specifically.
  You can pick $28 billion out of the $65.7 billion they would garner. 
The issue is choosing between these tax loopholes or investing in the 
education of children in this country who need higher education and 
count on the Federal investment in critical elementary and secondary 
programs.
  One is the expatriate billionaire tax loophole. Closing this loophole 
generates $2.1 billion. Those are people who leave the country, fly out 
of America to avoid their taxes. That is $2.1 billion. So that is part 
of the choice: Helping out those people or children and students in 
this country who need an education.
  The second is $26 billion. This currently shields foreign source 
income of U.S. firms from U.S. taxes, which should apply to that 
income. This change alone generates $26 billion. If you do not want to 
take all $26 billion, you can reduce that somewhat, since I offer a 
total of $65 billion in offsets. I understand it may be important to 
some firms, but we are making tough choices around here. So you have to 
ask yourself on this one: Should we modify that tax loophole to some 
degree to help pay for the education needs of America? That is my 
second tax loophole.
  My third permits U.S. exporters to exempt a portion of their export 
income from U.S. taxation--the House Budget Committee's figures suggest 
that this would generate an additional $10.9 billion. Again, you do not 
have to take all of it here, since there is the other part of the total 
$65 billion. But can't we take some of that money and try and restore 
these funds for the educational needs of America?
  And last, Mr. President, the one that provides $26.3 billion is one 
that interacts with the foreign tax credit provisions in a way that can 
effectively exempt a portion of a firm's export income from U.S. 
taxation. It is called the inventory property sales source rule 
exemption. The title is vague to me, but there is what Mr. Kasich said 
it does.
  So $26.3 billion, $10.9 billion, $26.4 billion and $2.1 billion--that 
is $65.7 billion. I would like to get just $28 billion out of that $65 
billion to try and shield students and families from the crushing blow 
of these education cuts--and preserve their access to higher education 
and continue our partnerships with schools and communities across this 
country in elementary and secondary education.
  That is the choice: Whether you want to keep these tax loopholes or 
restore the $28 billion. We all make tough decisions.
  Again, this is Mr. Kasich's list, this is not my list. These are the 
provisions he suggested that we ought to be looking at as a way to try 
to deal with deficit reduction. My amendment allows us to take these 
steps while simultaneously making the kinds of investments families 
across America need--$12 billion to protect the student loan program 
and $16 billion to support critical discretionary programs like Pell 
grants, title I, and Head Start. Families and students need that kind 
of help.
  Mr. President, this is an investment we must make in our future. Last 
Congress was hailed as the education Congress. We passed legislation 
lowering student loan costs, Head Start legislation that was to move us 
to fully funding all eligible children, the Goals 2000 legislation 
offering vital federal support to local efforts to improve our schools.
  With this budget, we back away from our commitment. At this rate we 
will need to rename that last act if we are being honest with the 
American people. [[Page S7292]] Why do we not call it Goals 3000 
because, obviously, if we continue with the cuts proposed here we are 
never going to reach our goals, Goals 2000 becomes an absolute mirage. 
It does not exist. As this resolution is, we move the goal posts 
further down the road and make our education deficit that much larger.
  So here is the choice: Billionaire tax loophole and some modification 
of the treatment of export income or critical investments in education.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge that my colleagues support us in this 
substitute amendment. This gives this body the opportunity to 
demonstrate that the educational needs of America are just as 
important--just as important--as the export income or the billionaire 
tax loophole. The issue is, do you want to defend these interest, or do 
you want to defend families who are out there making investments in 
their children's educations.
 Investments which fundamentally contribute to the economic security of 
this Nation in the 21st century. To turn our backs on the educational 
needs of these children and their families I think would be a great 
tragedy.

  The health of a nation depends upon many things. Fiscal 
responsibility is clearly one of them, but also an educated society, a 
well-prepared society. There are families that are out there telling 
their children to stay in school and study hard and do their homework, 
and go to college. We break a contract with them when those loans are 
not there or at such a high cost that they cannot avoid them. Fifty 
percent of all students in higher education today receive some form of 
assistance--one out of every two. Yet, here we are slashing $14 billion 
out of these programs while we shield expatriot billionaires from their 
taxes and protect export income. We urge you to support our substitute.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, here we go again. I hope that Members of 
the Senate will oppose this amendment. It is another generic amendment. 
You did not hear any specifics, other than the $6.3 billion and the $28 
billion that would be necessary under this amendment through corporate 
welfare reductions and tax loopholes. While we all might agree with 
that goal, there is no specificity. It conveniently lacks specificity 
because they do not want to offend anybody. But that is not the 
responsible budgetary approach. That is why the Snowe-Abraham amendment 
is a credible approach in restoring $6.3 billion in education.
  If you want to make sure that those funds are restored, then you must 
support the Snowe-Abraham amendment.
  The amendment that is before us now, offered by the Senator from 
Connecticut, is illusory. It does not offer any instructions. It leaves 
potential instructions to the appropriate committees to determine how 
they reach the $28 billion. Unfortunately, that has been the process, 
not only here on the floor of the Senate but also in the Budget 
Committee. There were a number of Members who offered amendments to 
increase spending--the accumulation of spending of more than $500 
billion and $77 billion in tax increases --but no corresponding 
amendments to reduce Federal spending, which is the goal of this budget 
resolution, and it is also a goal to reach a balanced budget.
  Yes, we remember offsets. But at least we are in a position to say to 
the committee that this is the way in which you can arrive at these 
numbers. Do you want to make a decision about eliminating aircraft in 
the executive branch or raising funds for education? I think the choice 
is an easy one, and that is what this amendment is all about.
  So I hope that Members of the Senate will oppose the Dodd amendment 
because it is not credible, because it does not offer responsible 
recommendations as to how to arrive at $28 billion worth of changes and 
at the same time do what we think is important by raising funds for 
education. The Snowe-Abraham amendment reaches that goal to provide the 
much-needed, very valuable school loan assistance programs to low- and 
middle-income families all across America.
  So I urge the support of the Snowe-Abraham amendment in opposition to 
the Dodd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
                           amendment no. 1131
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I see a compromise. I see a way for the 
bipartisanship to return on education. It is a painful compromise on 
both sides, but we must pursue the art of the possible.
  Mr. President, I tried 2 days ago, with my colleague from Iowa, 
Senator Harkin, to make substantial progress toward restoring the cuts 
to education in this budget resolution with an amendment to restore $40 
billion. That amendment was narrowly defeated. Yesterday, my colleague 
from Nebraska, Senator Exon attempted to restore $30 billion to 
education, as part of a package. That amendment narrowly failed.
  Today, the Republican Senators from Maine and Ohio, Senator Snowe and 
Senator DeWine have offered a $6.3 billion restoration to student loan 
cuts.
  We are making progress. Republicans have admitted that there is a 
real problem in this budget in that it severely cuts education.
  But Mr. President, $6.3 billion for student loans still leaves 
students paying billions more, essentially to provide tax cuts 
elsewhere. More importantly, we should not merely restore part of the 
college student aid cuts while accepting the 33 percent cuts in this 
budget resolution to the programs that serve children. This budget 
resolution cuts the 6 million children served under title I for the 
disadvantaged to 4 million. It cuts services for over 5 million 
disabled children served under the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act by $5 billion. If it is wrong, economically, to cut 
student aid to provide tax cuts, as my Republican colleagues seem to 
concede, then it is certainly wrong to pass these huge cuts to 
education for younger children.
  The means of bipartisan compromise is the Dodd amendment. It is a 
compromise that both sides can strain to reach. It restores a total of 
$28 billion. It does not fully restore the cuts to children's programs. 
It still reduces the number of children served, while we know that the 
number of children will rise. And, it fully--not partially--relieves 
college students of their part of cuts in student loans.
  Mr. President, this amendment can help us rebuild the bipartisan 
consensus that education is a priority. We should not cut disadvantaged 
and disabled children, and it is economically foolish to do so. I know 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle believe this, and I urge all 
Senators to support this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have 3 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was searching in my mind for what Yogi 
Berra might say about this, but I cannot quite come up with it. ``Deja 
vu all over again,'' yes; that sounds right. See, we just got behind 
us, we thought, the idea that the way to balance the budget was to 
raise taxes. We thought we had finished that off and that maybe so long 
as we were attempting to balance the budget by restraining Government, 
since the first effort 2 years ago to balance the budget relied heavily 
on tax increases and did not work and the deficit is still going up, we 
thought we ought to restrain Government in a very serious way. And the 
first real serious opportunity on the other side to change this budget 
resolution significantly is to raise taxes $25 billion for a good 
cause.
  Now, frankly, Mr. President, I believe the American people understand 
that the time has come to balance the budget by reining in Government, 
having less Government, redefining it, doing it better, doing it more 
efficiently. All of the arguments about what is happening to programs 
that we have in existence assumes that those programs are the only way 
to help Americans; that the only way to help education is the exact 
array of Federal programs that we have right now. And anybody that 
suggests you might do it for less, or do it a different way, of course, 
they are against education, or they are against highways, or they are 
against whatever it is.
  So essentially, nobody should misunderstand this amendment, 
regardless of the rhetoric about loopholes and the like. The budget 
resolution does three things with reference to taxes, it either lowers 
or increases them or it leaves [[Page S7293]] them the same. 
Essentially, this will increase taxes. I do not believe we should adopt 
it. At the appropriate time, I will move to table it. I will not do it 
now because obviously it will be stacked. I hope we will defeat it. It 
clearly would be one of the amendments that this budget resolution 
should not carry with it as we go to conference with the House.
  I yield back any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Oregon is now recognized.
                           Amendment No. 1132

 (Purpose: To restore funds cut from the National Institutes of Health)

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for himself and Mr. 
     Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 1132.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 11, line 7, decrease the amount by $430,000,000.
       On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by $258,000,000.
       On page 11, line 14, decrease the amount by $920,000,000.
       On page 11, line 15, decrease the amount by $552,000,000.
       On page 11, line 21, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 11, line 22, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 12, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 12, line 4, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 12, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 12, line 11, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 12, line 17, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 12, line 18, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 12, line 24, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 12, line 25, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 33, line 19, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 33, line 20, increase the amount by $430,000,000.
       On page 34, line 2, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 3, increase the amount by $920,000,000.
       On page 34, line 9, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 10, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 16, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 17, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 23, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 24, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 35, line 5, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 35, line 6, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 35, line 12, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 35, line 13, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 54, line 20, increase the amount by $570,000,000.
       On page 54, line 21, increase the amount by $172,000,000.
       On page 55, line 2, increase the amount by $80,000,000.
       On page 55, line 3, increase the amount by $368,000,000.
       On page 55, line 10, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 55, line 17, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 55, line 24, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 56, line 6, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 56, line 13, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 65, line 14, decrease the amount by $430,000,000.
       On page 65, line 15, decrease the amount by $258,000,000.
       On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by $430,000,000.
       On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by $258,000,000.
       On page 65, line 21, decrease the amount by $920,000,000.
       On page 65, line 22, decrease the amount by $552,000,000.
       On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by $920,000,000.
       On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by $552,000,000.
       On page 66, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 4, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 66, line 17, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 18, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 66, line 24, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 66, line 25, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 67, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 7, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by $600,000,000.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the chairman will yield, I have conferred with the 
other side, and I understand there are no second-degree amendments. 
Perhaps Senator Hatfield would like to handle it differently if there 
are not going to be any second-degree amendments.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I have no preference. Parliamentary inquiry. I am 
trying to get to the real part of the amendment, which is to restore 
the money to the NIH by offsets in all the other accounts, with the 
exception of defense. The one I have sent to the desk includes defense. 
That is my personal preference, but the votes are not there. So I am 
trying to protect the essence of the real amendment, which I want to 
debate, which is my second-degree amendment that excludes defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am told that a second-degree amendment is 
not in order until all time has been expired on the first degree.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could the Senator not withdraw the first amendment and 
offer the second amendment at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield to the request of the chairman, and I withdraw 
my first amendment on the assumption that I will be able to debate with 
my time allocation on the amendment that I want to bring to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment (No. 1132) was withdrawn.

                           Amendment No. 1133

 (Purpose: To restore funds cut from the National Institutes of Health)

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for himself and Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Kassebaum, and Mr. D'Amato 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1133.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 33, line 19, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 33, line 20, increase the amount by $430,000,000.
       On page 34, line 2, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 3, increase the amount by $920,000,000.
       On page 34, line 9, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 10, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 16, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 17, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 23, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 34, line 24, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 35, line 5, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 35, line 6, increase the amount by 
     $1,000,000,000. [[Page S7294]] 
       On page 35, line 12, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 35, line 13, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 54, line 20, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 54, line 21, increase the amount by $430,000,000.
       On page 55, line 2, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 55, line 3, increase the amount by $920,000,000.
       On page 55, line 9, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 55, line 10, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 55, line 16, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 55, line 17, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 55, line 23, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 55, line 24, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 56, line 5, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 56, line 6, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 56, line 12, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 56, line 13, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second-
degree amendments be in order to the Hatfield amendment that is 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
D'Amato as a cosponsor on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I now understand I have a 2-hour, 
equally divided time allocation to consider this amendment.
  Mr. President, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Senator from New 
York to make a statement on this amendment.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to support and am pleased to join 
as a cosponsor of Senator Hatfield's amendment.
  We are talking about making cuts in order to balance our budget and 
provide a better future for coming generations. Yet I believe we have 
to be very careful about how we make those cuts and where.
  In the amendment that has been put forth, Senator Hatfield would 
restore $7 billion of the $7.7 billion that would otherwise come out of 
the National Institutes of Health.
  I have to say, representing as I do New York, and Long Island in 
particular, we are being ravaged by an epidemic of cancer, breast 
cancer in particular. Breast cancer rates in the Long Island counties 
of Nassau and Suffolk rank first and fourth highest respectively among 
the 116 largest U.S. counties.
  We cannot afford to reduce the funding for this vital research that 
provides at least a glimmer of hope for achieving the necessary 
breakthroughs to deal with the ravages of cancer, and breast cancer in 
particular.
  The amendment of Senator Hatfield will go a long way toward holding 
citizens harmless in this area. There would be a slight reduction of 
about 1 percent. Far better that 1 percent reduction than one that 
might reach as much as 15 to 16 percent. That, I believe, would not be 
the kind of investment in the future that we are attempting to bring 
about as we work to make a better future for all Americans, those whom 
we are protecting now and future generations.
  I believe that is why this amendment is important and why it makes 
sense. I strongly urge its support. I thank the Senator for raising 
this very important issue.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from New York.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Specter of 
Pennsylvania and Senator Kassebaum of Kansas. There will be other 
cosponsors that we will add as we go along.
  Mr. President, fundamentally, what we are facing here is a prelude to 
disaster as it relates to medical research and medical science in this 
country.
  We are really, in this session of the Congress, being offered three 
possibilities, three options. Each one of the three options has the 
same ending result.
  We have the President's budget. The President's budget, if we vote 
this line--my visual aid supporting chart for 1996--the President 
raises the NIH appropriation budget proposal by 4.1 percent. Like so 
many things in politics, it is a shell game. You see it and then you do 
not see it. You think you have it, and then you do not have it.
  After the first year of 1996 of raising this up by 4.1 percent, then 
the President's budget says--look at that drop. By the year 2000, we 
will take $1 billion away from medical research in this country. This 
amendment is bipartisan. The President is offering to demolish our 
medical research infrastructure on a slow-water-drip system.
  Then we have the House resolution. The House resolution says, ``Well, 
by 1996, next year, we want to drop it 5 percent,'' and then we steady 
income out here whereby we again find the end result of a dramatic 
reduction in the budget for the NIH.
  Not to be outdone by the White House, not to be outdone by the House 
of Representatives, the Senate budget resolution that is pending before 
the Senate today said, ``Oh, we will make a quicker death. We are going 
to say take $1 billion out between 1995 and 1996.'' In fact, in excess 
of $1 billion. By the time we get to 2000 we will have taken $7.7 
billion out of the medical research of this country that leads to cures 
and leads to better treatment of disease.
  That is it, simply straightforward. I cannot believe that the body of 
the U.S. Senate can ignore the fact that the only thing the American 
people have said is raise our taxes if necessary, and we will tell 
Members by a 30 percent margin that dollars expended for medical 
research should be the top priority of our country. This is not one 
politician speaking to another politician. This is the voice of the 
people saying, ``We want to increase medical research.'' We have had 
polls show they would pay another $1 per week on their medical premiums 
in order for it to be earmarked for medical research. We have had polls 
show they would take another $1 per week in their income tax if it 
could be earmarked for medical research.
  Somehow the political establishment of the executive branch, led by 
the President, and the congressional branches, led by the two House and 
Senate budget resolution committees, do not hear that.
  Now, I am not going to get into a lot of detail except to say we are 
making tremendous progress in warring against many diseases. It was 
only half a dozen years ago we had a handful of dollars dedicated to 
Alzheimer's research.
  I have a personal interest in Alzheimer's. I watched my father die 
from Alzheimer's. I can say it is as difficult for the family as it is 
difficult for the victim. It is difficult for all those around him or 
her. I will not go into the gory details because most people around 
here have seen that kind of deadly disease attack and destroy people.
  Mr. President, we could not even diagnose Alzheimer's short of an 
autopsy a few years ago. Now we have built it over the years to about 
$210 million of research money dedicated to Alzheimer's. We have made 
breakthrough after breakthrough, both in gene analysis and 
identification, as well as treatment and diagnosis.
  When we say to the medical structure of this country, take $1 billion 
out of the $11.3 billion--10 percent--in 1 year, it is like in this 
country when we shut down the sawmill for a lack of logs and lose our 
chief sawyer, that company does not reassemble that team that makes 
that mill work a month later when a supply is received, or 2 months 
later.
  When the company begins to build the infrastructure of medical 
research, and once it is there, the company does not rebuild it because 
maybe 2 years down the road they decided they made a mistake.
  We have had the decade of the brain. Mr. President, 5 years have 
passed and a major part of that 5 years is building 130 scientists into 
an infrastructure in this country. Now it at a point where the payoff 
comes, we are about ready to start dismantling.
  Now, let me get a point of contrast. We have literally thousands of 
diseases in this country on which no research--no research--is being 
conducted, thousands of diseases in which there is no 
[[Page S7295]] national registry to even know how many people have the 
disease or where they are located. No registry. They are called orphan 
diseases. Thousands of them.
  The most important factor that is missing is no hope. No hope. We 
have been trying to attack that gradually by serendipity, meeting a 
young man in a wheelchair 15 years of age with EB, epidermolysis 
bullosa. At that point, no registry. At that point, no research money. 
It is like leprosy. They lose their fingers. It is a pigmentation 
problem. Sores break out all over their bodies. They cannot handle even 
this kind of artificial light, let alone sunlight.
 And they die at a very early age. This young man was so impressive 
with his eloquence, we wheeled him right into the Committee on 
Appropriations and we made a line item. If I ever had a reason to fight 
a line item veto, the whole concept of vetoing a line item--this was to 
get a line item in the appropriations that year to start a registry, 
starting a research project for EB, and giving hope for those people. 
That is not the way to run it, just because I met someone like that. 
There are thousands of them out there all over this country.

  I want to also say there is a point of reference and comparison. This 
same budget resolution calls for a $800 million increase in research in 
nuclear weaponry. Yes, $800 million increase and they are calling for a 
$1 billion cut in medical research. Oh, we have to protect our bombs 
but we cannot really protect our people. I am saying this is a value of 
people over bombs. I would like to have included the military research 
dollars. The 18 months of military research in this country leading us 
to be more efficient--we say at defending our country, but at the same 
time, cluster bombs in order to increase the capacity to destroy life--
is the equivalent of 95 years of medical research in the NIH; 18 
months. That is a real value.
  But I do not have the votes. So we still have this power of the 
military that says, ``Do not include us in any reductions. We only can 
handle increases. Reduce the medical research programs.''
  All this does is to face reality that we exclude the military, that 
sacrosanct military. We are going to exclude it. But at the same time 
we are going to reshuffle all of the other accounts and say, by putting 
the priority on medical research, the others are going to be reduced 5 
percent.
  I enjoyed a little personal therapy by those last few statements. Now 
we get back to the reality of saying we have to reach this kind of 
agreement. I am happy to say I think, even though I would like to have 
a broader base, I am willing to settle for the narrower base in order 
to save the medical structure, research structure of this country.
  I hope some of my colleagues realize we have had a colleague recently 
diagnosed with Parkinson's, Senator Claiborne Pell. Do you realize we 
are spending this year $26 million for Parkinson's research--$26 
million. You say that is a lot of money--yes, it is a lot of money. We 
are spending over $1 billion for heart; $2 billion for AIDS; another $1 
billion-plus for cancer, as we should, and I helped to fight for every 
one of those dollars, and I would defend every one of those dollars. 
All I am saying is, for Parkinson's, $26 million.
  Take a 16- to 20-percent decrease on $26 million for Parkinson's and 
you have a bigger impact than taking a 16- to 20-percent reduction, 
say, on cancer or heart, which is in excess--almost $2 billion each. So 
it is disproportionate in its impact. And I think this would then give 
us an opportunity to keep our commitment to the sick and those who have 
no hope for cure.
  If my friends are not interested in the humanitarian aspect of 
reducing suffering and putting the value on human life--and quality 
life, not just quantitative life--I hope we would support this because 
I am convinced it is the answer. If you are not impressed with that 
factor, then look at the cost. We have saved billions of dollars per 
year in what we have been able to accomplish in medical research with 
TB. Now we are having a revival of TB. We have Zaire and the Ebola 
problem over there, that is a threat to this country. Every time we 
used to want to get an increase in military spending we could say, 
``The Russians are coming,'' and, boy, everybody would jack up another 
$1 million. I want to tell you, ``The viruses are coming.'' They are 
here. And we better get ready for that warfare because we need this 
kind of weaponry to fight it.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. I will be very happy to. But first of all may I 
yield to my cosponsor, who has not had an opportunity to make an 
opening statement and then I will be happy to yield for questions.
  Mr. EXON. Certainly.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield at this time to Senator Specter, whatever time 
he needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding time to me. I 
compliment him for his leadership generally, and especially on this 
amendment for his very spirited and eloquent articulation of the 
reasons for this amendment.
  I am pleased to join Senator Hatfield as a cosponsor, along with 
Senator Kassebaum, Senator Mack, and there may be others who will join 
in cosponsoring this very, very important amendment.
  Senator Hatfield has added the name of Senator Kennedy to the list as 
original cosponsor here, along with Senator Jeffords.
  The consideration of this budget resolution is very important to 
America. It is the toughest series of votes which I have seen in my 
14\1/2\ years in the U.S. Senate. It has been very carefully crafted by 
the Budget Committee, under the leadership of Senator Domenici, who has 
great respect in this body on all counts. We have seen a series of 
amendments defeated so far on the budget resolution, many of which I 
would have liked to have voted for. But we have to make some really 
extremely tough choices which I think we are making. I believe this is 
a historic time for the U.S. Government to balance the budget.
  Substantial efforts were made following the election of President 
Reagan in 1981, when we considered a budget resolution some 14 years 
ago, but there was not the political will at that time to balance the 
budget. We did not have Republican control of the House of 
Representatives, with, candidly, the political determination to balance 
the budget.
  That time is now. In order to balance the budget we have had to turn 
down some requests on amendments which I think were very, very 
attractive. It was very, very difficult to vote against the amendment 
which offered additional funding for education because I am very much 
concerned about the cuts in this budget resolution on education. I am 
very much concerned about the cuts in this budget on Medicare and 
Medicaid. And I have heard from constituents about the devastating 
impact of what the Medicare cuts will do in closing hospitals, and not 
marginal hospitals but hospitals which are very important across this 
country, providing very vital services for the people of America.
  But it seems to me if we are going to move to a balanced budget we 
are going to have to have belt tightening all across the board. I 
personally would very much have liked to have voted for the amendment 
yesterday on a tax cut. Who would not like to have a tax cut in 
America? But the difficulty with the amendment was present in the 
additional cuts which would have been present for other very important 
items, and also in the direction of the tax cuts not being directed 
with sufficient depth and specificity at the lower income groups and 
raising the concern about too much of a tax cut for wealthier Americans 
at a time when we are going to be cutting very many important programs 
which impact across the board, and many on the poor.
  The amount offered yesterday on increasing national defense was a 
very attractive amendment. But there again the difficulty is that it 
would have resulted in cuts in other programs and added to the deficit.
  I think that in the amendment which we are now considering, to have a 
restoration of part of the budget cut on the National Institutes of 
Health, that we are going to have the strong bipartisan support which 
was not present to increase funding or restore funding for education, 
or the bipartisan support [[Page S7296]] which was necessary to restore 
funding for Medicare and Medicaid. I believe that we have this 
bipartisan support because of the unique importance of what the 
National Institutes of Health does for America.
  In the 14\1/2\ years that I have been on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, which 
I now chair, we have maintained an increasing amount of funding year by 
year, notwithstanding proposed budget cuts virtually every year from 
the administration, and it has been a bipartisan effort, once under the 
chairmanship of Senator Weicker, then under the chairmanship of Senator 
Lawton Chiles, then under the chairmanship of Senator Tom Harkin, and 
now with my chairmanship.
  We had a hearing last Thursday attended by the distinguished chairman 
of the full committee, where we heard of the devastating impact of what 
these budget cuts would do to medical research in the United States.
  There is not time enough to go through the entire array of very 
powerful arguments and very powerful considerations. But let me start 
with a few.
  At the present time, the National Institutes of Health funds less 
than 1 in 4 grant applications. If funding were cut by 10 percent, that 
grant rate might decrease to as much as 1 in 10. There would be a 
drastic reduction in clinical trials to initiate promising new 
treatments leaving the application of research findings for the 
patients on an untested basis.
  There would be a cataclysmic consequence with over 80 percent of the 
NIH budget being cut with support from colleges, universities, medical 
schools, and research institutes throughout the country.
  We are on the brink of having extraordinary advances in medical 
research on gene therapy on a whole range of very, very devastating 
illnesses in America.
  Let me name just a few. Last year the National Institutes of Health 
discovered a breast cancer susceptibility gene, and the NIH is now 
closing in on the gene which causes breast cancer, which would be 
really a remarkable achievement on a terrifying disease which strikes 1 
of 9 women in America.
  The problems on heart disease, cardiovascular disease, which is still 
the number one killer of both men and women, causing 43 percent of all 
deaths each year; delaying the onset of heart disease by 5 years, which 
is right around the corner, would save almost $70 billion annually.
  When we take a look at the kind of economic savings which come from 
this research from NIH, it is really remarkable.
  Alzheimer's disease, such an overwhelming emotional problem in 
America today for those who suffer from Alzheimer's and their families; 
the medical research is on the brink of decreasing the incidence by 
half, which would mean an annual cost saving of some $50 billion.
  Alcoholism, the No. 1 drug problem in the United States, is on the 
verge of significant advances, if not a cure, with the savings of some 
$100 billion a year.
  Osteoporosis leads to 1.5 million fractures each year, affecting 
140,000 people, and with the potential for saving of some $5 billion.
  I know the time is short, Mr. President.
  So I shall not go on with the list of really remarkable achievements 
which have been made and are right around the corner.
  But I will say, chairing the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and having been on the Appropriations 
Committee for 14\1/2\ years, that there is no more important funding 
item in the budget to restore, and we are not restoring it all, but to 
restore the amount proposed in the pending amendment.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. EXON. Will the chairman yield for a question?
  The question I have for my great friend and colleague I want to 
preface by saying the chairman knows of my fondness for him and the 
many years that we have worked. I have never seen a finer presentation, 
I say to my friend from Oregon. I do not disagree with a single thing 
he has said. I think he said it all very, very well.
  I cannot think of a more important amendment that will pass. I think 
this amendment will pass. I know of no objection to it on this side. I 
just checked with Senator Domenici. He knows of no objection on his 
side of the aisle. I think the case has been adequately made.
  I have a list of 23 Democratic Senators, and heaven knows how many on 
that side of the aisle, that have other important matters, and we run 
out of time at noon today on the amendment. I am just wondering, since 
I think there seems to be near unanimous support for the amendment, if 
there is any way that we can cut down some of the time to allow some of 
these other Senators a chance to offer their amendments. Because of the 
time constraints, because I would not want to see any of our colleagues 
have a heart attack or apoplexy for fear that they are not able to talk 
on their amendment, I am just wondering, my question is can we get some 
time agreement if we would agree to yield back our whole hour of the 
time? I know of no opposition on this side. Could we get an agreement 
to cut down the remaining 50 minutes or so that the chairman has? I 
think he has made his case very well.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would be very happy to work out an 
arrangement. I have a list here of about a dozen Senators who have 
asked for a few minutes to express themselves on this amendment. Once I 
fulfill that obligation to my colleagues, I will be very happy to 
consider that.
  Mr. EXON. I will simply add there have been Senators coming to me 
wanting 10 to 20 minutes. I have cut them most down to 1 or 2 minutes.
  If I might courteously suggest that if we had some time constraints, 
I believe everything good can be said about this amendment in a minute 
if people choose their words very carefully.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I have a list. My other chief cosponsors are Senator 
Kassebaum, Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, Senator Mack, and others. As 
soon as we complete those, I would be very happy to consider yielding 
back the time.
  I would like at this time to yield to the Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would ask for a couple of minutes. I 
certainly appreciate the time constraints.
  I think every Senator in the Chamber is a supporter of the National 
Institutes of Health and recognizes the importance of the work done 
there.
  I myself am a strong supporter of the importance of continuing basic 
research.
  I think Senator Hatfield, who has initiated this amendment, has 
spoken eloquently of the importance of those needs. Senator Specter has 
spoken as well.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Hatfield and 
Specter and eight other cosponsors in offering an amendment to the 
fiscal year 1996 budget resolution which is designed to protect funding 
for the National Institutes of Health. Our amendment, which adds $1 
billion annually to budget function 550, is intended to restore the 10-
percent reduction in NIH funding assumed by the Budget Committee. In 
order to assure the health of our citizens--through continued support 
of our nation's biomedical research--I urge my colleagues to join with 
us in supporting this amendment.
  To offset the additional NIH funding, our amendment would reduce 
spending in various discretionary accounts by 0.58 percent. The budget 
functions which would be excluded from these reductions are: defense; 
international affairs; education, training, and employment; income 
security; Medicare; Social Security; and net interest.
  NIH-supported biomedical research has a proud history of scientific 
breakthroughs. Many of my colleagues will remember the iron lungs which 
once ventilated individuals after their bodies had been ravaged by the 
polio virus. Because of biomedical research, we no longer face the 
threat of this disease. In fact, experts at the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention now predict that the polio virus could soon be 
eradicated from this planet.
  The vitality of these efforts is maintained today. For example, 
through the human genome project, scientists have 
[[Page S7297]] identified a gene linked to breast cancer. Using this 
information, health care providers may one day decrease the burden of 
this disease, which now attacks one in nine women.
  I am concerned about the detrimental impact of the NIH reductions 
assumed by the Budget Committee. I believe, that biomedical research 
advancement--and breakthroughs--could slow dramatically.
  The committee, in its report on this resolution, lays out a 
thoughtful argument in support of this budget reduction. As noted in 
the report, it is true that the NIH has seen a real budget growth over 
the last decade. In real terms, after adjusting for biomedical research 
inflation, the budget for 1993 was 47 percent greater than it was a 
decade earlier. It is also true that private sector contributions to 
biomedical research have increased.
  At the same time, I do not believe it is wise to propose reductions 
based on this recent growth in NIH funding. These reductions will leave 
many biomedical researchers and their advancements stranded. In many 
areas, scientists are on the verge of amazing discoveries. Because the 
average length of an NIH award is nearly 4 years, cuts of this 
magnitude will require an adjustment period. We need to consider ways 
to ensure that promising research receives new funding, while we honor 
existing research commitments.
  Mr. President, the $1 billion which this amendment would add back to 
the NIH allows for a smooth transition. Even with this add-back, real 
funding for NIH will decrease over the next 7 years. In fact, if we 
assume a 5 percent annual biomedical research inflation, maintaining 
NIH funding at its 1995 level would still result in a real funding 
reduction of nearly 5 percent in the first year and 35 percent 7 years 
from now.
  As chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I am 
committed to working with the National Institutes of Health and our 
Nation's biomedical researchers to find ways to adjust to our current 
budget limitations. However, accomplishing this goal will require 
thoughtful consideration and careful deliberation.
  As the Labor Committee begins to consider the reauthorization of the 
National Institutes of Health, I welcome the suggestions of my 
colleagues. I intend to examine organizational and structural changes 
at the NIH which could lead to some budget savings.
  This effort may include reexamining the need for the current 23 
institutes, centers, and divisions. Another approach will be to review 
the amount of research funding which the NIH currently devotes to 
indirect research costs. Finally, I also believe that we will need to 
reexamine how the NIH makes its grants to ensure that the most 
promising areas for research advancement receive funding, while funding 
for basic biomedical research is maintained.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider this amendment 
carefully. Its effect would be to improve the health of our Nation's 
citizens by supporting funding for biomedical research through the NIH. 
The effort of NIH has and will continue to create a national 
environment in which biomedical research and health flourish.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
Senator from California.
  Mr. President, in yielding to the Senator from California, she was 
facing the same issue, I understand, in her committee work, and I wish 
to thank the Senator for laying the foundation at that time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend very much. I will be brief because I 
think so much has already been said on this.
  I simply want to add my voice in support of the Senator from Oregon. 
I did, in fact, offer a similar amendment in the Budget Committee. 
However, I took the funds out of the little tax cut--honey pot--that 
was squirreled away by our chairman and there was no support from the 
Republican side for using that as an offset.
  I truly understand the frustration expressed by the Senator from 
Oregon. He wanted to cut across the board and include in the cut to pay 
for this NIH increase the military budget. I think the Senator is wise 
not to offer that up because there are not the votes here to do that, 
but I wish to spend just a minute talking about that and adding my 
voice to that of the Senator from Oregon.
  I think the people of this country understand that the cold war is 
over, and I think the people of this country understand we are the only 
superpower, and I think the people of this country understand that we 
are spending 2\1/2\ times more than all of the potential enemies 
combined in the world, and that includes on the list the potential 
enemies Russia and China. The fact is if you add the spending of the 
NATO countries, America and the NATO countries are spending 5\1/2\ 
times more than all the potential enemies in the world.
  What are the real enemies that we face on a daily basis in America? I 
would say the daily enemies we face are the prospect of disease 
striking a loved one. Alzheimer's has been discussed, osteoporosis, 
breast cancer, AIDS, prostate cancer, lung cancer, diabetes, 
scleroderma, something many people do not know about, which is a soft 
tissue disease which is disfiguring and frightening and strikes young 
women; strokes, Parkinson's disease. There are so many others.
  The fact is, I say to my colleagues, these are the enemies that we 
face, and to retreat from this war would be ludicrous.
  Now, it hurts my heart to vote to cut other domestic programs. It 
breaks my heart. I think it is outrageous that we do not have the votes 
here to include defense in a small cut, but like the Senator from 
Oregon I am a realist. I am a realist, and I wish to see this funding 
be restored to the NIH. We are one plane ride away from a major 
epidemic. We read with horror about this Ebola virus. Anyone who has 
read the book ``The Hot Zone'' understands the tenuous position we are 
in in this very world in which we now live. As we lose the rain forests 
of the world, what scientists are discovering is that viruses that live 
in the rain forests are looking for other hosts, and they are finding 
us. So to cut back on the National Institutes of Health, which is our 
first line of defense against these diseases, would be worse than 
outrageous.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record at this point a 
letter from the University of California, Irvine, and I would close 
with a quote from the dean of the college of medicine there, Thomas C. 
Cesario. He says:

       With Federal support, the University has achieved 
     remarkable breakthroughs in medical research which prevent, 
     control, or reverse disease, saving lives and millions of 
     dollars in medical care.

