S7408 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 

THE BUDGET 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will now 

resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, which the clerk 

will report 

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 proceeded to consider the 

concurrent resolution. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1168

(Purpose: To allow the shift of up to $1 billion from wasteful bureaucratic overhead 

and wasteful procurement in the military 

budget for use in strengthening enforcement of immigration laws) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk on behalf of 

Senator LAUTENBERG and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. LAUTENBERG, proposes an amendment 

numbered 1168. 

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

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 68, add at the end of line 12 the following: ‘‘In addition, paragraph (1)(B) of this 

section shall not apply to legislation that 

proposes to eliminate up to $1,000,000,000 

from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and 

wasteful procurement in the military budget, and to apply the resulting savings for use 

in strengthening enforcement of immigration laws.’’. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 

this amendment would allow the shift 

of up to $1 billion from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and procurement 

in the military budget, for use in fighting illegal immigration. 

Let me take a moment and explain 

why the amendment is needed. 

Mr. President, this budget resolution 

proposes to reestablish a so-called firewall that will give special protection 

to the military budget—protection not 

provided to any other program in the 

entire Government. Under this provision, a majority of the Senate would be 

blocked from shifting funds from the 

military budget for use in meeting domestic needs here at home. The only 

way to waive the prohibition would be 

to obtain a supermajority of 60 votes. 

Mr. President, I strongly object to 

this supermajority vote requirement. 

In my view, if a majority of the Senate 

thinks it’s more important to address a 

particular domestic problem than to 

spend more money on the Pentagon bureaucracy, or on an outdated weapon 

system, a majority ought to have that 

right. 

Unfortunately, the Senate seems determined to establish a firewall for the 

military budget. And so it seems inevitable that the firewall will indeed be 

erected. However, I am hopeful that my 

colleagues will agree to reasonable exceptions to allow the transfer of funds 

for particularly compelling purposes. 

The premise of my amendment, Mr. 

President, is that fighting illegal immigration is one such compelling purpose. 

Mr. President, illegal immigration is 

rampant in this country. Some estimates show that 300,000 illegal immigrants come to this country each year. 

Despite its past admirable work, the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service is woefully understaffed and underfunded. 

We need more border patrol agents to 

stop illegal immigration and other INS 

officials to help deport those who are 

living in this country illegally. 

Mr. President, illegal immigration is 

a major problem. Ask State and local 

officials from California, Texas, Florida, New York, and New Jersey about 

the toll that illegal immigration takes 

on their economies and local services. 

Mr. President, at a minimum a majority of the Senate ought to be free to 

provide up to $1 billion into fighting illegal immigration, if we can identify 

savings from military spending that 

the Senate agrees is wasteful. 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment will allow the transfer of 

up to $1 billion from the wasteful bureaucratic overhead and wasteful procurement in the military budget for 

use in strengthening enforcement of 

the immigration laws without the 60- 

vote point of order that would otherwise apply to such transfer. 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Chair recognizes the Senator from New 

Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this 

amendment exempts legislation, which 

would transfer $1 billion from defense 

to immigration, from the point of order 

for breaching the nondefense firewall. 

This amendment is not germane and 

is subject to a point of order. Therefore, I make a point of order, Mr. President. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

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

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand there are about 54 amendments, 

but only about 30 will require rollcall 

votes. I thought maybe we would do 20 

today and 10 tomorrow—whatever is 

left tomorrow—and still try to accommodate the President on the 

antiterrorism bill. But it is going to be 

very difficult to do that. As long as he 

understands why we cannot do it, I assume he will not hold me responsible. 

We do not want to do all these today, 

we have so many. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to an agreement I had made with 

the minority, I withdraw my point of 

order at this point. Therefore, we will 

be voting up or down on the Lautenberg amendment, which is what I indicated a moment ago. 

Mr. EXON. Have the yeas and nays 

been ordered? I ask for the yeas and 

nays, if they have not been ordered. 

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. 1168, offered by the Senator from 

New Jersey [Mr. LAUTENBERG]. The 

yeas and nays have been ordered. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The result was announced—yeas 31, 

nays 68, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.] 

YEAS—31 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Graham 

Harkin 

Hatfield 

Hollings 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Levin 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—68 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kyl 

Leahy 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Robb 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the amendment (No. 1168) 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. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7409 

AMENDMENT NO. 1169

(Purpose: To allow the shift of up to $2 billion from wasteful bureaucratic overhead 

and wasteful procurement in the military 

budget for use in addressing the problem of 

domestic violence) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. LAUTENBERG, for himself and Mr. 

WELLSTONE, proposes an amendment numbered 1169. 

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

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 68, add at the end of line 12 the following: ‘‘In addition, paragraph (1)(B) of this 

section shall not apply to legislation that 

proposes to eliminate up to $2,000,000,000 

from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and 

wasteful procurement in the military budget, and to apply the resulting savings for use 

in addressing the problem of domestic violence.’’. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 

this amendment would allow the shift 

of up to $2 billion from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and procurement 

in the military budget, for use in addressing the problem of domestic violence. 

Mr. President, this budget resolution 

proposes to reestablish a so-called firewall that will give special protection 

to the military budget—protection not 

provided to any other program in the 

entire Government. Under this provision, a majority of the Senate would be 

blocked from shifting funds from the 

military budget for use in meeting domestic needs here at home. The only 

way to waive the prohibition would be 

to obtain a supermajority of 60 votes. 

This supermajority vote requirement, in my view, is wrong. As I see it, 

if a majority of the Senate believes it’s 

more important to address a particular 

domestic problem than to lavish more 

money on the Pentagon bureaucracy, 

or on an unnecessary weapons system, 

a majority ought to have that right. 