  And he just says that the UC doctors there with Federal funds were 
first to identify the lack of a gene as a cause of disease. They 
developed a blood test for the genetic defect that causes Tay-Sachs, 
and it goes on and on.
  I see my time has run out. So again let me add my voice to the 
Senator from Oregon. I thank the Senator so much for picking up this 
fight in this Chamber. I am with the Senator all the way.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 University of California, Irvine,

                                          College of Medicine,

                                         Irvine, CA, May 22, 1995.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to express my deepest 
     concern over the funding cuts to the National Institutes of 
     Health that have been assumed in the Committee's Budget 
     Resolution and to thank you for your tremendous effort to 
     restore funding during the Committee's consideration of the 
     NIH bill.
       According to the committee report, the Senate Budget 
     Committee recommends a 10 percent cut for the NIH budget in 
     FY 1996, and then a freeze of the NIH budget at this lower 
     level through 2002. This means that the NIH budget would be 
     cut from $11.3 billion in FY 1995 to $10.2 billion in FY 
     1996, and then frozen at $10.2 billion through 2002. Cuts of 
     this magnitude would be devastating to our nation's 
     biomedical research enterprise. The NIH is one of the 
     country's most respected and revered research institutions, 
     setting international standards for excellence for basic and 
     clinical biomedical and behavorial research and ensuring that 
     medical care in the United States is the best in the world. 
     Many people literally owe their lives to NIH-funded research.
       These cuts represent a serious retreat from the national 
     support given to medical innovation. They would be 
     devastating to the NIH mission. NIH projects that with a 10 
     percent reduction in its budget the success rate for 
     competing research project grants would fall from its current 
     overall level of 24 percent in FY 1995 to between 6 percent 
     and 12 [[Page S7298]] percent in FY 1996. The potential loss 
     in new life saving discoveries is incalculable. We know that 
     few, if any, new clinical trials could be instigated and 
     other NIH mechanisms of support would be decimated.
       Cuts to NIH would certainly wreak havoc throughout the 
     University of California's research institutions. About 85 
     percent of the NIH's appropriation is expended on extramural 
     research conducted in all 50 states. The University of 
     California operates the largest health science program in the 
     nation--with five schools of medicine. Last year UC received 
     about $650 million for extramural grants university-wide. 
     Three of our five medical schools were ranked among the top 
     15 institutions for receipt of extramural research awards for 
     FY 1993 and all fell within the top 100 institutions.
       With federal support, the University has achieved 
     remarkable breakthroughs in medical research which prevent 
     control of reverse disease, saving lives and millions of 
     dollars in medical care; UC doctors:
       were first to identify the lack of a gene as a cause of 
     disease;
       developed a blood test for the genetic defect that causes 
     Tay-Sachs disease;
       created the first human vaccine by genetic engineering;
       were among the first three groups in the world to isolate 
     the AIDS virus;
       found a quick method to determine if infants were infected 
     with the AIDS virus;
       developed an artificial ankle to replace joints damaged by 
     arthritis;
       adapted a heart pump implant to pump insulin in diabetics 
     thus eliminating the need for daily insulin injections;
       developed a procedure that restores hearing by replacing 
     damaged middle ear bones with sculpted cartilage.
       In addition, the University has been an incubator for the 
     rapidly growing biotechnology industry in California. 
     California has the largest concentration of the nation's 
     biotechnology companies and 28 percent of high tech medical 
     device firms in the nation. The University of California at 
     San Francisco and San Diego alone account for more than 50 
     new companies pursuing life saving medical drugs and devices 
     from AIDS, cancer and heart disease to genetic disorders like 
     cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis.
       Cuts to NIH cut the lifeline of biomedical research. The 
     devastation would be felt for years to come. The pace of 
     scientific discovery would slow and cures for diseases like 
     AIDS and cancer would be delayed. Even worse, biomedical 
     research would be essentially eliminated as a career track 
     for a whole generation of young people.
       I urge you to do all you can to restore funding to the NIH 
     during the Senate's consideration of the Budget Resolution.
           Sincerely,
                                          Thomas C. Cesario, M.D.,
                                        Dean, College of Medicine.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, again I am going back to the list of 
those who have made their request to be heard. I would yield 2 minutes 
to Senator Kennedy, 3 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Two minutes will be fine.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Two minutes to Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon and the other 
cosponsors are speaking for the best American values and are really 
speaking for mankind all over the world in the restoration of this 
funding for the National Institutes of Health. This budget is permeated 
with penny-wise and pound-foolish mentality that values short-term 
savings today over investments that will improve the life of the Nation 
tomorrow.
  There is no better example of these misplaced priorities than the 
meat-ax cuts in the National Institutes of Health. It is truly a great 
success in terms of research, and it maintains respect throughout the 
world. The NIH is not just a source of excellence to those of us on the 
floor of the Senate. It is recognized throughout the world.
  The NIH is the symbol of excellence in medical research. Its 
achievements are world renowned. Dollar for dollar, it is among the 
wisest and most productive investments the Nation has ever made. It is 
the source of America's international preeminence in industries such as 
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and medical devices. Talk to any 
leaders of these industries, and they will tell you that without the 
basic research of the NIH, progress in their industry would slow to a 
crawl, and America's international competitiveness would fail.
  Above all, we need NIH research because of its indispensable role in 
improving the health of the American people. In recent years, 
biomedical research supported by the NIH has led to new and more cost-
effective treatments for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a wide 
range of infectious diseases. More than a million premature deaths from 
heart disease alone were prevented by improved cardiovascular programs 
and innovative treatments developed by NIH research in the past quarter 
century.
  With mushrooming new discoveries in biotechnology, we stand on the 
threshold of even greater progress in the years ahead in the conquest 
of dread diseases. There is no American family that has not lost a 
loved one or a close friend to the ravages of heart disease, cancer, 
diabetes, or Alzheimer's disease. Why would anyone curtail the 
extraordinary progress that is possible?
  If the cuts in this budget resolution are approved, only 10 percent 
of meritorious research will be funded, according to the NIH's own 
estimates. Currently, ninety scientists have received Nobel prizes for 
research funded in whole or in part by the NIH. With these cuts, young 
researchers will leave the field because they cannot find support for 
their investigations. Careers in biomedical research will be less 
attractive to the brightest minds of this generation of college 
students. Worst of all, it is no exaggeration to say that because of 
these cuts, Americans will die who would have been saved.
  These funds make such a difference to the families that all of us 
represent. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment and maintain NIH's 
vital investments in medical research.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. I 
also want to point out that the problem he identifies with medical 
research funding is part of a larger problem that we are trying to 
address in another amendment that will come up for a vote later today. 
That is the amendment related to civilian research more generally.
  The Senator from Oregon made the point that the proposed budget as it 
now stands in the area of medical research is a prelude to disaster. I 
would say that the same point could be made about civilian research 
generally in this country.
  I would address people's attention to this chart which shows Federal 
civilian R&D as a percentage of the gross domestic product of this 
country from the period 1961 through the end of the century, the last 
portion, of course, being the projected level of funding for civilian 
research and development.
  This chart includes the figures for the National Institutes of 
Health, about which the Senator from Oregon is speaking. It shows that 
we will be dropping to an unprecedented low in our level of support for 
civilian research if we go ahead with the budget as it presently 
stands.
  The amendment the Senator from Oregon proposes will cure the problem 
as it relates to the National Institutes of Health. The larger 
amendment that I have proposed with Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller 
and Hollings and Biden deals with the larger issue of civilian 
research, and it is necessary also if we are going to avoid the same 
kind of precipitous drop in Federal support for civilian research that 
is contemplated in the present budget.
  I thank the Senator and I support his amendment strongly.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I asked the Senator from Oregon only for a minute 
because I am one of those Senators who later on wants to speak to other 
amendments, and I know we are in a time crunch.
  I say to the Senator from Oregon I certainly want to be included as 
an original cosponsor, but I do it with some sadness because I believe 
that the military-defense part of the budget [[Page S7299]] ought to 
have been included in the offset. I understand why the Senator was not 
able to do so.
  Second of all, I am very worried about cuts in some of the other 
nondefense discretionary programs. Therefore, later on I am going to 
have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment making clear it does not have to 
be in each of those areas because each deserve a high priority, and I 
am going to try to point out the direction in which we should be 
directing our priorities. But it is with a sense of equity and fairness 
I proudly support this amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, let me express my deep appreciation to Senator Hatfield for 
his leadership on this issue in bringing this amendment to the floor of 
the Senate.
  In trying to figure out what I would confine my comments to in 5 
minutes, because there is so much that I feel and so much that I have 
learned with respect to what the National Institutes of Health is 
involved in, again, it is very difficult to kind of bring it down to a 
couple of points.
  A book that I read several years ago called ``The Transformed Cell,'' 
written by Dr. Steven Rosenberg out at the NIH National Cancer 
Institute, really talks about the fundamental changes that have taken 
place in the way we treat diseases in this country and, for that 
matter, around the world. I am referring specifically to the treatment 
of cancer now.
  For many years, if one was diagnosed with cancer, basically, surgery, 
radiation, or chemotherapy were the three choices, if you will. The 
physicians would look at the particular disease and status to make a 
determination about which of those three alternatives to pursue.
  Dr. Steven Rosenberg began his practice over 20 years ago when 
something occurred that kind of indicated to him that maybe there was 
something else going on that could, in fact, be used to fight the 
disease. An individual that he was treating was cured of, I believe, 
melanoma. And 20 years ago, if a person was discovered with melanoma, 
it was just a matter of time. There was no cure.
  But, somehow or other, this patient survived. Dr. Steven Rosenberg 
came to the conclusion and a very strong feeling that the answer was in 
the immune system; that what saved that individual was his own immune 
system. And then that raised the question: Well, if the immune system 
can defeat the disease in one individual but yet it does not in 
another, why does that occur? And that began a long process of over 20 
years of trying to come to the discovery and understanding of what we 
can do to enhance the immune system in order to fight the disease.
  Now, if Dr. Steven Rosenberg were here today, I do not think he would 
say to us that he has the total answer. But if you read his book, you 
will find, for example, that in 40 percent of the cases there was a 
response to immunotherapy in melanoma.
  The reason I get a little bit focused on melanoma is because, as many 
of you know, I am a survivor of melanoma. In 1989, after coming to the 
U.S Senate, I was diagnosed with melanoma. Fortunately, we found it 
early and I should not have to be concerned with it at all. But in 
1979, my younger brother Michael died of melanoma. And I can tell you 
personally what that experience is like.
  And I could be talking about AIDS, I could be talking about, as the 
Senator from California talked about, the viruses, I could be talking 
about any one of those. But the reality is that we are making great 
strides today because of the work that is being done at NIH by people 
like Dr. Steven Rosenberg.
  So he added a fourth modality to the treatment of cancer. And there 
is a fifth today, and it is called gene therapy. And we are just 
beginning to scratch the surface on gene therapy.
  One of the earlier speakers referred to the discovery of the breast 
cancer gene, and there probably are several breast cancer genes. But 
there has also been discovered a melanoma gene. It is called P-16. And 
we know, through the research that has been done out at NIH, that it is 
relatively simple to define cancer but very complicated to come up with 
a solution. Cancer is nothing more than the uncontrolled growth of 
cells. But the issue is: Why are they uncontrolled and how can we 
control them? And gene therapy and DNA are going to play a significant 
role in making that determination.
  My last point would be this: We have discovered what is called P-53, 
which I believe is a protein--it may be a gene as well--a protein that 
is involved in sending the message to the individual cells as to when 
they should grow and when they should stop growing. There have been 
great strides made with respect to the P-53 gene.
  It would be a tragedy for us to step back now when we are on the 
verge of breakthroughs on all kinds of diseases through gene therapy.
  So what I am saying to the Senate is there are great benefits that 
come from this investment.
  I will close with this quote. Pasteur wrote: ``I am on the verge of 
mysteries and the veil is getting thinner and thinner.''
  We want to provide the funds to make sure that that veil disappears.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I recognize the floor manager, the Senator 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to propose a unanimous-consent 
request that will protect the Senator from Oregon but will advise 
Senators of when we will vote.
                                 on nih

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to express my passionate support 
for the National Institutes of Health.
  The National Institutes of Health is the foundation of this Nation 
and the world's medical research. It is an investment in the future 
health and well-being of every American.
  Over 85 percent of the NIH funding goes to academic medical centers 
of excellence all over the United States of America. From Stanford 
University, Johns Hopkins University, and Harvard to the University of 
Maryland and the University of Wisconsin--these are the leaders in 
medical science research.
  What does our investment dollars get? Our investment in the NIH 
provides the means to find the cures and preventions for disease. It 
keeps the United States of America in the forefront of biomedical 
science and biomedical technology. It encourages our global 
competitiveness and assures economic growth through the creation of 
jobs in Maryland and throughout the United States. It helps communities 
help themselves.
  The NIH has icon status in America and around the world. The short-
sightedness of narrow-minded people in green eyeshades who would cut 
the NIH funding is deeply disturbing. I simply cannot understand it.
  The American people deserve a future of improved health. They 
understand the importance of investing in research and prevention. They 
want their Federal dollars to go to programs that will help them meet 
their day-to-day needs. That is what the NIH does. Its research finds 
cures, prevents the onset of disease, and helps people live not only 
longer but better lives.
  For some time, I have worked on a bipartisan basis to advocate for a 
women's health agenda. I was one of those who led the fight to 
establish an Office of Women's Health Research at the NIH--the first of 
its kind. I worked with my colleagues to expand research and address 
gender-specific health concerns like breast cancer, cervical cancer and 
prostate cancer.
  The National Institutes of Health is the anchor for health research 
investment in this country.
  And now, this picky little budget wants to freeze NIH funding into 
the year 2000, or worse yet, may even cut NIH funding by 10 percent. 
Let us face the fact. You cannot freeze disease. You cannot freeze 
neurological deterioration and Parkinson's disease. And you cannot 
freeze life saving research. You just cannot.
  The impact of cutting NIH will take an incredible human toll. The 
major killers of men and women today are lung cancer and heart disease. 
What will happen to this research when there is not enough dollars to 
invest in finding a cure? How will we ever find a cure 
[[Page S7300]] for Alzheimers disease and for AIDS without investing 
the necessary dollars?
  My own dear father died of Alzheimers disease. He died one brain cell 
at a time, and it did not matter that I was a U.S. Senator. All I could 
do was look out for him, care for him, and make sure that he was 
comfortable and safe. In loving memory of my father, I vowed to do all 
that I can to lead the fight for research to find a cure for 
Alzheimers.
  This is what this Budget would knock out. It is a tragedy for the 
dedicated men and women of NIH who have committed their lives to 
finding cures to deadly diseases. And it is a tragedy for the American 
people who look to NIH to meet our day-to-day health needs and to get 
us ready for the future.
  I am passionate about my commitment to preserve this investment. We 
must not turn our back on NIH. There are those who seem set on trying 
to dismantle the National Institutes of Health. I want to put those 
people on notice--they will have to put up with me first. I will do 
everything I can to keep the National Institutes of Health an 
investment that saves lives, saves jobs, and helps communities.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. EXON. I applaud the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, although I share the concern of my 
distinguished colleague from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, about funding 
for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), I must oppose his 
amendment. I oppose his amendment because it fails to address the 
underlying defect in the Budget Resolution we are debating--a one-third 
reduction overall in nonmilitary discretionary spending.
  The amendment, in effect, simply rearranges the deck chairs on the 
Titanic. It cuts across-the-board from all discretionary functions--
except for military, international affairs and the functions that fall 
largely under the jurisdiction of the Labor, HHS Appropriations 
Subcommittee--to restore the 10-percent cut in NIH assumed in the 
budget resolution.
  I emphasize the word ``assumed'' because it should be clear that the 
funding levels for individual programs are not determined by the budget 
resolution. The budget resolution only determines the amount of 
discretionary spending overall. The appropriations process determines 
the amount of funding for individual programs, such as NIH. In fact, 
the budget resolution does not even determine the amount of total funds 
available to the Labor, HHS Appropriations Subcommittee which has 
jurisdiction over NIH funding. Section 602(b) of the Congressional 
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 reserves that power to the 
Appropriations Committee as well.
  In addition, I take strong objection to the exclusion of the military 
and international affairs functions from the across-the-board cut 
required by this amendment. The cold war is over and the military 
should bear a share of the cuts that this budget resolution will force 
the Appropriations Committee to make in most, if not all, non-military 
programs, including the very worthy NIH.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my 
distinguished colleague from Oregon, Senator Hatfield. We have worked 
together in the past to increase our commitment to the National 
Institutes of Health [NIH]. Last year, during the health care reform 
debate, Senator Hatfield and I introduced legislation to ensure that 
any reform plan also included increased investment in the fight against 
disease and disability.
  But, Mr. President, I am disappointed that this amendment once again 
protects and preserves a bloated Pentagon budget. The budget resolution 
cuts over $1 trillion in Federal spending. It cuts health, education, 
training, veterans, and virtually everything else but it does not touch 
defense. The Pentagon is increased by $34.5 billion over what a hard 
freeze would be over the 7 years. So, while I support this amendment I 
believe strongly that instead of taking money away from discretionary 
programs that are below a hard freeze in this budget to protect NIH we 
should have looked to the bloated Pentagon budget.
  NIH, as we all know, stands for the National Institutes of Health but 
it could just as easily stand for National Investment in Health. That's 
what we're talking about, investing in the health of our people and our 
economy.
  Unfortunately, today we are not here to talk about taking a small 
step forward in medical research, we're here to prevent taking a giant 
leap back and cutting our commitment to research that saves lives and 
money.
  The budget resolution before us cuts NIH by 10 percent and freezes 
spending through 2002. This translates into a cut of over $1 billion 
for fiscal year 1996 alone.
  Backing away from that commitment is shortsighted and fails to 
recognize the important role that NIH plays in improving health care 
and holding down health care costs in the long run.
  As former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Warren 
Magnuson, said ``medical research is the first link in the chain of 
prevention.'' Without sufficient investment, we can't build that chain.
  People from all over the world come to the United States for medical 
care. Why? Because, we lead the world in quality of care. And research 
is key to this quality.
  The United States has built an impressive biomedical research 
enterprise. Today, dramatic developments in genetics
 and gene therapy offer hope to many suffering from disorders such as 
cystic fibrosis, breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's 
disease.

  Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health 
costs in the long run. And if we can unlock the cure for a disease like 
Alzheimer's the savings would be enormous--in dollars and human lives. 
Today, federally supported funding for research on Alzheimer's disease 
totals $300 million yet it is estimated that nearly $100 billion is 
expended annually on caring for people with Alzheimer's.
  Gene therapy and treatments of cystic fibrosis and Parkinson's could 
eliminate years of chronic care costs, while saving lives and improving 
patient's quality of life.
  Past investment in research has paid off.
  Less than $1 million spent to develop a potassium citrate treatment 
to prevent the formation of kidney stones yields over $436.2 million in 
annual savings in treatment costs.
  $20.1 million in NIH support over a 17-year period led to the 
development of an improved influenza intervention for children, saving 
at least $346.6 million annually from a reduction in premature 
mortality and long-term earnings losses.
  Clinical trials to develop a laser treatment for a diabetes related 
eye condition cost $180.6 million and has resulted in a potential 
annual savings of over $1.2 billion.
  New cell therapy techniques can reduce the costs of a bone marrow 
transplant by as much as $50,000.
  This country invests far too little in medical research, less than 2 
percent of the total health budget is devoted to medical research. 
Compare that to the Pentagon where 15 percent of military dollars are 
spent on research. Where are our priorities?
  It is expected that this budget proposal would reduce the success 
rate of qualified research proposals from the current 25 percent to as 
little as 15 percent. Just a decade ago, it was twice that. Science and 
cutting edge medical research are being put on hold. And every day we 
wait is another day we go without finding the cure for diabetes, 
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and countless other diseases.
  Mr. President, this resolution also further discourages our young 
people from pursuing careers in medical research. The number of people 
under the age of 36 even applying for NIH grants dropped by 54 percent 
between 1985 and 1993. This is due to a host of factors but I'm afraid 
that the lower success rates among all
 applicants is making biomedical research less and less attractive to 
young people. If the perception is that funding for research is 
impossible to obtain, young people that may have chosen medical 
research 10 years ago will choose other career paths.

  Mr. President, investing in NIH doesn't just promote the health of 
our people, it promotes the health of our economy. The biotechnology 
and pharmaceutical industries contribute some $100 billion annually to 
the economy and support 200,000 highly skilled jobs. [[Page S7301]] 
  In 1994, sales of biotechnology products totaled close to $8 billion 
and the Department of Commerce estimates that biotechnology will be a 
$50 billion industry by the year 2000.
  Investing in medical research promotes healthier lives, creates jobs, 
and strengthens our economy and our competitive position in the global 
marketplace. It's the right thing to do and the smart thing to do.
  Mr. President, I support this amendment. But, even if this amendment 
passes as expected, it does not address the underlying defect in the 
budget resolution we are debating, a one-third reduction overall in 
nonmilitary, discretionary spending.
  This amendment cuts across-the-board from all discretionary 
functions, except for national defense, international affairs and the 
functions that fall largely under the jurisdiction of the Labor, HHS 
Appropriations Subcommittee, to restore the 10-percent cut in NIH 
assumed in the budget resolution.
  But, Mr. President, funding levels for individual programs are not 
determined by the budget resolution. The budget resolution only 
determines the amount of discretionary spending overall. It is the 
appropriations process that determines the amount of funding for 
individual programs, such as NIH. So, Mr. President, despite this 
amendment, the Appropriations Committee will be faced with a one-third 
reduction in nonmilitary discretionary spending and, therefore, all 
discretionary spending programs such as the NIH are going to be subject 
to cuts because of this budget resolution.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support what the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, is attempting to do, ensure 
that sufficient funding is made available for the work of the National 
Institutes of Health [NIH]. I strongly support the important work that 
body is undertaking, particularly with respect to research on breast 
and prostrate cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
  However, what troubles me about this amendment is the proposition 
that it isn't possible to reorder priorities within function 550--the 
health account--to make the necessary funding available to the NIH. To 
make the amount of funding contemplated by the amendment available to 
the NIH, we simply have to shift $1 billion within function 550, an 
account that will total $120 billion in fiscal year 1996, rising to 
$150 billion by 2002. Instead, the amendment takes money out of other 
accounts, including funding for veterans, and that seriously concerns 
me.
  The budget resolution already contemplates a phase-out of 
construction of VA facilities. Higher prescription copayments for 
certain veterans are assumed. Outlays for veterans programs would 
actually amount to $500 million less next year compared to this year. 
And the Hatfield amendment would take another $224 million a year out 
of veterans programs on top of that.
  If I thought that it wasn't possible for Congress, for the 
appropriators, the Health and Human Services Department or the NIH 
itself to prioritize spending for the good and necessary work that the 
NIH does, I might be willing to support this amendment.
  However, we all know that the budget resolution doesn't require that 
NIH funding be cut, only that funding within function 550 not exceed a 
specified level. There are ways to do that without adversely affecting 
the work that the NIH does. For example, the growth of Medicaid could 
be slowed, as Senator Gramm proposed yesterday.
  I am confident that, as the author of the amendment and as chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield won't allow the NIH 
budget to be cut too deeply when it comes time to appropriate money for 
the NIH. The Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH won't 
sacrifice critical research when it comes time to prioritize the use of 
funds that are ultimately appropriated.
  Mr. President, I want to work with the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee to find a solution, but one which doesn't adversely affect 
our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleague from Oregon, long recognized as a leader in our efforts 
to promote biomedical research. I can think of no more worthy a purpose 
than to restore funding for the National Institutes of Health. NIH is 
the world's premier biomedical research institution. It is our 
investment in the Nation's future health. I have watched with pride as 
NIH has grown during my years in the Congress. I have watched with 
pride as exciting discovery after discovery spawned by the NIH has 
become a reality. I have watched with pride as efforts at the premier 
research institutions in Utah, such as the excellent work at the 
University of Utah, have led to incredible discoveries helping to 
improve literally millions of lives.
  As with many of my colleagues, I was very disappointed when the 
measure approved by committee set NIH on a such a steep downward 
funding path. While I do not believe any program or agency should be 
immune from reductions in our efforts to get Federal spending under 
control, the NIH may have been hit too hard.
  Some may say that a 10-percent cut in NIH does not sound like a lot, 
but it is. The President's proposed NIH budget of $11.8 billion was 
intended to support 23,874 research project grants, which includes 
6,046 new and competing research project grants. Maybe that sounds like 
a high level, but it is not. The President's proposal represented a 
decrease of 522 new and competing grants from this fiscal year, and the 
budget resolution funding level will lead to even further reductions.
  In 1987, by comparison, we funded almost 7,200 new and competing 
grants. It is not commonly recognized, in addition, that the majority 
of projects submitted to the NIH, extremely worthy projects which could 
yield scientific advances as promising as any, are not funded. Just 
look at the numbers: This year, project grants at NIH are expected to 
have a 24-percent success rate; this means that only one-quarter of the 
projects which are approved are funded.
  Under the President's budget, it is expected to decline to 23 
percent. And under the budget resolution, to an even smaller 
percentage. Contrast this to 1992, when the success rate was 29.6 
percent, or 1986, when it was 32.1 percent. Although I do strongly 
support this amendment, I also want to express my concern about the 
``offsets'' used to ``pay for'' the amendment, or, in other words, 
about the source of funding which will make up the difference if NIH 
funding were increased and the entire budget resolution is to stay 
within the same overall cap.
  As I understand the amendment offered by my colleague, it would 
restore $7 billion of the proposed $7.9 billion reduction in NIH 
funding over the coming 7 fiscal years. The difference would be made up 
by an across-the-board reduction in all budget functions except for the 
social programs, broadly speaking, and defense and international 
affairs. The effect of this amendment is to place the burden of making 
up the difference on the other accounts within the budget, many of 
which are already sustaining large reductions.
  For example, under this amendment, in order to increase NIH, 
decreases would be effected in programs for veterans, agriculture, 
space and science research, energy, natural resources, and community 
development.
  I am particularly concerned about a proposed reduction of about $1 
billion over 7 years in law enforcement and crime prevention efforts, 
at a time when increased acts of violence and terrorism throughout the 
United States are threatening the ability of peaceful, law-abiding 
citizens to lead their lives.
  In addition, I would point out to my colleagues that under the budget 
resolution, funding for function 550, the health function, comes down 
12.2 percent overall. However, several accounts are held harmless 
within that function, including the Food and Drug Administration, which 
would receive $884 million--AIDS programs at the Health Resources and 
Services Administration--$656 million--the Indian Health Service--
$1.963 billion--the Centers for Disease Control--$2.88 billion--the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration--$2.197 
billion--and AIDS research at NIH--$1.336 billion. These programs were 
all held level.
  I urge the House and Senate budget conferees to take a look at the 
entire health function to see if we are allocating funds most 
appropriately in relation to the other budget 
functions. [[Page S7302]] 
  Obviously, I have no interest in seeing very vital programs such as 
Indian health or AIDS sustain unwise reductions. At the same time, I do 
not wish to see the Administration of Justice account, or veterans 
programs, for example, sustain inappropriate reductions.
  It is my desire that conferees take all these competing needs into 
account and create the best possible balance.
  That being said, Mr. President, I urge adoption of the Hatfield 
amendment on NIH.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon, Senator Hatfield, for his leadership in providing biomedical 
research funding, and I strongly support his amendment to restore $1 
billion per year that otherwise would be cut under this Senate budget 
resolution.
  Most basic biomedical research in this Nation is supported by the 
National Institutes of Health. Nearly every week we hear of advances 
against disease supported by NIH grants. As such, NIH not only reduces 
suffering in our country, it lays the groundwork for economic growth 
and leads the world in the fight against disease.
  Despite our profound responsibility to maintain NIH funding, we 
currently provide funds adequate to support only one in four research 
proposals. The Senate budget resolution could cut that current support 
level to 1 in 10.
  At that level, young researchers will be strongly encouraged to seek 
other careers. The steady stream of Nobel Prize winners at NIH--89 so 
far--will dry up. In short, we will be cutting into the muscle and bone 
of an institution that demonstrates the best of American Government and 
the best of human endeavor.
  Furthermore, the Senate budget resolution funding levels would 
effectively forestall life-saving, cost-effective research. NIH is 
currently in the middle of many long-term projects that revolutionary 
implications for medicine. NIH is supporting a $3 billion, 15-year 
effort to map the human genome. This project underlies the revolution 
in genetic medicine that has implications for cancer, developmental 
disabilities, Alzheimer's disease, juvenile diabetes, and numerous 
other diseases. NIH began a 12-year, $68 million prostrate cancer 
prevention trial in 1991. It began a $50 million, 11-year childhood 
asthma management program in the same year. In 1990, it began a 12-year 
test of tamozifen treatments for breast cancer among a randomized group 
of 16,000 women. It continues to support the Framingham longitudinal 
investigation of factors influencing the development of cardiovascular 
disease, which began in 1948. Next year NIH plans to support six 
centers specializing in hypertension research over 5 years.
  These are just a few examples of the critical research underway at 
NIH that should not be eliminated or delayed in the name of short-term 
budgetary gains. The truth is, we save money through biomedical 
research. Recent NIH advances in the therapy of sickle cell disease 
save an estimated $350 million annually. Recent advances against 
alcoholism save $125 million annually. Research underway to delay the 
onset of blindness in diabetics and to delay the onset of Alzheimer's 
could save billions. Simply delaying the onset of cardiovascular 
disease by 5 years is estimated to potentially save $70 billion yearly. 
And clearly, without progress against AIDS, will continue to spend 
billions in our hospitals and in lost human productivity.
  So, Mr. President, we cannot responsibly turn away from these 
research needs. We must provide for them in the budget, and Senator 
Hatfield has provided the vehicle to do so. Again, I thank him for his 
leadership and urge all of my colleagues to support the Hatfield 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Hatfield 
amendment which adds $1 billion to the budget for the National 
Institutes of Health [NIH]. The budget proposal before us recommends a 
10 percent cut for the NIH in fiscal year 1996, and then a freeze at 
this lower level through the year 2002. This means that the NIH budget 
would be cut from $11.3 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $10.2 billion in 
fiscal year 1996, and then frozen at $10.2 billion through 2002.
  If the proposed cuts are permitted to take place, it would damage NIH 
research at a time of unprecedented productivity, drive talented 
scientists, both young and established, into other careers, and cause 
the United States to lose its hard-won leadership in such fields as 
biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.
  Mr. President, NIH has been a tremendous investment for the American 
people. The research supported by NIH has saved lives, reduced 
suffering, and led to lower medical costs. The NIH has an impressive 
collection of new successes, such as the following list of some 
fundamental discoveries and clinical advances for the past year:
  A revolution in cancer risk assessment, the long-sought gene for some 
heredity breast cancers, BRCA-1, has been isolated, as have genes that 
predispose some patients to colon cancer, melanoma, and kidney cancer.
  A simple drug, hydroxyurea, alters the composition of hemoglobin and 
thereby reduces by half the painful crisis that commonly hospitalize 
patients with sickle cell disease.
  Hormone replacement successfully controls blood lipids in post- 
menopausal women and likely reduces cardiovascular disease.
  A new acellular vaccine for whooping cough is safe as well as 
effective.
  The biomedical research supported by NIH makes vital contributions to 
the Nation's health, improving the quality of life, advancing science, 
and creating economic growth. Advances derived from NIH research save 
an estimated $69 billion in medical care costs each year. Because of 
the discoveries made by biomedical researchers over the years, we live 
longer, healthier, and more active lives. Today, an American's life 
expectancy is 75.5 years, an increase of almost 5 years since 1970.
  If this progress is to continue, it is imperative that the NIH budget 
be preserved. Stable NIH funding is required to maintain laboratories 
performing cutting edge research. Even a short hiatus in funding 
results in loss of established research programs that can not be 
readily recovered.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at the 
conclusion of the debate on the Hatfield amendment, the Senate begin 
voting in the following sequence: on the Harkin amendment, on the 
Feingold amendment, on or in relation to the Bumpers amendment, on or 
in relation to the Dodd substitute, on or in relation to the Snowe 
amendment, and on the Hatfield amendment. I further ask unanimous 
consent that the first vote in this sequence be 20 minutes and 
thereafter the remaining ones, back to back, be 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do I hear objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, I missed, 
Mr. President, what the distinguished manager said. Did he say when 
these votes would begin?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Well, they will begin when Senator Hatfield's time has 
run out.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator. I have no objection.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to 
object, I would just say, for purposes of clarification, two things. 
With regard to the Snowe amendment, could we insert in the language 
``the Snowe amendment, as amended, if amended''?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. One further question. Could we get agreement at this time 
to move things along. As the Senator from Nebraska has continually 
warned, we are running out of time. Could we get an agreement, as a 
part of this unanimous-consent agreement, to have the votes on the 
series of amendments that have been outlined by the chairman of the 
committee to start, I am suggesting, maybe at 10 minutes after 10 or 
something of that nature?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think Senator Hatfield has 17 minutes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I have 17 minutes and other Senators are asking to be 
heard. I would agree, say, to a quarter after 10, provided this time is 
not charged against my allotment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time remaining to the Senator from Oregon 
is 14 minutes 56 seconds.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Does that include this period of colloquy? 
[[Page S7303]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That time has come out of the time of the 
Senator from New Mexico, who requested the time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So, Mr. President, for the understanding of everyone, 
Senator Hatfield has 15 minutes, and I will yield back the remainder of 
the time on the amendment so we will have more time for other 
amendments, and we will proceed in this order.
  Mr. EXON. So the vote will be in the area of 10:15?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is about right.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, will the distinguished 
manager be willing to amend that to the following: that after the 
series of votes, the Senator from Vermont be recognized for not to 
exceed 4 minutes to speak on two resolutions which will be voted on.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, it seems to me that the Senator from 
Vermont, with all due respect, is trying to step ahead of several other 
Senators whom we have made commitments to. I would ask the Senator to 
withdraw that request.
  Mr. LEAHY. I was not aware of the commitments.
  I withdraw the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support as a cosponsor 
of the Hatfield amendment. I also want to commend the Senator from 
Florida for his very eloquent statement on why the NIH is so important 
to this Nation, and I do not have too much to add to that.
  But I will point out that this is a perfect example of what can 
happen if we are not careful as we go forward with the debate on the 
budget and agree to cut things without recognizing that, in many cases, 
those things that we seek to cut to try to reduce the deficit, in 
effect, will add to the deficit. That is certainly true when it comes 
to medical research.
  Time and time again, we have been able to make breakthroughs through 
the research by the NIH. Those breakthroughs have resulted in 
considerable, if not substantial, and gigantic savings in the cost of 
health care.
  We all know that as we move forward, the most essential area that we 
have to control costs in is the health care area. So I would say that 
the NIH is clearly an entity that must be maintained because this is 
one area where they have a role and a role that must be maintained to 
not only do the research that they do at the NIH but, in addition to 
that, to take care of the research that is done in the hospitals, the 
training schools and the training universities, so that our whole area 
of health care can improve as we move along.
  This creates many jobs through the biomedical research and technology 
transfers and all this adds, again, revenues to our deficit.
  The resulting knowledge is essential from these entities for 
established industries such as DNA and other areas of research.
  In other areas, we have saved already billions of dollars with 
respect to psychoactive drugs that save over $70 billion a year in 
hospitalization of mental patients. Vaccines and fluoridation save 
countless health care dollars and, again, help reduce the deficit.
  The recent discovery of bacterial causes of peptic ulcers will save 
millions in chronic care costs. As I said over and over again, the same 
is true in education generally, not just medical education; that if we 
cut those things which are resulting in savings, then our job to solve 
the deficit problem will get worse and worse instead of better.
  So I commend the Senator from Oregon for this amendment and support 
it with enthusiasm. If I have any time remaining, I yield it back.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. I 
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to join with many of my colleagues 
today who support the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. In the 
process of developing a budget, we have to set priorities and, in this 
instance, I think the Senator from Oregon has rightly pointed out the 
initial budget resolution had some priorities that should be adjusted, 
and he has certainly pointed out the strengths and importance of NIH 
and what it contributes to the fabric of America's society and it 
should be supported. I strongly commend him for that. Therefore, I will 
vote for this amendment.
  NIH is a unique institution. It is a collection of some of the most 
talented and brilliant individuals from around the world, but 
especially from the United States, who are working together to push the 
envelope of improving the health of not only the American people but 
the world in general.
  It is an institution which is also fairly delicate. That type of 
talent and ability needs to be nurtured and needs to be supported, and 
it can be affected rather considerably by changes in its funding 
structure or in its general structure.
  Therefore, I want to commend and support what the Senator from Oregon 
has decided to do with this amendment, which is to assure that NIH 
remains a strong and vibrant institution as we move into the future, 
and that their commitment to improving the lives of all Americans will 
not in any way be undermined by this budget resolution.
  So I support and look forward to voting for the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Oregon.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have a number of comments I wish to 
close with, but if there are questions pending, I would like to 
respond.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a 
question?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I will be very happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. There is some confusion as to where the offsets are coming 
from. Will the Senator please state where he is getting these offsets 
for his increase in the NIH funding?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the offsets are coming from nondefense 
discretionary funds and accounts. I have pages of tables here on each 
precise account that would indicate where they are coming from. We have 
excluded within that Medicare, and the health services, but they are 
then from all other remaining of the nondefense discretionary accounts.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, I am a strong supporter of adequate funding of NIH 
research programs, but we are already suffering terrible blows to 
nonmilitary discretionary programs. I would like to have seen the 
Senator's amendment take the funds out of military discretionary 
programs and foreign aid.
  I would like to know just what other programs are being cut. The 
distinguished Senator has stated that certain programs are not being 
cut. But what does this leave by way of nonmilitary discretionary 
programs that are going to suffer additional cuts over and above those 
that are already involved in the resolution?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I will respond by saying I 
wholeheartedly agree. In fact, at the beginning of my time allocation 
today, I sent to the desk a proposal that would take these funds, 
offset these funds from everything in the discretionary area, including 
military.
  Having shopped that proposal around the Senate, I calculated we would 
have had about 20 votes. So we would have ended up with the 
dismantling, what I call this proposal, which is a prelude to disaster, 
of the medical research infrastructure we have developed in this 
country, the greatest in the world.
  By taking a second-degree or withdrawing the first and offering the 
second proposal, which was to exclude the military, by that action, we 
have salvaged, at the expense of a fewer other agencies than my first 
proposal, but we at least have salvaged the future of NIH.
  It is a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul, I suppose would be the 
most succinct way to do it. Not my preference, but with the political 
reality I face on this floor, it was the only way I could find to 
salvage and save NIH.
[[Page S7304]]

  Mr. BYRD. In other words, if I may pursue the subject a bit further, 
it would mean additional cuts in VA programs?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. It would mean additional cuts in education programs?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. It would mean additional cuts in various other health 
programs?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, various others. Nondefense discretionary funds, 
with the exclusion of the health programs and Medicare.
  Mr. BYRD. It would mean additional cuts in law enforcement?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I applaud 
his objective. I want to support the amendment, but at the same time, I 
find it hard to continue to cut more and more and more from these other 
nonmilitary discretionary programs.
  I suppose we are faced with the choice now of either voting for or 
against the amendment. I am sorry that other nonmilitary programs are 
to be cut.
  We apparently do not have the votes in here to cut military funding. 
As an example, the B-2 bomber costs somewhere between $740 million and 
$1.2 billion per copy--and I believe that we have already committed 
ourselves to a contract for 20 additional B-2 bombers to be completed 
by the year 2000. There are many other military programs of like manner 
that I could cite, but I will not do it at this time. I thank the 
distinguished Senator for allotting me this opportunity to ask a 
question.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I share the agony. Believe me, one might 
think that we have cause to celebrate a victory if this amendment 
passes--which I expect it to do, and to survive conference, which I 
hope it could do--but I do not believe that it does call for a joint 
celebration because we have achieved one goal at a pretty heavy cost to 
an awful lot of other programs that I have deep interest in, as well. 
It is like choosing between your children. It is very difficult.
  Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee, I would like to ask a question for the Record. 
In the report of the Budget Committee accompanying this resolution, 
where there were exemptions listed within the report language, if this 
amendment is adopted, do I understand clearly that that will then, in 
effect, eradicate, eliminate, excise those conditions within the report 
language of exemptions?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Thank you.
  Mr. President, in closing, I thank my colleagues who joined in this 
effort. I say that it is, I believe, a step in the right direction. 
But, at the same time, I want to take a moment, once again, to commend 
the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici from New Mexico. 
I would not trade with him for all the tea in China. I think Senator 
Domenici has probably one of the toughest jobs in the Senate. No matter 
what he does and his colleagues on that committee, it is a no-win 
situation. It is a very, very difficult task. I think they have carried 
their duties with not only great skill, great dignity and, above all, 
with remarkable patience. I have been in the strategy meetings, and 
everybody is gigging, and I am happy that everybody is taking it out on 
good old Pete. I want to come to his defense--not that he needs my 
defense--but I admire him as chairman of the committee. I admire what 
he does and his dedication and spirit. And I deeply admire him as one 
of my closest personal friends.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the Senator has 1 minute. If he 
does not mind, I will use it. I personally thank Senator Hatfield for 
his comments. I think it is obvious to everyone that you do not have a 
budget resolution like the one pending on the floor without a lot of 
cooperation. On our side, let me say that the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee clearly could have made this more difficult, 
and he chose to go with us on a balanced budget. He has been a strong 
advocate on it. We are not going in a direction he might choose, but I 
think he indicated to me that he is so concerned about our deficit 
spending that he compliments us on what we are doing.
  Let me also say there is no doubt in my mind that the funding for the 
NIH that the distinguished Senator from Oregon seeks could be 
accommodated in the budget resolution by the appropriators, by 
allocating differently and leaving more for the NIH. I think the 
Senator has decided he wants the Senate to speak on the issue. I gather 
that is the purpose of the vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oregon yield the 
remainder of his time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield any time I may have had remaining, Mr. 
President.
                           amendment no. 1130

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bumpers-Bradley 
amendment to strike language that would allow us to count the sale of 
public assets--parks, powerplants, buildings, even oil in national 
storage facilities--as deficit reduction.
  This bill language will open the floodgates for proposals to unload 
valuable Federal assets in return for the fast buck. Many of these 
proposals, in fact, will lead to reduced revenues in the future, and 
higher deficits. Only by a reliance on today's political myopia--a 
simpleminded scoring of sales revenue within the limited budget 
window--will many of these proposals withstand the straight face test. 
Only by railroading these proposals through the Senate, under the very 
restrictive and controlled conditions of budget reconciliation, would 
many of these proposals ever have a chance of becoming law.
  I have not seen the Budget Committee's latest scoring of these asset 
sales receipts. But I note for colleagues' benefit that the analysis 
that I have shows an interesting point. In the short term, the 
committee's proposals produce deficit reduction. In the longer term, 
however, and certainly by the year 2002, these savings disappear. In 
fact, selling these assets appears to reduce future revenues 
sufficiently that the actual effect by the year 2002 is that the 
deficit increases. Asset sales are short-term and short-sighted.
  It would be helpful to review why we produce these budget resolutions 
in the first place. The reason is not to balance the budget. If it was, 
I'm sure we could create some appropriate fiction which showed 
budgetary balance by definition.
  But that's not what we were supposed to be doing here. We're supposed 
to be systematic. We're supposed to be honest. We're supposed to be 
consistent. We're supposed to address the substantive, structural 
issues which keep the Federal Government spending--year in, year out--
more money than it takes in.
  So what do we have here, buried deep in this bill? We have a trick, a 
gimmick. We cut spending, by redefining what a cut is. Now, for the 
first time since we gave this budget process teeth--with the passage of 
Gramm-Rudman--we can sell off national property--national assets--and 
include the proceeds as deficit reduction.
  Mr. President, because of these cynically clever changes, we can now 
propose--for example--to sell nearly a billion dollars' worth of oil 
from the strategic petroleum, and chalk that up to deficit reduction.
  Notwithstanding the fact that both Democratic and Republican 
administrations have endorsed expanding the SPR, notwithstanding the 
fact that hardly a week goes by without some oil State Senator coming 
to the floor to talk about rising oil imports and the threats to 
national security, notwithstanding the fact that at any time we could 
liquidate this oil inventory for cash, how can we seriously allege that 
this particular sale has anything to do with positive public policy, 
with putting our fiscal house in order, with creating a better future 
for our children?
  Why stop at a billion dollars of SPR oil? Sell it all. And credit the 
$10 billion raised to balancing the budget or protecting our children's 
future.
  This asset sale language will lead to all sorts of questionable 
proposals. It may make sense to sell the assets of the Tennessee Valley 
Authority, or Bonneville Power, or the hydrodams in [[Page S7305]] the 
West, or some small park in Louisiana or Texas or Virginia. But these 
arguments need to have a broader basis than the most simpleminded 
budget concerns.
  In fact, I doubt that any business accountant or economist would 
agree with the underlying budgetary premise--that liquidating public 
assets adds to public wealth. If I sell my stock portfolio and put the 
returns in my checking account, do I become wealthier? Have I protected 
my children? It may make sense to make sell my stocks, but the 
transaction itself produces no wealth--except for my broker.
  Consider the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We can lease the refuge 
to oil developers and sell any oil that might be underground to them. 
We will get some money. The companies will get the rights to oil. If 
they find oil, probably it will be shipped to the Pacific rim and 
burned completely. Have we done a lot for our kids? You must be joking.
  At best, we can claim for our children a neutral financial 
transaction. But what about the larger issues? If we go ahead with the 
development of ANWR, we damage probably irrevocably a unique, world-
class ecosystem. We consume utterly a non-renewable resource. We get 
some cash.
  If we forgo the drilling of ANWR, we preserve intact this ecosystem. 
We preserve intact any oil underground and the possibility of future 
development. We do not get the cash.
  I, frankly, reject any claim that our children will thank us for 
using up this oil and running oil rigs and oil pipelines across the 
Arctic Plain.
  Mr. President, what the American public expects, and what our 
children expect, is for us to get our fiscal house in order. Our 
children are not asking us to sell off their collective inheritance. 
Our children are not asking us to look narrowly at some budget window 
and forget that many of these assets produce public value--and I do not 
just mean financial value--beyond the window.
  When one Member from the other side of the aisle, Senator Craig, 
considered this issue as a House Member, he said ``asset sales are in 
fact blue smoke and mirrors at best. If they are to happen, they should 
be set off budget.'' Exactly right.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague, Senator Bumpers, to strike a provision of the budget 
resolution that would allow scoring of revenues from the sale of 
Federal assets. Make no mistake, I believe in reducing the Federal 
deficit. But this is simply the wrong way to do it.
  The current rule prohibiting the scoring of Federal asset sales, 
first adopted as part of the 1987 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, has been 
incorporated into recent budget resolutions. When it was first adopted, 
Senator Chiles, then chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, made it 
clear that the rule was intended to prevent the use of asset sales from 
being used to jimmy the figures, in other words to give the appearance 
of deficit reduction without really reducing spending.
  The same principle applies here today. By changing the current rule 
prohibiting the scoring of Federal asset sales, the budget resolution 
would allow individual Committees to reach their deficit reduction 
targets by selling off Federal properties. This is a short-sighted 
strategy that sacrifices our children's heritage for an immediate 
infusion of cash; we should not use their inheritance to pay our debts.
  There are two examples where I think this strategy is particularly 
misguided. The first is the sale of power marketing agencies that year 
after year provide affordable electricity to people in rural 
communities across this country. The second is the leasing for oil and 
gas development of one of this Nation's most magnificent wildlife 
refuges, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

                        power marketing agencies

  I've spoken many times before opposing the sale of power marketing 
agencies as a silly and shortsighted idea. It's nonsense. We should be 
selling off our infrastructure. We would be opening the door to 
monopolies. And that spells higher utility bills for ratepayers in 
Montana and other States across the Nation. In other words, it's 
nothing but a heavy-handed, punitive tax on the middle class.

                    arctic national wildlife refuge

  The budget resolution also proposes to lease the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, which is in the northeast corner of Alaska. The refuge 
supports a spectacular diversity of wildlife, including polar bears, 
grizzly bears, wolves, and snow geese. In addition, more than 150,000 
caribou migrate through the refuge, bearing their young on the coastal 
plain. The caribou are an important source of food for the native 
people who live near the refuge and continue, as their ancestors have 
for generations, to depend on the land to sustain their way of life. In 
1987, the United States and Canada signed an International Agreement 
for the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd.
  Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which 
Congress passed in 1980, oil and gas development is prohibited in the 
19 million acre refuge unless authorized by Congress. Because the 1.5 
million acre coastal plain is such an important and unique are for 
wildlife, I believe it should be permanently protected. I have 
cosponsored a bill (S. 428) to designate that area as wilderness.
  However, regardless of whether you agree with me that this area 
should be permanently protected or, as the Budget Committee proposes, 
it should be opened for drilling, I believe this issue is too 
significant and too complex to be resolved during the budget process. 
The budget process focuses on the short-term economic gains to be 
obtained by drilling. It is not suited to considering what benefits and 
values will be lost for future generations of Americans by developing 
this pristine wildlife refuge. The budget resolution and the subsequent 
reconciliation bill are two of the very few bills where Senate rules 
limit debate and amendments. In my opinion, this path does not provide 
an adequate opportunity to evaluate alternatives, to question the 
assumptions on which those projected economic gains are based, or to 
fully consider the potential impacts of drilling on the fragile arctic 
environment.
  These decisions could result in higher utility bills for middle-class 
Americans across the country and significantly impact one of our most 
precious national wildlife refuges. To ensure that these issues receive 
the full consideration and debate they deserve, I urge my colleagues to 
reject the proposed rule change that would allow the scoring of federal 
asset sales and to vote for the Bumpers amendment.
                       Vote on Amendment No. 1126

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  According to the previous order, the vote will now occur on amendment 
No. 1126 offered by the Senators from Iowa and Arkansas.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I request 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 amendment No. 
1126.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--71

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye [[Page S7306]] 
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bond
       
  So the amendment (No. 1126) was rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on two 
amendments that have been previously ordered to be voted on. I ask for 
the yeas and nays on the Feingold amendment and the yeas and nays on 
the Dodd substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Is there objection to ordering the yeas and nays en bloc?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there is no motion en bloc, is there?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a sufficient second. Hearing no 
objection, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

                       Vote on Amendment No. 1127

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1127.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bradley
     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
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bond
       
  So the amendment (No. 1127) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                       Vote on Amendment No. 1130

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 1130 of Senator Bumpers.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority manager of the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Bumpers amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Bumpers amendment, No. 1130. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bond
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1130) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
                       Vote on Amendment No. 1131

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs with respect to amendment 
No. 1131 offered by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] to 
amendment No. 1128, offered by the Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe].
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to lay that amendment on the 
table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 1131. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bond
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1131) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S7307]]

                       Vote on Amendment No. 1128

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on Amendment No. 1128 
offered by the Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Brown
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Feingold
     Frist
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Pressler
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--60

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thompson
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bond
       
  So the amendment (No. 1128) was rejected.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                       Vote on Amendment No. 1133

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment numbered 
1133, offered by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--14

     Ashcroft
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Craig
     Gorton
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     Rockefeller
     Smith
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bond
       
  So the amendment (No. 1133) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  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 now we would proceed under the 
previously agreed to order. I yield such time as she may need to the 
Senator from the State of California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer].
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on my time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Of course. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time remains on the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour forty-nine minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is divided about equally?
  Mr. EXON. I believe the time rests with the minority.
  Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from 
Nebraska is 1 hour and 49 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to remind Senators that when that 
1 hour and 49 minutes is up--and, obviously, if the Senator uses the 
full hour--we will use a full hour on our side on the amendment. Then 
there will not be any time left.
  It would seem to me that we ought to try to expedite things and find 
out how many amendments are real. I will try to do that in the next 10 
minutes; find out exactly how many amendments we must have on our side. 
I hope we will try because I think Senators must know. Last year, on 
the budget resolution, there were 20 or 35 amendments, and the way the 
majority leader then did it was the clerk read one sentence explaining 
it and we voted.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think I can enlighten my friend. It is 
this Senator's intention to use only about 5 or 6 minutes, then to 
yield back my time on this amendment to my ranking member, Senator 
Exon, and then he will yield to other Senators to explain their 
amendments. That is the plan.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is fine. I just want Senators to know that even if 
the Senator yields her time I do not have to yield my time. I would 
like to get some understanding of how we are going to use the time 
because I will use an hour in opposition. On the other hand, we might 
be able to work out something, if the Senator would like.
  Mr. EXON. I appreciate the attitude expressed by the chairman of the 
Budget Committee. I appreciate the remarks and the agreement made by 
the Senator from California.
  What we are trying to do is give Senators on this side 2 or 3 minutes 
to explain amendments that will later be offered, and trying to use the 
time in that fashion. Hopefully we can cooperate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator might permit me. I will depend 
on the Senator from Nebraska totally. When she yields, if the Senator 
from Nebraska would use 10 minutes or so while I am off the floor, then 
I will come back.
  Mr. EXON. I will be able to use that, or as much time that the 
Senator from New Mexico cares to be gone.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much. I would like to use mine 
in opposition.

                           Amendment No. 1134

 (Purpose: To strengthen the sense of the Congress that 90 percent of 
       the benefits of any tax cuts must go to the middle class)

  Mrs. BOXER. 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 California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1134.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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 89, strike line 1 through 17 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 306. PROHIBITION OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD INCLUDE A TAX 
                   CUT UNLESS 90 PERCENT OF THE BENEFITS GO TO THE 
                   MIDDLE CLASS.

       (a) Finding.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the incomes of middle-class families have stagnated 
     since the early 1980's, with family incomes growing more 
     slowly between 1979 and 1989 than in any other business cycle 
     since World War II; and
       (2) according to the Department of the Treasury, in 1996, 
     approximately 90 percent of American families will have 
     incomes less than $100,000.
       (b) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference [[Page S7308]] report that contains a reduction in 
     revenues unless at least 90 percent of the benefits of that 
     reduction goes to working families with annual incomes less 
     than $100,000.
       (c) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the 
     Chair relating to this section shall be limited to 1 hour, to 
     be equally divided between and controlled by, the appellant 
     and the manager of the bill or resolution, as the case may 
     be. An affirmative vote of 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.
       (d) Congressional Budget Office Reports.--Whenever the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare a 
     report pursuant to section 308 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 in connection with a bill, resolution, or 
     conference report that contains a reduction in revenues, the 
     Director shall so state in that report, and, to the extent 
     practicable, shall include an estimate of the amount of the 
     reduction in revenues and the percent of the benefits of that 
     reduction in revenue that will go to working families with 
     annual incomes less than $100,000.
       (e) Estimates.--Solely for the purposes of enforcement of 
     this section on the Senate floor, the percentage of benefits 
     of a reduction in revenues going to working families with 
     annual incomes less than $100,000 shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office.
       (f) Sunset.--This section shall expire at the close of the 
     104th Congress.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
speak for 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are asking the question again with this 
Boxer amendment: ``Whose side are you on?'' And with many amendments 
that have come before this body which have all been revenue neutral 
which have not added 1 cent to the deficit, we have asked this 
question: ``Whose side are you on?"
  I think that this Boxer amendment gives all of us a chance to answer 
that question one more time.
  The amendment says that the only tax cuts that will be in order in 
this Congress will be tax cuts where 90 percent of the benefits go to 
those earning under $100,000 per year. Any other tax cut plan will be 
subjected to a 60-vote point of order.
  So this is our opportunity to really take a stand with the middle 
class, not just in words but in actual votes.
  Why is this amendment necessary? Simply because the Republican 
contract calls for tax cuts for the very wealthy, the very top 1, 2 
percent of the people, and I would like to point this out, courtesy of 
Senator Lautenberg. We have some facts here.
  The winners in the Republican budget clearly are wealthy. Nothing 
that has happened on this floor has changed it. Indeed, the amendments 
that we had, which would have helped this balance tilt back toward the 
middle class, have gone down in flames because of party-line votes.
  So clearly the winners are the rich, $350,000 a year, and this 
Republican budget will give them a $20,000 tax break. That is what is 
hidden in the so-called reserve for tax cuts. That is what the House 
has already voted on.
  We know that corporate subsidies are protected and tax loopholes are 
saved. As a matter of fact, when we tried even to end the one that goes 
to the billionaire Benedict Arnolds who leave the country to avoid 
taxes, we could not even get that one through.
  I think another chart by the Democratic leader shown to us in this 
debate tells the story. Working families pay for GOP tax cuts for 
wealthy. Here is the family. Seniors pay $6,400 more due to the changes 
in Medicare. Working families pay $1,400 more because of the changes in 
the earned-income tax credit. Students pay $3,000 more over the 
lifetime of the loans because of the change in the cuts in student 
loans.
  So that is who is paying for the tax cuts for the wealthy. Who? Those 
over $350,000 will get a $20,000 tax cut. That is in the contract, and 
that has been voted by the Republican House.
  Now, will there be tax cuts? We hear the chairman of the Budget 
Committee saying there are not going to be tax cuts. ``I do not have 
them in there. It is going to be awhile.''
  I say to my friends that there are going to be tax cuts. Look at what 
the majority leader says, Senator Dole. ``We are going to have tax 
cuts.'' It does not say ``maybe.'' It says, ``We are going to have tax 
cuts.'' He said it on May 9. He said it on March 11. ``I am certain 
that Senate tax cuts will be as big in magnitude as the House,'' 
Senator Dole.
  Senator Gramm:

       I don't think a budget without a tax cut can pass.

  And we know that is true because Senator Feingold just had an 
amendment that would have taken that little honeypot and put it toward 
deficit reduction, and it went down because Republicans voted against 
it.
  So to UPI, Senator Gramm said in March:

       Let me assure you that tax cuts are in order in the 
     Republican Senate. I am for them. They are part of our 
     Contract With America.

  So that really shows you the facts. There is going to be a tax cut, 
and what this Senator from California is saying is, if there are going 
to be tax cuts, let us make sure they go to those earning under 
$100,000. I think it is very important.
  Now, I want to say to my friends who are debating in their mind how 
they are going to vote that in the committee, every single Republican 
except one, Senator Gramm, voted for the Boxer amendment that was a 
sense-of-the-Senate that said 90 percent of the tax cuts should go to 
those earning $100,000 or less.
  I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator has 1 additional 
minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is that the remainder of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes now. There were 
6. She has two additional minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  So every single Republican save one voted for the sense of the 
Senate. Now we are putting some teeth into that sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. Now we are saying if the Republicans come up with a tax cut 
that benefits the rich, it will take 60 votes to allow that tax cut to 
move forward. This is a chance for my Republican friends to stand up 
and be counted for the middle class.
  Now, in the course of this debate, Senator Gregg, Senator Brown, and 
Senator Domenici referenced my sense-of-the-Senate resolution that 
passed and is part of the budget resolution. They said this Senate is 
on record; we believe that tax cuts should go to the middle class and 
the middle class only.
  Well, now is where the rubber meets the road. They have a chance to 
cast their vote on the side of those earning $100,000 or less. They 
have a chance to say that those will be the only tax cuts that come 
before us.
  I say to my colleagues, this is an opportunity to stand with the 
middle class, to stand with those hard-working Americans and to say to 
those who earn over $350,000, over $250,000: Listen, you are great 
Americans, but it is time for you to pay your fair share and it is time 
for others to get some of the breaks that you have received.
  I think it is important to close with a quote from Kevin Phillips, a 
Republican, who said about this budget the following:

       Spending on Government programs for Medicare and education 
     to home heating oil assistance is to be reduced in ways that 
     hurt the poor and middle class, while simultaneously taxes 
     are to be cut in ways that benefit the top 1 or 2 percent of 
     Americans.

  Kevin Phillips closes his remarks, and he says about this budget, 
with these tax cuts in it:

       It deserves to be rejected with outrage.

  Those are his words, a Republican who has looked at this budget. I 
think that the Boxer amendment that clearly points out that a point of 
order will lie against any tax cut that does not benefit the middle 
class is one which we should all agree to and vote for in a bipartisan 
way. I thank the Chair.
  I yield my time back to the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
  Mrs. BOXER. I have yielded my time back to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. We are now going to go forward in an orderly fashion. I 
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana. Following the Senator 
from Louisiana, I had committed to yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Maryland, 2 minutes to the other Senator from Maryland, 2 minutes to 
the Senator from New Mexico, 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, 2 minutes [[Page S7309]] to the Senator from Nevada, and 
then we will go to a main amendment of the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Johnston amendment takes the $170 
billion fund which is reserved exclusively for tax cuts and permits 
such part of that as the Senate wishes to allocate to reduce the cuts 
in Medicare.
  Under the Domenici proposal now before the Senate, there is $257 
billion cut from Medicare in the amounts shown in each of these years. 
What I would do is authorize that the $170 billion be restored in the 
manner shown here so that net cuts in Medicare would amount to only 
one-third of those proposed by Senator Domenici. There would be no cuts 
at all in the first 2 years and a minimal cut in the third year, and 
overall there would be less than a third the cuts which are presently 
proposed.
  Mr. President, this amendment places in stark contrast the fact that 
Medicare cuts are not required in order to balance the budget. At least 
two-thirds of those cuts are not required to balance the budget. Two-
thirds of the Medicare cuts proposed by Senator Domenici and now backed 
by the Senate are required to lower taxes, and to lower taxes on the 
wealthy, not required to balance the budget.
  Mr. President, this does not require that we spend the money to 
reduce Medicare cuts, but it authorizes that. And I will tell my 
colleagues that we have not the foggiest notion how we are going to 
achieve those Medicare cuts. We have not been told. We are told there 
might be a commission appointed. What I am saying is the Senate ought 
to have the freedom to decide whether or not, after this budget 
resolution passes, and after we make that $170 billion in savings, we 
ought to have the freedom to spend that $170 billion to reduce the 
impact of Medicare cuts on our senior citizens.
  All the public opinion polls say 80 percent of the people of this 
country are opposed to these deep Medicare cuts. Now, why does the 
Senate want to lock itself into reducing Medicare by that much when all 
we have to do is give ourselves the freedom to take the tax cut for the 
wealthy and spend it to reduce the Medicare cuts?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 2 minutes.

                Retirement Benefits of Federal Employees

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the amendment which I will be sending to 
the desk at the proper time on behalf of myself, Senator Mikulski, 
Senator Warner, Senator Robb, and Senator Bingaman goes directly at a 
provision that is in the budget resolution which is going to change the 
calculation of retirement benefits for Federal employees from the 
employee's highest 3-year average to the highest 5-year average.
  This I think is a breach of the contract with the Federal employees. 
I think it is clearly unfair to them. The amendment honoring our 
contract with Federal employees is paid for by closing the 
billionaires' tax loophole that allows very wealthy people to escape 
paying taxes by renouncing their American citizenship.
  Mr. President, I regret that Federal employees are constantly being 
used as whipping boys in the course of these budget deliberations. 
Behind the phrase Federal worker are individual men and women who every 
day go in and try to do a dedicated job and render a service to the 
American people. They perform critical and important functions each and 
every day with a great deal of dedication and a great deal of devotion, 
and in my judgment they are entitled to be treated with dignity and 
respect.
  Federal employees have already in the various deficit reduction 
programs made very significant sacrifices. We are talking about men and 
women who have worked hard in service to their country. They have 
earned their benefits, and the rules ought not to be changed on them as 
they are approaching retirement.
  The existing provision, the 3-year provision, has been in effect for 
more than a quarter of a century. People have calculated their 
retirement and their ability to meet their financial obligations based 
on the current system, and we ought not to come along at the very end 
and change the rules on them, by shifting the basis on which their 
retirement is being calculated.
  The truth is that Federal workers give dedicated service to their 
country and have earned their benefits. They made a choice to serve 
their country with an understanding of what that service entailed and 
what they could expect in return. To change the rules breaches the 
contract with these employees. This is an issue of fairness and I urge 
my colleagues to join me in support of this important amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Sarbanes-Mikulski 
amendment which strikes the provision which cuts Federal employee 
retirement benefits. The proposed change in the budget resolution would 
reduce lifetime retirement benefits for Federal employees between 2 and 
4 percent.
  Now, that might not sound like that much, but for an average Federal 
worker, that could mean as much as a loss of $27,000 or more over a 
lifetime.
  Mr. President, this is outrageous. We are changing the rules of the 
game on Federal employees in the middle of their career or near the end 
of their career. I have Federal employees in my State, 130,000 of them. 
They are the civilian work force that makes your Air Force One keep 
flying. They are the people at the National Institutes of Health that 
we just extolled the virtues of when we supported NIH.
  We talked a great deal about a wonderful physician by the name of Dr. 
Rosenberg who has devoted his life to saving lives and curing cancer, 
and now this amendment will cut his Federal pension.
 It is both a reality and a metaphor for people who gave up careers 
that would have paid more in the private sector but wanted to serve 
their country and they thought they would have an adequate health 
insurance plan and a reasonable retirement plan.

  So, Mr. President, I really ask the U.S. Senate to support the 
Sarbanes-Mikulski amendment to ensure that promises made are promises 
kept and that we can continue to attract the kind of quality work force 
for the Federal Government that we have had.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes in opposition 
to the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest to my good friend if we 
would like to build a little bit of back and forth on this, I am more 
than willing. Otherwise, we will use the hour in opposition to the 
Boxer amendment. I would very much like to know where we are.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct a question through you to 
the manager of the bill, to the chairman. The Senator was off the 
floor. There are a few of us here that have only a couple of minutes to 
explain what our amendments would be, and it would probably be that we 
will only have a couple minutes to maybe get these out of the way. 
Would that be possible?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The way it is now, you have an hour, the rest of an 
hour, and I have an hour. I would like to be accommodating.
  Mr. EXON. I simply say to my friend, we want to be accommodating, 
too. We know the situation we are in. I have three additional Senators 
which I had assigned time, of which Senator Reid is one of them. There 
is 1 minute, 2 minutes, and 2 minutes. If we could accommodate those 
Senators who have been waiting--and I do not want to be unfair--for the 
next 5 minutes, at least we would take care of the first round of the 
attempts that this Senator is trying to make to accommodate a whole 
group of Senators on this side who want to speak.
  Could we complete the first round, in line with the question from the 
Senator from Nevada?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve my 15 
minutes until the Senator's wishes as expressed are completed. Then I 
will speak in opposition to the amendment. [[Page S7310]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
2 minutes.

                   Civilian Research and Development

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to speak just briefly on an 
amendment that I will be offering, along with Senators Lieberman, 
Rockefeller, Biden, Hollings, Byrd, and Kerry from Massachusetts for a 
vote later on today.
  The amendment attempts to restore some of the funds that are proposed 
to be eliminated in the civilian research and development accounts. 
This amendment is attempting to retain as much as we can of the U.S. 
science and technology enterprise which has brought such great results 
to our country and to the world.
  This chart, I believe, sums it up very well. This shows what has 
happened to Federal civilian research and development as a percentage 
of gross domestic product from 1960 until the end of this century if we 
were to take the budget proposal that is now pending on the Senate 
floor. As you can see, under the proposed GOP budget, there will be an 
additional dramatic drop off in Federal support for civilian research 
and development. This includes the National Institutes of Health 
funding which we earlier had a vote on, but it also includes many other 
areas of funding that the Federal Government supports in the research 
and development area.
  You can see the last year we had a balanced budget in this country, 
about 1968-1969, we were spending something in the range of 0.7 of our 
gross domestic product on civilian research and development. If this 
budget is adopted, we will be spending less than 0.3 percent, less than 
half of that. We will be spending substantially less as a country than 
our competitors in other parts of the world.
  I believe our amendment is important. I know Senators Lieberman and 
Rockefeller intend to speak on it later, as well.
  I have used my time and I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

                  Restoring Funding to National Parks

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, our national parks are in a state of 
embarrassing disrepair. As an example, water systems in one of our 
busiest national park areas has been closed because of water not 
meeting minimal standards. In short, it is not safe to drink.
  We will be closing visitor centers, closing roads and trails, closing 
public buildings, closing campgrounds; and law enforcement reductions 
will occur, to name but a few.
  My amendment, which I will offer, will seek $1 billion from the 
proposed tax cuts and instead give the money to partially restore, 
renovate, and maintain our beautiful national heritage--that is our 
National Park System. And that will only partially do it, because there 
is a $2 billion backlog. I will apply the $1 billion toward this.
  Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment to the 1996 
Budget Reconciliation Act that over the next 7 years would restore $1 
billion in funding to the National Park Service to alleviate its 
devastating maintenance backlog. These fund would be drawn from the 
$170 billion reserve fund. With my amendment the money can only be used 
for restoration, renovation, or maintenance of our national parks.
  As Teddy Roosevelt, the man most responsible for the conservation 
movement involving our public lands once said and I quote, ``Surely our 
people do not understand even yet the rich heritage that is theirs. 
There can be nothing in the world more beautiful than the Yosemite, the 
groves of giant sequoias and redwoods, the canyon of Colorado, the 
canyon of Yellowstone, the tetons; and our people should see to it that 
they are preserved for their children and their children's children 
forever, with their majestic beauty all unmarred.'' These words spoken 
by Theodore Roosevelt in 1905 ring true today. But, the very 
government, this Congress, that has been given the responsibility to 
protect the crown jewels, better known as our national parks and 
recreation areas, is abdicating that trust.
  That is why I have come to the floor today to highlight a matter of 
national concern. I am speaking of the outrageous and deplorable 
conditions of our national parks and recreation areas. The spending 
cuts proposed by this budget would reverse a longstanding trend of 
committed support by the citizens of this nation to the continued 
preservation and protection of its National Park System.
  In today's environment of fiscal responsibility it is interesting 
that some in this body and the leadership in the House are calling for 
a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. The tax breaks in the House-
passed Contract With America tax bill will mostly benefit those 
families with incomes over $100,000, the top twelve percent of income 
distribution in this country. In essence these cuts are going to those 
who can afford to travel anywhere for vacation.
  However, millions of less affluent Americans in 1994 traveled to one 
or more of our national parks for their vacations and in many instances 
found these facilities in some form of disrepair.
  It defies common sense to think that Congress will approve a tax cut 
and then proceed to pass a budget that will decimate our national 
parks. In essence, funding for the National Park Service continues to 
be inadequate to meet public use needs. With this budget, the current 
maintenance backlog of over two billion dollars is simply going to grow 
and grow causing portions of the parks to become unavailable to the 
public.
  Rehabilitation of park structures, roads, trails, and utility systems 
is critical to the health and safety of visitors as well as employees. 
With increased visitation to our national park system the proposed 
decrease in funding is going to limit the Park Service's ability to 
serve the public.
  There are many examples of the terrible conditions that have befallen 
our national treasures. In my own State of Nevada, the Lake Mead 
National Recreation Area has an antiquated water treatment system. 
After State officials inspected the park's various water treatment 
facilities they notified the park service that because of surface water 
facility deficiencies, water supplied in areas of the park poses an 
acute risk to human health. The park then posted signs requesting 
visitors to boil their water before drinking. For a park that received 
10 million visitors last year this is an outrage. As a result of the 
current budget proposals it may take as long as 10 years before this 
problem is corrected.
  Here are some other examples that illustrate my concerns of what can 
be expected if this budget becomes an reality. At Independence National 
Historical Park there would be extensive building closures--total or 
partial closure of 11 of the 14 buildings open to the public resulting 
in elimination of 700,000 to 800,000 park visits.
  At Yosemite National Park, operational oversight of concessions would 
be reduced. Campfire programs and visitor centers hours would be 
reduced and some visitor centers would simply close. Preventative 
maintenance on facilities would cease and cutbacks in snow removal 
would delay road openings over mountain passes. Additionally, 
campground seasons would be shortened and horse and backcountry patrols 
would be reduced. Also, visitor protection responses would be reactive 
only and limited to life threatening emergencies or criminal incidents 
involving threats to persons.
  In Rocky Mountain National Park, the drastic reduction in seasonal 
park ranger staff would cut essential personnel available for search, 
rescue, law enforcement, and other emergency services. Three of five 
visitor information centers would be closed. Not to mention that the 
two remaining centers and all campgrounds would be open only from 
Memorial Day through Labor Day.
  At Redwood National Park, all nondiscretionary funds would be 
eliminated forcing severe reduction of the temporary workforce, and 
operating supplies which would minimize maintenance on buildings, 
grounds, trails and roads due to lack of supplies and materials and 
shortage of personnel to complete the work.
  Mount Rainer National Park would also suffer in this current and 
future budget cycle. The park would see its interpretive programs 
eliminated and [[Page S7311]] the inventory of endangered spotted owls 
and marbled murrilette would not be accomplished. This in turn would 
lead to the degradation of other natural resources such as fragile 
alpine meadows. Not to mention the scaling back of ranger patrols and 
reduced campground operating hours with reductions in maintenance and 
cleaning.
  Mr. President, we must not stand by and allow our national parks to 
simply rot. While in the short-term this budget proposal would save 
money, it would, over the long run lead to irreversible consequences, 
and irrevocable damage to the nation's heritage and legacy. I want to 
reemphasize the point that all National Park Service sites, will be 
affected, including the representative symbols of our democracy. For 
example, the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island, Washington Monument, 
Independence Hall, Jefferson Memorial, Mount Rushmore, Fort McHenry, 
and Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Site.
  The impact of the current budget proposals in years one and two force 
the park service to curtail visiting hours at Independence National 
Historical Park and many buildings would be entirely closed. The Statue 
of Liberty would be closed at least 1 day a week. In years three 
through five the impacts are expected to be more extreme. For example, 
with staffing levels further reduced, extensive and prolonged park 
closures could occur. Many of the park services resources would be 
subjected to unacceptable levels of risk pertaining to loss through 
deterioration, theft, fire, and other factors.
  Mr. President, let us reflect for a moment on the responsibility that 
has been delegated to the National Park Service. The Park Service is 
comprised of 368 park units covering more than 80 million acres in 49 
States. The physical inventory alone consists of 15,000 buildings, 
5,200 housing units, 1,400 bridges, 8,000 miles of roads, 125 sewage 
treatment plants, and 1,300 water systems.
  Simply put, the insufficient funding levels proposed by this bill, in 
addition to new facilities and requirements associated with the 
addition of 12 new parks since 1991, will cause the Park Service to 
continue to fall behind in maintaining these structures, thereby 
contributing to a mounting backlog of deficiencies. The net result will 
be increased costs in the future and the subsequent loss of some 
irreplaceable and irretrievable resources.
  Let me reemphasize the point that the effect of this action would 
result in outcomes immediately visible to the public, such as, deferred 
maintenance, closures of campgrounds, and closures of visitor 
facilities. We must and can find other savings offsets in our quest to 
reduce the Federal deficit. These parks are one of the great legacy's 
which we will leave our children. Lets not leave them underdeveloped 
and rundown.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to leave you more sound 
advice from Theodore Roosevelt:

       To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and 
     exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its 
     usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our 
     children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand 
     down to them amplified and developed.

  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 4 minutes.

                  Presidential Campaign Finance System

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up an amendment at the desk on 
behalf of myself, Senators Simon, Ford, Feingold, Bradley, Biden, and 
Wellstone.
  I ask unanimous consent that several letters and editorials 
supporting the existing campaign finance law be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Statements in Support of Presidential Campaign Finance System

       The bipartisan Commission on National Elections, headed by 
     Melvin Laird, Secretary of Defense in the Nixon 
     Administration, and Robert Strauss, former chair of the 
     Democratic National Committee, recognized the value and 
     success of the presidential campaign finance system. The 
     Commission concluded: ``Public financing of presidential 
     elections has clearly proven its worth in opening up the 
     process, reducing undue influence of individuals and groups, 
     and virtually ending corruption in presidential election 
     finance. This major reform of the 1970s should be 
     continued.''
       Former Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV), who chaired the 1976, 
     1980 and 1984 presidential campaigns for President Reagan, 
     also praised the presidential campaign finance system. In 
     discussing the campaign finance problems in Congress, Senator 
     Laxalt said, ``The problem is so bad we ought to start 
     thinking about federal financing'' of House and Senate 
     campaigns. ``It was anathema to me * * * but in my experience 
     with the [Reagan] presidential campaigns, it worked, and it 
     was like a breath of fresh air.''
       The New York Times calls the presidential campaign finance 
     system ``the best existing counterweight to the dominance of 
     check-writing special interests in national politics. * * * 
     This public financing has worked remarkably well to minimize 
     the financial advantage of the party in power and reduce 
     candidates' dependence on wealthy favor-seekers.''
       The Washington Post says the presidential campaign finance 
     system is ``hugely important to efforts aimed at limiting the 
     impact of campaign fund-raising on the presidency.'' It notes 
     that the system ``has actually worked.''
       According to The Wall Street Journal's columnist Gerald F. 
     Seib, ``Whatever else may be said about presidential 
     campaigns of the last two decades, they have been largely 
     free of charges of serious financial corruption. And the 
     elections themselves have been fair and competitive. * * * 
     [T]his is one part of the system that doesn't seem broke.''
       Seib wrote of the effort to repeal the presidential 
     campaign finance system, ``And ultimately, this change would 
     undercut what is supposed to be the GOP's very purpose, which 
     is to balance the budget. The budget is hardly going to be 
     balanced with the minuscule savings achieved by eliminating 
     the presidential campaign fund. * * * It is going to be 
     balanced by getting the snouts of special interests out of 
     the public trough. But special interest snouts won't be kept 
     out after they are invited deeper into American political 
     campaigns.''
     
                                                                    ____
             [From the Atlanta Constitution, May 22, 1995]

                     Presidency to Highest Bidder?

       Tucked away in the 90-page deficit-reduction blueprint of 
     Senate budget Chairman Peter Domenici (R-N.M.) are two lines 
     that would make only a slight dent in federal expenses--less 
     than $50 million a year--but could drastically and 
     perniciously alter the way America picks its presidents.
       The two lines call for the termination, starting in the 
     year 2000, of the presidential campaign fund, which is 
     financed by taxpayers' check-offs on their income tax returns 
     and then made available every four years to qualifying 
     candidates for president during both primary and general 
     election campaigns.
       So what's So wrong with this particular program 
     elimination? Plenty.
       Public financing of bids for the White House was a reform 
     born in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Its whole 
     purpose was to avoid a repeat of the corrupting excesses of 
     the 1972 Nixon campaign, which amassed millions of dollars 
     more than it knew what to do with, legally.
       Considering the climate of cynicism about politics these 
     days, the justification for public campaign financing may 
     sound hopelessly idealistic, but it is fundamentally sound: 
     The presidency ought not be up for auction. No contestant for 
     the office ought to have a wildly disproportionate funding 
     advantage. Serious candidates ought to have enough money to 
     get their messages across throughout the country without 
     becoming beholden to powerful individual donors or interest 
     groups.
       The budget resolution may have Domenici's name on it, but 
     the fingerprints of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are all over 
     the two lines in question. He is an unabashed opponent of 
     public financing and delights in misrepresenting it as ``food 
     stamps for politicians.'' He believes that since the 
     Republicans, who currently are taking a king's ransom in 
     special-interest contributions, are in a position to kill 
     public financing, they should go for it. So there.
       Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole is hardly less enthusiastic 
     about sinking the program--for the campaign in 2000, that is. 
     Whatever principles he may have on the matter don't apply to 
     his immediate situation. He'll happily accept whatever 
     millions be qualified for to pay for his 1996 candidacy.
       Democrats, who blew their change to reform campaign 
     financing rules for Congress in the last session, promise to 
     do what they can to save the presidential campaign system, 
     but they don't appear to have the numbers. A veto may be the 
     only recourse, and since the regression the McConnell 
     champions is so profound, President Clinton should be 
     readying one.
       Public financing, it must be conceded, is not a widely 
     popular notion. Only about 15 percent of taxpayers dedicate 
     $3 each of their taxes for the presidential campaign fund. 
     What that shows is that too few Americans have considered the 
     alternative--that absent public financing, our country may 
     get the best president that money with strings attached ban 
     buy.
       America should strive to do better.
                                                                    ____

[[Page S7312]]

               [From the Kennebec Journal, May 18, 1995]

                      Money, Money, and More Money

       As congressional Republicans work to dismantle the one 
     significant campaign finance reform measure of our time--
     public funding of presidential races--the influence of 
     private money upon the making of public policy continues to 
     be a national disgrace.
       According to former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, 
     who fought hard if unsuccessfully to reform the system, big 
     money contributions may not actually buy votes but they do 
     buy access to members of Congress.
       ``I think it obviously creates the appearance of conflict 
     and casts doubt on the independence of judgment,'' says 
     Mitchell in a new book on the subject produced by the Center 
     for Responsive Politics. ``I think it reduces respect for the 
     institution and the product of its work.''
       However, it is far more than simply a public relations 
     problem. Big money is a corrupting influence in fact as well 
     as in appearance, even if it only gives the contributor 
     readier access to a member of Congress than competitors or 
     ordinary citizens may enjoy.
       It is no doubt true, as Mitchell asserts, that most special 
     interest groups contribute to politicians who share their 
     views rather than attempt to sway those who do not. Even so, 
     the big contribution in that case is used to bind goodwill 
     and ensure a sense of mutual loyalty.
       Clearly the giving of money in large amounts to political 
     candidates is viewed by donors as more than simply a 
     friendly, civic-minded gesture. And it can be used as a stick 
     as much as a carrot.
       Think back a year or so when a Maine labor leader 
     threatened to cut off campaign contributions to then-1st 
     District Rep. Thomas Andrews if he failed to vote against the 
     North American Free Trade Agreement. Call it a form of 
     reverse bribery. Andrews ultimately voted against NAFTA, but 
     swore off labor PAC contributions. It proved costly; he 
     unexpectedly ended up running for Mitchell's Senate seat and 
     raised far less money than his opponent, Sen. Olympia Snowe.
       Most candidates prudently avoid such grand gestures, and, 
     as the cost of election campaigns continues to escalate, so 
     does the candidate's dependence upon special interest money. 
     Last year, 35 to 40 percent of the campaign funding for 
     winners in U.S. Senate and House races came from political 
     action committees. Overall spending in Senate races was up a 
     whopping 20 percent.
       The system cries out for reform, not retrenchment. For 
     years, the Republican minority in Congress has insisted it 
     favors effective reform while rejecting virtually every 
     Democratic proposal to cut the flow of cash from special 
     interests to policy makers. Now that the GOP is in control, 
     we know what it meant by reform: lowering the flood gates.
                                                                    ____

                 [From the Boston Globe, May 17, 1995]

                    What About the Fairness Deficit?