Unfortunately, the Senate seems determined to establish a firewall for the 

military budget. And so it seems inevitable that the firewall will indeed be 

erected. However, I am hopeful that my 

colleagues will agree to reasonable exceptions to allow the transfer of funds 

for particularly compelling purposes. 

Mr. President, fighting domestic violence deserves to be a very high priority. 

Mr. President, every 12 seconds, a 

woman is battered in the United 

States. Each year, over 4,000 women 

are killed by their abusers. 

Mr. President, domestic violence has 

reached crisis proportions. And we 

have got to do—it is critical that we do 

everything possible to respond. 

Mr. President, I know that many of 

my Republican colleagues do not believe that there is any waste in the 

Pentagon budget. I think they are 

wrong. But even if they are not yet 

convinced, I hope they will support the 

amendment. Under my proposal, it will 

be up to the Senate to decide whether 

any particular item of military spending is wasteful. That is a judgment 

that a majority of Senators should be 

allowed to make in the future. Also, 

the amendment limits transfers to $2 

billion, which represents less than 1 

percent of the military budget. 

So, Mr. President, this amendment 

poses this question to my colleagues: 

Whose side are you on? Do you want to 

support wasteful bureaucratic overhead 

at the Pentagon? Or do you want to 

stand with America’s women, and support the fight against domestic violence? 

I think it is an easy choice. And I 

hope my colleagues agree. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment would allow the transfer of 

up to $2 billion from the wasteful bureaucratic overhead and wasteful procurement in the military budget for 

use in addressing the problems of domestic violence without the 60 vote 

point of order that would otherwise 

apply to such a transfer. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 

a little different interpretation. So I 

would like to state it. This legislation 

would transfer $2 billion out of the Department of Defense. We have no assurance what it would be used for, but it 

would be transferred out of Defense. 

Mr. EXON. 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 are ordered, and 

the clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 26, 

nays 73, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.] 

YEAS—26 

Akaka 

Biden 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Harkin 

Hatfield 

Jeffords 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—73 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kyl 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Robb 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the amendment (No. 1169) was rejected. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1170

(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate 

regarding the nutritional health of children) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk on behalf of 

Senator LEAHY and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. LEAHY, for himself, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. 

BAUCUS, proposes an amendment numbered 

1170. 

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

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of title III, add the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE 

NUTRITIONAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) Federal nutrition programs, such as the 

school lunch program, the school breakfast 

program, the special supplemental nutrition 

program for women, infants, and children 

(referred to in this section as ‘‘WIC’’), the 

child and adult care food program and others, are important to the health and wellbeing of children; 

(2) participation in Federal nutrition programs is voluntary on the part of States, and 

the programs are administered and operated 

by every State; 

(3) a major factor that led to the creation 

of the school lunch program was that a number of the recruits for the United States 

armed forces in World War II failed physical 

examinations due to problems related to inadequate nutrition; 

(4)(A) WIC has proven to be extremely valuable in promoting the health of newborn babies and children; and 

(B) each dollar invested in the prenatal 

component of WIC has been shown to save up 

to $3.50 in medicaid costs related to medical 

problems that arise in the first 90 days after 

the birth of an infant; 

(5) the requirement that infant formula be 

purchased under a competitive bidding system under section 17 of the Child Nutrition 

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) saved $1,000,000,000 

in fiscal year 1994 and enabled States to 

allow 1,600,000 women, infants, and children 

to participate in WIC at no additional cost to 

taxpayers; and 

(6) a balanced Federal budget will provide 

economic benefits to children alive today 

and to future generations of Americans. 

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

of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this resolution 

include the assumptions that—

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7410 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

(1) schools should continue to serve 

lunches that meet minimum nutritional requirements based on tested nutritional research; 

(2) the content of WIC food packages for infants, children, and pregnant and 

postpartum women should continue to be 

based on scientific evidence; 

(3) the competitive bidding system for infant formula under section 17 of the Child 

Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) should 

be maintained; 

(4) foods of minimum nutritional value 

should not be sold in competition with 

school lunches in the school cafeterias during lunch hours; 

(5) some reductions in nutrition program 

spending can be made without compromising 

the nutritional well-being of program recipients; 

(6) in complying with the reconciliation instructions in section 6 of this resolution, the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry of the Senate should take this section into account; and 

(7) Congress should continue to move toward fully funding the WIC program. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think 

this has wide bipartisan support. Basically this says we will continue the nutrition guidelines that this Senate has 

voted for many times, feeding programs, and will require competitive 

bidding in the sale of infant formula on 

WIC programs. 

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. 1170. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 99, 

nays 0, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.] 

YEAS—99 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the amendment (No. 1170) was 

agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was agreed to. 

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

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1171

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

that Federal funding of law enforcement 

programs should be maintained, Federal 

funding for the violent crime reduction 

trust fund should not be reduced, and for 

other purposes) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in behalf of 

Senator LEAHY, I send an amendment 

to the desk and ask for its immediate 

consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. LEAHY, proposes an amendment numbered 1171. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of title III of the resolution, add 

the following new section: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MAINTAINING 

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers provide essential services that 

preserve and protect our freedoms and security; 

(2) law enforcement officers deserve our appreciation and support; 

(3) law enforcement officers and agencies 

are under increasing attacks, both to their 

physical safety and to their reputations; 

(4) on April 7, 1995, the Senate passed S.J. 

Res. 32 in which the Senate recognizes the 

debt of gratitude the Nation owes to the men 

and women who daily serve the American 

people as law enforcement officers and the 

integrity, honesty, dedication, and sacrifice 

of our Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers; 

(5) the Nation’s sense of domestic tranquility has been shaken by explosions at the 

World Trade Center in New York and the 

Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City 

and by the fear of violent crime in our cities, 

towns, and rural areas across the Nation; 

(6) Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts need increased financial commitment from the Federal Government and 

not the reduction of such commitment to 

law enforcement if law enforcement officers 

are to carry out their efforts to combat violent crime; and 

(7) on April 5, 1995, and May 18, 1995, the 

House of Representatives has nonetheless 

voted to reduce $5,000,000,000 from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund in order to 

provide for tax cuts in both H.R. 1215 and H. 

Con. Res. 67. 

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

of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this resolution 

assume that the Federal Government’s commitment to fund Federal law enforcement 

programs and programs to assist State and 

local efforts should be maintained and funding for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 

Fund should not be reduced by $5,000,000,000 

as the bill and resolution passed by the 

House of Representatives would require. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment by Senator LEAHY was explained in some detail but not fully 

during our limited debate. 

Simply stated, this amendment corrects the House money removed from 

the antiterrorism and violent crime 

trust fund to be used for a tax cut. In 

light of the Oklahoma bombing and the 

increased terrorist threat, this amendment says we should put back the 

money that was taken out by the 

House. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have 

discussed this with the managers. I 

know their concern in moving forward. 

I do not think anybody is going to oppose this, and I would accept a voice 

vote. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. 

This is in the Senate package, and actually we will accept it without a rollcall vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

further debate on the amendment? If 

not, the question is on agreeing to the 

amendment of the Senator from 

Vermont. 

The amendment (No. 1171) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. LEAHY. 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 wish to 

thank—I am sure I would be joined by 

my colleague—Senator LEAHY for his 

offer. We are moving much faster than 

we had anticipated because we are cooperating. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1172

(Purpose: To provide for additional Medicare 

payment safeguards) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. HARKIN, proposes an amendment numbered 1172. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 77, between lines 3 and 4, insert 

the following: 

SEC. . MEDICARE SAFEGUARDS COMPLIANCE 

INITIATIVE. 

(a) ADJUSTMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of points of 

order under the Congressional Budget and 

Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and concurrent resolutions on the budget—

(A) the discretionary spending limits under 

section 601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits 

as cumulatively adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each out-year; 

(B) the allocations to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the Senate and House of 

Representatives under sections 302(a) and 

602(a) of that Act; 

(C) the levels for the major functional categories that are appropriate and the appropriate budgetary aggregates in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on 

the budget; and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7411 

(D) the maximum deficit amount under 

section 601(a)(1) of that Act (and that 

amount as cumulatively adjusted) for the 

current fiscal year, 

shall be adjusted to reflect the amount of additional new budget authority or additional 

outlays (as defined in paragraph (2)) reported 

by the Committees on Appropriations of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives in 

appropriation Acts (or by the committee of 

conference on such legislation) for the 

Health Care Financing Administration medicare payment safeguards programs (as compared to the base level of $396,300,000 for new 

budget authority) that the Congressional 

Budget Office has determined will result in a 

return on investment to the Government of 

at least 4 dollars for each dollar invested. 

(2) ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS.—As used in this 

section, the term ‘‘additional new budget authority’’ or ‘‘additional outlays’’ (as the case 

may be) means, for any fiscal year, budget 

authority in excess of $396,300,000 for payment safeguards, but shall not exceed—

(A) for fiscal year 1996, $50,000,000 in new 

budget authority and $50,000,000 in outlays; 

(B) for fiscal year 1997, $55,000,000 in new 

budget authority and $55,000,000 in outlays; 

(C) for fiscal year 1998, $60,000,000 in new 

budget authority and $60,000,000 in outlays; 

(D) for fiscal year 1999, $65,000,000 in new 

budget authority and $65,000,000 in outlays; 

(E) for fiscal year 2000, $70,000,000 in new 

budget authority and $70,000,000 in outlays; 

(F) for fiscal year 2001, $75,000,000 in new 

budget authority and $75,000,000 in outlays; 

and 

(G) for fiscal year 2002, $75,000,000 in new 

budget authority and $75,000,000 in outlays; 

(b) REVISED LIMITS, ALLOCATIONS, LEVELS, 

AND AGGREGATES.—Upon reporting of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), and again 

upon the submission of the conference report 

on such legislation in either House (if a conference report is submitted), the chairman of 

the Committees on the Budget of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives shall file 

with their respective Houses appropriately 

revised—

(1) the discretionary spending limits under 

section 601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits 

as cumulatively adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each out-year; 

(2) the allocations to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives under sections 302(a) and 

602(a) of that Act; and 

(3) the levels for the appropriate major 

functional categories that are appropriate 

and the appropriate budgetary aggregates in 

the most recently agreed to concurrent resolutions on the budget; 

to carry out this subsection. These revised 

discretionary spending limits, allocations, 

functional levels, and aggregates shall be 

considered for purposes of congressional enforcement under that Act as the discretionary spending limits, allocations, functional levels, and aggregates. 

(c) REPORTING REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—The 

Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives may report 

appropriately revised allocations pursuant to 

sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this 

section. 

(d) APPLICATION OF SECTION.—This section 

shall not apply to any additional budget authority or additional outlays unless—

(1) in the Senate, the chairman of the 

Budget Committee certifies, based on the information from the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office, the 

Health Care Financing Administration (as 

well as any other sources deemed relevant), 

that such budget authority or outlays will 

not increase the total of the Federal budget 

deficits over the next 5 years; and 

(2) any funds made available pursuant to 

such budget authority or outlays are available only for the purpose of carrying out 

Health Care Financing Administration payment safeguards. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office and the Health 

and Human Services inspectors general 

have found Medicare losses in billions 

of dollars every year because of the inadequate payment safeguards like audits and computer checks. Every dollar 

of investment in payment of safeguards 

saves $11 according to the GAO. 