       The changes being pushed by Republican budget makers are so 
     grave they understandably dominate public attention, but they 
     are crowding out some senseless proposals that also deserve 
     the spotlight.
       A prime example is the Senate Budget Committee proposal to 
     eliminate the Presidential Campaign Fund after the 1996 
     election.
       Created post-Watergate, the fund is the single greatest 
     political reform of modern US history. It took the ``For 
     Sale'' sign off the White House, moving moneyed special 
     interests out of the driver's seat and into the spectator 
     stands with the rest of us. Candidates have been funded in 
     the primaries by small individual givers and by federal 
     matching funds, and in the general election by the 
     presidential fund alone. Bill Clinton and George Bush each 
     received $55 million in 1992.
       It has worked. The benefits of the fund have been watered 
     down in recent years by rulings allowing the parties to 
     collect huge sums of ``soft money'' contributions that 
     support campaigns indirectly. The Federal Elections 
     Commission needs to close this gaping loophole. But far from 
     eliminating the fund, it should be expanded to include 
     candidates for Congress so the nation's legislators would not 
     have to continue selling themselves to special interests to 
     raise the requisite thousands of dollars a day. The only 
     other problem with the system--uncertain cash flow--was 
     addressed this year when the voluntary tax checkoff to 
     finance it was raised from $1 to $3.
       Politicians can debate the exact message from voters last 
     November, but the people surely wanted cleaner government, 
     not corruption.
       The Budget Committee chairman, Sen. Pete Domenici, 
     characterized his proposal as ``doing something right for the 
     future of our country and for our children.'' He was speaking 
     of deficit reduction, though eliminating the campaign fund 
     would save only $45 million. In attempting to restore balance 
     to the budget, Domenici's proposal could return venality to 
     the Oval Office.
                                                                    ____

                 [From The Buffalo News, May 15, 1995]

    Keep Presidential Checkoff--Ending It Would Strengthen Special 
                               Interests
       Hidden among proposals that have aroused loud immediate 
     objections is an ominous Senate Budget Committee plan. It 
     would shift the presidential selection process away from 
     average Americans and place it even more in the hands of big-
     money special interests.
       That's what will happen if Congress wipes out the two-
     decade-old system that allows for partial public funding of 
     presidential elections by having taxpayers check a box on 
     their income tax returns.
       Approving the checkoff--currently $3--has absolutely no 
     impact on the size of a taxpayer's refund or the amount of 
     taxes owed. When taxpayers check the box, as all should, it 
     simply means that the contributions will be used to help 
     finance the presidential selection process.
       That is one of the best investments taxpayers can make in 
     good government. It means candidates will be more beholden to 
     average Americans and less beholden to special-interest 
     groups for their money. In fact, this Watergate-era reform, 
     first employed in the 1976 campaign when Jimmy Carter 
     challenged President Gerald Ford, is the antidote to the 
     poison of special-interest funding that has left candidates 
     with a taint and the public with a bad taste in its mouth.
       Before allowing Congress to end this reform, the public 
     should ask a simple question: Without this public funding, 
     where else will candidates turn for money?
       The $45 million per year raised through the checkooff is a 
     minuscule amount in a $1.5 trillion budget. Yet, while 
     limiting the impact of lobbyists, it also puts sensible 
     limits on campaign spending and levels the playing field 
     among candidates. That helps elevate ideas over fund-raising 
     ability as the determining factor in campaigns.
       Senate Republicans are hypocritical and less than 
     forthright in trying to end all of that by slipping this 
     provision through amid the turmoil surrounding the rest of 
     their budget proposals.
       The hypocrisy can be seen in the fact that the proposal 
     would end the checkoff system after the 1996 election cycle. 
     That would mean current GOP senators eyeing the White House--
     among them, Majority Leader Bob Dole and Texan Phil Gramm--
     would still benefit next year.
       But the real benefit of the checkoff goes to the public. 
     That's why, if a revision this significant is to be examined, 
     it should be done separately so that the proposal can be 
     judged on its own merits.
       Once that happens, and Americans really understand what's 
     at stake, it is unlikely that they will choose to forsake a 
     system of such demonstrated worth. Over two decades, the 
     checkoff system has shrunk the influence of big-money 
     interests, helped clean up the process of choosing American 
     presidents and returned that process closer to the American 
     people.
                                                                    ____

                [From the New York Times, May 16, 1995]

                   A Sneaky Blow at Campaign Finance

       Senate Republicans are proposing to eliminate the best 
     existing counterweight to the dominance of check-writing 
     special interests in national politics. The budget blueprint 
     unveiled last week by Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate 
     Budget Committee, includes a call to abolish the public 
     campaign financing system for Presidential candidates.
       This 20-year-old system provides matching funds for 
     candidates during the primaries and, for the general 
     election, identical grants to both major party candidates. 
     The system is financed by allowing taxpayers to indicate on 
     their income tax returns whether they want $3 of the tax they 
     owe to be used for the campaign fund. This public financing 
     has worked remarkably well to minimize the financial 
     advantage of the party in power and reduce candidates' 
     dependence on wealthy favor-seekers.
       The proposal to end public financing is the brainchild of 
     Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who also played a big 
     role last year in killing a Democratic reform measure that 
     would have repaired damaging loopholes in the Presidential 
     system while reducing the influence of big money in 
     Congressional races as well.
       Under the G.O.P. budget proposal, the Presidential public 
     financing system would not end until after the 1996 election. 
     That would allow the Republicans to continue using public 
     financing in their quest to drive out the incumbent 
     Democratic President, but then block public financing after 
     they hope to have recaptured the White House.
       Abolishing public financing for Presidential campaigns 
     would save only about $45 million a year, while destroying a 
     worthwhile effort to curb the amount of special-interest 
     money in national politics. House and Senate Republicans also 
     want to impose a crippling funding cut on the Federal 
     Election Commission, the agency charged with enforcing 
     campaign finance laws. It begins to look like a G.O.P. war on 
     cleaner politics.
                                                                    ____

             [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 17, 1995]

     Wrong-Way Pete--Domenici Bugles Retreat on Campaign Financing.

       ``Declare victory and retreat.'' That was the tart 
     suggestion of a senator years ago on how to salvage the 
     fiasco that was Vietnam.
       Now, another senator, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete 
     Domenici of New Mexico, has got it into his head to declare 
     defeat and propose retreat in an area where there's actually 
     been a major victory: public financing of presidential 
     campaigns.
       This post-Watergate reform has insulted presidential 
     campaigns from the corrupting influence of special-interest 
     money. For some strange reason, the budget proposal 
     [[Page S7313]] made by Mr. Domenici last week would end it.
       Of all the Republican ideas for balancing the budget, this 
     may be the worst. By giving special interests carte blanche 
     to start subsidizing presidential candidates again, Mr. 
     Domenici would drop White House wannabes back into the pigsty 
     of special-interest financing where Congress still wallows.
       Not only is the system that pays for presidential races not 
     broken, it works quite well. If you want to put $3 of your 
     tax bill toward presidential campaigns, you check that 
     option. If you feel that public financing is sinister or 
     socialistic, you don't.
       In the primary season, the system's matching money helps 
     underdogs get their ideas across to the voters. In the 
     general election, it helps ensure a fair battle.
       The elimination of public financing may be just a sop to 
     Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), the Senate's leading 
     obstructionist on campaign-financing reform; maybe Senate 
     leaders will quietly drop the idea later on.
       Instead of scrapping the checkoff, Republicans ought to be 
     acting to get special-interest money out of congressional 
     campaigns. Of course, their reforming zeal might be muted 
     because the majority of that money is now flowing to them.
       It's sad to see the Senate even toying with this ill-
     advised retreat on campaign financing. And it is a discredit 
     to Mr. Domenici's otherwise bold budget-balancing plan.
                                                                    ____

       [From the Rutland Herald & the Times Argus, May 21, 1995]

                        GOP And Campaign Finance

       Over the next few weeks almost every budget cut that the 
     Republicans in Congress have proposed will be opposed by some 
     special interest group or other. But there is one intended 
     cut that would harm the very fabric of our democratic 
     process--by changing the way we elect our presidents.
       The GOP Senate budget resolution would abolish the 
     presidential campaign financing system, beginning in 1996. 
     Eliminating public financing of presidential campaigns would 
     save from $100 million and $300 million by 2002, the date the 
     Republicans have targeted for balancing the federal budget.
       The GOP wants to abolish the public campaign finance law to 
     help provide about $350 billion in tax cuts that would 
     benefit many of their favorite corporate benefactors. It's 
     not hard to imagine the generosity of such companies when it 
     comes time to replenish the campaign coffers of worthy 
     Republicans.
       Why do we use tax dollars to fund presidential campaigns? 
     The practice began in 1974, after Watergate, which showed the 
     nation how dramatically money can change the political 
     equation. Since the cost of national campaigns has risen so 
     drastically, politicians find they must budget a larger and 
     larger share of their time to fund-raising--and currying 
     favor with potential contributors.
       Shouldn't private financing of elections benefit Democrats 
     as well as Republicans? In the past, many wealthy 
     contributors realized that since Democrats controlled 
     Congress, any Democratic candidate might become a powerful 
     committee chairman. So the moneyed interests have 
     traditionally covered their bases by contributing to both 
     candidates in many elections.
       But now that the Republicans control both houses of 
     Congress, a fundraising gap favorable to the GOP is likely to 
     grow even wider, as the party of big business calls in its 
     chips for the constituent service it's currently performing. 
     The Republicans already have claimed an edge in fund-raising 
     for 1996 campaigns.
       The Republicans may be able to brush aside the few limits 
     that now exist on campaign spending. And the Democrats have 
     only themselves to blame for not passing more comprehensive 
     campaign finance reform while they had control of Congress. 
     If the GOP gets its way, the Democrats will be sorely 
     punished for their own complacency.
                                                                    ____

            [From the San Francisco Chronicle, May 17, 1995]

                      Unreforming Campaign Finance

       When the Republicans took over Congress, they vowed to 
     clean up Washington and give government back to the people. 
     So what are they doing with this hypocritical proposal in the 
     Senate budget plan to eliminate the presidential campaign-
     finance tax checkoff?
       The Watergate-inspired public-campaign-financing law has 
     somewhat limited the corrupting influence of special 
     interests on presidential elections by providing each 
     candidate in the general election with around $60 million in 
     voluntarily contributed tax dollars, about the same amount 
     Richard Nixon spent in 1970. The use of public funds, under a 
     landmark Supreme Court ruling, allows an overall spending cap 
     to be imposed. Without it, a run for the presidency would 
     cost an estimated $200 million.
       When campaigns cost $200 million we all lose, because 
     special interests will be free to flood the presidential 
     election process with money. The fragile integrity of the 
     democratic process will be the first victim.
       Instead of reversing public financing, the Republicans 
     should join with Democrats in finding ways to bring equally 
     effective reform to congressional elections.
                                                                    ____

                [From The Washington Post, May 11, 1995]

                        A Bad Idea, Well-Hidden

       Tucked away in the middle of Senate Budget Chairman Pete 
     Domenici's 97-page budget blueprint are two lines describing 
     a proposal with a minuscule impact on federal spending but 
     enormous meaning for the nation's political process. Mr. 
     Domenici, following a suggestion by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-
     Ky.), proposes the elimination of public financing for 
     presidential campaigns after the 1996 election.
       This is not only a terrible idea; it also has no place in 
     the budget debate. A change this large in the electoral 
     system should be debated on its own, independent of the great 
     confrontation that is about to occur on the deficit. The 
     amount of money involved is trivial in a budgetary sense--
     roughly $45 million a year in a $1.5 trillion budget--but 
     hugely important to efforts aimed at limiting the impact of 
     campaign fund-raising on the presidency.
       Public financing of presidential campaigns has actually 
     worked. It was instituted after the Watergate scandal 
     revealed all sorts of unsavory fund-raising shenanigans in 
     the 1972 campaign. The idea is simple: The presidency ought 
     not be put up for bid, the major party candidates ought to 
     compete on a level playing field, and the party in power 
     should not enjoy a prohibitive financial advantage. Existing 
     law provides for a Presidential Election Campaign Fund that 
     is financed through a voluntary $1 checkoff on income tax 
     returns. For the general election, each major-party candidate 
     draws the same amount from the fund--George Bush and Bill 
     Clinton got $55.2 million each in 1992. The law also includes 
     provisions for future public financing for any third party 
     that makes a substantial electoral showing (as did the 
     independent movements of John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot 
     in 1992). And it provides for a system of matching funds in 
     the primaries, whereby candidates who raise a certain amount 
     in private contributions qualify for a share of the federal 
     funds. The formula puts a premium on smaller contributions, 
     so candidates who are serious but without huge interest group 
     backing have a chance to make their case.
       There are problems with the system that need to be 
     addressed. The campaign fund has been running low, and the 
     checkoff amount needs to be increased. But at a time when 
     Congress's emphasis should be on finding ways to reduce the 
     impact of money on politics, this proposal moves in entirely 
     the wrong direction. It is also interesting that the budget 
     proposal would leave the current system in place long enough 
     to allow Republican presidential candidates (such as Sens. 
     Dole, Gramm, Specter and Lugar) to take advantage of it while 
     the GOP is out of the White House, and only abolish it after 
     the next election.
       If Mr. McConnell wants an open debate on the merits of the 
     public financing system, he can encourage one. But a change 
     this large should not happen covertly as part of the budget 
     process.
                                                                    ____

                  [From the Valley News, May 17, 1995]

                           Cash For Campaigns

       Hold your tears for those Republicans who complain that 
     special-interest groups are preparing to lay waste to the 
     balanced-budget proposals they're now championing. If 
     special-interest groups exercise undue influence over the 
     federal government, why are Republicans proposing that their 
     influence be expanded?
       That is exactly what would happen if the budget plan 
     proposed last week by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., is passed 
     intact. It contains a provision that calls for elimination of 
     public financing of presidential campaigns. That item would 
     save the federal government $45 million a year but would 
     exact a much greater cost in the damage it would do to the 
     national political system.
       Few would argue that presidential politics are squeaky 
     clean. But they are far better than they were before the 
     Watergate scandal prompted Congress to reform the system.
       Presidential candidates still must raise bucketfuls of 
     money to be considered serious contenders. But the prospect 
     of matching federal contributions encourages primary 
     candidates to concentrate their fund-raising on contributions 
     that qualify them for federal funds--relatively small 
     donations from individuals. During the primary season, 
     candidates who accept public financing agree to abide by 
     spending limits established for each state. In the general 
     election, each major party nominee draws an equal amount from 
     the campaign fund (the 1992 candidates each received $55.2 
     million)--placing them on equal footing and reducing the need 
     for candidates to go hat in hand to potential contributors.
       Problems remain. Both parties continue to abuse so-called 
     soft-money contributions, donations that are made to parties 
     and spent for generic campaign purposes rather than directly 
     for candidates. But the system is far better than the one 
     that existed before 1973, when candidates accepted lots of 
     cash from deep-pocketed donors, many with a direct interest 
     in federal policy.
       If public financing is abolished, the corrupting cancer 
     that has severely undermined the integrity of Congress will 
     spread to the White House and similarly compromise its 
     integrity. All those things we have come to know and detest 
     about the influence of money on federal legislators will 
     afflict the White House--political action committees, nonstop 
     fund-raising, the amassing of campaign war chests.
       Few Americans are enthusiastic about proposals to pay for 
     campaigns with taxpayers' money. The notion of bankrolling 
     some of the behavior that passes for campaigning 
     [[Page S7314]] these days is enough to make the most earnest 
     goo-goo blanch. But it is strictly a defensive strategy: The 
     public picks up the tab to ensure that no one else does--and 
     that no one lays a greater claim on the loyalty of the people 
     elected to conduct the public's business. Public campaign 
     financing needs to be expanded, not rolled back.
                                                                    ____

                                                     May 23, 1995.
       Dear Senator ------ ------:
       We strongly oppose the Senate Budget Committee's 1996 
     budget recommendation to abolish the presidential campaign 
     finance system. We urge you to reject the Budget Committee's 
     proposal and vote to retain this fundamental Watergate 
     reform.
       The presidential public financing system is an essential 
     mechanism for controlling campaign spending, restricting 
     special-interest influence and allowing challengers to 
     compete successfully with incumbents.
       To repeal presidential public financing would be to 
     dismantle a vital reform that goes to the heart of the 
     integrity of the electoral system for our country's highest 
     office. Such an action would further undermine already low 
     public confidence in government and the political process.
       We strongly urge you to vote against any effort to abolish 
     the presidential public financing system.
           Sincerely,
         Ann McBride, President, Common Cause; Becky Cain, 
           President, League of Women Voters of the United States; 
           Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen; Richard 
           Foltin, Legislative Director and Counsel, American 
           Jewish Committee; Larry Hobart, Executive Director, 
           American Public Power Association; Paul Mauer, 
           Executive Director, Blue Grass Community Action Agency; 
           Michael F. Jacobson, Executive Director, Center for 
           Science in the Public Interest; Stephen Brobeck, 
           Executive Director, Consumer Federation of America; 
           Dixie Horning, Executive Director, Gray Panthers; 
           Leland Swenson, President, National Farmers Union; John 
           Adams, Executive Director, Natural Resources Defense 
           Council; Karen L. Hicks, Executive Director, New 
           Hampshire Citizen Action; Caswell A. Evans, Jr., 
           President, American Public Health Association; Amy 
           Isaacs, National Director, Americans for Democratic 
           Action; Robert C. Porter, Executive Director, Cenla 
           Community Action Committee, Inc.; Rodney E. Leonard, 
           Executive Director, Community Nutrition Institute; Joe 
           Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on 
           National Legislation; Susan Katz, President, National 
           Council of Jewish Women; Harriet Woods, President, 
           National Women's Political Caucus; Kathy Thornton, RSM, 
           National Coordinator, NETWORK: A National Catholic 
           Social Justice Lobby; Jay Lintner, Director, Washington 
           Office, Office for Church in Society, United Church of 
           Christ; Gerald Meral, Executive Director, Planning and 
           Conservation League; Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, 
           Religious Action Center of Reform, Judaism, Union of 
           American Hebrew Congregations; Gene Karpinski, 
           Executive Director, U.S. Public Interest Research 
           Group; Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory, Director, 
           Washington Office, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 
           Washington Office; Robert Z. Alpern, Director, 
           Washington Office, Unitarian Universalist Association 
           of Congregations.
                                                                    ____

                      [Common Cause, May 23, 1995]

     Statement of Former Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox

       I call upon Congress to reject the tricky attempt to repeal 
     the post-Watergate reform of our presidential election 
     campaigns under the pretense of budget balancing. Maintaining 
     the reform costs .003 percent of the budget.
       Watergate dramatized the three-step relationship between 
     large political contributions, the outcome of elections, and 
     the governmental decisions of those who win. We should never 
     forget the acceptance of a $2-million pledge from the Milk 
     Producers Association to the Nixon Administration, which 
     concurrently granted an increase in the support price of 
     milk; the approval of American Airlines' route applications 
     shortly after a large corporate contribution to the party in 
     power; or the settlement of antitrust litigation against ITT 
     Corporation, shortly after an ITT subsidiary agreed to 
     underwrite a large proportion of the cost of the Republican 
     National Convention.
       Spurred by this corruption, Congress in 1974 enacted the 
     presidential campaign finance system as a vital means to 
     restore public confidence in government. Through this system, 
     small individual contributions are matched by public funds in 
     the primary elections. The major party candidates receive a 
     grant of public funds with which to conduct their general 
     election campaigns. Importantly, spending limits are imposed 
     in both the primary and general elections.
       The system has worked. Presidential elections were largely 
     cleansed of the corrupting influence of special-interest 
     money. Spending in presidential campaigns was brought under 
     control. Candidates in the general election were freed from 
     the burdens of fundraising. And presidential elections, 
     unlike congressional campaigns, became more competitive. 
     Exploitation of a soft money loophole has reduced the gains. 
     But the system is fundamentally sound. The remedy is to close 
     the soft money loophole.
       We are told that political candidates should not campaign 
     with taxpayers' money. The money goes to protect ourselves by 
     keeping the system honest. The alternative is for candidates 
     to campaign with special-interest money to be repaid with 
     much larger government favors after the election--in short, 
     to go back to the days of Watergate.
       I urge the Congress not to repeal the centerpiece of the 
     Watergate reforms. The presidential campaign finance system 
     must be preserved.
                                                                    ____

                      [Common Cause, May 23, 1995]

            Statement of Common Cause President Ann McBride

       We are very pleased to join today with Senators John Kerry 
     (D-MA) and Bill Bradley (D-NJ), and with the League of Women 
     Voters and Public Citizen, to launch an all-out effort to 
     preserve the presidential campaign finance system.
       Today we face a deadly serious attempt in the Senate to 
     destroy the most important political reform in nearly a 
     century.
       By burying a simple two-line provision to kill the 
     presidential campaign finance system deep in their proposed 
     budget, the Senate Republican leadership has conducted a 
     stealth attack on our democracy--an attack that would turn 
     back the clock two decades to the dark days of Watergate and 
     its influence money scandals, a time when the integrity of 
     the Presidency hit rock bottom.
       The stakes in the outcome are enormous. If this attack were 
     to prevail, the winners would be Washington lobbyists and 
     monied special interests. The losers would be the average 
     taxpayers.
       That's why Common Cause urges Congress to eliminate this 
     provision from the Senate budget proposal and to act to save 
     the presidential campaign finance system.
       A vote to kill the presidential campaign finance system is 
     a vote for corruption and a return to the campaign finance 
     scandals of Watergate.
       The responsibility to save the presidential campaign 
     finance system lies not only with Congress, but with 
     President Clinton as well.
       If President Clinton is serious about preserving the 
     presidential campaign finance system, he must make clear that 
     he will veto any legislation that includes a provision to 
     repeal the system.
       Killing the presidential campaign finance system would do 
     more than eliminate the public funds available to 
     presidential candidates. Killing the presidential campaign 
     finance system completely repeals campaign spending limits in 
     presidential races. The result would be a campaign 
     fundraising--and campaign spending--free-for-all, and a ``For 
     Sale'' sign back on the White House.
       The public financing system has worked. Spending has been 
     limited. Richard Nixon's 1972 reelection campaign raised and 
     spent $60 million--the equivalent of more than $200 million 
     today. That's less than both major party candidates combined 
     spent in the 1992 campaigns.
       Elections have been competitive. Under this system, four 
     incumbents have sought reelection--three challengers have 
     won. And special-interest contributions have been replaced by 
     dollars designated by millions of taxpayers.
       As The Washington Post has noted, ``Public financing of 
     presidential campaigns has actually worked. . . . The idea is 
     simple: The presidency ought not be put up for bid, the major 
     party candidates ought to compete on a level playing field, 
     and the party in power should not enjoy a prohibitive 
     financial advantage.''
       Instead of destroying a system that has worked, and worked 
     well, for two decades, the Senate should instead be shutting 
     down the soft money system that has emerged in recent years.
       This issue is not a budget issue. The presidential public 
     financing system is not a simple piece of a budget puzzle 
     that can be turned off and on at will. In fact, from a 
     federal budgetary perspective, the $45-million program is a 
     small amount. Fiscal responsibility comes from a Congress 
     that will stop the financial drain that special interests 
     impose on the federal budget through access-seeking campaign 
     contributions. Ending the presidential campaign finance 
     system simply will open the budget to even more big-money 
     investments from special interests.
       This issue should not be a partisan issue. The presidential 
     public financing system was passed with bipartisan support 
     and signed into law by President Gerald Ford. All but one 
     major party candidate have voluntarily chosen to use public 
     funds to wage their campaigns. In the five presidential races 
     conducted under this new system, the Republican candidate has 
     won three times, the Democrat twice.
       This issue is a matter of integrity.
       More than 20 years ago, Common Cause members pressed their 
     Members of Congress to create a campaign finance system that 
     would restore the integrity of a presidency that had been 
     devastated by the scandals of Watergate. Congress did.
       Today, Common Cause, along with a broad coalition of other 
     organizations, is launching a nationwide campaign to protect 
     the presidential campaign finance system.
       Common Cause members and other concerned citizens will work 
     just as tirelessly now to ensure that the presidential 
     campaign finance system is not destroyed.

[[Page S7315]]

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is in this budget an unfortunate 
effort to try to take away the current system of a----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend, while I ask the 
clerk to report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1135.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to consideration of the 
amendment at this time?
  Mr. EXON. The Senator was not recognized to offer an amendment. I 
want to make that clear to the Senator. You can reserve the right to 
offer an amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent----
  Mr. EXON. Have you done that?
  Mr. KERRY. I did ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. EXON. I object.
  The Senator from Nebraska yielded to the Senator from Massachusetts 
with certain instructions and understandings that the Senator from 
Nebraska is going to insist upon. Therefore, I yielded to the Senator 
from Massachusetts not to offer an amendment, but to make such remarks 
as he sees fit.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I certainly apologize. I had no idea. I 
thought the procedure was to call the amendment up. There was no 
intention to try to go outside of the Senator's desires.
  I ask unanimous consent that the past exchange not come out of this 
Senator's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished managers.
  Mr. President, there is in this budget resolution an effort to do 
away with the Presidential checkoff finance system. I would like to 
share with my colleagues what Archibald Cox, the Watergate prosecutor, 
said with respect to this particular effort.

       Watergate dramatized the three-step relationship between 
     large political contributions, the outcome of elections, and 
     the governmental decisions of those who win. We should never 
     forget the acceptance of a $2 million pledge from the Milk 
     Producers Association to the Nixon administration which 
     concurrently granted an increase in the support price of 
     milk; the approval of American Airlines' route application 
     shortly after a large corporate contribution to the party in 
     power; or the settlement of antitrust litigation against ITT 
     Corp. shortly after an ITT subsidiary agreed to underwrite a 
     large portion of the cost of the Republican National 
     Convention.

  Mr. President, this campaign system has worked. Some 63 primary 
candidates since 1976 have used the checkoff fund. The checkoff fund 
democratizes the Presidential races of this country. It distances 
Presidential candidates from the fundraising process. It liberates our 
entire system from the influence of big money, as Watergate prosecutor 
Archibald Cox said.
  In 1972, when Richard Nixon ran for President, he spent $60 million 
in that race, the equivalent of $200 million today. That is more than 
President Bush and Bill Clinton spent together in 1992. If this 
amendment were to fail, if we proceed on the assumption that that 
campaign system will be taken away, all voluntary limits on campaign 
spending in Presidential races are gone. No voluntary limit will 
remain, and it is only that volunteerism in the system that keeps 
accord with the Constitution on Buckley versus Valeo that allows us to 
have a limit in Presidential races.
  So we will have gone back to the system of 1972 when there was 
unlimited funding from sources in Presidential races. I cannot imagine 
anything that runs more contrary to the vote of 1994 and to the 
grassroots statement of Americans in the 1994 election. They do not 
want this country going back to big money, large corporate interests. 
They want people liberated to participate. In fact, Mr. President, more 
people participate through the checkoff than contribute voluntarily to 
campaigns in this country. One out of seven Americans participate in 
the checkoff, whereas only one in 22 Americans contributed to campaigns 
in 1994. The checkoff could, in fact, be stronger than it is today. 
But, everybody should understand, no American is coerced to do this. It 
is a voluntary system where $3 from an individual has as much impact as 
tens of thousands of dollars from the rich or from corporate interests.
  Mr. President, it would be an enormous setback in our efforts to gain 
control of our political process if, now, we choose to go backward.
  Some people say, ``Well, we're not controlling all the money in the 
system; you still have soft money and we should be closing that 
loophole.'' The solution is not to take the hard money restriction in 
the voluntary system and make it like soft money. The solution is to 
make the soft money like the hard money or outlaw it altogether, Mr. 
President.
  So it is my hope that colleagues who have supported this in the past 
will not now go counter to the very grassroots effort that is 
supposedly being represented on the floor. This system has worked. It 
costs $45 million on the year, Mr. President, but to lose it would be 
tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions. I hope we will 
support the system.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the budget resolution includes a provision 
that will have a far reaching consequence for this Nation. It assumes 
elimination of the program that provides for spending limits and public 
funding in Presidential election campaigns. This provision was enacted 
with bipartisan support to address the campaign finance abuses of 
Watergate.
  This is voluntary program. The American taxpayer voluntarily funds it 
and candidates voluntarily accept funds from it. It is the only Federal 
program that the American public directly votes to fund each year. And 
as long as the American taxpayer votes for campaign spending limits, 
then we should not eliminate it.
  What is interesting to this Senator, is that the Republican budget 
resolution does not affect the 1996 Presidential election cycle. It 
would allow candidates to continue to take taxpayer money to fund their 
primary campaigns next year. That means up to approximately $15 million 
in taxpayer dollars to each Republican and Democratic primary 
candidate, with a potential $62 million more to the nominee in the 
general election.
  Perhaps a different amendment would have been to eliminate this 
program immediately. That would give our distinguished Republican 
colleagues here in the Senate who have announced their candidacy for 
President an opportunity to vote to give back their potential $77 
million in taxpayer funds to the Treasury and the American taxpayer in 
order to help eliminate the deficit. Let me respectfully suggest that 
it seems a little self-serving to take the money next year but deny it 
to future candidates.
  American taxpayers support this program and vote on how much to fund 
it each year. It is the only Federal program which serves to limit the 
money chase to the White House. Until we come up with a better system, 
I urge my colleagues to leave this program in place and support the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator's time. has 
expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I really want to use a little bit of my 
time. I am on my 15 minutes in opposition, but I just want to talk to 
the Senate a minute.
  Frankly, to my knowledge, there is only one law that controls the 
U.S. Senate in terms of debates and amendments and the like, and it is 
the Budget Act, which includes impoundments.
  Essentially, it says in law, it sets down the detailed rules of how 
you proceed on a budget resolution and how you proceed on a 
reconciliation bill. It is not my rule. It is not Senator Exon's rule. 
It says 50 hours equally divided.
  Frankly, maybe we will ask so the Record will be clear, how much time 
remains now on the entire budget resolution, under 50 hours that we are 
allocated by law?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 1 hour 20 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Approximately 1 hour 20 minutes. Essentially, I will 
say to the Senate, if 1 hour is used on Senator Boxer's amendment and 1 
hour [[Page S7316]] used in opposition to it, there will be no time 
left. No time left.
  What I would like everybody to understand--and this is not my rule; I 
wish it were different--but I do not know if there is going to be very 
much time to debate very many amendments in that remaining time.
  I have been expressing to the Senator from Nebraska, based on this 
reality--this is just real--when the 50 hours comes, any Senator can 
say ``regular order'' and, obviously, there is no more time for debate.
  I want to make sure everybody knows, under a unanimous-consent 
agreement, the majority leader and the minority leader, after all the 
votes are finished, including those that may be handed to the desk, 
there will be one-half hour allotted to the Democrat leadership and 
one-half hour to our leadership, to recap the budget situation. So that 
is there and that is all it can be used for.
  We will soon be out of time. Maybe Senators on my side and Senators 
on that side of the aisle do not understand that we cannot help very 
much, but we would like to be helpful. So what I would like to do, and 
I am urging that we find a way to decide, is for you all to decide on 
your side through your ranking member what are all the amendments that 
you intend to offer. Some will be debated for a couple of minutes; some 
are just going to be offered at the end.
  Why would I like to know? Because I would like to help. I would like 
to say maybe everybody ought to have a minute before they have to vote 
on their amendment, even beyond the 50 hours. I have no such authority 
from the majority leader. But I cannot do that if there are 50, 60 
amendments because we will be here until midnight, and the whole 
purpose was to have 50 hours.
  We are getting close to that 50 right now. So if there is any way 
that Senators on that side could accommodate so that we might sit down 
here soon in a room and say what process could we agree to to give 
everybody a little bit of time.
  Again, I want to say the majority leader has told me on our side, if 
there are 20 or 30 such amendments, or 40, we are not going to agree to 
any time because you add all that up and the time to vote and we will 
be here 6 hours to 7 hours.
  So I am asking for some reason, some reasonableness. When the 50 
hours is up--and I am not using anybody's time so nobody has to worry 
about that. I am entitled to this time under the law, and when that 
time is up, there is no opportunity to talk about an amendment, unless 
we, as a Senate, agree to that. So if you have an amendment at the end 
left over and you want to insist on it, and the statute says you can do 
that, the statute also says no debate. We are not going to agree to 
give everybody time when we have already used up all the time unless we 
do it in an understandable manner where the Senate then understands 
what the amendments are, how many there are, and then maybe we may be 
in business to try to make some overall agreement.
  I hope everybody understands, I am not trying to be harsh. I am not 
trying to take time away from anybody. That is just the reality.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield on my time.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator for what he is trying to do and for his 
comity. It is kind of unusual, and I am glad to see it.
  If we have 20 amendments that will be offered at the end of the 50 
hours, we have two options, as I hear you: One is to offer the 
amendment, or call it up and we can vote up or down or to table; we can 
do that. Or on the other side, if we have a minute, you offer a minute 
or 2 minutes on each side, pro and con, on how many amendments? Do you 
have any figure if they are less than that or more than that?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I very much would like you all to come up with some 
proposal.
  Mr. FORD. When you say you all, who do you mean?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Democratic side.
  Mr. FORD. How many will be on your side?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We probably, in short order, can establish the fact 
that there would only be four or five.
  Mr. FORD. You will have four or five amendments to come after the 50 
hours?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will give that to Senator Exon shortly.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me correct the record. You said there are only two 
things that can happen. I do not want anybody to misunderstand. An 
amendment pending at the desk can be second-degreed even if there is no 
time. There is a series where we understand somebody wants to exercise 
that. They understand it is pending. They would not have any time 
either.
  Mr. FORD. They would still offer it and then you move to table.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will yield 10 minutes to Senator Burns.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I will respond to the amendment offered by 
the Senator from California and just point out some things about that 
amendment that I think are flawed. The Senator's amendment would create 
another point of order against how a tax cut should be constructed, and 
I think that is very important with this body because we already have 
enough points of order on the rest of this bill. Rather than a point of 
order against tax cuts, I think we should have a point of order against 
raising taxes, if you want to do it on both sides.
  Let us be very careful. Whenever we start talking about this budget 
and what it does, all at once we start offering the amendments and it 
starts to come unraveled. When it was first put together in the Budget 
Committee, everybody just about knew where we had to go and what we had 
to do. Some would increase taxes, as has been proposed by some, really, 
on both sides of the aisle. I am firmly opposed to that.
  Right now, most folks in America have a marginal tax rate over 45 
percent--almost one-half of their yearly salary. So what is there left 
to tax? It makes no sense to bankrupt American citizens in the name of 
keeping the American Federal Government solvent.
  So I think when you look at the overall budget, we have to come up 
with the word responsible. And that is what I would like to emphasize 
through this recap of not how I look at the amendment but the entire 
package of the bill. We have slowed the rate of spending. Back in 1990, 
I offered a bill that was a 4 percent solution--I called it--to allow 
in the budget process the Federal Government expenditures to only grow 
4 percent based on the previous year's expenditures and do away with 
baseline budgeting. Unfortunately, that did not pass. But with the 
assumptions that we made then, by 1995 and 1996, we would have balanced 
the Federal budget. But I have to say there are hints of my ideas that 
I had back in 1990 in this bill.
  Everyone would agree, maybe, that the Government has gotten too big 
to operate efficiently. This bill freezes pay for Senators, 
Representatives, Federal judges, and political appointees for a period 
of 7 years. As far as I am concerned, I can accept that. I am not real 
sure if my wife can. But nonetheless I think she will. It cuts Senate 
staff by 15 percent and Senate support staff by 12.5 percent. And we 
have cut a little already. It reduces the spending of the Executive 
Office of the President by around 25 percent. Those cuts save us almost 
$7 billion.
  I take the budget another step further. I would consolidate the 
Surgeon General's office with the Assistant Secretary of Health. The 
office of the Surgeon General was originally created to function as a 
spokesperson for public health and has been used as a political 
football. I advocate putting an end to that political grandstanding by 
eliminating this unnecessary position and consolidating its duties with 
those of the office of the Assistant Secretary of Health. That is the 
way it used to be. During the Carter administration, Dr. Julius 
Richmond served as both the Surgeon General and the Assistant Secretary 
of Health. I see no reason why the American taxpayer should have to pay 
for staffing both offices.
  When we look at what it does--a while ago we talked about the NIH, 
National Institutes of Health. I voted to restore some of those funds 
because I believe that this Government should be 
[[Page S7317]] actively involved in research and development, 
especially in the line of health. But the chairman's budget also calls 
for the transformation of NASA's management structure, contracting 
procedures, and the reduction of Government involvement in scientific 
research, infrastructure and equipment. I have to say that I voted 
against the Snowe amendment a while ago for the simple reason that it 
called for another billion-dollar reduction in NASA, when they have 
already shown their good faith, without any cajoling from this Congress 
to come to the bar, and cut $5 billion over 5 years. And there are some 
within the NASA organization that say now we have to start looking at 
safety when we start thinking about our space programs.
  So we are glad to see that baseline budgeting is out. The chairman's 
budget proposed the elimination of spending on the National Biological 
Service. I have long said that is not needed. We have enough biologists 
in the Forest Service, in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and BLM to do 
what they want to do and what Interior wants to do. They have to do it 
within the confines of that. Why another layer of bureaucracy? I 
generally support that.
  As I explained last week, I have concerns with the provision that 
cuts the Agricultural Research Service. I find it ironic that we are 
cutting back on R&D in the very area that is very important to us in 
the production of food and fiber for this country. To reduce the ARS at 
this time is appealing in the short run, but it would have a 
devastating long-term negative impact on farming and ranching in the 
United States and, consequently, on the Federal Treasury. I believe our 
first priority should be a commitment to the production of food and 
fiber. I find that many folks are surprised when you tell them that for 
the first time in the history of this country, wheat yields have 
actually leveled off in some areas and were declining because of our 
research work in developing new strains of wheat that are disease 
resistant.
  So I am opposed to a reduction in ARS funding. Furthermore, 
agriculture has taken its fair share of cuts; if you look at the last 8 
years, about a 45 percent cut.
  So with that, it is a good package. When we start picking away at it, 
it starts to come unraveled. I want to congratulate my friends from New 
Mexico and Nebraska. They have worked very hard together on this. And 
it should be presented and they should be given the guidelines for the 
rest of us to complete our work.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, are my 15 minutes used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve that.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have four more relatively short speakers 
that I would like to yield to at this time. I would like to yield at 
this time in whatever order they are entitled to the floor from the 
time allotted to me most generously by my colleague from California. 
First is Senator Leahy for 2 minutes, and then Senator Baucus for 2 
minutes, Senator Conrad for 6 minutes, and fourth, Senator Graham for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Exon, could we take a couple 
names at a time instead of the whole list? Who are the first two?
  Mr. EXON. The first two I have are Senator Leahy for 2 minutes and 
then Senator Baucus for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a Senator on the floor who would 
like to speak in opposition for up to 10 minutes on my time. Maybe we 
could move back and forth after the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. EXON. Since we are limiting--may I suggest we take care of the 
two Senators that I have mentioned--this is 4 minutes--and then go to 
10 minutes. Is that reasonable?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can we have the two Senators for 4 minutes and then the 
Senator from Kentucky for 10?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. INHOFE). The Senator from Vermont.