In order to increase efforts to cut 

Medicare waste, the amendment provides an exclusion from the domestic 

discretionary caps only for increases 

above current spending levels for Medicare payment safeguards. This would 

occur only if the CBO finds that they 

will provide at least a 4-to-1 return on 

investment. A limit is set at $50 million in fiscal year 1996, rising to $100 

million in fiscal 2002. 

It cannot be used as a loophole to 

provide for any other kind of additional spending. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe we should turn this amendment 

down. This once again increases spending for a special purpose. We denied 

that for the IRS as to others taking it 

off budget. 

That is essentially what this would 

do. 

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 

of the Senator from New Mexico to lay 

on the table the amendment of the 

Senator from Iowa. On this question, 

the yeas and nays were ordered, and 

the clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 63, 

nays 36, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.] 

YEAS—63 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Brown 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Feingold 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Robb 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—36 

Akaka 

Biden 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1172) was agreed to. 

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1173

(Purpose: Sense of the Senate regarding the 

need to enact long-term care reforms to 

achieve lasting deficit reduction) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk on behalf of 

Senator FEINGOLD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will read the amendment. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. FEINGOLD, for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. 

WELLSTONE, and Mr. SIMON, proposes an 

amendment numbered 1173. 

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

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new section: 

SEC. . NEED TO ENACT LONG TERM HEALTH 

CARE REFORM. 

It is the Sense of the Senate that the 104th 

Congress should enact fundamental longterm health care reform that emphasizes 

cost-effective, consumer oriented, and consumer-directed home and community-based 

care that builds upon existing family supports and achieves deficit reduction by helping elderly and disabled individuals remain 

in their own homes and communities. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator 

FEINGOLD’s amendment requests the 

sense of the Senate that the 104th Congress should enact fundamental longterm health care reform that emphasizes cost-effective home and community-based care and achieves deficit reduction by helping elderly and disabled 

individuals remain in their homes and 

communities. 

I believe this amendment has possibly been agreed to and possibly could 

be handled by a voice vote. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, our 

priority in this budget is ensuring the 

short- and long-term solvency of Medicare, not necessarily restructuring the 

entire health care system. But I am 

willing to accept the amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the 

majority and I thank Senator FEINGOLD. 

I ask that the amendment be agreed 

to. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7412 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

The amendment (No. 1173) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1174

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding losses to Medicare and Medicaid 

and other health programs due to disease 

and disability caused by tobacco products) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk on behalf of 

Senator HARKIN. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. HARKIN, for himself and Mr. LAUTENBERG, proposes an amendment numbered 

1174. 

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

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING 

LOSSES CAUSED BY USE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that tobacco products impose a $20,000,000,000 cost per year on Federal 

health programs like medicare and medicaid 

through tobacco-related illnesses; 

(2) tobacco products are unlike any other 

product legally offered for sale because even 

when used an intended they cause death and 

disease; and 

(3) States such as Florida, Mississippi, 

Minnesota, and West Virginia are currently 

taking action to recover State costs associated with tobacco-related illnesses. 

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

of the Senate that any proposal by the Committee on Finance of the Senate to reduce 

Federal spending on medicare and medicaid 

as required by Senate Concurrent Resolution 

13 should include a proposal to recover from 

tobacco companies a portion of the costs 

their products impose on American taxpayers and Federal health program including 

medicare and medicaid. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, a brief 

summary of the amendment offered by 

the Senator from Iowa would indicate 

that it is the sense of the Senate that 

any proposal by the Finance Committee to reduce spending on Medicare 

and Medicaid should include a proposal 

to recover from the tobacco companies 

a portion of the cost of their products 

imposed on Medicare and Medicaid and 

other Federal health programs. The 

Center for Disease and Prevention estimates that products sold by tobacco 

companies impose $200 billion a year on 

Medicare and Medicaid and other Federal health programs through tobaccorelated illnesses. 

The adoption of this amendment 

would put the Senate on record in support of the efforts to have tobacco companies pay a portion of the costs of 

their products imposed on American 

taxpayers and the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am 

just going to make a statement, then I 

will yield the floor. 

Mr. President, I say to Senator EXON, 

I have been kind of patient in letting 

him just read what any Senator has to 

say. It is getting more and more like a 

speech. It was supposed to be a little 

brief statement of purpose. 

I hope we can kind of work together 

and keep it to a statement of purpose 

in the future, or we will have to have 

somebody debate the issue on each one 

for an equal amount of time, and we do 

not want to do that. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is a 

$140 billion tax increase. Therefore, on 

behalf of myself, Senator ROBB, Senator HOLLINGS, Senator HELMS, Senator MCCONNELL, Senator FAIRCLOTH, 

Senator COVERDELL, Senator THOMPSON, Senator WARNER, Senator FRIST, 

and Senator THURMOND, I move to table 

the amendment and ask for the yeas 

and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. 

FORD] to table the amendment of the 

Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARKIN]. The 

yeas and nays have been ordered and 

the clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The result was announced—yeas 68, 

nays 31, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.] 

YEAS—68 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Campbell 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kyl 

Lott 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—31 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Bryan 

Byrd 

Chafee 

Conrad 

Dorgan 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Graham 

Harkin 

Hatfield 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lugar 

Moseley-Braun 

Murray 

Pell 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Specter 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1174) was agreed to. 

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that we do have 10 

minutes—1 minute for the explanation, 

9 minutes for the vote. I want to accommodate everybody, but if we are 

going to finish this at a reasonable 

time, we are going to have to stick to 

the 9 minutes. I just give that alert to 

people. Nobody wants to miss a vote. I 

do not want anybody to miss a vote. 

Some people would like to be out of 

here late tonight or early tomorrow. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1175

(Purpose: To restore funding to Medicare) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. JOHNSTON, for himself, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. 

REID, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. MIKULSKI and Mr. 

BREAUX, proposes an amendment numbered 

1175. 

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

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 74, delete lines 12 through 24 and 

insert the following: ‘‘budget, the appropriate budgetary allocations, aggregates, and 

levels shall be revised to reflect the additional deficit reduction achieved as calculated under subsection (c) for legislation 

that reduces revenues and/or increases funding for the Medicare trust fund not to exceed 

the following amounts: 

‘‘(1) with respect to fiscal year 1996, 

$12,000,000,000 in outlays; 

‘‘(2) with respect to fiscal year 1997, 

$22,000,000,000 in outlays; 

‘‘(3) with respect to fiscal year 1998, 

$24,000,000,000 in outlays; 

‘‘(4) with respect to fiscal year 1999, 

$28,000,000,000 in outlays; 

‘‘(5) with respect to fiscal year 2000, 

$28,000,000,000 in outlays; 

‘‘(6) with respect to fiscal year 2001, 

$28,000,000,000 in outlays; 

‘‘(7) with respect to fiscal year 2002, 

$28,000,000,000 in outlays provided that, if 

CBO scores this surplus differently, then the 

numbers provided above shall be increased or 

decreased proportionally. 

‘‘(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—Upon the reporting of legislation 

pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon 

the submission of a conference report on 

such legislation (if a conference report is 

submitted), the Chair of the Committee on 

the Budget of the Senate appropriately revised allocations under sections 302(a) and 

602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7413 

1974; budgetary aggregates; and levels under 

this resolution, revised by an amount that 

does not exceed the additional deficit reduction specified under subsection (d).’’

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator 

JOHNSTON’s amendment would allow 

the $170 billion fiscal dividend to be 

used for either a tax cut or restoring 

cuts in Medicare. 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. This will be one of 

those amendments where a big portion 

of the reserve fund will be spent. I do 

not think we ought to do that. I think 

we ought to leave it as it came out of 

the committee, as a reserve. It is subject to a point of order for the same 

reasons and subject to the same provisions of the Budget Act. I raise the 

point of order against the amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Pursuant to section 904 of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I 

move to waive the act for consideration of the pending amendment. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays are ordered, and 

the clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

DEWINE). Are there any other Senators 

in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 42, 

nays 57, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.] 

YEAS—42 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—57 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

question, the yeas are 42, the nays are 

57. 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 amendment falls. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1176

(Purpose: To restore funding for our national 

parks by using amounts set aside for a tax 

cut) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON] for 

Mr. REID, proposes an amendment numbered 

1176. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 74, strike lines 12 through 24 and 

insert the following: ‘‘budget, the appropriate budgetary allocations, aggregates, and 

levels shall be revised to reflect $1,000,000,000 

in budget authority and outlays of the additional deficit reduction achieved as calculated under subsection (c) for legislation 

that reduces the adverse effects on discretionary spending on our national parks system by restoring funding for rehabilitation, 

restoration, and park maintenance. 

‘‘(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—Upon the reporting of legislation 

pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon 

the submission of a conference report on 

such legislation (if a conference report is 

submitted), the Chair of the Committee on 

the Budget of the Senate may submit to the 

Senate appropriately revised allocations 

under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, budgetary aggregates, and levels under this resolution, revised by an amount that does not exceed the 

additional deficit reduction specified under 

subsection (a).’’. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, a brief description of Senator REID’s amendment, which would restore $1 billion in 

funding to the National Park System 

to alleviate the devastating more than 

$2 billion backlog of needs. 

These funds would be drawn from the 

$170 billion fiscal dividend. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is 

another effort to divert the reserve 

fund. There is no assurance how the 

money would be used, regardless of 

what the resolution says. 

I raise a point of order, subject to a 

point of order on the Budget Act. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as previously stated on numerous occasions, 

I move to waive the Budget Act for 

consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

of the Senator from Nebraska. On this 

question, the yeas and nays have been 

ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 46, 

nays 53, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.] 

YEAS—46 

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 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—53 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

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 

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 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 53. 

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

affirmative, the motion is rejected. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

point of order is sustained. The amendment falls. 

The Senator from Nebraska. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1177

(Purpose: To restore funding for water 

infrastructure grants) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk on behalf of 

Mr. SARBANES, for himself, Senators 

LIEBERMAN, MIKULSKI, and KERRY, and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. SARBANES, for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, 

Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mr. KERRY, proposes an 

amendment numbered 1177. 

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

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 74, strike lines 12 through 24 and 

insert the following: ‘‘budget, the revenue 

and spending aggregates may be revised and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7414 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

other appropriate budgetary allocations, aggregates, and levels may be revised to reflect 

the additional deficit reduction achieved as 

calculated under subsection (c) for legislation that reduces revenues, and legislation 

that will provide $10,805,000,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency to administer 

federal grants for water infrastructure programs in the following manner: 

‘‘(1) with respect to fiscal year 1996, 

$962,000,000 in budget authority and 42,000,000 

in outlays; 

‘‘(2) with respect to fiscal year 1997, 

$1,962,000,000 in budget authority and 

$346,000,000 in outlays; 

‘‘(3) with respect to fiscal year 1998, 

$2,462,000,000 in budget authority and 

$920,000,000 in outlays; 

‘‘(4) with respect to fiscal year 1999, 

$2,962,000,000 in budget authority and 

$1,679,000,000 in outlays; 

‘‘(5) with respect to fiscal year 2000, 

$2,962,000,000 in budget authority and 

$2,291,000,000 in outlays; 

‘‘(6) with respect to fiscal year 2001, 

$2,962,000,000 in budget authority and 

$2,679,000,000 in outlays; and 

‘‘(7) with respect to fiscal year 2002, 

$2,962,000,000 in budget authority and 

$2,798,000,000 in outlays. 