                   Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will have two resolutions that we will be 
voting on at the appropriate time. One is expressing the sense of the 
Senate that the violent crime reduction trust fund not be cut. 
Notwithstanding the tremendous violence we have seen in New York, 
Oklahoma, and elsewhere, the House of Representatives voted on April 5 
to cut $5 billion from the violent crime reduction trust fund and to 
give it for a tax cut.
  They congratulated themselves on this, but have not explained to the 
American people that they are cutting out money in a trust fund set 
aside to fight violent crime.
  Frankly, I think that is more important than to give a tax break to 
the wealthiest. We will be voting on that.
  Earlier this year, on April 7, 1995, the Senate passed a resolution 
reaffirming our support for State and local law enforcement when their 
integrity was challenged.
  When we passed Senate Joint Resolution 32 we were responding to 
remarks, by a well-known attorney in connection with a high-profile 
criminal case, that unfairly and inaccurately maligned the integrity of 
the Nation's law enforcement officers.
  On April 19, 1995, a bomb exploded outside a Federal building in 
Oklahoma City killing scores of Americans, including a number of 
Federal law enforcement employees. There is reason to believe the bomb 
was directed at the Federal Government and its law enforcement 
officers.
  This bombing has served to focus our attention on the real threats of 
violent extremism here at home and foreign terrorism. We will soon have 
an opportunity to consider legislative efforts to provide additional 
resources and better coordination of Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement efforts to deal with these threats.
  Today, my purpose is a related one: I ask my colleagues to join with 
me to pass this resolution reaffirming our commitment and appreciation 
for Federal, State, and local law enforcement and the outstanding job 
that they do under the most difficult and dangerous circumstances and 
to reject House attempts drastically to cut our financial support for 
their efforts.
  Since the bombing there has been a lot of public debate and comment 
about the activities of law enforcement and the rhetoric that has been 
used over the past few years to disparage and malign these dedicated 
public servants and the law enforcement agencies in which they serve.
  I submit that law enforcement deserves better. We owe these men and 
women our respect, appreciation, and public, moral, and financial 
support.
  Even had we not recently noted the increasing threats against the 
safety and lives of law enforcement officers, the Oklahoma bombing and 
the reports of attacks against park rangers, Forest Service employees, 
Treasury employees, and others all make the gruesome point too well.
  Moreover, there has been a lot of recent discussion about the way 
responsible citizens converse about law enforcement and other public 
officials. I certainly understand President Bush's reaction when those 
with whom he served and who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the 
service of public safety are being criticized unfairly.
  I commend our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, who have 
tried to tone down the rhetoric and to turn the focus of debate to 
responsible efforts to assist law enforcement to do its job.
  Likewise, I appreciate the apology recently issued by the National 
Rifle Association of the intemperate tone of certain remarks.
  I have spoken about my revulsion with celebrities talking about how 
to shoot Federal agents and their using representations of our 
President for target practice. This is vile and reprehensible.
  If we are to preserve freedom of speech in this increasingly violent 
and confrontational society, we need to use our freedoms to reject 
violent extremism and hatemongering. We need to remind ourselves that 
we live in the freest nation on Earth because the rule of law is 
respected, as are people's rights to speak, associate and petition the 
government.
  We need to speak out ourselves against those who would portray the 
President, the Congress, the Government or law enforcement as 
conspirators intent on taking away people's rights. To the contrary, 
the dedicated men and women in Federal, State, and local government and 
law enforcement work long hours for limited financial reward in order 
to serve the public, protect us, and preserve our freedom. 
[[Page S7318]] 
  It is in this context that I was concerned when the House of 
Representatives voted on April 5 to offset certain tax reduction 
proposals by cutting $5 billion from the violent crime reduction trust 
fund.
  As it congratulated itself on its first 100 days and adjourned for 
its April recess, the House majority did not explain to the American 
people that it was invading the violent crime reduction trust fund and 
making it impossible to pay for the law enforcement and crime 
prevention programs of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, which the 
President signed into law only last summer.
  Although this major crime bill was 6 years in the making, the House 
is apparently prepared to gut it. I hope and trust that our Senate 
colleagues will reject this $5 billion cut in funding to Federal law 
enforcement and Federal assistance to State and local efforts.
  When we passed the crime bill last year we paid for its program. A 
trust fund was established from the saving of the downsizing of the 
Federal Government by some 250,000 jobs. The violent crime reduction 
trust fund contains funds dedicated to law enforcement and crime 
prevention programs, and is intended in large part to provide Federal 
financial assistance to critical Federal, State, and local needs.
  On April 5, the House invaded that trust fund without debate and 
slashed our anticrime funding by $5 billion to help offset the budget 
deficit the House tax bill would create. This is wrong.
  Since passage of the Violent Crime Control Act, the U.S. Department 
of Justice has been doing a tremendous job getting these resources to 
the field. I commend the Associate Attorney General John Schmidt and 
Chief Joe Brann, who directs the community policing programs for their 
quick work.
  I know that funding to assist local law enforcement hire additional 
officers went out almost immediately based on simple, one-page 
applications. Vermont received commitments of over $2 million toward 35 
new officers in 34 jurisdictions, for example. The House action would 
cost Vermont, for example, the equivalent of 50 State and local law 
enforcement officers over the next 5 years.
  The House would have us turn our backs on law enforcement and 
prevention programs and the commitments we made in the Violent Crime 
Control Act. Law enforcement and community-based programs cannot be 
kept on a string like a yo-yo if they are to plan and implement crime 
control and prevention programs.
  What we need to do is to follow through on our commitments, not to 
breach them and violate our pledge to law enforcement, State, and local 
government, and the American people. Invading trust funds dedicated to 
crime control purposes is simply no way to justify the elimination of 
the corporate alternative minimum tax or capital gains taxes.
  From our Attorney General to the Fraternal Order of Police, 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National Association of 
Police Organizations, National Sheriffs Association, and the Police 
Foundation, dedicated law enforcement officers are justifiably outraged 
by this arbitrary action.
  Funding for important programs implementing the Violence Against 
Women Act and our rural crime initiatives should not have been cut by 
one-sixth or at all, let alone without debate and justification.
  I will work with the Attorney General and my Senate colleagues to 
reject the ill-advised House action and preserve the violent crime 
reduction trust fund so that we can fulfill the promise of the Violent 
Crime Control Act and our commitment to all that we can to reduce 
violent crime in our local communities.
  I have noted that this is not the time to undercut our support for 
Federal law enforcement or the assistance provided State and local law 
enforcement. After the tragedy in Oklahoma City, I was certain that the 
House would abandon this ill-conceived plan.
  Yet, in spite of all that has happened, the House chose to reaffirm 
its intention to proceed with this $5 billion cut in law enforcement 
funding, which it included in the House-passed budget resolution last 
week.
  Accordingly, I offer this amendment as an embodiment of the Senate's 
resolve against the House-passed cuts to the violent crime reduction 
trust fund and reductions in funding of Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement.
  Now is not the time to cut law enforcement funding and this is not 
the way to show our support for those whom we ask to protect public 
safety and preserve our precious freedoms.
                 Protecting Federal Nutrition Programs

  My other resolution is very simple. It says that the infant formula 
that is purchased by the WIC Program be done under competitive bidding.
  The House of Representatives gave in to some very powerful lobbyists 
and very powerful drug companies, and removed the amendment which 
requires competitive bidding for WIC. That meant the taxpayers will 
give a $1 billion windfall to four drug companies, and they will take 
1.5 million pregnant women and newborn infants off the WIC Program.
  This sense of the Senate says we ought to take care of the women and 
the infants before we do the drug companies, especially at taxpayers' 
expense.
  It also says we ought to have real nutritional standards in school 
lunch. Not what the fast food industry would like, but perhaps what 
mothers, fathers, and children should like and should have.
  Mr. President, this amendment is very simple.
  It says that it is the sense of the Senate that infant formula be 
purchased by the WIC Program under competitive bidding. It says that 
school lunches should meet minimal nutrition requirements and that the 
content of WIC food packages be based on scientific evidence.
  That has been the case for years and should continue. I am offering 
this amendment because the House-passed welfare reform bill does not 
follow that longstanding approach to child nutrition programs.
  I am very pleased that the Senate Budget Committee majority report 
does not assume that the Senate wants to eliminate those protections 
for children.
  The Contract With America, as passed by the House, would allow States 
to serve junk foods with lunch. The Senate should stand up to that 
challenge and say ``no.''
  It would allow States to waste Federal taxpayer dollars on needlessly 
expensive foods for the WIC Program.
  I have spent 8 years protecting the WIC Program from drug companies. 
Now the House Contract With America changes that. A few years ago, I 
called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate price-fixing and 
bid-rigging regarding infant formula companies and the WIC Program.
  I introduced bills, which all my Senate colleagues supported, to 
require that WIC buy infant formula under competitive bidding rules 
similar to rules used by the Federal Government, and most State 
governments, to purchase goods.
  These WIC procedures save $1 billion a year. That money keeps 1.6 
million pregnant women, infants, and children on WIC at no additional 
cost to taxpayers.
  The House bill does not require competitive bidding. Instead it 
includes paltry cost containment requirements that are a sham.
  It is hard to imagine a provision that better symbolizes what is 
wrong with the Contract With America.
  The contract could give up to $1 billion to four corporate giants and 
take 1.6 million low-income women, infants, and children off the WIC 
Program.
  For 8 years as chair of the Agriculture Committee, I tried to make 
our work on nutrition programs bipartisan. And I am pleased that the 
Senate Budget Committee report is supportive of the WIC Program.
  Last year both the Senate and the House passed the child nutrition 
reauthorization by unanimous agreement.
  That reauthorization act maintained the principle that school lunches 
provide one-third of the nutritional requirements for each day. It 
maintained strong competitive bidding procedures for the WIC Program.
  And it ensured that foods of minimum nutritional value may not be 
sold with school lunches. It passed the Senate without objection last 
year.
  The House bill eliminates minimum nutritional requirements for school 
lunches. I fought Coca-Cola and the [[Page S7319]] fast food companies 
last year to make school lunches healthier.
  Congress reduced the saturated fat content of school meals, and 
clarified that schools have the right to say ``no'' to Coca-Cola and 
Pepsi-Cola.
  Under the House Contract With America, soft drinks can be sold to 
school children during lunch instead of milk. Candy companies, fast 
food giants, and junk food purveyors are the big winners. Children and 
dairy farmers are the big losers.
  The House-passed Contract With America could hurt child nutrition 
programs by eliminating what we put into law last year.
  I hope the Senate tells the lobbyists for the soft drink bottlers 
that Coke or Pepsi should not be part of a school lunch or breakfast.
  I hope the Senate tells the lobbyists for drug companies that make 
infant formula that the Senate wants to continue to save taxpayers $1 
billion a year in the WIC Program by mandating strong competitive 
bidding procedures.
  Remember, before the Congress required competitive bidding, many 
States did not use those procedures that now put 1.6 million more 
pregnant women, infants, and children on the WIC Program at no 
additional cost to taxpayers.
  I hope the Senate rejects the House approach that repeals scientific 
standards for the WIC food package. These standards make WIC a success.
  I want to make one additional point not directly related to the 
amendment I am offering. I believe it is a mistake to block grant food 
stamps.
  On December 2, 1969, President Nixon said in a speech that relying on 
local governments meant that ``our Nation's food programs have been 
shot through with inequities.''
  Chairman Goodling put it another way when he opposed block grants a 
few years ago--he said that a ``child's basic nutrition needs do not 
vary from State to State.''
  I joined with Senator Dole in opposing block granting some years ago. 
He said, and I agreed with him, that the ``Federal Government should 
retain primary responsibility for nutrition programs in order to 
guarantee some standardization of benefits.''
  We have to recognize that food stamps are America's best and largest 
child nutrition program.
  Over 80 percent of food stamp benefits go to families with children; 
and over 90 percent of food stamp benefits go to families with 
children, or the elderly or disabled.
  I am pleased to report that as the economy has grown over the last 
year, participation in food stamps has dropped by 1 million persons.
  It is crucial to me that food stamps not be block-granted--I agree 
with the House of Representatives and Chairman Roberts, Chairman 
Emerson and Chairman Gunderson on this issue.
  Their view is that food stamps is the final safety net and that it 
should neither be block-granted nor cashed out. In rejecting block 
grants, the House used some of the same points made years ago by 
President Nixon.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. President, I thank the managers for their courtesy.

                   Privatizing PMA's is Backdoor Tax

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have an amendment, joined with Senator 
Pressler, Senator Dorgan, Senator Robb, Senator Warner, and others, No. 
1120, to oppose the sale of the public power marketing administrations.
  Very simply, Mr. President, this is the situation: The budget 
resolution proposes the sale of public power marketing administration, 
the PMA's.
  What is the effect of that sale? Twofold. No. 1, to dramatically 
increase the rates of consumers, utility consumers, in most States of 
our country, because public power is sold at a lower rate than power 
from other sources that is sold to consumers.
  The estimate is between a 20- and a 60-percent increase in utility 
rates for farmers, for ranchers, for homeowners, for small business, 
for anybody who is in a rural co-op, or anyone who buys public power. 
No. 1, the effect is very much to increase the rate. It is a hidden 
tax, Mr. President. It is a hidden tax because in effect people will 
have to pay more.
  The second major consequence of the sale of the PMA's: Increase the 
budget deficit. That is a consequence. Why? Very simply, because the 
PMA's currently make money. They make about $240 million a year. When 
the PMA's loan is retired, in about, I think, 14 or 16 years, Uncle Sam 
will make $5 billion on the investment.
  So the sale of PMA's has two effects. No. 1, big increase in utility 
rates; No. 2, increase in the budget deficit.
  My amendment says, ``No, let's not sell the PMA's; therefore, let's 
not raise utility rates; and let's also reduce the budget deficit by 
keeping the PMA's alive.''
  Please add Senators Ford, Harkin, Heflin, and Hollings as cosponsors. 
Webster defines a ``tax'' as follows: ``to require to pay a percentage 
of income, property or value for support of the government.''
  So a tax can come in many forms--a direct levy, or a hidden fee that 
sneaks up on taxpayers under a cover name. And that is precisely what 
this budget resolution contemplates for ratepayers across rural 
America.
  Privatizing the power marketing administrations is a bad idea. It is 
shortsighted and it hurts rural America. Privatization cannot work when 
its result is simply to create four huge monopolies, which will gouge 
their captive market like any other monopoly.
  So at its core, the proposal to sell off PMA's is no more than a 
backdoor tax increase on the rural middle class. A tax hidden in a 
utility bill is every bit as much a tax as a gas tax, income tax or 
anything else. I won't stand for it. And many of my colleagues on both 
sides of the isle won't stand for it.
  Let me tell you what this would mean to Montana. Montana, like much 
of the west, was built on hydroelectric power. By harnessing the 
Missouri River at Fort Peck Reservoir, Montanans bring water to arid 
lands for farming and ranching. Small industries use the affordable 
power to create jobs and build communities. And folks in rural areas 
get affordable power to heat and light their homes.
  This is an essential service. It is something that works. And it has 
worked ever since Franklin Roosevelt came out to break ground at the 
Fort Peck Dam and bring public power to rural Montana. Public power 
meant electricity that an ordinary farm family could afford. It helped 
create Montana communities like Glasgow, Sidney, and Shelby. It keeps 
towns like these strong and healthy today.
  As my friends George and Barbara DenBoer of Dupuyer, MT, recently 
told me:

       Our electric bills are high enough. We are barely making a 
     living on the ranch now and with all the new taxes and 
     increases in expenses it is all but impossible to continue. 
     Please stop and consider how many rural people will be 
     affected with higher rates. . . . We need the Power Marketing 
     Administration. Please do not make it impossible for those 
     who make their living in the country.

  One hundred thousand Montana families--nearly one in three Montana 
men, women, and children--share George and Barbara's feelings.
  All of them use WAPA power in Montana today. And they stand to see 
their electric bills increase by at least 30 percent if this proposal 
goes forward. You are talking about a real, tangible cut in the living 
standards for people in rural America. And that is why I so strongly 
oppose the sale of WAPA and the PMA's.
  A second point is that WAPA and the other power marketing programs 
take not one tax dollar. In fact, the Federal Government makes money 
off of these programs.
  WAPA is a good example. The Federal Government has invested a total 
of $5.6 billion in WAPA. And each year, WAPA pays the Federal 
Government approximately $380 million for this loan with interest. So 
far, the Federal Treasury has gotten back $4.1 billion on its initial 
loan. And by the time this debt is retired in 24 years, the Federal 
Treasury will have made $14 billion on its initial investment of $5.6 
billion.
  Second, even now the PMA's run a profit for the Government. A 
recently released CRS report on the PMA's found that the Federal 
Treasury actually earns a profit of $244 million a year on the PMA's. 
You have to look long and hard to find a Federal program that provides 
a good service to the public and makes a profit.
  I find it incredibly shortsighted that the Congress would want to 
sell America's infrastructure for a quick, one time shot of cash. What 
is next? Our highways? Our bridges? Our national [[Page S7320]] parks? 
The principle is just the same. America's infrastructure up for sale. 
It doesn't make any sense to me, and I will not stand by and let it 
proceed without a fight.
  And I urge my colleagues--particularly those Republicans and 
Democrats from the 32 rural States served by the PMA's--to join me. 
Senators will find a comprehensive list of all electric utilities in 
their States who are served by the PMAs on their desks.
  Let me read for the Record, States who are served by the PMA's:
  Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, 
Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, 
New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
  I urge Senators to take a moment before they vote on my amendment to 
consider the consequences elimination of the PMA's will have on the 
people in their States--the small businesses, farmers, ranchers, 
homeowners, and school districts. Say no to this backdoor tax and 
support my amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to yield 7 minutes to the Senator 
from Kentucky.

                    No Taxpayer Funding of Elections

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to my 
friend and colleague, Senator Kerry from Massachusetts, decry the 
effort of the Budget Committee to get rid of the Presidential checkoff. 
Let me say, my good friend could not be more wrong.
  In looking back at the Watergate scandal, it is interesting to note 
that the Select Committee on Watergate in the mid-1970's in 
recommendation No. 7, said the committee recommends against the 
adoption of any form of taxpayer funding of elections--against any form 
of it. The Congress proceeded to establish the Presidential fund in 
spite of that.
  During the last 20 years, Mr. President, such eminent persons as 
Lyndon LaRouche has gotten a $12 million in taxpayers funds to run for 
President of the United States. He even got, interestingly enough, 
$200,000 from the taxpayers to run for President while he was in jail. 
My assumption is he would not even be able to vote for himself as a 
resident of the jail.
  In addition, that outstanding American, Lenora Fulani, has gotten 
$3.5 million from the taxpayers of America to run for President.
  Now, Mr. President, the taxpayers of America have an opportunity 
every April 15 to vote on how they feel about using taxpayers' money 
for the Presidential election. As a matter of fact, it could be argued 
it is the most complete survey ever taken in America on any subject.
  Every April 15, voters get to decide whether they want to check off--
it used to be $1, and now $3--of taxes they already owe--it does not 
add to their tax bill--to divert that away from whatever else may be 
funded by the Federal Government into this fund.
  Now the checkoff participation has dropped down last year to 14.5 
percent, and is still falling. Two years ago, the majority, for fear 
that the taxpayers would totally revolt and there would be no money in 
the fund at all, raised the checkoff from $1 to $3. Now the net effect 
of that is that fewer and fewer people could divert more and more 
money. Eighty-five percent of the American people choose not to check 
off, even though it does not add to their tax bills, $3 to go into this 
fund.
  Everyone, in effect, ends up paying for the checkoff because the 
money is diverted away from other topics.
  If there is any system that has been thoroughly discredited, Mr. 
President, it is this one. It has not stopped spending. It has not 
stopped soft money, and it has eaten up about $1 billion of the tax 
money of the people of the United States over the last 20 years.
  If we cannot kill this program, Mr. President, then what program can 
we kill? Now, at the appropriate time I will be offering a second-
degree amendment to the Kerry amendment. I would like to briefly 
describe what that is about.
  Among the things, Mr. President, that taxpayers funding has been used 
for during these years was to settle a sexual harassment case. My 
amendment would prevent, assuming the Presidential fund survives--which 
I hope it will not, but assuming it survives--my second-degree 
amendment to the Kerry amendment would be a sense of the Senate that 
the Presidential election campaign fund, if it survives, could not pay 
for or augment damage awards or settlements arising from a civil or 
criminal action, or the threat thereof, related to sexual harassment.
  Now, I will be offering that second-degree amendment to make a point, 
Mr. President, as to how taxpayers' money has been used: $37,500 was 
used to settle a sexual harassment case against a top aide of the 
current President in his campaign back in 1992. The taxpayers paid for 
the settlement.
  At the appropriate time, I will be offering a second-degree amendment 
which I hope will be approved. I hope that the underlying amendment 
will be disapproved. This is a program that ought to end up on the ash 
heap of history.
  In addition to that, Mr. President, I will offer an amendment with 
regard to the Appalachian Regional Commission, a Commission that is 
extremely important to my own State of Kentucky, and will be 
cosponsored by Senator Warner, Senator Cochran, Senator Rockefeller, 
and Senator Heflin.
  Essentially, Mr. President, even though the Appalachian Regional 
Commission would be taken down in its funding over a period of 7 years, 
very, very significantly, this amendment would prevent the ARC from 
being totally phased out, and it would pay for it largely by diverting 
funds from the Office of Surface Mining and from other regulatory 
activities.
  So, essentially what this amendment is about is to take money away 
from regulators and give it to those involved in economic development. 
It is simply a question of priorities. Do we want to give the money to 
the Office of Surface Mining and others engaged in regulating in this 
and other fields? Or do we want the money to go directly into economic 
development activities in parts of our country that are economically 
deprived? This ARC covers such States as West Virginia, Kentucky, 
Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama, and it has been useful in providing 
roads and other economic development tools for the most poverty 
stricken parts of that part of America.
  I am somebody who is going to support the final budget resolution. I 
am in favor of ending a lot of programs and intend to so vote. But I 
believe here in this particular amendment we will simply be choosing 
between whether we want to fund more and more Government regulators on 
the one hand or economic development in poverty-stricken areas on the 
other.
  So I hope the McConnell amendment on ARC, supported by Senators 
Warner, Cochran, Rockefeller, and Heflin, will be approved when it is 
offered at the end of the time.
  Mr. President, I have actually done an astonishing thing. I believe I 
have finished before Senator Domenici had to ring the bell. So I will 
yield any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time did he give back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 26 minutes and 45 seconds.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from North 
Dakota, followed by 2 minutes for the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today we are engaged in a historic debate 
on our economic future. There are many of us on both sides of the aisle 
who are committed to balancing our budget. But a group of us have 
worked for a number of weeks on producing a plan that we call the Fair 
Share plan, because we believe the Republican alternative that has been 
presented does not call on all of our citizens on a fair basis to 
contribute to this effort.
  Perhaps the conservative commentator Kevin Phillips said it best when 
he said, ``If the budget deficit were really a national crisis we would 
be talking about shared sacrifice, with business, Wall Street and the 
rich, the people who have the big money, making the biggest sacrifice. 
Instead, the richest one or two percent, far from making sacrifices, 
actually get new benefits and tax reductions.'' [[Page S7321]] 
  That does not strike some of us as fair. We believe everyone in this 
country ought to be asked to contribute to solving this budget problem. 
So we have created an alternative that we call the fair share balanced 
budget plan. It balances the budget by the year 2004 without counting 
the Social Security trust fund surpluses. The Republican plan claims to 
achieve balance by the year 2002, but they do that by counting Social 
Security trust fund surpluses. In fact, if you look at the Republican 
budget resolution you will find that they have a $113 billion budget 
deficit, when it is fairly stated, in the year 2002. We understand they 
do not achieve a balanced budget without counting Social Security 
surpluses until the year 2006.
  Our plan offers even more deficit reduction in the year 2002 than 
their plan. Without counting the Social Security surpluses, the 
Republicans have a $113 billion deficit in 2002, while the Fair Share 
plan has a $97 billion deficit, $16 billion less in deficit than the 
Republican plan.
  We freeze defense spending, like the Republican plan does.
  We freeze nondefense discretionary spending while the Republicans cut 
it $190 billion below a freeze. In other words, we have frozen both 
defense spending and nondefense discretionary spending for 7 years in 
our plan. In the Republican plan, they have cut, on domestic 
discretionary spending, $190 billion below freeze. That means the high-
priority areas of the budget are devastated under the Republican plan: 
Education, infrastructure, research and development, technology. We add 
back $47 billion to education. We add back $54 billion to 
infrastructure, and some $13 billion to R&D and technology because 
those are the keys to America's future.
  We also cut other important priorities less than the Republican plan. 
We restore $100 billion of the $256 billion Republicans cut in 
Medicaid. We have full funding for student loans, some $14 billion. We 
restore $24 billion of the $46 billion the Republicans cut in nutrition 
and agriculture. We restore $60 billion of the $86 billion cut in 
income assistance in the Republican plan. And we restore $5 billion of 
the $10 billion Republicans cut in veterans benefits.
  To fund these changes we reject the Republican tax cuts targeted at 
the wealthy. The fair share plan eliminates $170 billion reserved in 
the Republican plans for tax cuts targeted primarily for the wealthy.
  We also ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to a balanced 
budget by limiting the growth of tax breaks, tax loopholes and tax 
benefits, tax preferences that benefit the wealthy and the big 
corporations. Tax entitlements are the largest entitlement in dollar 
terms and the third fastest growing major area of the Federal budget. 
The Republican budget plan lets these tax loopholes and tax preferences 
grow without discipline, at twice the rate of overall Federal spending. 
Our plan limits the growth in tax entitlements to inflation plus 1 
percent, producing $228 billion in savings over 7 years.
  We are simply saying, as the Republicans have argued, that 
entitlement growth ought to be limited. We agree. But we do not think 
we should forget the biggest entitlement of them all, the tax 
preferences, tax benefits, tax loopholes that go to those who have the 
most in our society. Let us ask everyone in our country to contribute 
to an effort to reduce the deficit and let us ask them to contribute on 
a fair basis.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Florida is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice in support of the 
amendment to be offered by the Senator from North Dakota. I believe it 
speaks to two important principles in this debate. One, there has been 
an assumption that there is a single path to the heaven of a balanced 
budget; if we did not ride on the chariot that has been provided to us 
by the Republican leadership that we could not get to that destination. 
Senator Conrad has clearly outlined that there are alternative means of 
reaching the goal of a balanced budget. And we stand second to no 
Member of this body in terms of our commitment and the length of our 
commitment toward the goal of a balanced budget.
  Second, I believe we will not reach a balanced budget with the 
Republican plan, and we will not because it fails to meet a fundamental 
requirement and that is the requirement of fairness; the requirement 
that all Americans be asked to contribute to the balancing of the 
budget in an evenhanded manner.
  The wheels and wings of this chariot of the Republican leadership for 
a balanced budget will fall off before we reach the year 2002 because 
the American people will object. They will reject the proposal to reach 
that balanced budget which attempts to do so primarily by reducing the 
already meager capability of the poorest and the oldest of Americans.
  The most dramatic example of that is in the area of health care. We 
have beaten upon our respective breasts about how we are holding down 
entitlements. Here is what we are doing. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, overall health care expenditures are projected to 
increase by over 7 percent per capita between now and the year 2002. 
This budget would restrain Medicare, the program for our oldest 
Americans, by less than 6 percent, and 1.5 percent for our poorest 
Americans.
  That is unfair. That plan will not reach the year 2002. Senator 
Conrad's plan will.
  I urge its adoption.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 26\1/2\ minutes for your side, and 
18\1/2\ minutes for the other side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am using my time.
  I hope Senators understand that is literal. There are 26 minutes left 
on our side, 18 minutes left on Senator Exon's side. I intend to make 
that where it comes out even.
  I yield 3 minutes to Senator Santorum in opposition to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Senator from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I wanted to talk about the Conrad amendment and just 
suggest that this is more of the same, again smoke and mirrors, no 
defined plan of how you are going to get there, more taxes, $230 
billion is what they tell you about, but go ahead and spend $170 
billion in the reserve fund. We do not know how that necessarily will 
work and whether that is really there.
  I ask the Senator from North Dakota. Has that been scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office that your budget gets a bonus of $170 
billion? Do you get that bonus?
  Mr. CONRAD. Am I to respond?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have treated the $170 billion in the same way that the 
Republican resolution has treated it. In other words, only that money--
  Mr. SANTORUM. Has the CBO scored $170 billion in savings in your 
budget as a result of it going to balance as it did the Domenici 
budget?
  Mr. CONRAD. We do have CBO scoring for the 7 years that indicate we 
will save $1.250 trillion. We will balance without using Social 
Security surpluses.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am running out of time.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have more deficit reduction in the year 2002 than the 
Republicans.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If I can reclaim my time, I am not getting an answer to 
the question. I guess the answer is the CBO has not scored $170 billion 
in bonus savings as a result of getting to balance in 9 years. So they 
are using money that they do not even have. So it is already 
potentially $170 billion out of balance.
  They have $230 billion in tax increases. They do not solve the 
Medicare problem because they add money back which does not take care 
of the problem with the insolvency of the trust fund. They have $443 
billion in new spending, but only $398 billion in offset. So that falls 
short.
  This plan looks remarkably like a 10-year plan that the President 
supposedly is eyeing over at the White House of how to get to a 
balanced budget in 10 years, which this budget does in 9 years.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Let me finish my time. Then I be would happy to yield, 
if I have any time left. [[Page S7322]] 
  I did a little homework. I found the Chief of Staff at the White 
House, Leon Panetta, who was Budget Committee chairman when I was on 
the Budget Committee and offered a budget resolution. ``The Story of 
America's Future, Preparing the Nation For the 21st Century,'' which 
was a 10-year balanced budget, just being produced over at the White 
House, basically presented here today, and they are remarkably 
similar--big cuts in defense, cuts in entitlements, which the Conrad 
budget does, and up to a $400 billion in tax increases.
  It is the same old song.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a question?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. The time of the Senator from Pennsylvania has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, let me say to Senator Conrad and those who joined him, 
that we are--
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No, I will not. I have not had a chance to speak yet. 
Let me do this. I am not shying away from questions. Let me say to 
Senator Conrad that it is very good that you would bring a balanced 
budget to the floor at 1 o'clock when there is 30 minutes left to 
debate.
  The President sent a budget up about 4 months ago. The Republicans 
sent a budget to the Budget Committee about 2\1/2\ to 3 weeks ago. We 
have been on the floor a little more than a week. Frankly, there is no 
way to analyze the budget. But, frankly, I am absolutely positive that 
it does contain a couple of things that everybody should understand.
  The Senator would say he is just taking care of loopholes, just not 
letting those grow as much, not letting the tax credits and other 
things grow. He is freezing them at 1-percent growth.
  The truth of the matter is that equals a number. That is a dollar 
number. My estimate is that it is $230 billion in new taxes no matter 
how you cut it, because in this resolution, if it is done right, they 
tell the Finance Committee to raise revenues in the amount of $230 
billion. Obviously, if you raise revenues $230 billion, you can spend a 
lot of money. You can spend $230 billion of the taxpayers' money. We 
did not do that. Americans should understand that.
  In addition, the Senate budget resolution said when you balance, 
there is a dividend. We do not know if they have a dividend on that 
side. But we said when that dividend accrues we cut Americans' taxes by 
$170 billion. It is very easy to sit up here and say we are only going 
to cut for the rich. It is not true. If they did not have that in their 
vocabulary on that side, they would not have anything to talk that 
about. Every time they get up, they talk about taxing the rich.
  The budget resolution says when we have tax cuts, if we do, they will 
not go to the rich. I do not know how many times I can say it, but that 
is the truth. Read the resolution.
  In addition, that $170 billion which the Republicans say give back to 
Americans, they spend that. Of course, $230 billion and $170 billion is 
$400 billion. It seems to me, if you have $400 billion to spend, you 
can save a lot of programs.
  I yield 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
1 additional minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The question is, should the American people be taxed 
$230 billion more at this time in history, and should they not be 
entitled to at least take a look at whether they should get a tax cut 
when we get things in balance, or should we spend it all? That is the 
issue, plain and simple. All the rest is an interesting discussion 
which nobody has enough time to analyze. But I still commend the 
Senator. It is better than nothing. We did not have anything until now.
  So I thank him for doing something better than having nothing to 
offer. Frankly, it is a false gesture. There will be a lot of people 
who will vote for it. They will say they voted for a balanced budget 
also. Frankly, I think it is a little too late. Nonetheless, we will 
probably vote on it later today.
  I yield the floor at this point and reserve the remainder of the 
time.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a question or 
yield time to the Senator from Pennsylvania?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not have any time.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, unfortunately, the Senator from Nebraska is 
placed in the position where I have a great number of Senators who want 
to address this. If I have any time left for myself at all, I would 
like to answer some of the statements that have been made. But in view 
of the fact that I have Members on this side who are very vitally 
involved in this whole matter at this time, I would like to yield 2 
additional minutes for whatever purposes he sees proper to my colleague 
from North Dakota. I would like to yield, following that 2 minutes, to 
my colleague from the State of Illinois and 2 minutes to my colleague 
from the State of New Jersey, 6 minutes in total.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
  In answer to my colleague from Pennsylvania, this is not the same old 
song. This is a balanced budget and one that does it without using or 
without counting Social Security trust funds. It is a significant 
breakthrough. We do it by less draconian cuts on the high-priority 
programs of education, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, and many others.
  We are able to do that because we reject the tax reduction aimed and 
targeted primarily at the wealthiest among us, and we say there is no 
need to defend every tax preference, every tax loophole, every tax 
break that is in the current code.
  This chart shows it--$4 trillion of tax preferences over the next 7 
years. We say let us limit the growth to inflation plus 1 percent. That 
saves us $228 billion.
  Now, my friends may be able to defend every tax preference, every tax 
break, every tax loophole. I am not. I do not understand the practice 
of allowing 73 percent of the foreign corporations doing business in 
this country to get by without paying one dime of tax. Those are not 
U.S. taxpayers. They are foreign taxpayers doing business here, and we 
allow 73 percent of them to get by without paying a penny. It makes no 
sense.
  I do not understand the practice of having a section 936 in the code 
that costs $57,000 for every job created in Puerto Rico under that 
section of the code. I think we could do away with that loophole, and 
overwhelmingly the people of this country would agree. I do not see any 
reason we should not say to the billionaires who renounce their U.S. 
citizenship to avoid taxes, that loophole should now be closed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Conrad 
amendment. In response to my colleague from Pennsylvania, who said this 
is smoke and mirrors, it took about 10 of us about six meetings to put 
this together, plus our staffs. It is substantial. I do not suggest 
that the budget offered by the Senator from New Mexico is smoke and 
mirrors. This is not smoke and mirrors. The question is, which is more 
equitable? And I think clearly the Conrad amendment is.
  The second question is the growth of tax loopholes or tax 
entitlements. I have heard the Senator from New Mexico speak often 
about entitlements and the need to get hold of them. He is absolutely 
correct. But that also applies to tax entitlements, and what the Conrad 
amendment does is say on tax loopholes, they can grow at the rate of 
inflation plus 1 percent.
  Finally, I would say I am a pessimist that any of these things will 
stand without the teeth of a constitutional amendment. Our history is 
after 2 years they blow up. But I believe the Conrad plan has a greater 
chance of standing up through the test of time because it is more fair. 
The burden is [[Page S7323]] spread more evenly. I strongly support the 
Conrad amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the issue of whether there will be a tax 
increase in the budget resolution, of course, is yesterday's story. 
There already is a tax increase in the Republican budget proposal. It 
is the elimination of the earned-income tax credit. It is a tax 
increase of $20 billion on families that earn under $28,000 a year.
  So make no mistake, the issue is not whether or not there will be a 
tax increase. The issue is who is going to pay the tax. And I believe 
that this measure is appropriate. It says that corporations and wealthy 
individuals who use tax loopholes should lose them or have them 
limited. The Senator from South Dakota and I might disagree on which 
tax loopholes should be eliminated, but there is no question that we 
should tell the Finance Committee to work to achieve that amount of 
deficit reduction through the elimination of the tax loopholes.
  If this amendment does not succeed, when we get to the end and we are 
offering amendments that will not be able to be debated, I will be 
offering another alternative budget that will cut discretionary 
spending more, Medicaid and Medicare less, tax expenditures less, have 
a tobacco tax, cut defense more, and cut agriculture more. That will be 
an alternative budget to the one that is being offered now by the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota. So that, indeed, we will have 
two Democratic amendments that would produce a balanced budget--not one 
but two. And I hope that this amendment is seriously addressed by the 
Senate and passed, because it is clearly better than the current budget 
proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes 2 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is all that is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic side has 12 minutes 9 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a number of comments I wish to 
make. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, on Federal workers, there will be an amendment called 
up that Senator Sarbanes offered, and, frankly, I want the body to know 
that I worked very hard with Federal employees representative groups. 
We did a lot better in this budget resolution for Federal workers than 
the House did.
  First of all, we did not freeze their pay. They get their regular pay 
increases. We provided sufficient money. The House provided a freeze. 
Unlike the House approach, we did not put a tax on them to put in the 
pension fund of 2.4 percent. The only thing that is in this budget 
resolution is use the top 5 instead of the top 3 for your averages. And 
we hope to do some grandfathering in the committee so that it has the 
least damaging effect. On the other hand, I would like to do more but I 
am also hopeful that when we go to conference I can hold what we have 
done, and from what I understand from most senior groups, most Federal 
employee groups, with some grandfathering this is much more palatable 
than what the House did.
  Second, I would like to talk about WIC. Some people have talked about 
the Women, Infants and Children Program. I think it was Senator Leahy. 
We accommodated an increase in the WIC Program. There is no argument 
that other programs should be restrained, but we said we think that 
should be increased; that is very important, nutrition. In fact, it is 
a $1.6 billion increase.
  With reference to the power marketing, there is and there will be an 
amendment and discussion about it. Let me just suggest we understood 
from Members on our side and the Democrat side that the PMA's as 
proposed by the House was too tough; it would raise utility rates very 
high in some areas of the country. We scaled it back tremendously in 
this budget resolution. For those who are interested, we reduced the 
savings in the President's budget by two-thirds, or $2.9 billion, the 
assumption of savings.
  We also assumed that existing customers get preferential rights to 
purchase the PMA's. I think we did a very credible and good job in that 
area, and I hope that the Senate would not further change that during 
the waning moments.
  In addition, I repeat one more time, this budget resolution says by 
adoption of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, if taxes are granted to 
the American people, 90 percent of them shall go to Americans earning 
$100,000 or less.
  If I did not use all of my time, I will reserve the remainder of it 
and yield at this time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. I will be very brief.
  That this resolution is more sensitive toward the Federal employees 
than the House-passed resolution is correct. I think we have done 
better than the House. I offered the amendment on the retirement 
provision because I feel strongly we ought not to change the rules on 
people who have given long service and planned this retirement. But the 
overall package in the Senate resolution is better than what the House 
has done, and I am hopeful that we can do even better in the 
conference. But I offered this particular proposal because I am very 
concerned about people having the retirement rules changed on them 
along the way in their working career.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes 9 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Michigan and 
following that 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 2 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
  The budget resolution before us assumes a 15 percent reduction in 
overhead for programs in nondefense agencies. It assumes no reduction 
in overhead for the Defense Department. I think that is the wrong 
signal to send to the Defense Department, particularly given the fact 
that we know there has been remaining waste in the defense budget. We 
have identified literally hundreds of millions of dollars that the GAO 
has pointed out could be saved by improved efficiency in travel 
management. We know of the billions of dollars of expenditures where 
they cannot even identify authority for the expenditures.
  We can reduce somewhat the overhead in the Defense Department. My 
amendment which I will send to the desk says it is the sense of the 
Senate that the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee should reduce the overhead in the Defense Department by 3 
percent--just 3 percent. And again the contrast here is very clear. We 
have in this budget assumed a 15-percent reduction in overhead of 
nondefense agencies, but the budget makes no cut, no assumption about 
the reduction in overhead in the Defense Department. And given the fact 
there has been identification of excess and waste in overhead in the 
Defense Department, we ought to at least ask the Appropriations 
Committee and the authorizing committee to cut overhead--and I 
emphasize the word ``overhead''--by 3 percent. This does not reduce the 
programmatic activities of the agency.
  Just the way the 15-percent reduction in overhead was directed to be 
taken out of things like travel and rent and not out of the programs of 
the agencies, so this minimum 3 percent reduction in defense is 
directed not to come out of the programmatic activities of the defense 
agencies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. EXON. As I understand it, the Senator will send the amendment to 
the desk for later consideration.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 2 
minutes.
                   Agriculture and Nutrition Programs

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank you, Mr. President. [[Page S7324]] 
  Later on, we will be voting on an amendment offered by Senator Exon 
and, I believe, Senators Daschle and Dorgan, and I am an original 
cosponsor. This amendment would restore $15 billion from the tax cuts 
to agriculture and nutrition programs.
  Mr. President, I will tell you, a minute and a half is not enough 
time to talk about nutrition programs, but I want to just remind my 
colleagues that some 13 million children received food stamp benefits 
in 1992. Families with children receive 1.9 percent of food stamp 
benefits.
  In addition, we are talking about the child and adult care food 
program which is nutritional assistance for children at child care 
centers--and I have visited those centers--we are talking about $20 
billion-plus of cuts in the Food Stamp Program. And I say to my 
colleagues, not that long ago, the Senate unanimously supported an 
amendment that I offered that we would take no action that would 
increase hunger among children in America. Three times I tried to get a 
vote on that and lost. The fourth time we went on record supporting it.
  I just simply want to say that these cuts in these nutrition programs 
will lead to increased hunger among children. The food stamp program in 
the United States of America is not perfect, but, given the tremendous 
disparities of welfare benefits, very low benefits, way below poverty 
level in many States, it is the true safety net for children.
  To have these kinds of reductions in this food assistance program is 
one of the cruelest things we could do. And this summer, well before 
that final reconciliation bill, I am going to be on the floor over and 
over and over again reminding my colleagues of the consequences of what 
we are doing with these cuts. These are real children, real faces, real 
people, in our country. They do not have the political clout but they 
deserve much more of our support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Minnesota has 
expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have an additional speaker that I would be 
glad to yield to at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Roth, do you want to 
discuss an amendment you were going to offer?
  Mr. ROTH. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Roth and 1 minute to 
Senator Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico yields 2 minutes 
to the Senator from Delaware.

  Preventing Oil and Gas Leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, when the time has expired, I intend to offer 
an amendment to prevent oil and gas leases to be made in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. President, a financial debt is not the only threat that hangs 
over the heads of future generations. There is an environmental debt, 
as well. We have a moral duty to give them a world that has clean water 
and clean air, and open vistas where wildlife runs free. One of the 
great birthrights of every American citizen is the wealth of 
superlative public lands.
  Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us today jeopardizes one 
of the most spectacular places in America: the coastal plain of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There is a provision in the budget 
that provides for oil and gas lease sales in this sanctuary. Located in 
the northeastern corner of Alaska, this unique piece of our natural 
heritage is bordered on the north by the Arctic Ocean and Beaufort Sea, 
and on the south by the snow-capped Brooks Range.
  As a lead sponsor of S. 428, the bill that designates the coastal 
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness area, I am 
concerned by the provision in the budget proposal that uses revenues 
taken from sales of leases to drill the coastal plain.
  My concern arises on two levels: first, that the budget is assuming 
revenue from a pristine wilderness area; and second, that the revenue 
raised from drilling in this wilderness area will not amount to such an 
insignificant amount of money that it could easily be found elsewhere.
  Mr. President, as I've said before, the best thing we have learned 
from nearly 500 years of contact with the American wilderness is 
restraint, the need to stay our hand and preserve our precious 
environment and future resources rather than destroy them for momentary 
gain.
  For this reason, I have been active in the effort to designate the 
refuge coastal plain of Alaska as a wilderness area. And I am not 
alone. Only 4 years ago, Congress rejected the idea of sacrificing a 
prime part of our national heritage, the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, for what would be a minimal supply of oil. The Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge is an invaluable region with wildlife diversity that 
has been compared to Africa's Serengeti.
  As I've said in earlier statements, the Alaskan wilderness area is 
not only a critical part of our Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining 
region where the complete spectrum of arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems 
comes together--but it is a vital part of our national consciousness. 
It is a place we can cherish and visit for our soul's good. It offers 
us a sense of well-being and promises that not all dreams have been 
dreamt.
  The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, 
wilderness, and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, 
dramatic peaks and glaciers, gentle foothills, and undulating tundra. 
It is untamed--rich with Caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk 
oxen, Dall sheep, moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow 
geese, tundra swans, black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species 
use the coastal plain. It is an area of intense wildlife activity. 
Animals give birth, nurse and feed their young, and set about the 
critical business of fueling up for winters of unspeakable severity.
  Addressing my second concern--that the revenue raised from drilling 
in this wilderness area will not result in such a significant amount of 
money that it couldn't be found elsewhere--let me say that the 
estimated revenue is only two-tenths of 1 percent of the total savings.
  And that's why I'm here today, to offer an amendment that will 
prohibit the leasing of the coastal plain of ANWR to pay for deficit 
reduction and to recommend that we pay for the loss in revenue with an 
offset that would come from taxing millionaire ex-patriots. I don't 
think there's any question that the small number of wealthy individuals 
who choose to renounce or relinquish their citizenship for the purpose 
of avoiding taxes--or any other reason--are still responsible to pay 
taxes on the estate, income, trust and gift revenue they received while 
still Americans.
  My amendment to prohibit the sale of leases for oil and gas 
development in the coastal plain of ANWR is revenue neutral. The 
revenue loss of $2.3 billion over 7 years is fully offset by closing 
tax loopholes that have been used by wealthy Americans who renounce 
their citizenship.
  My amendment is consistent with the current law--with the dictates of 
Congress--law that prohibits oil and gas drilling in the coastal plain 
of ANWR. It is also consistent with agreements that we have made with 
Canada to preserve and protect this wilderness area, especially the 
habitat and culture of the native people who live in the area.
  My amendment prevents oil and gas leasing in the coastal plain of 
ANWR without hearings in Congress. It does not preclude future 
development of this area, but only prevents Congress from using these 
savings from oil and gas leasing in the current budget process.
  The coastal plain--where the oil and gas leasing would occur is the 
biological heart and the center of wildlife activity in the refuge. It 
is a critical part of our Nation's preeminent wilderness and would be 
destroyed by oil development.
  There are those who may think the northern coast of Alaska is too 
remote for us to worry about. I urge them to read the Congressional 
Records from the 1870's. The men who initially urged the Congress to 
protect a place called Yellowstone were subject to ridicule. Why, 
critics asked, should we forgo the opportunity to dig up minerals from 
the area? It's a remote place, and few Americans will ever venture 
there.
  Today, as we wrestle with America's future, let's be as far-sighted 
as that Congress eventually proved to be. Let's not cash in a unique 
piece of America for a brief, hoped-for rush of oil. Let's protect the 
coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--
forever. [[Page S7325]] 
  Mr. President, this amendment will not allow revenues to be used in 
this budget that are supposed to come from doing something that 
Congress has not allowed.
  This is how it should be done. My amendment accomplishes this 
purpose. And I encourage my colleagues to support this important 
effort.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield one 1 minute to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the basic concept of this resolution is 
that it assumes no increase in revenue. Senator Roth's amendment is one 
of the first to assume increased taxes. It is a tax increase. His 
amendment will require an increase in revenue because it takes out the 
revenue that would be generated by leasing 1.5 million acres of the 
North Slope. It is not wilderness. It has never been wilderness. It is 
the largest potential area of oil and gas production in the United 
States.
  I oppose this amendment. The audacity of those that would keep that 
blocked up. They are leading to the concept where we are now purchasing 
55 percent of our oil from overseas, roughly $70 billion a year, 
because we are not producing oil from our own public lands.
  I want to respond to suggestions that the coastal plain Congress set 
aside in 1980 within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a study of 
its oil and gas potential is wilderness. This land is not wilderness. 
Congress has not declared it wilderness. Congress set this area aside 
to study the oil potential of this area, the potential which we now 
wish to develop.
  Mr. President, in 1980, Congress withdrew 19 million acres in 
northeast Alaska to establish the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an 
acreage that equals the entire State of Maine. Of that, Congress 
designated as wilderness 8 million acres, an acreage exceeding the 
combined area of the States of New Jersey and Connecticut. Congress 
designated the other 11 million acres non-wilderness refuge lands. At 
that time, Congress also set aside 1.5 million acres within the non-
wilderness area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to study them 
for oil potential. It is this area which we want to develop, not 
wilderness within the Refuge.
  I also want to respond to the suggestion of some Members and people 
outside this body continue to argue that this 1.5 million acre set-
aside represents the only, or the last, great wilderness. This is just 
not so. Alaska, which has been singled out among all the states, is 
full of lands that have been given a wilderness designation by 
Congress. Alaska, in fact, with over 56 million acres of wilderness, 
has 64 percent of all wilderness acreage in the United States. This is 
an area larger than the States of North Carolina and South Carolina 
combined. In the Arctic of Alaska, there are 21.2 million acres of 
wilderness, an area larger than the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, 
Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
  In 1991, Alaska had over 57.5 million acres of wilderness. Compare 
this with the State with the next greatest amount of wilderness--
California--which had, in 1991, less than 6 million acres of 
wilderness. Compare this also with the fact that Connecticut, Delaware, 
Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia have 
no wilderness.
  Within Alaska, we have individual wilderness areas larger than some 
other States. For example, Gates of the Arctic National Park, which at 
8.4 million acres, is twice the size of New Jersey, contains 7.1 
million acres of wilderness--an area 6 times the size of Delaware. 
Within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, too, there are 8 million 
acres of wilderness, an area the size of Massachusetts and Delaware 
combined.
  But this area should not be confused with the 1.5 million acres that 
we are discussing today for development of its oil potential. In 
section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 
1980, Congress set this area aside and required Interior to report on 
the resources and oil potential in this area for the future.
  Interior conducted seismic studies of the area and concluded that 
there is a 46-percent chance of discovering commercial quantities of 
oil. It estimated that there may be as much as 9.2 billion barrels of 
oil in the coastal plain--which would make it the largest remaining oil 
reserve in North America. To give some perspective of how much oil that 
is, 10 billion barrels have been pumped out of the Prudhoe Bay field--
and it has been supplying 25 percent of this country's domestic oil 
need since the late 70's.
  Some have argued that oil and gas development would destroy the 
wildlife in the area. The same arguments were made when Congress 
considered the Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization bill in 1973. But 
the facts prove otherwise. Since oil and gas was developed at Prudhoe 
Bay, the caribou population in the area has skyrocketed, increasing by 
a whopping 600 percent. Likewise, populations of musk oxen, waterfowl, 
and polar bear have either remained stable or increased. In fact, with 
modern drilling technology, only 5,000 to 7,000 acres--roughly one-half 
of one percent--of the 1.5 million acres in the coastal plain area 
would be impacted by roads, structures, or other development 
activities.
  I urge you to let Alaska's oil resources go to work to reduce the 
budget deficit, increase domestic oil production, and create jobs. I 
urge you not to be swayed by inaccurate statements about the ``1002 
area'' on the Arctic coastal plain--inaccurate statements about its 
wilderness designation or its importance as the last great wilderness. 
Congress set aside this area to be studied for development of oil, and 
we need to do it today for the future of this country's needs for 
energy and jobs.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
Senator from Ohio, followed by 2 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, 
followed by 2 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank the floor manager of the bill.
  Mr. President, do I have a bargain for the U.S. Senate. This is the 
best deal you are going to get all day, I think. For every dollar 
spent, you are going to get $5 back and no new taxes. How do we do 
that? Sounds like blue smoke and mirrors, but it is not.
  Mr. President, this amendment makes sure that we do not jeopardize 
more than $9 billion in deficit reduction. I am pleased to be joined in 
this amendment by my good friend from Illinois, Senator Simon.
  Let me stress that there are a number of things about this budget 
resolution I support, not the least of which is its strong approach to 
reducing the deficit and controlling the costs of Government. And while 
I disagree with many of the priorities chosen by the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, I commend his commitment and perseverance in seeking 
to balance the budget so that we can leave our children and 
grandchildren a legacy of hope, rather than debt.
  Mr. President, I believe the amendment I am offering today furthers 
that goal by preserving the antifraud compliance initiative of the 
Internal Revenue Service which will bring in almost $5 for every $1 we 
spend.
  Currently $164.3 billion in unpaid taxes are owed to the Government. 
Much of that is not collectible because of defunct corporations, 
bankruptcy, death or loss of employment. But $30.1 billion of that 
total is collectible right now. I think that bears repeating: $30.1 
billion is rightfully owed to the Government and is collectible right 
now.
  That is where the compliance initiative comes in. Last year, with 
bipartisan support, the Congress approved and funded the compliance 
initiative to collect this debt and it is projected that $9.2 billion 
will be collected over the next 5 years. I think that is a conservative 
estimate, I am happy to report that collections are ahead of schedule. 
In the first quarter of the initiative alone, $101 million has been 
collected--money that will reduce the deficit which is what the budget 
resolution before us is all about.
  Mr. President, the first quarter results are laid out for all to see 
in this report which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S7326]]

                     Status of Accounts Receivable

       Currently, gross accounts receivable are $164.3 billion. 
     Included in that amount are an active accounts receivable 
     inventory and a currently uncollectible portion.
       As of March 1995 the active portion of the accounts 
     receivable inventory was $81.4 billion; $30.1 billion of the 
     $81.4 is the net collectible portion of these receivables--
     this is the part we can collect right now.
       The remaining $51.1 billion of the $81.1 is the allowance 
     for doubtful accounts (ADA) of the uncollectible portion--the 
     part most likely to be written off.
       Some of the reasons why these receivables will not be 
     collected are: defunct corporations; taxpayers who have died, 
     or suffered such other personal hardship as serious illness 
     or loss of employment; bankrupt businesses; inability to 
     locate taxpayers, and abatements due to IRS and taxpayer 
     errors.
       The portion of our receivables in currently uncollectible 
     status is $82.9 billion. A large portion of this amount is 
     accrued penalties and interest. This category represents 
     accounts not included in the active portion because a 
     collection employee has determined a taxpayer cannot 
     currently pay owed taxes. There is a likelihood that some 
     portion of the amount owed could still be collected in the 
     future.
       In FY 94 alone, the IRS collected $1.2 trillion in net tax 
     receipts. Also in FY 94, the active accounts receivables 
     increased 7 percent ($5.1 billion), the smallest growth in 
     active accounts receivable in 4 years.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this bipartisan antifraud program was 
placed outside the discretionary spending caps for a very simple 
reason: the Budget Enforcement Act precludes scoring revenue gains from 
these kinds of compliance activities.
  Unfortunately, language placed in this year's budget resolution 
shifts the initiative back within the caps. That will have the effect 
of penalizing the initiative--and its substantial revenue gains--in the 
appropriations process, since it forces appropriators to consider the 
initiative's costs without allowing them to account for its much 
greater revenue gains.
  This would likely lead to deep cuts, or even the abandonment, of an 
initiative that brings almost five times what we spend on it. Those 
cuts would show up as short-term savings of $2 billion to the Treasury. 
But it would ultimately lead to a net loss of at lest $9.2 billion over 
5 years. This is shortsighted, and it's bad business.
  Mr. President, that is why members of both parties chose to remove 
the compliance initiative from the caps last year. It is why the House 
budget resolution continues that structure. This is not a partisan 
issue. When it came up before the Senate Budget Committee, my colleague 
from Missouri, Senator Bond, voted to keep the initiative outside the 
caps. It is a sound business investment.
  But Mr. President, the compliance initiative is not only about 
bringing in revenue properly owed the Government, it is also about 
fairness. I know that some view the IRS as an easy target because of 
public animosity toward the agency. Of course, no one enjoys paying 
taxes. But what really burns people up is to feel that they are paying 
their taxes while others are getting off scot-free.
  I have talked with countless Ohioans who tell me that they diligently 
fill out their tax forms, go through all of the hassles with our all-
to-complicated Tax Code, send in their payments, only to then hear 
about those who are getting away with falsifying their returns or 
submitting none at all. Or corporations that have developed tax schemes 
to walk away from their liability while everyone else picks up the tab. 
It is infuriating. Alot of people may not like the IRS, but I will 
guarantee you they like tax cheats a lot less.
  Well, if our amendment fails tax cheats everywhere can rest easy. 
Quite simply, by putting the compliance initiative under the spending 
caps, the budget resolution could force the IRS to abandon this 
important initiative which not only generates revenue, but also assures 
honest Americans that others are also going to be paying their fair 
share. This notion of fairness is the underlying principle behind the 
Tax Code.
  Eliminating the compliance initiative not only cuts revenue to the 
Treasury by more than $9 billion, even worse, it undermines confidence 
in our Tax Code by signalling to Americans that the Senate believes in 
double standards, that there are rules for hard-working Americans who 
pay their taxes, and no rules for people who don't. More effective 
compliance sends the right message: that there are no double standards 
when it comes to tax fairness. Everyone must pay their fair share, and 
we will enforce the laws against those who don't.
  Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to recall that this entire 
issue was settled last year. The Senate and the House both approved and 
funded the IRS compliance initiative, and the IRS has since done its 
part. The IRS is already ahead of schedule in collecting the taxes 
targeted for this year, and that's before most of the new compliance 
employees are even fully trained.
  Now, I have heard that some Senators share my view that the 
compliance initiative makes a lot of sense, but think that, to avoid 
smoke and mirrors, it belongs on budget. In other words, they say that 
if the IRS and the administration think this is so important, they 
should fund the Initiative within the caps. That is a reasonable notion 
that in years past might have worked, and I probably would have agreed 
with them.
  However, as we all know, our efforts to eliminate the deficit have 
necessitated that funds available in previous years simply don't exist 
any longer. But this initiative was developed to assist in that 
effort--to help reduce the deficit. That is why the current structure 
was established. We all want to collect delinquent taxes, and a $5 
return for every dollar spent is a wise investment by any standard.
  I would argue, in fact, that those Senators who support the 
compliance initiative but insist on placing it under the caps are 
perhaps the ones engaging in smoke and mirrors. These Senators get to 
say that they support compliance, while knowing full well that under 
the caps there is no money to pay for it. Unfortunately, the only ones 
who stand to gain are dishonest people and corporations who are not 
willing to pay their fair share. They mock the honest American 
taxpayer. And who are the losers, the American taxpayer who has to pick 
up the tab, the Federal treasury which will lose more than $9 billion, 
and the big loser--deficit reduction.
  Senator Simon and I want no part of an effort that so flies in the 
face of rationality. The amendment that we have introduced strikes that 
part of the budget resolution which requires that the compliance 
initiative be funded on budget. The affect of the amendment would 
simply be to return the compliance initiative to its off-budget status, 
where the Congress put it last year, and where it has been working to 
bring in delinquent taxes ever since.
  Mr. President, I would urge by colleagues to support this amendment, 
so that we can get on with the task of deficit reduction.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the IRS compliance 
initiative be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                       IRS Compliance Initiative

                     need for compliance initiative

       Last year, Congress approved a $405 million annual 
     investment to collect an additional $9.2 billion to reduce 
     the deficit over five years.
       The structure under which the Compliance Initiative was 
     originally approved has provided the Congress and the IRS the 
     flexibility to meet budgetary objectives, while at the same 
     time strengthen compliance.

                  irs compliance initiative is working

       Early results show that IRS will meet or exceed the goal of 
     generating the additional $9.2 billion. Through the first 
     quarter of FY 1995, the initiative has generated an 
     additional $101 million, 31% of the FY 1995 commitment. The 
     payoff in later years will be higher when the new people 
     become fully productive.
       Initiative results are being tracked. A new system for 
     tracking this initiative and related revenues raised by it 
     was developed by the IRS and accepted by GAO. The First 
     Quarter Report was delivered to Congress, on schedule, on 
     March 31.

           cutting the initiative would increase the deficit

       Congress is working hard to shrink government costs. With 
     regard to the initiative, however, for every appropriated 
     dollar ``saved'', tax revenues are reduced by nearly five 
     dollars. Elimination of the five-year initiative commitment 
     for FY 1996 and beyond would dramatically hinder the IRS' 
     ability to address significant areas of noncompliance that 
     the Congress has urged it to focus on--boosting examination 
     coverage, reducing accounts receivable, and curbing filing 
     fraud.
       Further, only $300 million in additional revenues will have 
     been realized, sacrificing $8.9 billion that will be achieved 
     in FY 1996- [[Page S7327]] 1999, and an additional $2.1 
     billion in years past FY 1999.
       And this revenue loss relates only to direct revenues--the 
     Service's enforcement activities also encourage voluntary 
     compliance. Every one percent increase in voluntary 
     compliance increases tax revenues by $10 billion annually.
        eliminating the initiative seriously damages collections

       IRS has put in place a long range hiring and training plan. 
     By the end of May, over 5,000 people will have been hired or 
     redeployed to compliance jobs as part of this initiative. 
     These employees are collecting taxes already due, which if 
     not collected, increase the burden on those taxpayers who 
     voluntarily meet their tax obligations.
       Elimination of the Initiative would require IRS to 
     immediately institute a hiring freeze and in FY 1996 furlough 
     the approximately 70,000 Compliance employees for up to 17 
     days to reduce expenditures by $405 million. In FY 1997, 
     either further furloughs or a reduction in force would be 
     necessary to reduce employment. Attrition alone would not be 
     sufficient to get to lower staffing levels.

                      safeguarding taxpayer rights

       As tax administrators, one of the IRS' most important 
     responsibilities is to ensure that taxpayers are treated 
     fairly, courteously and with respect. The IRS is committed to 
     respecting the rights of all taxpayers.
       In the last several years, the IRS has taken many steps 
     administratively to safeguard taxpayer rights. And IRS is 
     working with the Congress on proposed legislative changes 
     that would further enhance safeguards.
       The commitment to taxpayer rights will continue to drive 
     IRS' work with regard to the compliance initiative and, in 
     fact, all of the IRS' efforts.
                                                                    ____

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 1995.
       Dear Colleague: We are writing to inform you about an 
     important issue in the Senate Budget Resolution which, if 
     left unchanged, could cost the government and the American 
     people more than $9 billion in deficit reduction.
       Last year, with bipartisan support, the Congress approved 
     and funded the IRS Compliance Initiative to collect over $9.2 
     billion in unpaid taxes to reduce the deficit. And it has 
     been a real success--for every dollar we invest in this 
     program we will receive nearly five dollars in return.
       Last year's budget resolution placed the Compliance 
     Initiative outside the discretionary caps for a very simple 
     reason: The Budget Enforcement Act precludes scoring revenue 
     gains resulting from these kinds of compliance activities. 
     However, language placed in this year's budget resolution 
     shifts the initiative back within the discretionary caps. 
     That will have the effect of penalizing the initiative in the 
     appropriations process, since it will force appropriators to 
     consider the initiative's costs without allowing them to 
     account for its much greater revenue gains.
       As a result, this year's budget resolution will likely lead 
     to deep cuts in the Compliance Initiative, or even force the 
     IRS to abandon the initiative entirely. Those cuts would show 
     up as a short-term savings of $2 billion to the Treasury. But 
     it would ultimately result in a net loss of $9.2 billion over 
     5 years (and up to $11.3 billion including the out years). 
     Such short-sightedness would not be tolerated in the private 
     sector, and it should be rejected by the U.S. Senate, as 
     well.
       During floor debate on the Budget Resolution, we will offer 
     an amendment to strike the proposed language on the 
     Compliance Initiative budget structure, so that we can 
     continue to reduce the deficit as Congress intended last 
     year. We urge you to support his amendment. Please have your 
     staff contact John Haseley with Senator Glenn (4-1519) or 
     Aaron Rappaport with Senator Simon (4-5573), with any 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
     John Glenn.
     Paul Simon.

  I urge support for this amendment. I will submit it at the 
appropriate time. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Virginia is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the managers of the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did I yield the Senator time, or did the Senator from 
Nebraska yield time?
  Mr. ROBB. The time was yielded by the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can I yield it so the Senator from Nebraska has time 
left? How much time does the Senator from Virginia want, 3 or 4 
minutes?
  Mr. ROBB. Two minutes will be adequate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Robb.

                               Fair Share

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of the fair share 
amendment that was offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Senator 
Conrad. I, with a number of other Senators, worked with him to try to 
develop an alternative to the budget resolution that is on the floor. I 
continue to accord to Senator Domenici and others credit for moving us 
in the right direction.
  Their amendment, if you include the $113 billion of Social Security 
trust funds, would come to balance under that math by the year 2002. 
This amendment comes by the year 2004 and gives us true balance without 
using the trust funds.
  There are some very difficult choices still ahead of us. We are 
talking about budget resolutions and not budgets. When we get down to 
the hard work of the authorizing and appropriating, we are going to 
have to be making some very, very painful and difficult choices. This 
particular approach, in my judgment, spreads that burden more equitably 
and more fairly. Hence, I am very much in favor of it.
  I, again, commend the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership and 
I, like some of the other folks on this side of the aisle, may end up 
even voting for the final version, even if this particular distribution 
fails, because I think it is important that we make the statement about 
the seriousness of our intent to move toward true deficit reduction, 
and we can continue to disagree about some of the details.
  With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Connecticut for 2 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], the 
one on the fair share budget; and the one offered by the Senator from 
Delaware [Mr. Roth] on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
               arctic national wildlife refuge amendment

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of Senator Roth's amendment to protect the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas development. The budget resolution 
before us directs the Energy Committee to authorize the lease of 1.5 
million acres of this internationally significant refuge to oil 
companies. If this happens, it will virtually destroy one of the 
world's crown jewels of nature for a small supply of oil. Yet, only 
last week in Senate debate, oil from wilderness areas of Alaska's North 
Slope was characterized as a surplus that should be made available for 
export. Clearly, oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not a 
vital energy need for the United States.
  The social and environmental cost of developing the refuge would be 
huge. It would severely impact major calving grounds and disrupt 
migration for one of the largest caribou herds on Earth. The Porcupine 
herd, estimated recently at over 152,000 caribou, uses the coastal 
plain of this refuge where development is targeted, to raise their 
calves and prepare for the incredibly harsh winter migration. It is one 
of the few areas hospitable enough for calving and summer habitation. 
The Canadian government provided permanent protection for their portion 
of this habitat in recognition of its importance and highly threatened 
status.
  Development of this refuge will eliminate a significant amount of 
habitat for other wildlife, including den-ning and feeding 
areas for polar bears and Arctic wolves. Forty three percent of all 
polar bear dens in and around the refuge occur in this area. It will 
destroy a major habitat of musk oxen, and threaten staging grounds for 
millions of migratory birds. It has the potential to contaminate water 
supplies for vast areas of wilderness so pristine that they define the 
very term itself. It will degrade one of the last scrapes of Arctic 
wilderness with each of the elements of the Arctic North Slope 
ecosystem preserved intact. Ninety percent of this system is already 
open to oil and gas development. Without question, oil development will 
result in major environmental damages to this unique wilderness.
  It also has the potential to destroy the economic and social basis 
for Indian cultures that have depended on these herds for thousands of 
years. We know them as the Gwich'in, the Inuvialuit, the Aklavik and 
others. We have heard their songs of the caribou. They remind us of 
Native Americans who once followed vast herds of bison on the Great 
Plains, and sang to their future as well. In the words of these Alaskan 
Natives, ``Our Arctic way of [[Page S7328]] life has endured for 20,000 
years. Why should it die now for 6 months of oil?''
  As a result of Senate action to lift the oil export ban last week, it 
is no longer clear whose 6-month supply of oil this might be. 
Repeatedly, we were told during Senate debate that a glut of North 
Slope oil exists. So much so, that we need to export this surplus to 
more profitable locations, such as Japan. Oil from the refuge, in all 
probability, will not fill American gas pumps. Therefore, the whole 
energy independence rationale for drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge is now clearly without any foundation. We would be 
drilling for oil company profits, not energy independence. In the 
process, we will deplete our domestic oil reserves and destroy one of 
our most valuable environmental assets. I think this is a very bad 
tradeoff, and I think most Americans will agree.
  The plan to develop the refuge is a bad idea for another very big 
reason: it doesn't make budget sense. Senator Roth offers a replacement 
offset that more than covers the projected revenues from oil leases, 
the closure of the tax break for expatriate millionaires. This tax 
break is for people who renounce their U.S. citizenship to shield their 
enormous wealth from the taxes every hard-working American must pay. It 
should not be preserved at the expense of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge or any other significant resource of this Nation.
  The deficit reduction value of the proposed Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge lease is clouded by several unresolved issues. First, the $1.4 
billion figure scored by CBO assumes a 50-percent State share, even 
though State law calls for a 90-percent share. Second, there are 
uncertainties about the ownership of submerged lands within the refuge. 
If it is determined that these lands belong to Alaska, it reduces the 
lease value of the refuge further. Third, the most recent offshore 
State lease near the refuge yielded only $48.41 per acre, compared to 
the estimated $1,533.00 per acre assumed by CBO--a huge discrepancy. 
Finally, the budget process itself is simply the wrong place to 
authorize major, irreversible actions of this kind because it limits 
normal debate, testimony, and public input.
  The current budget rule on public asset sales, which this budget 
resolution seeks to change, prohibits the scoring of these sales for 
deficit reduction for good reason. It was created in 1985 during the 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to avoid bogus, shortsighted asset sales in 
the name of deficit reduction. Nothing has changed to reduce the need 
for this rule today as we debate the fate of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge.
  Much has been said since last November about the views of the 
American people on protecting the environment. So often we hear the 
presumption that Americans care less. But, this past week a national 
poll by ABC and the Washington Post found quite the opposite, as has 
every national poll since the election. Seventy percent of Americans 
feel the Federal Government has not done enough to protect the 
environment. In the case of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and 
many other treasured public lands across this Nation, I can only agree. 
We should not transfer public refuges, parks, forests or energy 
reserves without extensive hearings, informed testimony, and debate, 
particularly when they are so near and dear to the American people.
  I want read a few words from some of the many letters I have received 
urging me to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
  The Ambassador of Canada, Mr. Raymond Chretien, wrote:

       Canada believes that opening the Arctic Refuge to oil and 
     gas development will lead to major disruptions in the 
     sensitive calving grounds and will affect migratory patterns 
     of the Porcupine Caribou Herd on which thousands of Canadian 
     and American Aboriginal people depend.
       In signing the 1987 Canada-United States Agreement on the 
     Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, the United States 
     and Canada both recognized the transboundary nature of these 
     wildlife resources and our joint responsibility for 
     protecting them.
       In 1984, Canada gave wilderness protection to its portion 
     of the caribou calving grounds by creating the Northern Yukon 
     National Park. The critical calving grounds in the United 
     States, however, do not have formal protection and remain 
     vulnerable to development, as evidenced by the recent 
     budgetary proposals.
       Canada believes that the best way to ensure the future of 
     the shared wildlife population of the Arctic Coastal Plain is 
     to designate the ``1002'' lands as wilderness, thereby 
     providing equal protection on both sides of this border to 
     this irreplaceable living resource.

  Gwich'in Tribe, Renewable Resource Board, Mr. Robert Charlie, wrote:

       Opening up the Arctic Refuge to (oil and gas) development 
     would have a drastic negative impact on the Porcupine Caribou 
     Herd which calves in the area. In turn, the decline of the 
     herd would devastate the aboriginal cultures in Yukon and 
     Northwest Territories which rely on caribou for cultural and 
     economic survival . . .
       Both President Clinton and Prime Minister Chretien oppose 
     drilling in the refuge.
       Oil development is opposed by all First Nations in Canada 
     and Alaska, with exception of the Inupiat who have financial 
     interests there.
       The calving grounds in the ``1002'' lands are recognized by 
     the International Porcupine Caribou Board as the most 
     sensitive habitat of the herd.
       A study released last week by the Alaska Department of Fish 
     and Game links the drop in growth rate of the Central Arctic 
     Herd at Prudhoe Bay to eviction of cows and calves by oil 
     development.
       Other department reports in preparation collaborate on the 
     negative impacts of development on caribou calving.

  Wildlife Management Advisory Council of the North Slope, Mr. Lindsay 
Staples, wrote:

       Allowing oil development in the Arctic Refuge would 
     severely impact on the Porcupine Caribou herd. A decline in 
     the herd would mean social and economic ruin for the 
     indigenous peoples who rely on the herd. The Inuvialuit of 
     Aklavik, Northwest Territories are among those whose 
     lifestyle and culture would be at risk.

  President Jimmy Carter, op-ed to the New York Times, wrote:

       The new Congress must be reawakened to protecting the 
     interests of all Americans by protecting public lands in 
     Alaska. For what is at stake is an unparalleled system of 
     Federal reserves protecting wildlife, fish and wilderness. 
     Polar bears, musk ox, wolves and a herd of 150,000 caribou 
     roam the remote Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge in the far north--a place often called ``America's 
     Serengeti . . .
       November's election was not a mandate to damage Alaska's 
     environmental treasures. Poll after poll has shown that the 
     American people remain fully committed to the protection that 
     makes the unspoiled reaches of our Nation the envy of the 
     world.

  Mr. President, I believe it is essential for this Nation to balance 
its budget. I salute the budget committee for taking bold and concrete 
steps to reach this goal. This is a very difficult, complicated task 
that requires sacrifice by all of us. I believe Senator Roth's 
amendment provides a better way to reach this goal than the proposed 
development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It trades something 
we do not need, a tax break for rich people who do not care about our 
country enough to maintain their citizenship, for something we do need 
and are willing to take care of, one of or most precious natural 
resources.
  In 1991, I was 1 of 44 Senators who voted against a motion to proceed 
with an energy bill that contained a plan to develop oil on this 
refuge. Today, we must renew this commitment to safeguarding this 
national treasure. We must continue our stewardship of our natural 
resources and natural heritage. I ask all my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to join Senator Roth, me and the many other Senators 
supporting this amendment today. We may not have a second chance.
                    technology research and training

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to speak briefly on the 
amendment I am pleased to cosponsor with Senators Bingaman and 
Rockefeller on technology research and training.
  The Federal Government, since the Second World War, by its 
investments in research and support of technology, has really driven 
this economy. This budget begins to dismantle the apparatus that has 
created so much wealth, growth, and jobs, and we desperately need to 
compete in the world today. It is the beginning of kind of an economic 
disarmament as the world becomes more competitive. In this budget, 
while other nations are increasing their relative investment in 
research and development and training and technology, we actually 
decrease the investment that America is making.
  In Japan and Germany, and other industrialized nations, the 
investments that are made in research and training and technology are 
beyond partisan and political debate. They stand up there with national 
defense. Those [[Page S7329]] folks in Japan and Germany are probably 
the ones who will not only find this debate shocking but will get a big 
laugh out of the fact that we are cutting some of these programs.
  The Commerce Department, the agency that has finally brought together 
our effort to take the research from the laboratories, convert it into 
technologies that create jobs and then have an aggressive export 
promotion program that sells those products abroad is actually being 
dismantled in the budget before us.
  While I support the bottom line that the budget achieves, these are 
the wrong priorities, and I hope through the sense of the Senate that 
we will express our support for different priorities.
  I find it ironic that the budget resolution, by cutting critical 
investments in science, technology and trade, depletes future sources 
of revenues for the national budget, and ultimately weakens our economy 
rather than strengthens it. In trying to save dollars today, we are 
throwing away the investments with the biggest payoffs tomorrow. We are 
stealing from our own pockets tomorrow, and from our children to pay 
for budget cuts today. The strategy simply makes no sense.
  Research and development, applied research, export promotion, and 
trade law enforcement. These efforts are the fuel of our economy. 
Traditionally, the Government has played an important role in stoking 
our economic furnace with selected, well-defined R&D programs that 
stimulate the economy and protect and promote our interests abroad. 
They have been a critical engine for economic growth in the United 
States and are one of its major competitive advantages. The budget 
resolution's deep cuts into research and development have the potential 
to devastate our research institutions, institutions that have 
international reputations for excellence. These institutions spawn the 
new ideas that form the basis for innovation in the marketplace. No 
major research institution is left unscathed--the Department of 
Commerce trade and technology programs, the National Institutes of 
Health, the Department of Energy Labs, NASA, and even the premiere 
basic research institution, the National Science Foundation. The lack 
of judgment in cutting these programs is obvious when one notes that 
the direct return on investment to our economy, from research and 
development is 30 percent. This figure does not even take into account 
indirect social benefits from research and development.
  Currently, our Federal investment is research and development is 1.1 
percent of GDP, split almost evenly between defense and civilian R&D. 
If we remove the defense component and add on the investment by the 
private sector, we find that our investment, as a nation, in civilian 
R&D is 2.1 percent of GDP. We can compare the R&D investment trends in 
the United States with those of other industrialized nations. Today, we 
are behind Japan and Germany in this critical factor. This historic 
pattern relative to Japan and Germany has had a direct impact on our 
economies. Since the 1950's, our per capita GDP has risen an average of 
1.8 percent per year, while in Japan the rate has been 5.2 percent per 
year, and in Germany, 3.1 percent per year. R&D means new products and 
new technologies. The correlation between R&D investment and economic 
growth is real.
  While other nations are increasing their relative investment in R&D, 
the current budget resolution would decrease our R&D investment. It 
marks a historic reversal in U.S. policy toward science and R&D. By the 
year 2002, the budget resolution would decrease our Federal investment 
in R&D by approximately 40 percent. The result would be to decrease our 
national investment in R&D from 1.1 percent of GDP to 0.68 percent of 
GDP. Even if other nation's R&D investments remain constant, and do not 
grow, as is the trend, we fall behind countries like France and the 
United Kingdom. The lead that Japan and Germany have over us grows 
substantially. This graph does not consider the multitude of rapidly 
growing emerging nations, who are rapidly becoming fierce competitors 
in the global marketplace.
  These conservative estimates of the results of the decrease is 
investment in R&D have major implications for our ability to compete in 
the global marketplace with products that incorporate the innovations 
conceived by our R&D efforts. It is not sufficient to just conceive of 
good ideas. These ideas must become products and then be brought to 
market, at home and abroad. Our success in the global marketplace is 
directly reflected in our standard of living and our quality of life. 
The budget resolution completely dissolves the agency that has been the 
most effective in technology development and trade promotion, the 
Department of Commerce, ending its programs in these areas up front.
  The effort to get our creative ideas to market, to feed our economy, 
has had a bipartisan history. Landmark legislation by Senator Dole and 
then Senator Bayh led to a Federal initiative in technology transfer 
from the federal laboratory bench to industry. I applaud the forward-
looking, innovative thinking that was pioneered by our current majority 
leader. The Advanced Technology Program was crafted by congressional 
leaders on both sides of the aisle during the Bush administration. 
These programs are leading us into the 21st century, with significant 
potential for enormous returns on investment. For example, the 
Manufacturing Extension Program, out of the Department of Commerce, was 
designed to help some 370,000 small- and medium-sized manufacturers, 
raise their performance to world standards. This program has returned 
$8 to the economy for every dollar the Federal Government has invested. 
These technology programs account for less than 2 percent of total 
Federal R&D investment but are critical to our ability to capitalize on 
our innovations. We must not cede to other nations the economic 
benefits of American ingenuity. Along with the elimination of the 
Department of Commerce, these programs are either slated for deep cuts 
or elimination.
  Getting our products into markets around the world has been one of 
the real achievements of the Department of Commerce in recent years. 
The Department of Commerce has worked aggressively to increase exports. 
In the last 18 months, the Commerce Department successfully advocated, 
on behalf of U.S. companies, contracts with a total U.S. export content 
of $25 billion. In other words, for every dollar spent on the 
Department of Commerce, $6 have been generated in the economy. Commerce 
has eliminated unnecessary and outmoded regulations on more than $32 
billion in exports, allowing domestic companies the freedom to succeed 
in overseas markets. And, these accomplishments have been made with the 
smallest Cabinet budget. The advocacy for U.S. trade will be even more 
critical in coming years as the global marketplace becomes a larger and 
larger component of our economy.
  There are new international competitiveness issues on our horizon and 
we will need to be effective and efficient in our responsiveness to the 
rapidly changing global economy. New markets are emerging in developing 
countries. Conservative estimates suggest that 60 percent of the growth 
in world trade will be with these developing countries over the next 
two decades. During a time when we will need increased emphasis on 
international trade we are contemplating eliminating the only agency 
that advocates for American business, in the Cabinet and abroad.
  The United States has a large share of imports in big emerging 
markets. We are doing well, but much of our edge is due to our large 
share in Latin America. Vigorous efforts are necessary in other parts 
of the world, particularly Asia, where Japan heavily out-invests the 
United States. These markets combined, make up the largest component of 
United States exports, and these markets are growing rapidly. But, with 
the cuts in the budget resolution, we cannot maintain these efforts. We 
will forfeit the money they bring into our country. We will lose their 
impetus to our economy. Instead, we are cutting the most critical 
programs in the smallest Cabinet budget, in the name of decreasing the 
deficit. It just does not make sense to cut these revenue producing 
functions. Cutting these trade functions, and the Department of 
Commerce, will ultimately increase the deficit, not decrease it. I 
often lament the near-sightedness of a corporate America forced to 
focus on the next quarter's [[Page S7330]] profits. I hate to see my 
Senate colleagues succumb to a similar narrow focus.
  In conclusion, I support this amendment in order to assure that when 
we cut government spending, which I strongly support, we cut wisely, 
and we do not cut government investments that build our economy. We 
must maintain our investments in research, technology and trade 
promotion to ensure our future economic strength and international 
competitiveness. This amendment stands for exactly that point.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a 
letter to Senator Bingaman from the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       Institute of Electrical and

                                  Electronics Engineers, Inc.,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 1995.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: As a representative of the Institute 
     of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., an 
     organization that promotes the career and policy interests of 
     240,000 U.S. electrical engineers (IEEE-USA), I am compelled 
     to alert you to our unwavering support for the U.S. research 
     and development base. We have become increasingly alarmed at 
     the pace and scope of the rescissions and proposed funding 
     reductions and eliminations of R&D programs that we see as 
     vital to U.S. industry, the economy and our global 
     competitiveness. Estimates of a 30-40% reduction over the 
     next 5 years in Federal support for research and technology 
     development will have a lingering and deleterious effect on 
     our economy.
       In the budget resolution recently passed by the House and 
     in the pending Senate counterpart, drastic reductions to R&D 
     programs across the board are assumed. No one will argue 
     against the merits of deficit reduction. A widening national 
     debt has a very draining effect on our economy and our 
     ability to invest wisely for the future. But in our zeal to 
     find ways to cut government spending, programs which are 
     designed to boost our economy and, in turn revenues, are 
     being sacrificed. This short sightedness needs to be short 
     lived before irrevocable harm is done to the U.S. R&D base 
     and jobs are lost.
       We at IEEE-USA are very glad to learn of your intention to 
     offer an amendment to S. Con. Res. 13, the Senate Budget 
     Resolution, to express a sense of the Senate that research, 
     technology and trade promotion are vital to the future of the 
     U.S. economy. Research programs are vulnerable because they 
     do not always have the visibility of many other government 
     programs and therefore are easy targets for budget cutters. 
     Your amendment reminds the whole Congress of the importance 
     of research and technology and hopefully will urge the budget 
     cutters and appropriators to use extreme caution before 
     haphazardly cutting or eliminating needed programs.
       The IEEE-USA supports your amendment and commends you for 
     your leadership on this issue and stands ready to assist you 
     and your staff in this effort. Please contact Jim Anton of 
     the Washington staff for further information or support at 
     202-785-0017.
           Sincerely,

                                         Joel B. Snyder, P.E.,

                           Vice President, Professional Activities
                                 and Chair, U.S. Activities Board.

  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to, in the strongest terms, 
support this amendment which I am pleased to cosponsor. I congratulate 
the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, for his continued leadership 
on behalf of the Nation's economic needs and potential, and join 
Senator Lieberman in helping to make this case to our colleagues.
  The proposal to eliminate the U.S. Department of Commerce is 
incredibly short-sighted and will be extremely harmful to the 
competitive position of the United States. The Commerce Department's 
responsibility for trade enforcement, export promotion, manufacturing, 
and technology is a focused mission for American jobs and growth, and 
quite simply, its elimination is tantamount to economic surrender.
  To begin with, the Commerce Department acts as the cop on the beat, 
enforcing U.S. trade laws against internationally recognized unfair 
trading practices. Domestic industry is a huge fan of the Department's 
Import Administration, and a move to eliminate it, or roll it into 
another agency with a very different mandate, is only going to be red 
meat for our competitors. I know this from painful experience. Those of 
us who represent industries such as steel have seen what unfair trade, 
dumping and subsidized imports, can mean to local economies and our 
Nation's overall economy. The Import Administration does yeomen's work 
enforcing our domestic trade laws--which look out for American 
businesses and American jobs--and to move it somewhere else is not only 
thoughtless, it is dangerous.
  Mr. President, I will not sit by while the one agency that is looking 
out for American business, at home and abroad, is dismantled for 
political gain. The Department of Commerce's trade promotion arm is the 
matchmaker for thousands of businesses promoting products made in the 
United States--by American workers--in markets all over the world. I 
speak from experience here. In January, I led a trade mission of West 
Virginia businesses to Japan and Taiwan, we called it Project Harvest 
because that is what we were trying to do, sow the seeds of 
relationships that would reap tangible benefits for small and large 
West Virginia companies and their workers. In all this we worked 
closely with the Department of Commerce's Foreign Commercial Service, 
and in less than 6 months, these companies have already secured 
millions of dollars' worth of contracts.
  I know what my friends across the aisle are saying about their so-
called mandate, but I challenge any one of them to tell me that they 
have one company in their State such as Precision Samplers, that want 
to see the Department of Commerce eliminated. As a result of our trade 
mission, and with the help of the Department of Commerce, Precision 
Samplers has already signed contracts worth half a million dollars. And 
the list doesn't end there, West Virginia companies such as the Dean 
Co., and FCX Systems and Precision Coil have all signed lucrative 
contracts since our trade mission, and a big thanks goes to the experts 
at the Department of Commerce who helped make these deals happen. Small 
companies such as these owe a great deal to Department of Commerce 
export promotion programs, and I doubt they would want to see that 
support network eliminated.
  I also want to make a special note of the role played by the Bureau 
of Export Administration [BXA]. BXA evaluates national security 
interests when American companies seek applications for the export of 
dual use goods and technology; those are products that could have 
military applications. There are a lot of things that need to be 
considered in these applications, but as a Commerce entity, BXA has 
longstanding close relations with exporters and the business community 
that other agencies simply don't have. However, BXA has to work with 
all those other agencies in making its evaluations. Export licensing 
has foreign policy implications, so involves the State Department; it 
has national security implications, so works with DOD; it has to clear 
the sale of nuclear equipment that DOE is expert in, or other things 
that the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency has a role to play. And 
BXA coordinates all this while always looking out for the needs of 
American businesses.
  We need to maintain an umbrella organization that looks out for 
America's business interests at home and across the globe. Creating a 
Department of Trade would be better than breaking up all the trade 
functions of the Department of Commerce and moving them all over the 
Government, to Justice, DOD, Treasury, the ITC, USTR, wherever. But why 
reinvent the wheel? The Department of Commerce works. This idea of 
making a Department of Trade or expanding USTR is merely moving around 
the deck chairs. And maybe it is even worse. This particular ship is 
standing tall and sailing true. Breaking it down and moving it around 
is a bad idea.
  I also want to discuss a related set of proposed cuts--support for 
new breakthrough technologies. It is an astounding proposal, and one 
that shows how soon some forget what it takes for America to win in the 
new global economy.
  We should remember the lessons of the 1970's and early 1980's. During 
those years, America led in science and new ideas, only to see American 
inventions such as the VCR commercialized first by other countries. 
Other governments [[Page S7331]] have long used research consortia and 
other aid to help their firms overcome the technical hurdles associated 
with critical but risky new ideas. And time after time, we found our 
competitors taking our ideas and sending them back to us in the form of 
VCRs and other new products.
  Over the past 10 years, both American industry and the U.S. 
Government have taken steps to make sure Americans profit more from our 
new inventions and discoveries. Industry and the venture capital 
industry have focused their attention sharply on getting the next 
generation of products out the door. Both competitive pressures and 
Wall Street's push for short-term results have led our firms to focus 
their limited R&D dollars on developing new products. That is good in 
the short term, but it also means that even our largest firms have been 
forced to cut longer-term research that is essential for the future but 
which will not pay off for 10 years.
  In the real world, as opposed to some theoretical world, American 
companies--both large and small--increasingly have turned to cost-
shared projects with the Government and each other to develop these 
risky but vital longer-term technologies. These are the breakthrough 
technologies that will create new industries and jobs in the future--
technologies such as next-generation electronics, low-cost composite 
materials for bridges and other structures, low-cost but highly 
reliable processes for making biotechnology products, and advanced 
techniques for computer-aided manufacturing. Cost-shared projects in 
such areas create the new seed corn for a new generation of American 
industry.
  At the Federal level, these cost-shared technology partnerships with 
industry now constitute less than 3 percent of the Government's $72 
billion annual R&D budget. The entire budget of the Government's 
civilian technology agency--the Commerce Department's National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST--constitutes little more 
than 1 percent of Federal R&D. With the cold war over and the world 
economic race in full swing, this is hardly overspending.
  And mark my words, other nations will not drop out of the world 
economic race just because Congress has thrown in the towel in the 
fight to help develop and market leading edge technologies. Along with 
Japan and Europe, we now see major new industry-government technology 
investments in South Korea, Taiwan, and even smaller states such as 
Singapore. In the real world, these countries are out to clean our 
clocks--and they want to use America's own university discoveries and 
entrepreneurial ideas to do it.
  The United States has just now climbed back to a solid, but fragile, 
lead in most key technologies. Well-run, cost-shared Government 
programs have played an important role in helping American industry 
regain that lead. But we now combine government cutbacks with ever 
increasing Wall Street pressures for companies to focus their own funds 
only on the short term, then we will most certainly fall behind again. 
And the American worker and the American dream will be the losers.
  Killing Federal technology programs, including those of the Commerce 
Department, will send our companies into economic battle with second-
rate support and one arm tied behind their backs. It is a prescription 
for economic retreat and economic stagnation. In the name of some 
ideology, we risk destroying key foundations of future prosperity. And 
future generations will wonder why the Nation that used industry-
government R&D cooperation to create the modern agriculture, aircraft, 
and biotechnology sectors abandoned a proven formula and let other 
nations walk all over us.
  Which brings me back to the amendment and the Department of Commerce. 
This amendment is quite simple, it states that ``the public welfare, 
economy, and national security of the United States have benefitted 
enormously from the investment the Federal Government has made over the 
past fifty years in research, technology, and trade promotion and trade 
law enforcement,'' and that these should remain a national priority for 
the 21st century.
  Again, Mr. President, the elimination of an agency of Government so 
vital to our Nation's interests is tantamount to economic surrender. I 
think our international competitors will see it as just that. In my 
view, proposals to eliminate the Department of Commerce amount to 
unilateral disarmament, and I will fight against those who are 
determined to raise this white flag.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no one seeking time on my side. I 
need some time, but does the Senator from Nebraska want another 2 or 3 
minutes of my time, if he needs it?
  Mr. EXON. I will simply advise the Senator, possibly could we take 
care of the matters that have been agreed to now? I have one Senator 
who asked to have 3\1/2\ minutes. I have the 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
but now I do not have the Senator. I would like to give the remainder 
to him.
  Maybe the Senator from New Mexico has some time to give me for 
closing matters. If not, may we take care of those matters agreed to?

                           Amendment No. 1145

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to send to the desk and the Senate adopt, if they see fit, a 
technical amendment which has been agreed to on the other side. I send 
that to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1145.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 4, line 19, strike ``$937,800,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$973,800,000,000''.
       On page 5, line 12 strike ``comparison with the maximum 
     deficit amount under section 601(a)(1) and 606 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of''.
       On page 6, line 8, strike ``$1,324,400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,342,400,000,000''.
       On page 6, line 10 strike ``comparison with the maximum 
     deficit amount under section 601(a)(1) and 606 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of''.
       On page 7, line 10 strike ``comparison with the maximum 
     deficit amount under section 601(a)(1) and 606 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of''.
       On page 10, line 3, strike ``$347,700,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$374,700,000,000''.
       On page 11, line 2, strike ``2000'' and insert ``2002''.
       On page 40, line 3, strike ``$1,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       On page 40, line 10, strike ``$1,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       On page 40, line 17, strike $1,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       On page 40, line 24, strike $1,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       On page 41, line 6, strike $1,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       On page 41, line 13, strike $1,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       On page 41, line 20, strike $1,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       On page 64, line 14, strike ``Foreign Relations'' and 
     insert ``Rules and Administration''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have nothing further to say.
  Mr. EXON. It has been agreed to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1145) was 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.

                           Amendment No. 1146

      (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
  establishment of a nonpartisan advisory commission on budgeting and 
                              accounting)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to offer a Bingaman amendment on accounting. It has been agreed 
to on both sides. I send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 1146.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with. [[Page S7332]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 86, strike line 11 through line 25 on page 87 and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON A UNIFORM ACCOUNTING 
                   SYSTEM IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND 
                   NONPARTISAN COMMISSION ON ACCOUNTING AND 
                   BUDGETING.

       (a) Finding.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Much effort has been devoted to strengthening Federal 
     internal accounting controls in the past. Although progress 
     has been made in recent years, there still exists no uniform 
     Federal accounting system for Federal Government entities and 
     institutions.
       (2) As a result, Federal financial management continues to 
     be seriously deficient, and Federal financial management and 
     fiscal practices have failed to identify costs, failed to 
     reflect the total liabilities of congressional actions, and 
     failed to accurately report the financial condition of the 
     Federal Government.
       (3) Current Federal accounting practices do not adequately 
     report financial problems of the Federal Government or the 
     full cost of programs and activities. The continued use of 
     these practices undermines the Government's ability to 
     provide credible and reliable financial data, contributes to 
     waste and inefficiency, and will not assist in achieving a 
     balanced budget.
       (4) Waste and inefficiency in Federal Government undermine 
     the confidence of the American people in the Government and 
     reduces the Federal Government's ability to address 
     adequately vital public needs.
       (5) To rebuild the accountability and credibility of the 
     Federal Government and restore public confidence in the 
     Federal Government, a uniform Federal accounting system, that 
     fully meets the accounting standards and reporting objectives 
     for the Federal Government, must be immediately established 
     so that all assets and liabilities, revenues and expenditures 
     or expenses, and the full cost of programs and activities of 
     the Federal Government can be consistently and accurately 
     recorded, monitored, and uniformly reported throughout all 
     government entities for budgeting and control and management 
     evaluation purposes.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution include the following assumptions:
       (1) Uniform federal accounting system.--(A) A uniform 
     Federal accounting system should be established to 
     consistently compile financial data across the Federal 
     Government, and to make full disclosure of Federal financial 
     data, including the full cost of Federal programs and 
     activities, to the citizens, the Congress, the President, and 
     agency management.
       (B) Beginning with fiscal year 1997, the President should 
     require the heads of agencies to--
       (i) implement and maintain a uniform Federal accounting 
     system; and
       (ii) provide financial statements; in accordance with 
     generally accepted accounting principles applied on a 
     consistent basis and established in accordance with proposed 
     Federal accounting standards and interpretations recommended 
     by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board and other 
     applicable law.
       (2) Nonpartisan advisory commission on accounting and 
     budgeting.--(A) A temporary advisory commission should be 
     established to make objective and nonpartisan recommendations 
     for the appropriate treatment of capital expenditures under a 
     uniform Federal accounting system that is consistent with 
     generally accepted accounting principles.
       (B) The Commission should be appointed on a nonpartisan 
     basis, and should be composed of public and private experts 
     in the fields of finance, economics, accounting, and other 
     related professions.
       (C) The Commission should report to the President and the 
     Congress by August 1, 1995, on its recommendations, and 
     should include in its report a detailed plan for implementing 
     such recommendations.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the very 
distinguished floor managers of the budget resolution, Senator Domenici 
and Senator Exon, for their willingness to work with me on this 
amendment, which would establish a temporary, nonpartisan advisory 
commission on accounting and budgeting. I appreciate their support for 
the amendment, and I am grateful to their staff, Austin Smythe and Jodi 
Grant, who have been extremely helpful and pleasant to work with.
  The amendment I am proposing modifies section 305 of the resolution 
currently before the Senate. Section 305 recognizes that unlike most 
private business and state governments, no uniform Federal accounting 
system exists for Federal entities and institutions. This lack of 
uniformity contributes to the difficulty of accurately reporting the 
financial condition of the Federal Government and achieving a balanced 
Federal budget.
  To help rebuild accountability and credibility in the Federal 
Government and advance the trend toward a ``private sector'' type 
financial management policy, section 305 calls for a uniform Federal 
accounting system that is consistent with generally accepted accounting 
principles and proposed Federal accounting standards recommended by the 
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. Once in place, a uniform 
accounting system should enable us to better assess the full cost of 
Federal programs and activities. Actual costs will be consistently and 
accurately recorded, monitored, and uniformly reported by all 
government entities for budgeting and control and management 
evaluation.
  Mr. President, I believe to achieve the commendable goals set forth 
in section 305, we first must address the issue of the treatment of 
capital expenditures for Federal accounting and budgeting purposes. 
Private businesses throughout the country and many States already have 
in place accounting systems and budgets that deal with capital 
expenditures in realistic terms. I believe we in the Federal Government 
can learn from their experiences.
  I am proposing the establishment of a temporary advisory commission 
on accounting and budgeting that would study and make recommendations 
on the appropriate treatment of capital expenditures under a uniform 
Federal accounting system that is consistent with generally accepted 
accounting principles.
  Commission members, to be appointed on a nonpartisan basis, would 
include public and private experts in the fields of finance, economics, 
accounting, and related professions.
  By August 1, 1995, the Commission would report its recommendations to 
the President and the Congress. In the report, Commission members would 
set forth a detailed plan for implementation of their recommendations. 
It is my hope that if the Commission includes a recommendation on the 
use of a capital budget, its report will specify the components of such 
a budget in the context of a unified, balanced Federal budget. I 
understand many of my colleagues currently oppose the use of a Federal 
capital budget. I believe that as we take steps to streamline the 
Federal Government, improve efficiency, and operate Federal systems in 
a manner more consistent with the private sector, all options should be 
reexamined and given a fresh analysis. In my view, this is particularly 
relevant in the context of section 305 of the budget resolution, which 
as I stated earlier, calls for a uniform Federal accounting system 
consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
  Mr. President, the commission I am advocating can serve a very 
important service to the Nation. The Commission will examine, in an 
objective, nonpartisan forum, the treatment of capital expenditures and 
long-term investments in the context of a uniform Federal accounting 
system. By reporting on this work to the President and the Congress 
within the time frame specified in the amendment, which I calculate to 
be before final reconciliation of the fiscal year 1996 Federal budget, 
the Commission's recommendations could serve as the basis for 
resolution of some the serious and divisive problems we in the Congress 
have encountered, and will continue to encounter, as we work through 
the budget process. I look forward to the results of the Commission's 
work, and again, I thank the distinguished floor managers of the 
resolution for their assistance with this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1146) was 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. EXON. Mr. President, I yield the remaining 3\1/2\ minutes of the 
time to the final Senator to debate the issue, as of now at least, my 
colleague from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from 
Nebraska. [[Page S7333]] 
  Mr. President, in the fairly short time that I have available--and I 
am pleased to have the precious time taken for these couple of 
moments--I would like to describe several amendments that I have 
prepared which will be voted on this afternoon.
  First, Senator Rockefeller and I will offer an amendment to close the 
so-called Benedict Arnold billionaires' tax loophole. We would transfer 
the savings to veterans programs. I call this the ``from expatriates to 
patriots'' amendment. Then I will be offering four amendments that 
would create exceptions to the so-called firewall that prohibits 
transfers between the military and domestic programs.
  The amendment would allow the Senate, by a majority vote, as opposed 
to 60 votes, to transfer funds from the wasteful bureaucratic overhead 
and procurement in the military budget for specific and compelling 
reasons. The purposes would be up to $2 billion to address the problem 
of domestic violence; up to $1 billion to strengthen reinforcement of 
immigration laws; up to $5 billion to hire police officers for 
community policing and to do prison building; and up to $100 million 
for research on breast cancer.
  My final amendment would create a 60-vote point of order against 
cutting Medicare or Medicaid to pay for any tax cuts for the rich.
  Some of my Republican friends have claimed that that is not their 
intent, and I say, well, then let us put it in writing and make it 
enforceable. Certainly, the intent was challenged when we saw the chart 
go up at an earlier time in this debate when the Senator from Texas 
proposed tax cuts amounting to over $300 billion.
  So, Mr. President, when I look and see those who have made their 
fortunes in this country and decide to renounce their citizenship so 
they do not have to pay a State tax, they do not have to pay capital 
gains taxes; they move out of here, give up their American citizenship, 
leave this place where their fortunes were made, where their families 
were raised just to avoid some taxes, to take something out of these 
huge fortunes that went abroad, I want to give it to the patriots, 
those who served their country, those who need help, those who are 
turning to the VA for hospital care, those who are turning to the VA 
for prostheses, those who are turning to the VA for counseling. I want 
to take it from the Benedict Arnolds and give it to those who served 
their country.
  With that--I do not see the ranking Member--is there any time left on 
our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New Jersey has 
expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes 52 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Democrats have how much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired on the Democratic side.

                           Amendment No. 1147

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate of the United States that 
 the reforms and proposals contained within the Independent Budget for 
      Veterans Affairs, Fiscal Year 1996, should be given careful 
  consideration in an effort to ensure the Nation's commitment to its 
                               veterans)

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Dole 
     and Mr. Simpson, proposes an amendment numbered 1147.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . CONSIDERATION OF THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET FOR VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS, FISCAL YEAR 1996.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Whereas over 26,000,000 veterans are eligible for 
     veterans health care;
       (2) Whereas the Veterans Health Administration of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest Federal 
     medical care delivery system in the United States, providing 
     for the medical care needs of our Nation's veterans;
       (3) Whereas the veterans' service organizations have 
     provided a plan, known as the Independent Budget for Veterans 
     Affairs, to reform the Veterans' health care delivery system 
     to adapt it to the modern health care environment and improve 
     its ability to meet the health care needs of veterans in a 
     cost-effective manner;
       (4) Whereas current budget proposals assume a change in the 
     definition of service-connected veterans;
       (5) Whereas proposals contained within the Independent 
     Budget may provide improved service to veterans;
       (6) Whereas current budget proposals may not have fully 
     considered the measures proposed by the veterans' service 
     organizations in the Independent Budget
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the Sense of Congress: the 
     reforms and proposals contained within the Independent Budget 
     for Veterans Affairs, Fiscal Year 1996 should be given 
     careful consideration in an effort to ensure the nation's 
     commitment to its veterans.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer a Sense-of-
the-Senate amendment regarding the Nations 26 million veterans.
  Over the past few days, some have argued that the budget resolution 
before us is mean-spirited in its treatment of veterans--that it does 
not take into consideration the real needs of those who served and 
sacrificed on behalf of our country. Well, I would like to set the 
record straight on this matter.
  Before the White House or those on the other side of the aisle start 
attacking Republicans on this issue, they had better take a hard look 
at the Congressional Budget Office's reestimate of the President's 
fiscal year 1996 budget request. Over 5 years, the President's own 
budget gives the Department of Veterans Affairs $339 million less for 
discretionary medical spending than it would receive under a hard 
freeze.
  However, a coalition of veterans' groups has put together a plan 
called the Independent Budget for Veterans Affairs: Fiscal Year 1996. 
The coalition claims that the recommendations set forth in the this 
document will help to improve the Department of Veterans Affairs' 
health care system while saving taxpayer dollars. The coalition--Which 
includes AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars--submitted its plan to Congress 
and to the Clinton administration earlier this year.
  The amendment I offer today simply states that Congress should give 
this proposal careful consideration. It is a nonpartisan document, 
crafted by the people who know the system best--the veterans 
themselves. Let us consider their expertise and rise above partisan 
accusations as we work to improve the efficiency and quality of service 
to veterans.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides.
  I yield back any time I may have on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1147) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me state the way I understand 
things. When the 3\1/2\ minutes that I have are used up, all time will 
have expired on the bill.
  I will pose a parliamentary inquiry. When that event occurs and there 
is no more time, what would the pending business be?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Boxer amendment 
No. 1134.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the distinguished majority leader, the Boxer 
amendment has been debated. Many other amendments will be offered that 
have not been debated. I think I am going to yield back my 2\1/2\ 
minutes. I do not know that anybody wishes to speak, unless the 
majority leader does.
  Mr. EXON. May I inquire at this particular time, if we have a little 
time left. We have been having various discussions. Has there been an 
agreement reached on how we are likely to handle a whole series of 
amendments, especially those not debated, with regard to brief 
statements from the Senators--30 seconds or a minute? Has there been a 
determination on that, I ask my colleague?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have discussed it briefly with the 
Senator [[Page S7334]] from New Mexico. I hope there will not be many 
amendments. We have had 50 hours of debate and a lot of votes. There 
may be one or two on this side. Is there a specific number on that 
side?
  Mr. EXON. Yes. I will tell you now that we have 31 sure amendments. 
And, as the Senator knows, other Senators may reserve their rights by 
appearing and offering their amendments. But there will be 31 
amendments filed to be voted on from this side of the aisle.
  Mr. DOLE. So we are talking about 5, 6, 7 hours of votes, right, 
which we will do today. We will save final passage until tomorrow 
sometime.
  Mr. EXON. Of course, that is up to the leader. I certainly say that I 
have suggested to Senator Daschle and to the chairman of the Budget 
Committee--and maybe it has not reached you--that possibly we can cut 
down some of those at some time. I hope we can work out something to 
cut down the time that has to be taken for all those votes.
  Mr. DOLE. I am going to ask unanimous consent that after the first 
vote, all votes be 10 minutes in length.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Would it be possible to get consent that each vote go for 
7\1/2\ minutes? I believe that can be done. I have seen it done in 
here. And possibly we can have a minute or half a minute on a side, so 
as to have some explanation. By cutting it back to 7\1/2\ minutes for 
the vote, perhaps that will accommodate both sides' concerns.
  Mr. EXON. I had made a suggestion along those lines that I think 
Senator Byrd outlined, and maybe even to speed things up, we can cut 
the votes to 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. They are concerned about doing it in 7\1/2\ minutes, unless 
we remain in our seats. But I think the bottom line is that we are 
actually going to have to vote on 31 amendments on the other side. If 
that is the bottom line, and people--ordinarily, you would have a right 
to have your amendment read. If it is a delaying tactic, we can be here 
a couple more days. The last time around, I recall that Senator 
Mitchell advised the Chair that if we insisted on having the amendment 
read, the ruling of the Chair would be appealed.
  So we then decided that when the clerk called up the amendment, they 
would state the purpose, period, and that is it--you know, economic 
growth, tax relief, or whatever. That was all the explanation there 
was. If we start giving everybody 30 seconds, or 1, 2, 3 minutes, we 
are looking at another 2 or 3 hours, and we will never finish action on 
this budget resolution. We will be in recess this afternoon for at 
least 40 minutes, from 4:20 until 5 p.m. I will suggest the absence of 
a quorum briefly----
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, before that, I will make one statement that 
I think may be helpful. Certainly, we would enter into a unanimous-
consent agreement on this side that the reading of the amendments would 
not be in order. We are not going to be dilatory about this. We think 
that for everybody that wants a vote on their amendment--and it has 
been customary to have that in this body--there would be no reason to 
do that.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that there not be a requirement 
that amendments be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. So the clerk can state the purpose if we have the purpose.
  Mr. BYRD. If the leader will yield, I am not sure the clerk can state 
the purpose in a way that we can understand what we are voting on.
  Mr. DOLE. The last time we did this, I think we had an agreement that 
the staff would put ``purpose'' and they would read the purpose, such 
as tax relief, economic growth, or whatever. At least you had some idea 
what you were voting on. And it would be agreed upon by the two 
managers.
  Mr. DOMENICI. With your permission, I will talk to the senior Senator 
from West Virginia. I was accommodating today in what we did for your 
side, I think 10, 12, maybe even 14 of your amendments. Does anybody 
have a number of how many were already discussed? Senators took the 
floor and somewhere between 10 and 12 of those have had anywhere from 2 
minutes to 6 minutes which might not have occurred otherwise. So I 
think we have given a pretty good opportunity----
  Mr. EXON. I appreciate the accommodation, and I think there has been 
accommodation on both sides.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that after the first vote, all 
other votes be limited to 8 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object. The minority leader is here. 
Are you also going to agree that with an 8-minute vote, there will be 
an explanation of some type before each vote, or not?
  Mr. DOLE. The clerk can state the purpose, to be agreed upon by the 
two managers.
  Mr. EXON. I would like our leader to give you his feelings.
  Mr. DOLE. We have had 50 hours. I do not think we need another 50.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hope that we could have just a short 
description of what the amendment is prior to the time we are called 
upon to vote. In some cases, Senators in good faith have been waiting 
for an opportunity to offer their amendments and have been precluded 
from doing so.
  If we can accommodate each author of an amendment with a very short 
two-sentence explanation, I think it would be in the interest of 
everybody so that we do not make mistakes on what these votes may be.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, where we are now is there will be 15 
minutes on each vote, unless the Senate agrees later on, which I am 
sure when we get 15 or 20 of these votes in, we will agree.
  There will be no reading of the amendment. We have no agreement on 
any comments on the amendment. So there will be no comments on the 
amendment. That is the way it is now.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say that for the first vote we will 
add the customary 5 minutes, so there will be 15 plus 5; after that it 
will be 15 minutes, period. No additional 5 minutes. I do not need 
consent for that.

                           Amendment No. 1134

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment No. 1134, offered by the Senator from California.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane to 
the provisions of the budget resolution pursuant to section 305(b)(2) 
of the Budget Act. I raise a point of order against the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the act for the consideration of 
the pending amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered.
  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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, and the nays 
are [[Page S7335]] 54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained, and the motion falls.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have had a discussion with the 
distinguished Democratic leader and the managers of the bill. I now ask 
unanimous consent that votes be limited from here on to 9 minutes, and 
that the manager have 1 minute to explain the purpose of any amendment 
that has not been debated.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. This is a very workable agreement, Mr. President. The 
only way it can work, however, is that we anticipate the order in which 
these amendments can be brought for a vote. We have that order.
  So I encourage all the sponsors of these amendments to give the 
managers their descriptions so that these descriptions can be read and 
put in the order in which the amendments will be brought up.
  But the managers will have 1 minute to describe the amendment, and 
that description can be anything the sponsors may suggest they want it 
to be. But I think it will work out well. And it will allow us to cut 
back substantially the degree of time.
  I urge everyone's cooperation.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to make it clear we are talking only 
about those amendments that will not be debated. Those already debated 
we will not take another minute on. They have had plenty of time. This 
will apply to amendments that have not been debated because of the time 
constraints, and they will be explained briefly by the manager on 
either side.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is our understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I understand that what is 
being propounded is that we have 9 minutes to vote, and we have 1 
minute to explain it by the manager. If you are going to take 1 minute, 
why not let the proponent of the amendment take 1 minute? You are going 
to take a minute anyway.
  Mr. DOLE. We are just trying to cut down the time. If we have to stop 
and recognize everybody up and down--it seems to me you can tell the 
manager what it says, and they can read it. We will have the vote. We 
are trying to accommodate Senators, particularly on that side, because 
you have all the amendments, I understand. If you will just give the 
manager a one-sentence or two-sentence statement, we are just trying to 
save time. We thought it might save time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. There is another practical concern, if the Senator will 
yield; that is, that assumes that the sponsor of the amendment is going 
to be on the floor right at the time the amendment is to be called up. 
In many cases, we will not be able to guarantee that. So if we are 
assured that the manager has the description, we will know there will 
be an explanation.
  I hope we can accommodate this process. I think all Senators will 
have the opportunity to have this amendment at least explained prior to 
the time we have our vote.
  Mr. SARBANES. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to put a question to the 
two leaders. Some of the amendments have been debated. Will they be 
called up first, the ones on which there has been debate?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The order is going to be worked out between Senators 
who have amendments and staff, Senator Exon's staff and Senator 
Domenici's. We are starting to put that in some kind of sequence right 
now.
  Was that the question?
  Mr. SARBANES. The question was there are some amendments that have 
been debated, and some amendments that have not been debated. The ones 
that have not been debated, I take it the managers will make a 
statement about them. I was wondering whether the ones that have been 
debated by the sponsors of them could be called up.
  Mr. DOLE. No; we have already had debate.
  Mr. SARBANES. Not for debate. We have had debate on some amendments. 
I have an amendment that we had a debate on. I was here to sort of send 
it to the desk and get a vote on it. We have had debate on that 
amendment which just recently occurred.
  Mr. DOLE. What would be your request?
  Mr. SARBANES. That that amendment be up near the top, the front of 
the list, since we have had the debate recently.
  Mr. DOLE. I agree with that.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, might I 
renew the request of Senator Harkin from Iowa? It seems to me that the 
managers know the amendments best. They can still be confined to the 
same length of time, the proponents of the amendment, the same time as 
the managers. It would be my suggestion that the amendment is called 
up, and if the author of the amendment is not here, he loses the right 
to offer the amendment.
  I just think a better explanation would be given of what the 
amendments are if the proponents of the amendment describe them during 
the 1 minute, then the other side offers their description during that 
same period. And if the author of the amendment is not here when it is 
called up, I suggest he lose the opportunity to call up the amendment.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I think it is fair to say we are trying to find some middle 
ground. We do not have to do anything. We do not have to let anybody 
explain them; just say nothing. We already have consent that the 
amendment cannot be read. So you will not have any debate. We are 
trying to accommodate everybody by going to the managers. If you have a 
1-minute statement, let the manager read it. We are just trying to 
accommodate everybody at the same time to hopefully save some time.
  If Senator Exon, for example, had a statement that Senator Domenici 
disagreed with, then we have to understand the other manager, or 
whoever, would have the same rights.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I shall not object. It seems that we cannot agree on 
anything around here. Let me set the stage. We are making a change here 
under unanimous consent, or attempting to, to change the rules. Now, 
for good reason, we set a 50-hour limit for debate on the budget 
resolution and you cannot filibuster.
  Now, we have been here through a very difficult process, as we always 
do go through. I would simply say that I happen to feel in this 
particular case the majority has come a long way to make some changes 
which benefit us. The fact is we have far more amendments that can be 
offered under the rules and it turns out there is not time to have 
debate.
  Now, certainly I feel we should recognize that we have gone through a 
lot of effort, give and take, trying to work out something that is 
reasonable. It has been agreed to by the minority leader. It has been 
agreed to by the majority leader.
  I would simply say that any Democratic Senator who has an amendment, 
if he wants to write out what he wants to say on his amendment, he can 
give it to me, and I can read it just as well as he or she can without 
going through the folderol that we are going to find ourselves in, as 
we always do, to start recognizing people back and forth--where are 
they? Are they not here?
  It would seem to me that we have a reasonable process which people 
can pick to pieces but can we agree after a lot of effort to come to an 
understanding that I think should be acceptable to our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unanimous-consent 
request is agreed to. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  [[Page S7336]]
  
                           Amendment No. 1148

  (Purpose: Continue funding for economic development in Appalachian 
                                region)

  Mr. McCONNELL. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Heflin, and Mr. Cochran, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1148:

       On page 29, line 10, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 29, line 18, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 30, line 2, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 30, line 3, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 30, line 10, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 30, line 11, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 30, line 18, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 30, line 19, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 31, line 2, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 31, line 3, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 20, line 7, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 20, line 15, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 20, line 23, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 20, line 24, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 21, line 7, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 21, line 8, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 21, line 15, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 21, line 16, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 21, line 23, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 21, line 24, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
will continue a program that is very important, not only to Kentucky, 
but also to a great number of other States.
  Unlike a lot of other Government programs, this one is targeted to 
assist those who are in greatest need; and it has had a tremendous, 
positive impact over the years.
  Unlike a lot of other Government programs, this one spends most of 
its funds making a difference in people's lives--rather than wasting 
taxpayer dollars on administrative expenses.
  The program I am speaking of is the Appalachian Regional Commission, 
commonly known as ARC.
  Before I discuss the substance of my amendment, I would like to 
commend the authors of this budget resolution, especially the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for making literally 
thousands of tough but intelligent choices with regard to this Nation's 
spending priorities.
  They have done a superb job, and they have done it with care and 
compassion and concern for those who will necessarily be impacted by 
this resolution.
  But of course, on an issue as complex and multifaceted as the Federal 
budget, there are bound to be honest differences of opinion. And it is 
in that spirit that I am offering my amendment to save the Appalachian 
Regional Commission from the budget ax.
  Let me also point out, however, that this amendment hardly preserves 
the status quo. I do not think anyone from this side of the aisle would 
contend that business as usual is going to achieve a balanced budget by 
the year 2002.
  Every Federal program and agency is going to have to adapt, and cut 
costs, and become more efficient in response to the country's fiscal 
pressures. Every program and agency will need to do more with less, or 
face total extinction.
  That is what my amendment envisions: An Appalachian Regional 
Commission of the future that continues to provide excellent services 
and programs in distressed areas, but with a more targeted approach 
and, frankly, with less funding.
  I should add that the people in my State, and many who work for ARC, 
are more than willing to make the changes necessary to preserve the 
agency as a vital and active force in the region. But all of them also 
believe, as I do, that the mission of the ARC has not yet been 
completed; and we need to continue to support its positive efforts.
  Although ARC has made a dramatic impact in improving the economic 
opportunities and quality of life for people living in Appalachia, 
there continues to be a real need for assistance in this region. 
Poverty, out-migration, and high levels of unemployment are especially 
prevalent in central Appalachia, which includes some of the poorest 
counties in the Nation.
  In all, the ARC serves parts of 13 States, totaling 399 counties from 
New York to Mississippi. This is a region that lags behind the Nation 
in most, if not all, major economic measures. It experiences 
chronically higher unemployment levels, substantially lower income 
levels, and perniciously high poverty rates. In eastern Kentucky, for 
example, the poverty rate stood at 29 percent in 1990--16 percent 
higher than the national average.
  Of the 399 counties served by ARC, 115 of these counties are 
considered severely distressed.
  This means that these counties suffer from unemployment levels and 
poverty rates that are 150 percent of the national average and receive 
per capita incomes that are only two-thirds of the national average.
  The ARC was designed to address the unique problems of this region 
which has been afflicted by over a century of exploitation, neglect, 
geographic barriers, and economic distress. These are not problems born 
of cyclical economic fluctuations but are the result of years of 
unremitting underdevelopment, isolation, and out-migration.
  That is the bad news. The good news is that ARC has worked hand in 
hand with each of the 13 States in its jurisdiction to develop flexible 
and effective programs, tailored to the specific needs of each 
community or region.
  And there is more good news. ARC is unusually lean, as Federal 
agencies go, with respect to administrative and personnel expenses. 
Total overhead accounts for less than 4 percent of all expenditures. 
That is largely achieved through cooperation with the States.
  State Governors contribute 50 percent of the administrative costs as 
well as the full cost of their own regional ARC offices.
  In fact, Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to look to the ARC 
as a model of efficiency, cost sharing, and State cooperation for other 
Federal programs.
  Some people have said that ARC represents a special windfall for a 
single area of the country. That is simply not true. The stark reality 
is that Appalachia receives 14 percent less per capital spending from 
the Federal Government than the rest of the country, and that includes 
the amount it receives through ARC. If anything, Appalachia is an 
underserved area.
  The ARC's mission has been to provide the assistance needed to make 
Appalachian areas economically self-sustaining, rather than to simply 
hand out government largess.
  This is an important distinction.
  The ARC is not a traditional poverty program but an economic 
development program, with a lot of work still ahead of it. If we were 
to ax the ARC outright, the fact is that much of the investment we have 
made up to now would have been for naught.
  It would be like laying the foundation of a building, putting in the 
beams and supports, and then deciding to stop before putting on the 
roof and the walls. Unless the work is seen to completion, much of what 
has been done to this point will have been in vain.
  At the same time, because of the tremendous fiscal pressures we are 
facing, my amendment would not restore funding for ARC to its current 
level. Instead, it puts the ARC on a glidepath of reduced spending 
through the year 2002. The partially restored funding is entirely 
offset and will fully comply with guidelines established by the Budget 
Committee to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  The way we achieve these goals is quite simple. First, we start with 
a 35-percent reduction from the current funding level for ARC. There is 
no question that this is a considerable cut, and it will have an impact 
on the ARC's ability to fully serve its target areas. But I think it 
underscores how serious we are about preserving this agency.
  From the 35-percent-reduction level in 1996, my amendment will 
continue [[Page S7337]] to lower funding levels each year through 2002. 
Overall, if we use as a baseline a hard freeze at 1995 funding levels 
for ARC, my amendment would achieve a 47-percent reduction in spending. 
This amounts to $925 million in savings over 7 years.
  Mr. President, I would ask that a table reflecting the savings 
proposed by my amendment appear in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, nobody can charge that this amendment 
is an attempt to preserve the status quo. Instead, it is an effort to 
preserve an essential Federal program by making some very tough but 
necessary choices.
  In order to provide the necessary budget offset, I have proposed a 
reasonable reduction in the regulation and technology account of the 
Office of Surface Mining. The regulatory arm of OSM has served its 
statutory purposes well over the years, but the fact is that much of 
its current activities are now being handled effectively at the State 
level.
  In fact, primary responsibility for regulation in this area has been 
passed on to 23 of the 26 coal-producing States.
  Further, the size of the industry being regulated by OSM has shrunk 
dramatically over the last decade and a half. While the number of 
active coal mines has dropped from over 6,000 in 1979 to barely 3,000 
in 1993, OSM staff has increased by more than 50 percent. Even since 
1983, when the last of the 23 States assumed primary regulatory 
authority, OSM staff grew by a quarter.
  About half of the OSM budget for regulation and technology funds 
activities that duplicate existing state resources.
  So what you have here is a smaller industry--smaller by half--being 
regulated by 50 percent more bureaucrats. That is the kind of anomaly 
that our constituents want us to change.
  Voters believe that 52 cents on every tax dollar is waste by the 
Federal Government. If there is any program that suggests this might be 
true, it is the regulation account at OSM which serves a smaller and 
smaller industry, and whose activities are being duplicated by more and 
more States.
  Further, I am told that OSM has actually become a burden on State 
regulatory agencies, making excessive requests for data collection and 
studies that divert valuable resources from their own regulatory 
activities.
  The proposed reduction in OSM's title V program should come out of 
the agency's inspection and regulatory activities which duplicate State 
programs. Adequate funding for State regulatory grants should be 
maintained, and my amendment is in no way intended to affect such 
grants.
  Mr. President, in these tight budgetary times, a 28-percent reduction 
in the OSM regulatory budget is entirely reasonable. This cut will 
actually force OSM to streamline operations and eliminate many 
duplicative services that are a burden to State regulatory agencies.
  I would suggest that the remaining cuts be from other Federal 
programs that duplicate State regulatory or oversight functions within 
function 300. If we intend to streamline the Federal Government, we can 
start with Federal activities that overlap with State agencies and 
programs. Overall, my amendment would cut three-fourths of 1 percent 
from this function. This small cut will provide substantial benefit to 
severely distressed regions of Appalachia.
  In drafting this amendment, I have consulted with officials at ARC to 
help redesign the focus and size of the agency. It is my view that ARC 
should eliminate those functions that are beyond the central mission of 
economic development.
  We also need to critically assess which areas that are currently 
under the jurisdiction of ARC no longer need its support, due to the 
success of ARC's programs.
  There are a number of counties that have achieved the goal of 
economic self-sufficiency and therefore have outgrown the need for ARC 
funding.
  My amendment would enable the ARC to focus its resources on those 
counties that struggle with the most severe economic hardships.
  Let me conclude. If my colleagues believe that eliminating ARC will 
save money, they are sadly mistaken. The poverty and economic distress 
of central Appalachia will only deepen, imposing higher costs on other 
Federal programs. On the other hand, if we keep ARC alive, and help 
this region to help itself, we will be saving a lot more money in the 
long run.
  Of course, all programs must make every effort to revaluate their 
mission and eliminate those functions that are no longer needed. I have 
proposed eliminating certain authorities of the ARC that are no longer 
needed, and reforming the eligibility criteria to take certain 
economically stabilized counties off the rolls. These reforms are 
assumed in the lower spending levels contained in my amendment.
  In sum, this is a creative and commonsense way to save one of the few 
Federal programs that has actually worked: the ARC. Just as important, 
my proposal is consistent with the goal of balancing the budget which 
all of us want to achieve. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.

                                                   McCONNELL AMENDMENT--HARDLY KEEPING THE STATUS QUO                                                   
                                                                [In billions of dollars]                                                                
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002        Total   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McConnell Amendment:\1\                                                                                                                                 
    Annual budget authority.....................         .183         .177         .173         .166         .150         .100         .100        1.049
Freeze at 1995 levels:                                                                                                                                  
    Annual budget authority.....................         .282         .282         .282         .282         .282         .282         .282        1.974
Current funding adjusted for inflation:                                                                                                                 
    Annual budget authority.....................         .291         .301         .312         .323         .334  ...........  ...........        1.561
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The McConnell amendment saves more than $900 million over a 7 year freeze at 1995 ARC funding levels. The McConnell amendment saves more than $500   
  million over 5 year--inflation adjusted--ARC funding levels.                                                                                          

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the Record. I 
believe the distinguished junior Senator from Kentucky may have 
misspoke earlier with regard to the need for this amendment to address 
payments made by the Federal Election Commission [FEC] from the 
Presidential Election Campaign Fund for settlement of alleged sexual 
harassment claims.
  The entire $37,500 payment referred to by the Senator was disallowed 
by the FEC as a qualified campaign expense and the FEC required 
repayment of all Federal matching funds used to pay this expense. As my 
colleague knows, the courts have held that the FEC may only require 
repayment of disallowed campaign expenses to the extent Federal funds 
were used.
  In this instance, the FEC determined that of the $37,500 in 
disallowed campaign expenses, $9,675 were paid with Federal matching 
funds. Consequently, the campaign repaid the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund that amount.
  Therefore, no taxpayer funds were used to pay this settlement.
  But I agree that taxpayer funds should not be used for this purpose 
and I support the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the McConnell 
amendment to ensure that the essential services provided by the 
Appalachian Regional Commission are continued for some of this Nation's 
most destitute areas.
  At a time when we are correctly terminating or scaling back outdated 
Federal programs, I believe the Appalachian Regional Commission is the 
type of Federal initiative we should be encouraging. It is important to 
recognize that the ARC uses its limited Federal dollars to leverage 
additional State and local funds. This successful partnership enables 
communities in Virginia to have tailored programs which help them 
respond to a variety of grassroots needs. [[Page S7338]] 
  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, 21 counties rely heavily on the 
assistance they receive from the Appalachian Regional Commission. 
Income levels for this region of Virginia further indicate that, on 
average, my constituents who reside in this region have incomes which 
are $6,000 below the average per capita income for the rest of the 
Nation.
  In 1960, when the ARC was created, the poverty rate in Virginia's 
Appalachian region was 24.4. In 1990, the poverty rate statistics of 
17.6 show improvement which can be attributed to the effectiveness of 
the ARC. However, we are still a long way from achieving the U.S. 
average poverty level of 13.1 and also the regional poverty level of 
other ARC-member States of 15.2.
  With these statistics in mind, I would like to offer some specific 
points one should keep in mind regarding the effectiveness of ARC 
programs, its relationship with the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the 
direct impact that this relationship has on the private sector.
  In recent years, a significant portion of ARC funds have been 
dedicated to local economic development efforts. Were it not for this 
assistance, the LENOWISCO Planning District and Wise County would not 
have been able to complete construction of the
 water and sewage lines to provide utility services to the Wise County 
Industrial Park at Blackwood. These lines were financed by a $500,000 
grant from the ARC and a $600,000 grant from the U.S. Economic 
Development Administration. The construction of these utilities to 
serve a new industrial park has attracted a major wood products 
manufacturing facility which has created 175 new jobs for the 
community.

  The Fifth Planning District serving the Alleghany Highlands of 
Virginia is a prominent example of leveraging other State and local 
funds and stimulating economic development with partial funding from 
the ARC. For fiscal year 1995, with $350,000 from the ARC, the 
Alleghany Regional Commerce Center in Clifton Forge, VA was 
established. This new industrial center already has a commitment from 
two industries, providing new employment opportunities for over 220 
persons.
  The ARC funds for this project have generated an additional $500,000 
in State funds, $450,000 from the Virginia Department of 
Transportation, $145,000 from Alleghany County, and $168,173 from the 
Alleghany Highlands Economic Development Authority. As a result of a 
limited Federal commitment, there is almost a 4 to 1 ratio of non-
Federal dollars compared to Federal funds.
  In many cases, these funds have been the sole source of funding for 
local planning efforts for appropriate community development. For 
example, such funds have been used to prepare and update comprehensive 
plans which are required by Virginia State law to be updated every 5 
years in revise zoning, subdivision, and other land use ordinances. In 
addition, funds are used to prepare labor force studies or marketing 
plans in guiding industrial development sites.
  Mr. President, the mission of the Appalachian Regional Commission is 
as relevant today as it was when the program was created. This rural 
region of the Nation remains beset with many geographic obstacles that 
have kept it isolated from industrial expansion. It is a region that 
has been attempting to diversify its economy from its dependency on one 
industry--coal mining--to other stable employment opportunities. It is 
a program that provides essential services and stimulates the 
contributions of state and local funds.
  I thank Senator McConnell for his leadership on this issue and I urge 
the amendment's adoption.
                           amendment no. 1148

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment to preserve funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, 
and I thank the Senator from Kentucky for offering it. Without his 
amendment, the budget proposal before us includes a plan to wipe out a 
very small and valuable agency over the next 5 years. This amendment is 
the Senate's chance to reject the idea of eliminating the tools 
dedicated to the economic development and future of 13 Appalachian 
States, including West Virginia.
  Senators listening to this debate may think this is an amendment that 
only deserves the votes of those of us representing those States. I 
hope our case will be heard so that won't be the conclusion of our 
colleagues. The people of every State have a stake in the economic 
strength of the rest of the country. When floods ravage the Mid-West or 
the Gulf States; when a major defense installation or space center is 
located in a State like Texas or Alabama; when payments are made to 
farmers for crop losses; when billions are spent to shore up S&L 
institutions in certain States; when special aid is given to cities or 
to California after its riots or earthquakes; when research labs get 
special funds in New Mexico or Massachusetts--when any of this support 
and assistance is extended, it is the country's way of investing in 
each region and in the futures of Americans everywhere.
  The Appalachian Regional Commission is the Nation's effort to help a 
part of this country overcome tremendous barriers. In many parts of the 
region, major progress has been achieved. But the ARC's job is not 
finished, and the agency should not be abolished until it is.
  Like so much else in this budget debate, this amendment is about 
priorities. For me, this represents a choice between two programs that 
affect the people of West Virginia. It calls for a little less support 
for the Office of Surface Mining, in order to put more into the ARC.
  The key message in this amendment is its call for continuing the 
ARC's partnership with West Virginia and the Appalachian region to 
finish the foundation we need for more growth, more jobs, and more hope 
for our people.
  To that end, I accept the idea that the Office of Surface Mining 
should reduce its bureaucracy and excessive regulatory activity in 
order to finish ARC's work for families and businesses in Appalachia. 
This amendment will not add to the deficit or prevent us from reaching 
a balanced budget in 2002--it will simply redirect funding from certain 
activities at OSM so that the ARC can continue its mission for the 
people of Appalachia.
  This amendment accepts a fair share of responsibility for deficit 
reduction. But instead of saying wipe out the ARC, it charts a course 
of gradual reductions, starting with a 35 percent cut in ARC funding 
for 1996, with continued reductions through 2002. Overall, it would be 
a 47 percent cut in ARC funding if the commission were frozen at its 
1995 level. This is going to require changes and further streamlining 
at the ARC, which should be tough but doable. Under the McConnell 
amendment, ARC is still contributing its fair share to deficit 
reduction. Without it, one region of the country is asked to suffer 
more than is fair and to a point that will hurt the region.
  As a former Governor, and now as a U.S. Senator from West Virginia, I 
know--vividly--the value of the ARC and how it improves the lives of 
many hard-working citizens. Whether the funding is used for new water 
and sewer systems, physician recruitment, adult literacy programs or 
the Appalachian corridor highways, it has made the difference in West 
Virginia, Kentucky, and the other Appalachian States.
  The highways are the most visible and best known investments made by 
the ARC for the people of Appalachia. As of today, over two-thirds of 
the ARC highway system has been completed. But if the ARC is simply 
abolished, the job will not be completed. What a waste of money to pull 
out before a road system is finished.
  At this very moment, some of these highways are called highways 
halfway to nowhere, because they are just that--half built, and only 
halfway to their destination. The job has to be completed, so these 
highways become highways the whole way to somewhere. And that somewhere 
is called jobs and prosperity that will benefit the rest of the 
country, too.
  Appalachia simply wants to be connected to our national grid of 
highways. Parts of the region weren't lucky enough to come out as flat 
land, so the job takes longer and costs more. But it is essential in 
giving the people and families in this part of the United States of 
America a shot--a chance to be rewarded for a work ethic and commitment 
with real economic opportunity and a decent quality of life. 
[[Page S7339]] 
  I won't speak for my colleagues from other Appalachian States, but 
West Virginia was not exactly the winner in the original Interstate 
Highway System. And Senators here represent many States that were. As a 
result, areas of my State have suffered, economically and in human 
terms. Without roads, people are shut off from jobs. That's obvious. 
But without roads, people also cannot get decent health care. Dropping 
out of school is easier sometimes than taking a 2-hour bus ride because 
the roads are not there.
  The structure of the ARC makes it more efficient and effective than 
many other agencies. The ARC is a working, true partnership between 
Federal, State, and local governments.
  This structure expects responsibility from citizens and local 
leaders, Federal funding is designed to leverage State and local money 
for any activity. Accordingly to the ARC, throughout its lifetime, it 
has contributed less than half of the total amount of project funds. 
Administrative costs have accounted for less than 4 percent of total 
costs over ARC's lifetime.
  Long before it was fashionable, ARC used a from the bottom up 
approach to addressing local needs, rather than a top down, one-size-
fits-all mandate of the type that has become all too familiar to 
citizens dealing with Federal agencies. It works, too.
  I urge everyone in this body to keep a promise made to a region that 
has been short shrifted. Each region is unique. Solutions have to 
differ, depending on our circumstances. When it comes to Appalachia, a 
small agency called the Appalachian Regional Commission should finish 
its work. Abolishing it overnight will only create more problems and 
more costs that can be avoided. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of the McConnell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Biden
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Mack
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 1148) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                           Amendment No. 1149

    (Purpose: To restore the cuts to Federal Retirement Programs by 
    providing that the Federal Retirement programs will continue to 
calculate retirement benefits from the average of an employee's high 3 
  years of service. The restoration of these cuts will be paid for by 
    closing tax loopholes regarding billionaires who renounce their 
                              citizenship)

  Mr. SARBANES. 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 Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], for himself, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Warner, Mr. Robb and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1149.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $47,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $197,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $257,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $322,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $392,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $412,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $47,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by $197,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $257,000,000.
       On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by $322,000,000.
       On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by $392,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $412,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $47,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $197,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $257,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $322,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $392,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $412,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $47,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $197,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $257,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $322,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $392,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $412,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $47,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $197,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $257,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $322,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $392,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $412,000,000.
       On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by $47,000,000.
       On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by $197,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $257,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $322,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by $392,000,000.
       On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by $412,000,000.
       On page 39, line 24, increase the amount by $47,000,000.
       On page 39, line 25, increase the amount by $47,000,000.
       On page 40, line 6, increase the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 40, line 7, increase the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 40, line 13, increase the amount by $197,000,000.
       On page 40, line 14, increase the amount by $197,000,000.
       On page 40, line 20, increase the amount by $257,000,000.
       On page 40, line 21, increase the amount by $257,000,000.
       On page 41, line 2, increase the amount by $322,000,000.
       On page 41, line 3, increase the amount by $322,000,000.
       On page 41, line 9, increase the amount by $392,000,000.
       On page 41, line 10, increase the amount by $392,000,000.
       On page 41, line 16, increase the amount by $412,000,000.
       On page 41, line 17, increase the amount by $412,000,000.
       On page 63, line 19, decrease the amount by $47,000,000.
       On page 63, line 20, decrease the amount by $967,000,000.
       On page 63, line 21, decrease the amount by 
     $1,771,000,000. [[Page S7340]] 
       At the appropriate place in the resolution insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . FEDERAL RETIREMENT.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (a) the assumptions underlying the revenue and functional 
     totals in this resolution assume that the Federal Retirement 
     programs will continue to calculate retirement benefits from 
     the average of an employee's high 3 years of service; and (b) 
     the restoration of Federal Retirement benefits will be 
     restored by closing the tax loophole which allows 
     billionaires to escape taxes by renouncing their citizenship.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes 
regarding the Sarbanes amendment, of which I am an original cosponsor. 
This amendment eliminates the provision in the budget resolution which 
changes the basis for calculating retirement benefits for Federal 
employees from the average of an employee's highest 3 years to the 
average of the highest 5 years.
  The Government cannot change the rules in the middle of the game for 
these loyal public servants who are relying on and planning for 
retirement using longstanding practices. Government personnel, civilian 
or military, active or retirees, should not be singled out to bear the 
burden of balancing the budget.
  While I am a strong advocate of balancing the budget, I do not 
believe that a disproportionate share of the budget cuts should fall on 
Federal employees. I strongly agree with the mandate which American 
people delivered in the 1994 elections. I am committed to working to 
cut spending and reduce big government, while striving to see that 
benefits to the truly needy are not unfairly affected.
  We cannot and must not allow those who have given years of service to 
the Federal Government to be uncertain about their retirement decisions 
and their future financial well-being.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 1149 offered by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes]. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
  So the amendment (No. 1149) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                           Amendment No. 1150

   (Purpose: Deficit neutral amendment that would prohibit including 
 revenues in the budget resolution based on oil and gas leasing within 
                  the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge)

  Mr. ROTH. 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 Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1150.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 3, line 10 increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11 increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12 increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13 increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14 increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15 increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16 increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20 decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21 decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22 decrease the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23 increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 24 increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 25 increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1 increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18 increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19 increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20 increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21 increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22 increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23 increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24 increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4 decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5 decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6 decrease the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7 increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8 increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9 increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10 decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19 increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22 increase the amount by $900,000,000.
       On page 6, line 5 increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8 increase the amount by $900,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18 increase the amount by $1,400,000,0000.
       On page 6, line 21 increase the amount by $900,000,000.
       On page 7, line 5 increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 7, line 8 increase the amount by $900,000,000.
       On page 7, line 15 decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 7, line 16 decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 7, line 17 increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 7, line 18 decrease the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 7, line 19 decrease the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 7, line 20 increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 7, line 21 decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 8, line 1 decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 8, line 2, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 8, line 3, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 8, line 4, decrease the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 8, line 5, decrease the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 8, line 6, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 8, line 7, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 20, line 15, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 20, line 16, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 21, line 15, increase the amount by $900,000,000.
       On page 21, line 16, increase the amount by $900,000,000.
       On page 62, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 62, line 15, decrease the amount by $2,300,000,000.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague, Senator Roth, to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
in Alaska from oil and gas development. The proposed budget resolution 
assumes that the Committee on Energy [[Page S7341]] and Natural 
Resources will reach its budget target by opening up this magnificent 
wildlife refuge to oil and gas development. By striking $2.3 billion 
over 7 years from that committee's required reduction in budget 
outlays, and adding that amount to the reduction required by the 
Finance Committee, Senator Roth's amendment would protect the refuge, 
while preserving the budget resolution's bottom line.
  To ensure that this amendment is deficit neutral and therefore does 
not impair our progress toward a balanced budget, a goal I strongly 
support, Senator Roth has suggested that those funds instead be 
obtained by eliminating the ability of persons to avoid taxes by 
relinquishing their U.S. citizenship. As a result, this amendment would 
allow us to continue to protect a national treasure for future 
generations by closing a tax loophole for wealthy expatriates who 
choose to give up their American citizenship to avoid paying taxes.
  A word about the refuge. It is a truly special place. Located in the 
northeast corner of Alaska, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has 
been referred to, for good reason, as ``America's Serengeti.'' The 
refuge supports a spectacular array of wildlife, including polar bears, 
grizzly bears, wolves, and snow geese. In addition, the porcupine 
caribou herd, numbering over 150,000 animals, bear their young on the 
coastal plain and provide an important source of food for the native 
people that live near the refuge.
  Oil and gas development is now prohibited in the refuge, unless 
authorized by Congress. Senator Roth's amendment is therefore 
consistent with current law. However, regardless of whether you 
believe, as I do, that the coastal plain should be permanently 
protected as a wilderness area or, as the Budget Committee proposes, 
that the law should be changed to authorize leasing for oil and gas, 
the budget process is not the time or the place to settle this 
important issue. It should be fully and objectively debated, taking 
into consideration not only the immediate economic return of leasing 
but the potential loss to future generations of developing this 
pristine wilderness.
  The Roth amendment will remove the budget incentive to develop the 
refuge while maintaining the deficit reduction totals. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Delaware. It is my 
belief that this amendment would accomplish two very important goals 
with one simple action, namely, closing an outrageous tax loophole for 
the super-rich, and preserving one of this continent's most fragile 
treasures, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Now as some of my colleagues are no doubt well aware, as long as I 
have been coming down to this floor to speak, I have been speaking in 
opposition--strong opposition--to opening up ANWR to oil and gas 
drilling. My position has not changed one bit, for those of my 
colleagues who have not heard me address this issue before, I want to 
take this opportunity to again state the reasons why I am so opposed to 
drilling.
  Mr. President, opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not 
an energy policy, it is a non-energy policy. Even if--and this is a big 
``if''--even if the big oil companies were to tap the 3.2 billion 
barrels of oil the Department of Interior has estimated may lie under 
ANWR, the United States would be no more energy secure than it is now. 
The oil reserves under ANWR would compose only a fraction of this 
country's huge appetite for oil for a short period of time, and at a 
tremendous, perhaps catastrophic ecological cost. We will be no less 
dependent on foreign oil, and perhaps more so, now that the Senate has 
apparently expressed its willingness to see Alaskan oil exported 
overseas to the highest bidder. We will have gained nothing except the 
experience of witnessing, once again, the grand exercise of greed.
  And at what cost, Mr. President? I will tell you what cost. We will 
have squandered one of the last remaining, irreplaceable treasures that 
belong not to us, not to the oil companies, not to this Government, but 
to our children, and their children and their children's children. The 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the biological heart of the Arctic; 
and once it is gone, Mr. President, it is gone forever.
  Let us not continue any further down this path of foolishness. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for their children's sake to accept the Roth 
amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the 
amendment by Senator Roth to remove language in the budget resolution 
which might allow drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge.
  A provision in the budget resolution assumes leasing revenues of $1.4 
billion from leasing rights in the coastal plain. It is, in reality, 
nothing more than a yard sale to special interests of the resources in 
this critical Arctic wilderness. Additionally, the $1.4 billion revenue 
estimate is highly speculative, at best. All and all, the provision is 
misplaced and misguided.
  The issue of whether to drill in the coastal plain in the Arctic 
Refuge deserves full, open and deliberative debate. This is an 
embarrassing back-door attempt to allow development of our last 
remaining wilderness. We should not consider a decision of major 
importance to be made under the time restrictions required by the 
budget resolution--we should pursue this discussion through separate 
legislation. That's the responsible thing to do.
  Including this discussion in the context of the budget resolution 
denigrates the natural values of the coastal plain which, unlike 
barrels of oil on the open market, cannot be quantified. The budget 
resolution concerns itself primarily with identifying revenues and 
directing spending. It is not the place to develop Federal policy on 
land use or natural resources. The ecological values of the coastal 
plain, many of which are intangible, will lose out when compared to the 
CBO scoring of potential revenues of barrels of oil.
  Mr. President, I oppose the budget committee proposal because it 
continues, and even strengthens, the existing misplaced energy 
priorities that have yet to reduce our need for foreign oil. The 
language in the resolution emphasizes environmentally destructive 
energy development when what we need to do is develop cleaner, 
nonpetroleum-based fuels and seek important energy conservation 
opportunities.
  If we allow drilling in the coastal plain, we are destroying what the 
Fish and Wildlife Service calls the biological heart of the only 
complete Arctic ecosystem protected in North America. We will be 
destroying that resource for a one in five chance of finding any 
economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. And, even worse, we 
will destroy that biological heart in an effort to recover what many 
experts suggest will be only 200 days worth of oil for the Nation.
  In addition, Mr. President, we cannot be sure that the revenues the 
committee assumes from the leasing are real. First, the leasing 
revenues are speculative in light of what has been bid on other highly 
prospective leases near the Arctic Refuge. The State of Alaska's most 
recent onshore lease sale located west of the Refuge brought in an 
average of $48.41 per acre, and leases immediately offshore the refuge 
in the Beaufort Sea only gained an average of $33-$153 per acre, versus 
the estimated $1,533 per acre the committee assumes would be paid if 
the entire coastal plain were leased.
  Second, the Federal treasury may take in as little as ten percent of 
all leasing revenues, not a split of 50 percent as it appears that the 
Budget Committee currently assumes. The State of Alaska can be expected 
to sue to get 90 percent of the leasing revenues, as it does currently 
for other leases on Federal lands in Alaska.
  Mr. President, after the Exxon Valdez spill, I visited the tragic 
spill site, the industrial complex at Prudhoe Bay, and the coastal 
plain of the Arctic Refuge. What I saw was the best of nature and the 
failings of humanity. I saw the best of nature in the Arctic Refuge, an 
area that the renowned biologist George Shaller calls ``unique and 
irreplaceable, not just on a national basis, but also on an 
international basis.'' He notes, ``most remote ecosystem, both inside 
and outside reserves, are rapidly being modified. The refuge has 
remained a rare exception. The refuge was established not for economic 
value, but as a statement of our nation's vision.'' [[Page S7342]] 
  Beauty, wilderness, pristine--these words simply fail to capture what 
I saw and what is at stake if we allow oil and gas drilling to proceed. 
The infrastructure alone will severely impact the ecosystem. The oil 
rigs, roads, pipelines, airstrips, production facilities, seismic 
testing and air and water pollution associated with the development 
will have dramatic negative impacts on the fragile coastal plain 
ecosystem.
  We also threaten the food and culture of one of the most traditional 
subsistence peoples in the world, the Gwich'in indians who depend on 
the healthy and undisturbed porcupine caribou herd which gives birth 
and raises its young in the coastal plain.
  Unfortunately, in seeing the spill in Prince William Sound, I saw how 
empty promises and humanity's carelessness despoiled a rich ecosystem. 
Dead wildlife, oil-coated beaches, fishing towns and villages of native 
Alaskans turned upside down with the destruction. Today, seabird, seal, 
sea otter, and herring populations still have not recovered, and the 
social disruption still is felt by the villagers. Most natural 
resources injured by the spill still show little or no sign of 
recovery, according to the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council.
  If we drill in the refuge, we threaten the unique wilderness system. 
And if we destroy the wilderness values in the Arctic Refuge, we also 
threaten an undisturbed ecosystem with its polar bears, snow geese and 
international porcupine caribou.
  The very nature of the budget process will denigrate the values of 
the coastal plain which the public and previous Congresses have sought 
to protect. The debate will not be about whether wildlife and 
wilderness are worth more than the chance of finding oil--the debate 
will hinge on what scores for budget deficit purposes. How do you score 
polar bears, musk oxen and caribou? How do you measure the loss of an 
intact, undisturbed ecosystem to science? How will the Budget Committee 
account for the wilderness values which will be gone forever?
  For all these reasons, Mr. President, I strongly object to the 
provision assuming leasing revenues from the coastal plain in the 
budget resolution. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the Roth amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this Congress should not have a yard sale 
to balance the budget.
  A yard sale is an opportunity to clean house, to clear out things 
that have outgrown their usefulness, and to get rid of junk you don't 
need. The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is not junk. It should not be 
drilled for oil to balance the budget.
  The refuge is one of a kind--in fact, it's the last of its kind. The 
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is the only place we have left that 
resembles the kind of land that gave birth to our Nation centuries ago.
  I wonder how many people realize that outside this chamber, 500 years 
ago, the first Americans could hunt bison and elk in the open forests 
on the banks of the Potomac. I wonder how many people remember that 
outside this building passenger pigeons used to roost in American 
chestnut trees, sometimes in flocks of thousands.
  Today the bison and elk are gone, the passenger pigeon is extinct, 
and the American chestnut has been wiped out in this region by an 
exotic disease. The first Americans wouldn't recognize this place.
  Now we turn to a remote corner of our country, the last expanse of 
true wildness left, and Congress is saying ``we need that too--to 
balance the budget.'' On behalf of the children, I object.
  Drilling for oil in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge has been a 
controversial issue for almost ten years. This is not a reason to sneak 
it into the budget resolution. This is an issue for the light of day, 
not for legislative tricks.
  Drilling for oil in Alaska is not even going to be a major 
contribution to our deficit--the leasing revenues are only one-fifth of 
one percent of the budget gap.
  Finally, Alaska, the State that gets more Federal dollars per person 
than any other State in the Union, will get at least 50 percent of the 
revenues, and the State wants to take 90 percent according to previous 
arrangements.
  The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is American treasure that does 
not belong to us--it is the heritage of our country. Just like the bald 
eagle, the grand canyon, and a good trout stream--ANWR exists for our 
enjoyment today and for the enjoyment of generations to come. It should 
not be laced with roads and drilled for oil.
  I urge support of this bipartisan amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the Roth 
amendment.
  We cannot sacrifice the incomparable wilderness of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge to support our bad spending habits. This 
refuge is one of the only remaining complete and undisturbed arctic 
ecosystems in the world. It is home to an abundance of wildlife, 
including grizzly and polar bears, musk-oxen, wolves, and a host of 
migratory bird species. It is also home to the magnificent porcupine 
caribou herd, whose 160,000 members rely on this coastal plain for 
their calving grounds.
  ANWR also provides essential habitat for people. The Gwich'in people 
have inhabited this arctic ecosystem for more than 20,000 years. They 
are dependent upon the caribou herd for their food source, clothing 
supply and culture.
  Mr. President, this body could, today, begin a process that will 
signal the beginning of the end for many of the people and wildlife of 
ANWR. With this budget resolution, the doors will be opened wide for 
oil development in the Refuge. Oil development will likely disrupt the 
porcupine caribou and force them to change their calving grounds and 
migratory routes. This, in turn, will affect other wildlife and impact 
the lifestyle and culture of the Gwich'in people.
  Proponents of development claim that only 13,000 acres of the Refuge 
will be impacted. While this may be true, that development will take 
place in the biological heart of ANWR and have a devastating impact on 
the wilderness values of the area. In this biological heart, developers 
will create a major industrial complex. They will build hundreds of 
miles of roads and pipelines, erect housing for thousands of workers, 
and construct two sea ports and one airport. These developments will 
lead to mining of enormous amounts of gravel, will require diversion of 
streams and will result in pollution of fragile tundra.
  In addition to harming this precious piece of our heritage, I am 
skeptical about the revenue assumptions made in the budget resolution. 
The resolution assumes an intake of $1.4 billion from ANWR oil leases. 
This assumption is based on a split between the Federal Government and 
the State of Alaska of 60/40. While the Federal Government may push for 
this division, the state of Alaska has historically received 90 percent 
of the money from Arctic leases. It is likely that Alaska would file 
lawsuits to ensure that 10/90 split continues.
  Leasing ANWR will not result in a balanced budget. Leasing ANWR will 
result in an imbalanced ecosystem in one of our greatest wilderness 
areas. I urge this body to protect the Refuge for future generations of 
Americans. Support the Roth amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Roth-
Lautenberg amendment. This is a deficit neutral amendment that will 
correct a misguided policy assumption in the current budget resolution.
  Mr. President, the 1996 budget resolution assumes 2.3 billion dollars 
in revenue over 7 years from leases to oil companies for oil 
exploration and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It 
assumes the opening up of a unique wildlife refuge for the sake of oil 
development.
  Mr. President, the 1980 passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act opened up 95 percent of Alaskan lands with high or 
favorable oil and gas potential to exploration and development.
  That same act did NOT allow oil and gas exploration in an area of the 
coastal plain designated ``section 1002'' because of its uniqueness as 
a natural resource.
  This ``Section 1002'' of the Arctic coastal plain is precisely the 
land area that the budget resolution assumes will be leased to oil 
companies for oil exploration activities.
  Mr. President, in other words, the budget resolution assumes that 
exploration will occur in an area where in current law, it is 
explicitly illegal to do so. [[Page S7343]] 
  What would the consequences be of opening up the Arctic plain to 
development?
  I would like to quote to you from a passage written by Peter 
Matthiessen in his forward to the Natural Resources Defense Council 
report Tracking Arctic Oil:

       Today the oil companies have set their sights on the last 
     undeveloped lands to the eastward, pressuring Congress for 
     permission to exploit the 125 mile-long coastal plain of the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the very last protected 
     stretch of our arctic coastline, where polar bears still hunt 
     over the ice and come ashore, where a mighty herd of 180,000 
     caribou, with its attendant wolves, migrates each year from 
     Canada to give birth to its young. . . . The danger posed by 
     destructive and inefficient drilling in the Arctic with 
     irremediable loss to wilderness and wildlife, is not an 
     Alaskan problem. It is a national problem, a world problem.

  Mr. President, the first step toward victory for those hungry oil 
companies occurred last week in the Senate, with the passage of a bill 
that would lift the ban on the export of Alaska North Slope Oil.
  The lifting of the ban goes against all the principles on which 
Congress based its controversial and expensive decision to construct 
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
  Today, we face step two: a budget resolution that assumes 2.3 billion 
dollars in revenue from oil exploration and development leases along 
the pristine coastal plane of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Republicans in the budget committee say that they are ``only leasing 
8 percent of the 19 million acres of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge'', and 
that ``The development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would 
only affect 13,000 acres''.
  Those 13,000 acres are on the last pristine arctic coastal plain--and 
are part of the original wildlife range established by President 
Eisenhower in 1960. Those 13,000 acres are in an area that the House of 
Representatives has twice voted to designate as wilderness in order to 
give it permanent protection from any development.
  The fact is, Mr. President, that what we are talking about here is 
turning the only remaining protected stretch of our arctic coastline 
into an immense industrial desert.
  Mr. President, leadership is about finding long term solutions to 
problems--not temporary solutions.
  The proposal to open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge demonstrates 
lack of long term vision and a lack of leadership--I firmly believe 
this is not where the citizens of this Nation want to go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Roth amendment would reduce the 
instructions to the Energy Committee by $2.3 billion over 7 years and 
offset that reduction by increasing revenues $2.3 billion over the same 
period of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator assumes this would be ANWR. I add that to 
my explanation.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1150) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________
```