‘‘(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—Upon the reporting of legislation 

pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon 

the submission of a conference report on 

such legislation (if a conference report is 

submitted), the Chair of the Committee on 

the Budget of the Senate may submit to the 

Senate appropriately revised allocations 

under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; discretionary 

spending under section 201(a) of this resolution; and budgetary aggregates and levels 

under this resolution, revised by an amount 

that does not exceed the additional deficit 

reduction calculated under subsection (d).’’

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the 

budget resolution we are debating 

today assumes that Federal grants for 

sewage treatment construction and 

safe drinking water infrastructure 

would be phased out over the next 3 

years. If approved, this proposal would 

end the Federal Government’s 20-year 

commitment to assist cities and towns 

in cleaning up our Nation’s waters. My 

amendment would restore these 

funds—funds which are absolutely vital 

to State and local Government’s efforts 

to meet water quality standards under 

the Clean Water Act. 

Since 1972—when we passed into law 

the Clean Water Act—Congress has 

provided grants to States to help local 

governments meet water quality standards. These Federal dollars are used to 

capitalize what are known as State revolving funds or loan programs. Under 

these revolving funds, States provide 

low-interest construction loans to cities and towns to construct and improve 

wastewater treatment facilities. These 

grants have been a centerpiece in our 

efforts to reduce point source water 

pollution—the pollution that comes 

from sewer pipes and industrial wastewater pipes. They have also been instrumental in once again making many 

of the rivers, lakes, and estuaries in 

this country fishable and swimmable. 

In my home State of Maryland, these 

moneys, together with millions of dollars in State funds, have been a key to 

efforts to improve water quality and 

restore living resources in the Chesapeake Bay—the largest estuary in the 

United States and Maryland’s most 

valuable resource. We still have a long 

way to go, however, before the water 

quality of the bay is sufficient to sustain viable populations of many fish, 

shellfish, and bird species. Maryland 

has been counting on its State revolving fund as one of its primary mechanisms for reaching the water quality 

goals that it and the other Chesapeake 

Bay Agreement signatories made for 

the bay. In Maryland, the State revolving fund is used to upgrade treatment 

facilities, correct failing septic systems, retrofit urban areas with 

stormwater management facilities, and 

restore degraded stream systems impacted from stormwater runoff from 

developed and agricultural areas. All of 

these improvements have a direct impact on the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its living resources. 

This budget resolution eliminates 

grants to State revolving funds. it 

phases them out over the next 3 years, 

leaving State and local governments on 

their own to come up with the funds 

for adequate wastewater infrastructure 

and setting back our efforts to clean up 

the approximately 40 percent of the Nation’s water bodies that are still impaired. Even the rewrite of the Clean 

Water Act that passed the House last 

week—which in my judgment would 

gut some of the most important clean 

water programs provided for in current 

law—continues funding for sewage 

treatment State revolving funds 

through the year 2000. 

The burden this budget proposal 

places on State and local governments 

is staggering. EPA estimates that over 

$137 billion are still needed to achieve 

waste treatment objectives nationwide. 

The State of Maryland estimates that 

its water infrastructure needs over the 

next 5 years are nearly 10 times the 

proposed funding level in the budget 

resolution. 

This proposed cut would also adversely impact the labor market, 

eliminating approximately 100,000 construction related jobs over 5 years, and 

an additional 200,000 jobs over the next 

20 years. It would also jeopardize U.S. 

commitments to the environmental 

provisions of bilateral agreements that 

call for investment in water infrastructure in the United States-Mexico border area. 

Mr. President, water pollution is an 

interstate problem that demands a 

Federal response. Water from six 

States flows into the Chesapeake Bay. 

Even if Maryland had the resources to 

complete construction of all needed 

wastewater infrastructure, the Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts will only be 

successful if similar investments are 

made in the five other States in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. Without 

Federal assistance, however, it is unlikely that the upstream States will 

make a substantial investment in the 

water quality of the bay. The Congress 

understood the interstate dynamic of 

pollution in 1972 when a bipartisan majority passed the Clean Water Act and 

began funding waste treatment infrastructure. We seem to have forgotten 

this lesson. 

This budget resolution also phases 

out on the same schedule all Federal 

funding for grants to assist local governments in improving drinking water 

quality. Municipalities need significant 

resources to comply with drinking 

water standards to prevent the serious 

adverse health effects that can and do 

occur from drinking water contamination. In 1993—just 2 years ago—100 people died and over 400,000 fell ill from a 

bacteria outbreak in the public water 

supply in Milwaukee, WI. The Congress 

appropriated money last year for the 

very first time to prevent problems 

like this from happening in the future. 

Mr. President, I remind my colleagues 

that we appropriated these funds to 

save the lives of Americans; to prevent 

illness and disease. This is not pork. 

This is not a make-work public work 

project. It is an investment in the 

health of Americans and in a clean environment. 

Mr. President, balancing the budget 

should not, and need not, come at the 

expense of human health or a clean environment. The amendment I offer 

today is deficit neutral and will restore 

water infrastructure grants, including 

money for the clean water, and drinking water State revolving loan funds 

for the next 7 years at 1995 levels. I 

urge my colleagues’ support for this 

amendment to continue this country’s 

investment in clean water and safe 

drinking water. 

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Maryland Department of 

the Environment be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the letter 

was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT

OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 

Baltimore, MD, May 19, 1995. 

Hon. PAUL S. SARBANES, 

Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR SARBANES: This letter is to 

bring an urgent matter to your attention 

and to request your immediate assistance in 

amending the Senate Budget Resolution in 

order to continue the State Revolving Loan 

Fund authorizations through the year 2000, 

as opposed to the current language which 

phases out the program in three years. 

This environmental financing mechanism 

is the largest and only source of funds, other 

than some very small State grant programs, 

now available to local governments struggling to meet the demands of providing adequate infrastructure and protecting surface 

and groundwater resources. 

In addition, the State of Maryland faces 

the special challenge of working to restore 

the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries together with its neighboring jurisdictions and 

the federal government. Without this funding mechanism, Maryland will not be able to 

fulfill its commitment to reduce pollution to 

the Bay by the year 2000, as agreed to by the 

signatories of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7415 

Maryland has been particularly aggressive 

in establishing and maximizing its Revolving 

Loan Fund by leveraging federal and state 

funds through the sale of revenue bonds. 

However, as described below, the needs will 

continue to exceed the availability of funds 

for many years to come. 

The 1994 Annual Needs Survey conducted 

by the Maryland Department of the Environment documents $1.26 billion in wastewater 

projects needed to: correct areas of failing 

septic systems; eliminate excess inflow and 

infiltration into sanitary collection systems; 

upgrade treatment facilities to meet water 

pollution control standards; and accommodate planned development in designated 

growth areas across the State. 

The Survey also identified over $30 million 

in projects to retrofit existing urban areas 

with stormwater quality management facilities and to restore degraded stream systems 

impacted by stormwater runoff from developed and agricultural areas. These types of 

projects can be financed through the Maryland Revolving Loan Fund. 

In addition, the Department estimates 

that there is a need for over $500 million to 

remediate existing municipal landfills, in 

order to restore and protect water quality, 

which is also fundable through the Revolving 

Loan Fund. 

This represents a total need of about $1.8 

billion for water quality improvements in 

the State. The Senate Resolution proposes a 

total of $3.5 billion nationally over the next 

three years, after which no appropriations 

are provided. Of this amount, Maryland 

would receive $76 million over the three 

years, assuming an allocation of 2.1867%. 

Fully leveraging these federal grants and 

state match will generate approximately $180 

million for loans to local governments. Even 

when the portion of the program now revolving is added, only another $24 million is generated over this three year period. Thus our 

needs are nearly ten times the proposed 

funding level in the Senate Resolution. 

Not to extend the authorization of the federal revolving loan funds through the year 

2000 could be the single most devastating setback to federal, state and local efforts to 

achieve the restoration of the Chesapeake 

Bay, which has become the national model 

for improving water quality under the Clean 

Water Act. 

I think we would agree that this is a critical issue requiring your immediate intervention. Please let me know what additional 

support I can provide to assist you with the 

amendment. 

Sincerely, 

JANE T. NISHIDA, 

Secretary. 

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to cosponsor, with my friend 

and colleague Senator SARBANES, an 

amendment to Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, the congressional budget 

resolution, which would restore funding for clean water and safe drinking 

water State revolving funds [SRF’s], 

the low-interest loan programs that assist local communities to provide quality water to their residents. 

Mr. President, there are many things 

in this budget resolution before us that 

I find absolutely amazing. Ranking 

right up there at the top of the list of 

bad ideas is a provision to eliminate 

the Federal low-interest revolving loan 

program which helps communities finance important water infrastructure 

projects. This provision in the Republican budget proposal cuts one of the 

very important Federal programs 

which helps local communities meet 

their financial obligations to safeguard 

our citizens’ water. 

Our amendment would restore the 

water infrastructure revolving fund accounts to the 1995 levels of $2.96 billion 

annually through 1996–2002. In addition, 

our amendment is deficit neutral in 

that it provides funding by allocating 

money from section 204 of the budget 

resolution’s surplus allowance. 

I find it extremely ironic that the 

Republican leadership would allow a 

provision which totally eliminates assistance to local communities when 

just weeks ago the Congress passed and 

the President signed into law a bill 

which would require such assistance in 

future legislation. As we all know, the 

unfunded mandates legislation requires 

the Federal Government to fund 100 

percent of certain requirements for 

local and State governments to meet 

Federal safeguards in areas such as 

water or air quality beginning on January 1, 1996. However, at the same time, 

this bill would phase out the very Federal assistance that the Federal Government has provided for over two decades. 

While I would have liked to see certain changes in the unfunded mandates 

legislation and while I offered and supported amendments to improve the 

bill, I voted for the final version specifically because I have always believed 

and continue to believe in a strong 

Federal-State-local Government partnership. Have we forgotten so quickly 

the concerns we heard expressed from 

towns and cities across this country? I 

have not. I remember the concerned 

conversations I had with dozens of concerned local officials and the letters I 

received from hundreds of concerned 

citizens about the need for assistance 

from the Federal Government. That is 

why I am supporting this amendment 

today. 

Why is Federal assistance still needed in this area? Americans have come 

to expect a certain level of protection 

in the water they drink, the air they 

breathe and the food they eat. Polls 

show that the vast majority of Americans believe that the appropriate role 

of the Federal Government is to provide the necessary safeguards to maintain the public health and safety standards to which they have become accustomed during their lifetimes. 

With approximately 40 percent of our 

Nation’s water sources still impaired, 

we must continue our commitment to 

water pollution prevention and abatement. As we seek to balance the budget, we must be mindful not to hastily 

eliminate the public infrastructure investments that for too long have been 

short-changed in the recent budget proposals. 

In 1972, a bipartisan Congress passed 

and a Republican President signed into 

law the original Clean Water Act, the 

comprehensive measure to protect and 

restore the quality of water in our Nation’s rivers, lakes, and streams. Since 

then, the water infrastructure program 

has been an important component of a 

well-balanced effort to help local communities reduce pollution from sewage 

and industrial wastewaters. In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Act provides a similar program to protect the 

Nation’s ground waters from which we 

get the water that flows from our taps. 

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that outstanding water 

infrastructure needs total over $135 billion nationwide. Phasing out the SRF 

Programs over the next 3 years will 

leave many local towns and cities 

stranded in their financial pursuits. 

In my home State of Massachusetts, 

even with the assistance provided by 

the Federal Government over the 

years, the cost of meeting the water 

quality standards has placed and continues to place an extraordinary burden on many families and communities. Many Massachusetts residents 

currently pay water and sewer bills 

that exceed their property taxes. Companies are considering moving their activities out of State and lower income 

families worry about paying the everincreasing water bills. 

Ratepayers in the greater Boston 

area must shoulder the burden of a $5.2 

billion water infrastructure construction project, with only minimal assistance from the Federal Government. 

However, it is not just large cities such 

as Boston or Baltimore or San Diego 

that need assistance. Small- and medium-sized towns across the country 

borrow funds from the State revolving 

fund to upgrade septic systems and 

build wastewater treatment and 

stormwater management facilities. In 

Massachusetts, communities across the 

State—Fall River, Gloucester, New 

Bedford, South Essex, Lynn, to name 

just a few—have mounting water rates 

because of their water projects, and 

need the assistance available from the 

revolving funds. I hope my colleagues 

will support this amendment because it 

is setting the right priorities for this 

country by investing in our local communities to help them to do the longterm planning that is vital to sustained economic growth and prosperity. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf 

of Senator SARBANES and the other cosponsors I previously announced, I propose this amendment to restore water 

infrastructure grants to assist the 

State and local governments in meeting clean water and drinking water 

standards. 

As the amendment draws the funding 

from the $170 billion fiscal dividend, it 

would not increase the deficit. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this 

is, I hope, the last in a series of amendments that attempts to spend the dividend. I do not know how much dividend 

there will be left if we would have 

spent all of it as requested by Democratic amendments. But, in addition, 

we have no assurance that if this were 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7416 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

granted, it would be spent in the manner suggested. 

It is subject to a point of order under 

the Budget Act, and I make the point 

of order. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

waive the Budget Act for consideration 

of the pending amendment, and I ask 

for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

of the Senator from Nebraska. On this 

question, the yeas and nays have been 

ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

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

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 43, 

nays 56, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.] 

YEAS—43 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Ford 

Glenn 

Harkin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—56 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Feinstein 

Frist 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas 

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

the Senators duly chosen and sworn 

not having voted in the affirmative, 

the motion is not agreed to. The point 

of order is sustained. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

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

could have 1 minute as if in morning 

business for a completely unrelated 

matter. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

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

located in today’s RECORD under 

‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and 

Joint Resolutions.’’) 

Mr. FORD addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. 

Mr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent 

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

business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

f 

ABSENCE OF SENATOR MIKULSKI 

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

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

today because of a special event in the 

Mikulski family. 

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

degrees from Johns Hopkins University 

in Baltimore. 

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

is giving the commencement address at 

Johns Hopkins as well. She is also 

being honored by the university with 

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

university. 

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

the family on this very happy day. And 

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

f 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 

THE BUDGET 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1178

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding mandatory major assumptions 

under Function 270: Energy) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON] for 

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

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

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

WELLSTONE, and Mr. EXON, proposes an 

amendment numbered 1178: 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of title III, add the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MANDATORY MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS 

UNDER FUNCTION 270: ENERGY. 

It is the sense of the Senate that within 

the mandatory major assumptions under 

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

that were assumed would be realized from 

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the 

budget resolution assumes $1.6 billion 

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

the Senate’s view that savings should 

be sought from other Department of 

Energy spending rather than from sale 

of the PMA’s. 

Some in Congress and the executive 

branch have tried for years to sell off 

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

century to bring affordable power to 

rural areas and many small cities. 

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

that has generated about $50 billion in 

power revenues, a system that has paid 

its way on time and with interest. 

In addition to net power revenues 

that come to the Treasury, the $21.6 

billion that was invested to build the 

PMA’s is being repaid by the power 

customers in the same way most of us 

repay our home mortgages. The system 

has paid off more than $5 billion of the 

initial investment, and $9 billion in interest. 

But, for me, the worst part about 

selling the PMA’s would be the effect 

on rural America. The PMA’s were 

built so our farms and small towns 

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

been fulfilled. 

However, the sale of the PMA’s would 

cancel the mortgage, so to speak, upon 

which the PMA’s and their customers 

have been faithfully making payments 

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

increases across rural America. I have 

received estimates that customers in 

my State would see rate increases 

averaging 24 percent. 

In a budget resolution that would cut 

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

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

The sale of PMA’s is foolish from a 

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

body should voice its opposition to 

such a proposal by voting for this 

amendment. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, the 

amendment offered by the Senator 

from South Dakota would state the 

sense-of-the-Senate that none of the 

Power Market Administrations [PMA] 

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

from elsewhere in the Department of 

Energy’s budget. I intend to vote 

against this amendment, and I would 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS