S7198 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote by which 

the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENTS

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

want to put several unanimous-consent 

requests which will finish out the day 

and set the amendments in order for 

today and early morning. 

I ask unanimous consent that all the 

time be yielded back on the Thurmond 

amendment and that the Senate proceed to a vote on that amendment 

without any intervening action or debate after the disposition of the Exon 

amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, further, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition of 

the Thurmond amendment, Senator 

HARKIN be recognized to offer an 

amendment on which there be 15 minutes under the control of Senator HARKIN and 5 minutes under the control of 

Senator DOMENICI; that no amendments 

be in order to that amendment; and 

that following the conclusion of the 

time on that amendment, it be laid 

aside. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the Harkin 

amendment, Senator FEINGOLD be recognized to offer an amendment on 

which there be 20 minutes under the 

control of Senator FEINGOLD, 20 minutes under Senator DOMENICI’s control, 

10 of which will belong to the Senator 

from Alaska, Senator MURKOWSKI; that 

no amendments be in order to the Feingold amendment; and that following 

the conclusion of time it be laid aside. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the first vote 

on the Harkin amendment be limited 

to 20 minutes, followed by a 10-minute 

vote on the Feingold amendment, to 

occur Wednesday at a time to be determined by the two leaders. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that following the 

conclusion of the debate on the Feingold amendment this evening, Senator 

SNOWE be recognized to offer an amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the 

pending business? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive the Budget Act for the 

consideration of the amendment by the 

Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON]. 

Mr. DOLE. Following that, there will 

be a vote on the amendment by the 

Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 

THURMOND] and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. MCCAIN]? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next 

vote would be a vote on the Thurmond 

amendment, debate on which is not yet 

concluded. 

Mr. DOLE. As I understand, time has 

been yielded back. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has 

been yielded back by consent. 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I advise 

my colleagues, that will be the last 

vote today. We will continue to work 

on the measure until we are down to 4 

hours remaining, but there will be no 

more votes. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, is it 

still in order to reserve the right to object? We could not hear the unanimousconsent requests. 

Mr. DOMENICI. It says ‘‘on the 

amendment.’’ It means up or down. We 

had agreed to that and that was in the 

unanimous-consent request. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO WAIVE THE BUDGET ACT

FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1124

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question occurs on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act for the 

consideration of amendment No. 1124, 

offered by the Senator from Nebraska 

[Mr. EXON]. The yeas and nays have 

been ordered. The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 47, 

nays 53, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.] 

YEAS—47 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

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 

NAYS—53 

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 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

point of order is sustained and the 

amendment falls because it is not germane to the underlying resolution. 

VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1125

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the Thurmond amendment, numbered 1125. 

Mr. THURMOND. 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 clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

BROWN). Are there any other Senators 

in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 40, 

nays 60, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.] 

YEAS—40 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

Dole 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gramm 

Grams 

Hatch 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Smith 

Snowe 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—60 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatfield 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lugar 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Simpson 

Specter 

Wellstone 

So the amendment (No. 1125) was rejected. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order of the Senate, the 

Senator from Iowa is recognized to 

offer an amendment. The time is divided, according to that agreement, 15 

minutes for the Senator from Iowa and 

5 minutes for the Senator from New 

Mexico. 

f 

CHANGE OF VOTE 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

wonder if the Senator from Iowa would 

yield for a unanimous-consent request 

in regard to a vote. 

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 

178, I am embarrassed to say that I 

voted yes. It was my intention to vote 

no. I have been a proponent of the position of no. Therefore, I would ask 

unanimous consent that I be permitted 

to change my vote. This will in no way 

change the outcome of the vote. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7199 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the request? 

The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. 

I apologize to my colleagues. 

(The foregoing tally has been 

changed to reflect the above order.) 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized. 

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. I understand I have 15 minutes, is that 

right? 

AMENDMENT NO. 1126

(Purpose: To reduce unnecessary military 

spending, holding military spending to a 

freeze in overall spending over 7 years protecting readiness and modernization activities and shifting the savings to education and job training, restoring a portion 

of the reductions proposed for those programs in the resolution) 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have 

an amendment at the desk. I ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARKIN], for 

himself and Mr. BUMPERS, proposes an 

amendment numbered 1126. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 12, line 3, decrease the amount by 

$4,800,000,000. 

On page 12, line 4, decrease the amount by 

$1,000,000,000. 

On page 12, line 10, decrease the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 12, line 11, decrease the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 12, line 17, decrease the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 12, line 18, decrease the amount by 

$6,200,000,000. 

On page 12, line 24, decrease the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 12, line 25, decrease the amount by 

$6,200,000,000. 

On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by 

$4,800,000,000. 

On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by 

$1,000,000,000. 

On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by 

$6,200,000,000. 

On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by 

$6,200,000,000. 

On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by 

$4,800,000,000. 

On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by 

$1,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by 

$4,800,000,000. 

On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by 

$1,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 17, decrease the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 18, decrease the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by 

$3,400,000,000. 

On page 66, line 24, decrease the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 66, line 25, decrease the amount by 

$6,200,000,000. 

On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by 

$6,200,000,000. 

On page 67, line 6, decrease the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 67, line 7, decrease the amount by 

$6,200,000,000. 

On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by 

$10,000,000,000. 

On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by 

$6,200,000,000. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have 

before us a proposed budget that cuts 

over $1 trillion in Federal spending. It 

cuts health, education, training, veterans, and virtually everything else 

but for one item. The Pentagon is increased by $34.5 billion over what a 

hard freeze would be over the 7 years. 

Simply put, this budget jeopardizes our 

long-term national security by failing 

to invest in education, training, and infrastructure in order to preserve a 

bloated Pentagon budget and its cold 

war relics. 

Mr. President, the cold war is over, I 

would like to inform everyone. And 

guess what? We won. 

First let me explain exactly what my 

amendment does. My amendment will 

provide over the next 7 years for a hard 

freeze for Pentagon spending. 

Now, for the next 3 years, my amendment would track exactly what the 

Budget Committee does—exactly. For 

1996, 1997, and 1998, my amendment 

would provide the same funding for the 

Pentagon as does the Republicans’

budget proposal. 

Beginning then in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 

2002, I increase spending for defense but 

not as much as the Budget Committee. 

For example, in 1999, the Budget 

Committee provides $266.2 billion for 

defense. My amendment would provide 

$261.4, less than $5 billion less. So I 

track it, but what happens is over the 

7 years my amendment freezes it—over 

the 7 years—and thus saves $34.8 billion. 

My amendment would take that $34.8 

billion and put it into function 500, 

which is education and job training. 

Education and job training is way 

below a hard freeze in the committee 

bill. The Defense Department, the Pentagon is above a hard freeze. I am 

bringing the Pentagon down to a hard 

freeze, taking that money, putting it 

into education and job training to 

bring it up to just under a hard freeze. 

It still would be below a hard freeze 

level of funding for education and job 

training, but at least it brings it up 

close to a hard freeze. 

But I wanted to make the point very 

clear, that for the first 3 years my 

amendment spends the same thing on 

defense as does the Budget Committee. 

And so those who would like to just 

kind of freeze everything, well, this is 

a freeze amendment. It freezes Pentagon spending for the next 7 years. 

Mr. President, I keep picking up 

these articles. I know Senator BYRD

earlier talked about the articles that 

were in the Washington Post: Billions 

go astray often without a trace in the 

Defense Department is the headline in 

this recent story on Pentagon waste. It 

says the Department has spent $15 billion it cannot account for over the past 

decade. And Pentagon purchasing 

agents appear to have overdrawn Government checking accounts by at least 

$7 billion in payment for goods and 

services with little or no accountability. 

You want to talk about waste and inefficiency, start reading some of these 

articles about waste and inefficiency in 

the Defense Department. It boggles the 

mind and it picks taxpayers’ pockets. 

I also want to point to a scandal that 

happened last December in the Air 

Force, and to my knowledge it still has 

not been resolved—a scandal. Gen. Joseph W. Ashy was in Italy. He wanted 

to get to the U.S. Space Command in 

Denver, CO. He could have flown commercially, could have gotten on a 

United Airlines flight. No, he got an 

Air Force C–141 transport jet that flew 

empty from here to Italy, picked him 

up and flew him to Colorado at an estimated cost of $120,000. 

Did he fly alone? No, he took his cat 

with him. I guess he paid $85 for his 

cat. But he listed on the manifest that 

his wife was going to be with him, that 

she was traveling with him. His wife 

was already in Colorado, and it turned 

out that there was a young Air Force 

aide, a 21-year-old senior airman 

Christa Hart, a young woman traveling 

with him, and she was not even listed 

on the manifest but his wife was. 

You wonder why she was on that 

flight with him, at a cost of $120,000 to 

fly this general. And the Air Force 

tried covering it up, and as far as I 

know they still have not explained it 

except to say that no regulations were 

broken. 

Well, I might just say that one-way, 

first-class fare from Rome to Colorado 

Springs is $1,617. But, no, General Ashy 

had to fly himself and his young female 

aide and his cat in a C–141 for $120,000, 

and they still have not fessed up to it. 

And I will bet you General Ashy will 

not even get his wrist slapped for wasting taxpayers’ dollars like that. 

So there is a lot of waste in that Pentagon that we can clamp down on, and 

I think if they have a hard freeze over 

7 years, then maybe they will start 

doing a little bit better accounting and 

they will start knocking out these luxury flights for generals and their cats 

and their 21-year-old female aides. 

The real story is here in the chart I 

have here as to why we do not need to 

continue to increase Pentagon spending. This chart illustrates how much 

the United States is spending this year 

on the military. It says $260 billion. Actually, it is $261 billion. Our NATO and 

other allies will spend $250.9 billion. So 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7200 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

total U.S., NATO, and our allies spending, $510 billion this year, fiscal year 

1995 on defense. 

Well, what is the rest of the world 

doing? How about our potential adversaries? Here is Russia, $12 billion this 

year. 

In fact, last year the sum in Russia 

was $79 billion. This year, Russia cut 

military spending from $79 billion to 

$12 billion this year. 

Mr. President, I will ask consent to 

have an article printed in the RECORD

about the Russian budget. The military 

defense officials in Russia have called 

it a disaster, but the Parliament did 

not listen to them. They went ahead 

and cut it to $12 billion. 

I ask unanimous consent to have 

that printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the article 

was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

RUSSIAN MOD LABELS BUDGET A

CATASTROPHE

(By Anton Zhigulsky) 

MOSCOW.—Members of Russia’s parliament, 

failing to heed the military’s call for increased funding, set defense spending for 1995 

at 46.5 trillion rubles ($12 billion). 

Defense Ministry officials have lobbied the 

government during the past several months 

for a budget more than twice as large—up to 

110 trillion rubles ($29 billion). 

Defense Minister Pavel Grachev called the 

budget ‘‘a total catastrophe for the Army.’’

The spending plan as passed put the future of 

the armed forces ‘‘under threat,’’ he said 

after the March 15 vote. ‘‘It is a sin to keep 

an army in poverty and half-starved.’’

On March 15 parliament’s lower house, the 

Duma, passed the fourth and final draft of 

the government budget, which will take effect April 1. That budget saddles Russia with 

a deficit of about 73 trillion rubles ($18 billion), or 8 percent of gross national product. 

The argument over the Russian defense 

budget has been particularly contentious, especially since the costly invasion of the separatist region of Chechnya in December. 

Grachev has argued that a defense spending level of 46 trillion rubles will affect readiness, equipment maintenance and troop morale, all of which have been in a downward 

spiral since the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

In a front-page appeal to parliament in the 

Defense Ministry daily Krasnaya Zvezda on 

March 10, the ministry warned that ‘‘parliament has one last chance to prove that 

the armed forces is not a stepchild.’’

In the past several weeks Krasnaya Zvezda 

has warned that a demoralized armed forces, 

without the resources to train or even house 

troops, may not be politically reliable if the 

government is forced to quash a coup as it 

did in October 1993. 

On March 15, Russian soldiers suffered an 

additional setback when the Duma voted to 

spend 1 trillion rubles ($250 million) to purchase weapons from the ailing defense industry. 

The money had been earmarked earlier for 

the Army’s day-to-day needs, such as housing and provisions, but deputies decided to 

aid the cash-strapped defense factories instead. 

Finance Minister Vladimir Panskov acknowledged that the 1995 military budget is 

‘‘tough and even cruel,’’ but said the state 

could provide no more. 

‘‘There are matters of principle on which 

there can be no concessions,’’ he told the 

deputies. 

Krasnaya Zvezda blasted the vote, stating 

the following day that it would be easier to 

disband the Army completely than to subject 

it to the budget. 

‘‘This Duma has never understood the 

problems of the Army. It is absolutely indifferent to the defense capacity of Russia,’’ the 

newspaper said. 

The Russian Defense Ministry also is under 

fire for its handling of the crisis in 

Chechnya, and President Boris Yeltsin has 

promised to pursue long-overdue changes in 

the Army, which suffered humiliating losses 

to partisan fighters in Chechnya. 

‘‘Chechnya has convinced us once again 

that we are too late in conducting military 

reform. We must not delay any more. The 

Army is starting to disintegrate,’’ Yeltsin 

said Feb. 23. 

But military officials, complaining of a 

lack of money, said reform can be carried 

out only if it is properly funded. ‘‘Without 

funding, there will be no reform,’’ Grachev 

said in the parliament March 16. 

According to Pavel Felgenhauer, a military analyst with the daily newspaper 

Sevodnya, Russia’s armed forces must be reorganized quickly to avoid more combat 

deaths in the war-torn northern Caucasus region and in Tadzhikistan, where Russian soldiers are bolstering the government in a civil 

war. 

‘‘The situation in the Army is beginning to 

get out of control. The new budget doesn’t 

allow Russia to keep the Army as it is. A 

combat-ready professional army will have to 

be started urgently, within 12 to 18 months,’’

Felgenhauer said. 

Mr. HARKIN. I also ask unanimous 

consent to have printed in the RECORD

a table that indicates what my amendment would do in terms of budget authority and budget outlays. 

There being no objection, the table 

was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

Fiscal year—

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total 

Budget authority: 

Committee .................................................................................................................................... 261 .4 257 .7 253 .4 259 .6 266.2 276.0 275.9 275.9 1864.6 

Harkin .......................................................................................................................................... 261 .4 257 .7 253 .4 259 .6 261.4 266.0 265.9 265.9 1829.8 

Savings .................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 4.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 34.8 

Budget outlays: 

Committee .................................................................................................................................... 269 .6 261 .1 257 .0 254 .5 259.6 267.8 267.7 269.2 1836.9 

Harkin .......................................................................................................................................... 269 .6 261 .1 257 .0 254 .5 258.6 264.4 261.1 263.0 1820.1 

Savings .................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 1.0 3.4 6.2 6.2 16.8 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what 

this chart says is that the United 

States and its allies are spending almost 10 times more than all of our potential adversaries put together. Here 

is Russia at $12 billion; China, 27.4 billion; North Korea, $5.3 billion; Iraq, $2.6 

billion; Iran, $2.3 billion. Libya, Syria, 

and Cuba spend even less. 

You total up all of our potential adversaries—and I put Russia in there 

even though Russia is not a potential 

adversary at this time; and we have 

diplomatic relations with China—you 

add them all up and it comes to $54.37 

billion. That is in the whole world 

what our adversaries are spending. We 

are spending $510 billion total; for the 

United States, $260 billion. 

If you just look at the United States, 

we are spending almost five times more 

than all of our adversaries put together. And yet the budget before us 

says it is not enough. We are going to 

increase it in the next 7 years, while we 

cut education, cut job training, cut 

Head Start, cut Pell grants. That simply defies common sense. 

We had this other chart yesterday 

when we talked about education. Look 

at what is happening. Here is the line 

that shows the cost of going to State 

universities per year, rising by the 

year 2002 to about $8,000 a year. Here is 

line for Pell grants that student rely 

on, going from $2,590 down to $1,500, almost a 40 percent cut in Pell grants 

over the same year—a 40 percent cut in 

Pell grants. That is what we are being 

asked to do. But, at the same time, we 

are being asked to increase military 

spending. 

Mr. President, how much time do I 

have remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining of his 

time. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask to 

be notified when I have 3 minutes remaining. 

Mr. President, I am sure you are 

going to hear from the opponents of 

this modest amendment Senator BUMPERS and I are offering the argument, 

‘‘Well, if we freeze it, it is going to cut 

into readiness, our ability to respond.’’

That is simply not true. This amendment would fully protect readiness and 

modernization. Believe me, there are 

places we can cut that have nothing to 

do with readiness or modernization. We 

can cut out some of this high-flying 

stuff that General Ashy was doing. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an 

article regarding General Ashy and his 

$120,000 flight last December. 

There being no objection, the article 

was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7201 

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

AIR FARE, ROME TO COLORADO: $120,000; GENERAL’S COSTLY FLIGHT RUNS INTO FLAK ON

HILL (BUT THE CAT PAID) 

(By John F. Harris) 

A commercial flight was leaving the next 

day, but that was not soon enough for Air 

Force Gen. Joseph W. Ashy. 

Instead, the new leader of the U.S. Space 

Command traveled on an Air Force C–141 

transport jet, which flew him, one aide and 

the Ashy family cat from Italy to Colorado 

at an estimated cost of at least $120,000. 

Ashy’s Sept. 9 flight on a 200-passenger 

plane specially equipped with a luxury cabin 

and carrying a steward on its crew of 13 was 

more convenient at the time, but it is causing big trouble now. 

After a complaint from Capitol Hill, Defense Department Acting Inspector General 

Derek J. Vander Schaaf agreed this week to 

investigate the propriety of the flight and 

whether Air Force public affairs personnel 

were truthful in answering reporters’ inquiries. 

Ashy, who followed Pentagon regulations 

by paying $85 fare for the cat, declined to 

comment. 

A spokesman at the Space Command in 

Colorado Springs, Lt. Col. Dennis Gauci, said 

Ashy and his aide considered flying a commercial flight out of Rome on Sept. 10, but 

worried the schedule would not give him 

enough time in Colorado the next day to 

take an eight-hour training course on procedures for alerting the president in event of 

an air attack. 

He was sworn in as head of the Space Command Sept. 13. 

Ashy, 54, a 32-year Air Force veteran and 

fighter pilot, could not leave earlier, the Air 

Force said, because he was still commander 

of the 16th Air Force in Italy, a job that included directing air missions over Bosnia. 

Air Force officials in Washington acknowledge Ashy’s flight looks bad, but said no regulations were broken. Ashy, they said, was 

on an especially tight schedule to get to his 

new posting, and asked an aide to see if any 

government planes were heading his way. 

Subordinates went overboard in accommodating his request, according to an Air Force 

official at the Pentagon familiar with the 

case, and an empty C–141 was ordered across 

the Atlantic and back again to ferry Ashy to 

his new home. 

United Airlines is quoting a one-way, firstclass fare from Rome to Colorado Springs of 

$1,617. 

The C–141, which costs about $3,400 an hour 

to operate, was dispatched from McGuire Air 

Force Base in New Jersey to Italy and on to 

Colorado. 

Total flight time was 31 hours, Air Force 

officials said, and two mid-air refuelings 

were required that added to the cost. 

The price tag gave Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) a case of sticker shock, and he 

asked Vander Schaaf to investigate. 

In a letter to the inspector general, Grassley said he learned about the incident from 

Newsweek military affairs columnist David 

Hackworth, a highly decorated retired Army 

colonel who is planning a story about the 

flight in next week’s issue of the magazine. 

Hackworth is ‘‘disturbed by the arrogance 

that General Ashy’s behavior appears to represent,’’ and believes ‘‘Air Force officials 

have ‘repeatedly lied’ to him’’ and an ABC 

News producer who collaborated with him in 

investigating the episode, Grassley wrote. 

The inspector general’s office will ‘‘determine whether the travel was proper and reasonable, and address a number of related 

matters, the most important of which appears to be whether Air Force personnel were 

truthful in answering press inquiries about 

the flight,’’ Vander Schaaf said in a memorandum Tuesday to Defense Secretary William J. Perry. 

Ashy had no idea until he got on the flight, 

according to Gauci, that a C–141 had been 

dispatched especially for him. 

When an aide contacted the Air Mobility 

Command to ask about transport, Gauci 

said, Ashy assumed he would be on a flight 

that was already traveling from Europe to 

the United States. 

‘‘General Ashy didn’t specifically request 

that plane,’’ Gauci said, ‘‘and he had no idea 

where that plane originated.’’

The spokesman said Ashy also did not 

know the C–141, ordinarily used for carrying 

troops and equipment, would be equipped 

with a special ‘‘comfort pallet,’’ which includes such amenities as first-class seating, 

a kitchen and a sleeping area. 

The plane had recently been carrying U.S. 

Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine 

K. Albright on a flight to Russia, the Air 

Force reported. 

Ashy’s flight might not have been publicized, except for a coincidence before taking off in Naples. Two retired military officers and their wives, who are allowed to 

travel on military planes on a space-available basis, asked the crew if they could tag 

along. 

Even though the flight was flying nearly 

empty, Air Force officials said the crew told 

them no, because they believed Peterson Air 

Force Base in Colorado was not an allowed 

port of entry into the United States for travelers not on Air Force business. An Air Force 

official in Washington said the crew was mistaken, and that accommodations for the 

foursome could have been made. 

Vowing revenge, the spurned retirees took 

their grievances to Hackworth, who began 

investigating. ABC’s ‘‘20–20’’ is also planning 

a piece on the incident for tonight’s broadcast. 

Air Force officials said the crew made 

other mistakes. The manifest on the plane 

said Ashy’s wife was with him on the flight. 

In fact, the Air Force said, Ashy’s wife was 

already in Colorado, and the woman traveling with him was his 21-year-old aide, Senior Airman Christa Hart. 

‘‘Why did a young female enlisted aide . . . 

accompany General Ashy on this flight?’’

Grassley asked in his letter. ‘‘Why is Hart’s 

name not listed on the flight manifest? Was 

Hart performing normal official duties, or 

was there some other reason for her presence?’’

Hart was on the flight because she is joining Ashy in his new assignment, an Air 

Force official said. She serves as a valet to 

Ashy and performs some protocol functions. 

Mr. HARKIN. We can cut that out. 

We can start having better accounting 

procedures. We can reduce the Milstar, 

for example, this relic that is no longer 

needed. If we cancel that, we save $3 

billion over 7 years. 

Stopping production of the Trident 

D–5 missiles after 1996. After 1996, we 

will have enough to equip all of our nuclear subs at START II levels. So why 

buy more D–5’s? This would save $3.7 

billion over 7 years. And we could, for 

example, reinstate the fees on commercial arms sales to pay the U.S. Government for R&D costs, that again gives 

us about $500 million over this period 

of time. 

So, Mr. President, there are a lot of 

things we can do. We do not have to 

cut into readiness or modernization. I 

would not want to cut into readiness or 

modernization. But there is a lot of 

waste and a lot of inefficiency in the 

Pentagon that can and should be eliminated. 

Quite frankly, when you look at the 

defense budget, what it is now is a jobs 

program. That is what we are spending 

money in the Pentagon for. It is a jobs 

program. But I submit to you, Mr. 

President, there are more effective and 

efficient ways to invest in jobs programs than throwing it at the Pentagon. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that he has 3 minutes 

remaining on his time. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I reserve 

the remainder of my time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the remainder of his 

time. 

The Senator from New Mexico is recognized. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

yield myself 3 minutes of my time. 

First of all, let me say to every Senator around, the argument that the 

U.S. Defense Department does not 

manage its business with perfection 

should come as no surprise. But should 

it surprise anyone that the Department 

of Education does not manage its business very well? Might that be a shock? 

I would assume there is as much waste 

and inefficiency in the Department of 

Education of the United States as 

there is in the Defense Department. 

Mr. President, I would say that HUD 

has more waste than the Defense Department. 

To talk about the fact that the Defense Department has made some mistakes is no argument at all to take $40 

billion out of defense now on this budget resolution. 

Actually, this amendment should be 

turned down. I am hoping it will be 

turned down by a large number, by a 

large vote. But I think there are some 

who will say ‘‘Well, let’s just take it 

out of defense and put it on education.’’

Well, Mr. President, fellow Americans, the argument can be made on 

every single domestic need. Think of 

one: the National Institutes of Health. 

We are not able to fund them fully. A 

tremendous program. Take it out of defense. Defense is getting too much. 

We could have an array of amendments here and, by the time we were 

through, saying, pay for all these 

things we need, guess what would happen, Mr. President? The United States 

of America would have no military 

left. 

Now it seems to me that everybody 

knows we have put defense on a downward path over the last 8 years. This 

budget resolution still has to go to conference with the House. In this resolution, we have assumed the President’s 

numbers. I am the first one to suggest 

I have not been very happy with the 

President’s numbers. I did not vote on 

the last amendment to add some $80 or 

$90 billion in budget authority to defense. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

But I am here to say we ought to 

leave it alone. It is probably about as 

low as it ought to get. 

That does not mean that every American program on the other domestic 

side, from health to education, is fully 

funded either. There are many who 

would say defense is not fully funded 

either. The Chiefs of Staff of the 

United States military could tell us 

some things we ought to be doing that 

we are not doing. 

Mr. President, when we need the defense of the United States, when we 

need those men and women, we are not 

going to be arguing about some general 

using an airplane that he ought not 

use. We are going to say, ‘‘We hope 

they take care of that.’’

But let us take care of the men and 

women and our needs. And we know 

what they are. 

I only reserved 5 minutes on this 

amendment. I hope nobody assumes 

that I do not think it is a serious 

amendment. I do. And I hope no one 

gets the idea that all we have to do the 

rest of this debate is to bring amendments down here and offer to take 

money out of defense. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself one 

additional minute. 

After all, the point of it is that it is 

a big department of Government. It is 

the evidence of America’s strength in 

the world. It ought to be big. It ought 

to be powerful. It ought to be strong. 

We have an all-volunteer Army. Nobody compares with that. When people 

say we spend more than everyone, of 

course we do. We pay our men and 

women in the military. They are not 

drafted. They are paid good salaries 

and have a good retirement because we 

decided that is how we wanted keep a 

strong military. This will begin the demise of the military and everybody 

will think it is for a good purpose. It 

will actually have a very serious, bad 

effect on America’s future. 

I reserve whatever time I have. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves 1 minute and 17 seconds. 

The Senator from Iowa is recognized. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, to hear 

the comments by my friend from New 

Mexico, you would think the amendment I am offering would totally gut 

the Department of Defense. 

As I pointed out, my amendment 

keeps the same spending for the Department of Defense as the Budget 

Committee does over the next 3 years. 

That is my amendment. It continues 

the same spending. And then, for the 

next 4 years, it provides for just slightly less growth than what the Budget 

Committee has, slightly less growth. 

I am not cutting defense spending. I 

am just growing it a little bit less than 

what the Budget Committee does in 

the out years. 

Well, for example, as I said, for the 

next 3 years, spending under my 

amendment is the same as the Budget 

Committee. In 1999, the Budget Committee would spend $266.2 billion. I 

spend $261.4 billion. Over the total of 

the 7 years we would spend $34.8 billion 

less, bringing the Pentagon to a freeze 

level. 

Do you know what the difference is, 

Mr. President? Do you know what the 

difference between my amendment and 

the Budget Committee is? Two percent. 

You mean to tell me that someone 

can stand here with a straight face and 

say, ‘‘Over the next 7 years, the Department of Defense cannot contribute 

2 percent?’’ What a joke. 

Then we hear people in the military, 

military officers, saying, ‘‘Oh, we have 

to have more money.’’

Here is what Defense Minister Pavel 

Grachev called the Russian budget. He 

said it is ‘‘a catastrophe for the 

Army.’’

Of course, military people are going 

to say that. 

But back to my chart, back to my 

chart, Mr. President. The United 

States is spending $260 billion this 

year. 

All of our adversaries combined only 

spend $54 billion—one-tenth of what we 

alone spend. Yes, we have to remain 

strong in the world. Yes, we have to 

pay our military people. Yes, we have 

to keep a strong presence around the 

globe. But at what expense? By wastefully throwing this kind of money at 

it? 

I am sorry, it is simply ridiculous to 

think that our modest amendment 

would even cause a disturbance for the 

Pentagon. It will not hurt readiness or 

modernization one iota. It will not cut 

one paycheck from the military. Two 

percent? We are cutting education. We 

are cutting everything a lot more than 

2 percent. My amendment is just 2 percent less than the committee’s level 

for defense, a freeze, and we are told 

the Pentagon cannot even do that to 

help balance the budget. 

We are asking for sacrifice from our 

senior citizens, sacrifice from our students to make them pay more for their 

college loans, sacrifice from our poor 

to give up the earned-income tax credit, but we cannot ask the Pentagon to 

live with a freeze at a time when our 

enemies are spending only one-fifth as 

much as us combined? Two percent less 

than the recommended increase. It is 

not even a cut. And yet some argue we 

cannot even ask them to do that. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Mr. HARKIN. I will close by saying 2 

percent is not too much to ask to help 

balance the budget of the future. 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the world 

is not a utopia. There are dangers all 

over the world and there are growing 

questions as to whether we will be able 

to meet these challenges in the future. 

Must we repeat history and not be 

ready when the next major threat occurs? The readiness of our military is 

slipping. We are not procuring the 

equipment we need to meet a growing 

and unpredictable threat. The morale 

of the men and women who serve in 

uniform is declining. 

Mr. President, we are not even providing sufficient ammunition for proper training. We have already cut defense spending by over 35 percent. Must 

we be doomed to repeat history—again? 

We need to take a look at where we 

are, and what we have done to our defense spending levels over the last 11 

years. Since 1985: 

Ship purchases are down 80 percent; 

aircraft purchases are down 86 percent; 

tank purchases have dropped to zero—

a 100 percent reduction; and strategic 

missile purchases have dropped 95 percent. 

In 1993, the President proposed a 5- 

year defense spending plan which added 

$126.9 billion in cuts to defense spending—over and above the reductions previously made by President Bush. Now 

we need to understand, the cold war 

ended during the Bush Administration—and significant realignment of 

defense priorities occurred immediately following the fall of the Berlin 

Wall. 

Prior to 1993, defense spending was 

already cut—and cut deeply. Before the 

Members vote on the amendment by 

the Senator from Iowa, it is important 

to know what was cut prior to 1993. 

Military personnel were reduced by 

more than 350,000; overall defense 

spending declined by about 20 percent; 

our Navy dropped from 536 ships to 448 

ships in the fleet; three aircraft carriers were eliminated from the fleet; 

eight Fighter Wings were cut from the 

Air Force; we slashed our strategic 

bomber fleet to 181 planes; and we terminated dozens of weapon systems. 

All of this was cut from our defense 

forces prior to 1993. 

The budget request this year, cuts 

defense spending even further. The procurement budget this year is at its lowest level in 50 years—and is $6 billion 

less this year, than last. Procurement 

spending under this budget is only 39 

percent of the total defense budget. 

Now, I completely agree that we 

should only spend what is necessary for 

our national security needs. The question raised by this amendment is: Do 

we need to spend more for defense—or 

less? In order to answer this important 

question, you need to review the facts. 

Fact No. 1: The Defense Planning 

Guidance calls for a Navy fleet of 346 

ships in order to meet our national security requirements. 

But this budget does not provide 

funding sufficient to achieve and maintain a fleet level of 346 ships. Only by 

not retiring older, less capable ships 

are we able to even come close to the 

ship numbers we require. 

Fact No. 2: The Defense Planning 

Guidance calls for 184 heavy bombers in 

order to meet our security requirements. 

But this budget barely provides more 

than 55 percent of the required heavy 

bombers to meet our security requirements. The bomber plan is so bad, in 

fact, we will be forced—under this 

budget—to keep the B–52 in service 

until the year 2030. In 2030, the B–52 

will be over 60 years of age. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7203 

Fact No. 3: Before the budget was 

submitted to the Congress, the Secretary of Defense, on November 15, 1994 

reported that fully one-forth of our 

Army Divisions were far below peak 

preparedness. 

But this budget does not aggressively 

increase funding to solve this problem 

until the year 2000 and after. 

This century, America has failed to 

be prepared to protect her interests on 

three occasions. We failed to be ready 

in 1942 at Pearl Harbor, We failed to be 

prepared in Korea in the 1950’s. Just 

over two decades later, we failed to be 

prepared to deal with the military 

challenges facing us in the deserts of 

Iran. 

Failure to prepare leads to a certain 

outcome—preparation for failure. Loss 

of military capability does not announce itself—except by failure. 

No Member of this body can predict 

when or where America will next be 

challenged. But just as the mighty Mississippi flows southward with lumbering power, on this you can be certain: 

American will again be challenged. 

America will again be forced to defend her interests. 

The only question yet to be answered 

is—will we be ready to meet these future challenges? If you believe American will not be challenged again, you 

should vote for Senator HARKIN’s 

amendment. 

If you believe however, that preparation is essential for victory and vigilance is our strength—then you should 

oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in 

1996 dollars, the Department of Defense 

has been reduced from $402 to $246 billion. Now, is there anyone that would 

like the American military and American defense to be like the Soviet 

Union? Of course they do not pay anything. They hardly pay their military. 

Would we like to do that? Would we 

like to say we do not need any new 

technology or innovation, or do we 

want to remain the strongest Nation 

on Earth? We have cut defense enough. 

If there is more money needed for education, we ought to take it out of some 

other program, not out of the Defense 

Department and the men and women 

who serve us there. 

I believe my time has expired. If not, 

I yield back the remainder of my time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico yields back the 

balance of his time. All time has expired on this amendment. 

Under the previous order, the amendment will be laid aside at this moment. 

Under the previous order, we will go 

to the amendment of the Senator from 

Wisconsin. On the amendment of the 

Senator from Wisconsin, Senator FEINGOLD has 20 minutes and the Senator 

from New Mexico has 20 minutes; 10 

minutes of the time of the Senator 

from New Mexico is granted to the Senator from Alaska. 

The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1127

(Purpose: To strike provisions providing for 

a tax cut) 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on 

behalf of myself and the Senator from 

South Carolina, Senator HOLLINGS, I 

send an amendment to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. FEINGOLD], for himself, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. BYRD, 

Mr. NUNN, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. KERREY, Mr. 

ROBB, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. SIMON, Mrs. MURRAY, 

and Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, proposes an amendment numbered 1127. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the reading of 

the amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 74, strike beginning with line 8 

through page 75, line 22. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this 

amendment, in addition to being jointly offered by Senator HOLLINGS and 

myself, is also cosponsored by Senator 

BYRD, Senator NUNN, Senator BUMPERS, Senator KERREY, of Nebraska, 

Senator ROBB, Senator DORGAN, Senator SIMON, Senator MURRAY, and Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. 

Senator HOLLINGS will speak in a moment or two about this, but let me just 

say, first of all, this is really the moment when the Members of this body 

can convey to the American people 

whether they believe tax cuts are a priority or not. It is a clean vote. 

We can ensure the focus of this budget resolution stays on deficit reduction 

and deficit reduction alone by adopting 

this amendment. Other amendments 

before us that have been rejected have 

suggested we use the $170 billion tax 

cut fund for restoring Medicare cuts or 

education, earned-income tax credit. I 

think those were all worthy priority 

choices. They are all more important 

than a tax cut at this point. Mr. President, none of those amendments were 

adopted, and we stand here with there 

still being the $170 billion kitty, or 

cookie jar, existing in the budget resolution that came out of the Budget 

Committee. 

My amendment simply strikes the 

section of the resolution which establishes a special budget surplus account. 

The result will be that any additional 

savings that would have accrued to 

this account will instead simply go toward the purpose of deficit reduction. 

By striking the budget surplus allowance, any fiscal dividend that flowed to 

the Federal Treasury as a result of the 

deficit reduction contemplated in the 

resolution would reduce the amount 

the Government would otherwise have 

to borrow. 

It would eliminate the indebtedness 

of this country to the tune of $170 billion. Eliminating this cookie jar also 

brings us that much closer to really 

balancing the Federal budget without 

using Social Security, and this point 

has to be stressed and stressed again. It 

is my understanding that even under 

this budget resolution, we will still be 

using $113 billion of Social Security 

funds to balance our books in fiscal 

year 2002. Mr. President, this is not a 

balanced budget by the year 2002 unless 

you raid the Social Security funds. 

CBO estimates that in 2002, the socalled fiscal dividend might be $50 billion for that year by adopting this 

amendment. So instead of the $113 billion bite out of Social Security, we will 

reduce it by $50 billion. 

This tax cut that is hidden in the 

budget resolution is the loose thread 

that threatens to unravel the budget, 

the potential tax cut funded from the 

so-called budget surplus allowance. 

This is the symbol of irresponsibility 

that remains in the budget resolution, 

and it is not just a little bit of money. 

It is three times the total that President Clinton proposed in terms of tax 

cuts earlier this year. He proposed 

about $60 billion. This is almost three 

times greater than that, Mr. President, 

and people did not think that was an 

insignificant amount either. It is a 

giant tax cut. 

At best, the budget that passes this 

body and finally the one that is agreed 

upon by both Houses will be unpopular. 

It cannot help but be unpopular. Some 

feel that adding a tax cut will sugar 

coat the medicine and make it politically a little bit less risky to balance 

the budget. But it will not. In fact, it 

will do just the opposite. A tax cut will 

only undercut any work that will be 

accomplished by Congress. 

First, it will make those tough cuts 

we do make suspect. Those whom we 

ask to sacrifice for the cause of deficit 

reduction will not be persuaded that 

their own sacrifice will not instead go 

to provide tax cuts to someone else, 

someone who may well be a lot 

wealthier than they are. The Senator 

from South Carolina and I think that 

is a formula for trouble. We simply 

cannot pass what may be a $1 trillion 

package of spending cuts, including 

massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and 

education and other programs, and 

then ask the Nation to support that 

package while promising tax cuts to 

everyone. It will not wash. Beyond 

that, the potential in this budget resolution for a tax cut is just too great of 

a temptation. 

What this $170 billion fund does, Mr. 

President, is essentially lay out a series of low-calorie menus for a dieter, 

asking them to eat only celery, carrots, some cottage cheese, maybe a little water, but at the same time we put 

right next to them a big piece of banana cream pie. That is what this tax 

cut is. We are not going to put the Federal budget deficit on a diet by providing for a tax cut. Nor will we assure 

the Federal Reserve and the financial 

markets by claiming we can do both. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

It is possible, the prospects of lower 

interest rates that might flow from 

really lowering the deficit will be lost, 

and if we do not act responsibly in this 

matter some will reject the claims we 

can have it all. By every measure I 

know, the Nation has expressed an 

overwhelming preference for deficit reduction over a tax cut. The mail and 

phone calls I have received from Wisconsin since November on this have 

been absolutely clear, because the people of the United States know what is 

at stake. They know there is no free 

lunch here. We can reduce the deficit 

and help ensure their children and 

grandchildren will have a Government 

that is financially sound or we can give 

a nice big tax break now and stick future generations with the tab. By significant majorities, people want the 

former. They want us to start paying 

off the bills that have been run up, and 

they want us to do it now. This is not 

a partisan issue. For my own part, I 

have opposed the tax cut plans of both 

parties because I believe it is the fiscally responsible thing to do. 

Mr. President, I hope that both sides 

come together in a bipartisan fashion. 

I have heard Members of both parties 

make absolutely unequivocal statements on the floor that they do not believe tax cuts can be a priority at this 

time. This is an opportunity to come 

together and say we can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 but only 

if we resist the temptation to go forward with a tax cut we all would like 

to vote for but cannot afford. 

With that, Mr. President, I yield 5 

minutes to the distinguished Senator 

from South Carolina. 

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague. 

Mr. President, this is the same 

amendment that I presented in the 

Budget Committee which was defeated 

by a 12 to 10 vote. At the markup in the 

Budget Committee markup, Democrats 

were characterized as wanting to take 

the surplus, and spend it, whether for 

Medicare, education or whatever; Republicans were criticized for taking the 

surplus to give tax cuts. 

The truth of the matter is that there 

will be no $170 billion surplus. But if 

part of it does materialize, it ought to 

go to reducing the deficit. That was the 

amendment I offered in committee, and 

that is the amendment that should 

today be adopted by the Senate if we 

are really sincere. But rather than 

have any light shed on the subject, we 

have been bombarded by irresponsible 

reporting on the budget in the last several weeks. Specifically, I refer to 

Time magazine’s cover which said, 

‘‘This time it’s serious. Budget resolution . . . for the first time in decades, 

Congress is committed to balancing the 

budget.’’ Absolutely false. Turn to page 

7 in the budget resolution itself. What 

word appears? ‘‘Deficit’’ by the year 

2002. It does not appear ‘‘balanced.’’

On page 7, line 21, for fiscal year 2002 

a deficit of $113.500 billion, or, more accurately, on page 9, you can see how 

much the debt actually increases by 

the year 2002 over just 1 year—2001. It 

is $177.7 billion. That is the real deficit. 

We are all rhetoric and no reality. Republicans are already giving themselves credit and claiming to have done 

a wonderful thing which to some on the 

other side justifies a tax cut. But Mr. 

President, the American people know 

what is going to happen. Under this 

proposal, the tax cuts in stone and the 

spending cuts are going to slip by the 

board. 

Specifically, on this idea of committing to balancing the budget for the 

first time in decades, I submitted when 

I was chairman of the Budget Committee—and again in 1985. Everyone remembers Gramm–Rudman-Hollings. 

That was a balanced budget—not in 7 

but in 5 years. In 1991, we were treated 

to the budget summit. I remember at 

that time that members were slapping 

each other on the back and congratulating themselves on really getting the 

budget under control. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

1991 budget resolution deficit surplus 

figures appearing on page 21 of the 

budget report be printed in the RECORD

at this particular time. 

There being no objection, the figures 

were ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

CONFERENCE AGREEMENT TOTAL BUDGET 

[In billions of dollars] 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

Budget authority .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,485.6 1,562.6 1,582.4 1,593.4 1,668.4 

Outlays ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,236.9 1,269.3 1,305.0 1,324.8 1,355.5 

Revenues .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,172.9 1,260.8 1,349.8 1,433.3 1,511.7 

Deficit (¥) / surplus (+) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ¥64.0 ¥8.5 44.8 108.5 158.2 

Mr. HOLLINGS. So, Mr. President, 

yes, they had a deficit for 1991 and 1992. 

But at that time, their estimates projected a surplus in 1995 of $156.2 billion. 

The reality was much different. Instead 

of $156.2 billion surplus, we have a $317 

billion deficit—a swing of some $474 

billion off in the 3 or 4 years. 

There is no education in the second 

kick of a mule. We have been through 

this gamesmanship. Let us cut out the 

nonsense and get serious here and report accurately that we are not balancing the budget. You cannot do it 

without a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases. 

If there is any surplus, heavens 

above, let us allocate it to the deficit, 

because by 2002, we will have a $6.6 trillion debt with interest costs growing at 

the rate of almost $500 billion a year. 

That is, one-third of the budget is 

automatically going to interest costs, 

just the carrying charges, not to reduce the debt but just to open up the 

doors early every morning up here in 

Washington in the Government. 

So we cannot engage in this nonsense 

and gamesmanship. We have to get 

real. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time 

allocated to the Senator has expired. 

Eight minutes remain of the Senator 

from Wisconsin’s time. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if a 

Senator on the other side wishes to 

speak, we can go forward. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let 

me commend my good friend from Wisconsin, Senator FEINGOLD, for offering 

this amendment. I certainly support 

the idea that we can do more in deficit 

reduction and that a tax cut is ill-advised. However, I must reluctantly oppose the pending amendment. 

Mr. President, the Senate Budget 

Committee, I think we agree, has performed a very remarkable job in putting this budget resolution together. 

Senator DOMENICI and the staff of the 

majority and the staff of the minority 

have worked in good faith, and I think 

they have fulfilled the commitment 

that everyone of us in this body has 

made when he or she voted for the balanced budget amendment earlier this 

year. 

We have demonstrated that we can 

balance the budget and put our Nation’s fiscal house on the road to solvency. 

Now, in addition to the savings that 

will occur under this budget resolution, 

the Congressional Budget Office has 

projected that a credible reduction in 

the deficit by the year 2002 would 

produce a fiscal dividend for the Federal treasury. We are all in agreement 

on that. CBO estimates that interest 

rates would be 1 to 2 percent lower, and 

real GNP would be nearly 1 percent 

higher by the year 2002 if we achieve a 

balanced budget. 

Now, because of these two factors, 

CBO estimates that we would reap a 

fiscal dividend of some $170 billion over 

a 7-year period, and as much as a $356 

billion dividend over 10 years. 

The issue that has divided many 

Members on both sides of the aisle, and 

is the subject of this debate, is what 

should we do with this financial windfall if indeed there is one? During the 

debate we have been confronted with 

two specific choices. One, using the 

dividend to increase Federal spending, 

or, two, using the dividend to provide 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7205 

tax cuts. So far, we have not been able 

to reach an accord on either proposal. 

The amendment being offered by my 

friend from Wisconsin would use the 

fiscal dividend to further reduce the 

deficit and, as a consequence of that—

and this is the discomfort I have—it 

would absolutely preclude any possibility of a tax cut for this year. 

I really believe that this is the wrong 

time for the Senate to completely close 

off the tax reduction option—I emphasize option—at this time. Despite what 

many Members on the other side have 

said, this budget resolution—and I emphasize this—does not mandate a tax 

cut. In fact, there is no specific tax cut 

in this plan. What this budget resolution says is that if all of the committees in Congress adopt reconciliation 

legislation that produces a balanced 

budget in the year 2002 and if—I emphasize ‘‘if’’—that reconciliation legislation makes it through a conference 

committee—and that is a big ‘‘if’’—and 

then is signed into law by the President, then and only then may Congress 

consider reducing taxes. 

The CBO will have to certify that the 

reconciliation legislation does, in fact, 

produce a balanced budget. That is, 

CBO must certify that the budget is 

balanced in the year 2002. CBO will 

have to provide an estimate of how 

much additional savings will be 

achieved through lower interest rates 

and increased economic growth. CBO 

may determine that the savings are as 

projected, $170 billion; on the other 

hand, they may be lower or higher. 

Once CBO has provided that savings 

estimate, only then can Congress consider cutting taxes. Obviously, we do 

not necessarily know what interest 

rates might be. 

In any event, in the Senate, the decision whether to cut taxes is going to be 

first made by one committee. That is 

the Finance Committee, and that is a 

committee that I serve on. As a consequence, in the Finance Committee, I 

intend to make every effort to convince my colleagues on the committee 

that the CBO economic dividend should 

be used for further deficit reduction 

rather than tax cuts. 

Mr. President, if this amendment by 

my good friend from Wisconsin is 

adopted, and if we completely foreclose 

the future option of reducing taxes, 

this Senator, the Senator from Alaska, 

is concerned that this balanced budget 

resolution may not receive a sufficient 

number of votes to pass this body. 

I believe it would be far worse for our 

Nation’s economic health if we fail at 

this effort to bring the deficit to zero 

than it would be if we merely retained 

the longer-term option of reducing 

taxes. It is for that reason, Mr. President, that I must reluctantly oppose 

the amendment of the Senator from 

Wisconsin. 

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator retains 3 minutes 35 seconds of his 

time; Senator DOMENICI of New Mexico 

has 10 minutes of his time. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the balance 

of my time to the Senator from New 

Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does 

the other side have? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 8 minutes 1 

second. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

yield myself about 3 or 4 minutes and 

then will have to absent myself from 

the floor, and I will be back. Perhaps 

the other side can use part of their 

time. 

Mr. President, the budget that we 

crafted that is currently before the 

U.S. Senate, I believe, is a fair way to 

handle the American people and to say 

to them, ‘‘Once you get a balanced 

budget, for all the sacrifice that goes 

into that, there is some positive to 

come out of it.’’

We all understand that when we get a 

balanced budget and we no longer are 

borrowing money, when those out 

there that set interest rates based upon 

money supply see that America is for 

real, interest rates come down. There 

is no question. 

Americans should not think we are 

going through this event in our history, one of the most significant in 

modern times, of putting our fiscal 

house in order, deciding that we finally 

want to pay our bills ourselves as 

adults instead of having our children 

and grandchildren pay them—there 

ought to be a bonus for that. We ought 

to get something out of that. 

Incidentally, in this case, the major 

economists that look at fiscal policy of 

this Nation—perhaps they are just 

startled by the fact that we are finally 

going to live within our means and be 

rational and talk about what we can 

afford and what we cannot afford—they 

say there will be an economic bonus, 

an economic dividend. There will be a 

change sufficiently large in interest 

rates that when we get to balance, we 

get an economic dividend of somewhere 

between $150 to $200 billion if it is done 

in the manner prescribed in this budget 

resolution. 

So what did we say? We said simply, 

we are not going to have tax cuts until 

the event is completed—the balancing 

of the budget. So we say, when all of 

these laws are changed by the Congress, that is finished, then we can ask 

the CBO, the real number estimators 

for our land, are we there? Have we 

reached that point, that event? Is it 

real? When they say, ‘‘Yes,’’ they will 

then say there is an economic dividend. 

We will say then and only then is that 

released to the Finance Committee of 

our U.S. Senate to be used for tax cuts. 

Now, Mr. President, there are many 

people in this body and many American 

people who think we ought to have a 

tax cut for the American people. Especially one that focuses in on the American family. 

Frankly, I agree with that. I said my 

first priority as the chairman of the 

Budget Committee would be to get a 

balanced budget. I believe we got one. I 

believe that this is historic, and if carried out, the economy will get better, 

interest rates will come down, and I believe we have a brighter future if we 

stay there for about 10 years, in balance, paying bills, reducing the debt, 

instead of borrowing more and more 

every year. 

Now, I think the Senator from New 

Mexico thinks at that point in time 

when we finish that work, we ought to 

give the American people at least an 

opportunity to get a tax cut, to get 

some relief, especially for families. 

That is what this budget resolution 

does. 

Now, frankly, there are some who 

would like to spend that dividend. We 

have heard from them. I do not know 

that there will be any more opportunities on the Senate floor to spend that 

dividend again or to use it differently. 

We have been through that. 

Now we have reached the point in 

time where those who are not for this 

budget resolution—and I assume the 

Senator who offers this amendment is 

not for this budget resolution. Perhaps 

that is a false assumption. If it is, he 

might tell the American people he will 

vote for this budget resolution. That 

would be interesting. I surmise he will 

not say that. If he does, I would say, 

‘‘Wonderful.’’

From that side of the aisle there will 

be a huge number of votes saying after 

we get there, we want to say what to 

do with it, and we do not want to give 

the American people a tax cut even 

after the balanced budget when the 

economic dividend is available and we 

are still in balance. 

I do not believe that amendment 

ought to pass. I do not believe the motion to strike that part of the budget 

should pass. That is why I am speaking 

tonight. I have spoken enough, perhaps, today and I am not sure I will 

speak much more. Maybe another 3 or 

4 minutes before this amendment is 

finished. 

Essentially, while I compliment the 

Senator who offered the amendment, 

he obviously is really interested in fiscal prudence, in making sure that we 

use common sense, as he says. I believe 

the common sense was all exercised before he ever got to the floor, before this 

amendment ever arrived, when Republican Senators decided to balance the 

budget. We hope when we are finished 

that some Democrat Senators will join 

Republicans. 

That event was completed. Now we 

come to the floor and say, ‘‘No dividends to America. Just strike it out of 

this budget resolution.’’

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

THOMPSON). The Senator has a little 

over 7 minutes remaining on his time. 

The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 3 minutes to 

the Senator from Virginia. 

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. 

I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7206 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

While the distinguished Senator from 

New Mexico is still on the floor, let me 

tell him I fall into the latter category 

of one who is thinking if we do not do 

any more damage, that I may be one, 

and there are several on this side of the 

aisle, I might inform the Senator, who 

are thinking about voting for the budget that emerges —not because we think 

it is the perfect vehicle. 

Indeed, tomorrow, some Members 

will have an alternative, hopefully, to 

that particular vehicle. 

I want to compliment the Senator 

from New Mexico. I have known him 

for about 15 years. I have respected his 

willingness to make tough, principled 

decisions in attempting to bring some 

sense of fiscal responsibility to an otherwise undisciplined Federal Government over a long period of time. I said 

on this floor the other day, that I 

thought he deserved enormous credit 

for giving us a target, something that 

was truly important. 

I support the amendment of my 

friend, the distinguished Senator from 

Wisconsin, because I believe we ought 

to make it clear that deficit reduction 

is the most important objective we are 

attempting to achieve at this particular time. We are not truly balancing the budget even if we stick to 

the numbers we are dealing with, because we continue to mask the total 

budget in the Social Security surplus. 

It will be about $113 billion out of true 

balance, but it is exactly the same kind 

of obfuscation we have been using for 

years and I am certainly willing to give 

all the credit that is due for moving in 

that direction. But in this particular 

case, if we are serious about deficit reduction, I think the only message we 

can leave at this point is we are prepared to make some tough choices. 

Several on this side are willing to 

make those tough choices with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 

One of the most difficult votes for me 

was one just two votes ago when I had 

to vote ultimately against a very substantial increase in defense spending. 

Not because I do not think we need it, 

because if we are serious about fighting 

two major regional conflicts and winning in the years ahead we are going to 

have to put more money into the defense budget, even more than the President has added back right now. I accept 

that responsibility and will continue to 

work on it. But I thought it was a discordant message with respect to deficit 

reduction. 

That is why I am prepared, with several colleagues, I believe, to support 

the ultimate product of this debate. I 

hope we will find ways to amend that 

particular end product so we can have 

something that has the kind of balance 

that many of us want to achieve. But I 

think the most important thing we can 

do is keep our eye ultimately fixed on 

the target, which is to bring it into 

what is balance using the $113 billion 

that will be available from the Social 

Security surplus. 

With that I yield whatever time I 

have remaining and I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for offering this 

particular amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

yields time? The Senator from Wisconsin. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. First of all let me 

thank the Senator from Virginia for 

his tremendous support on this issue 

all along. 

Now I would like to yield to the Senator from Illinois, who has also been as 

solid as can be in trying to impose 

these tax cuts. 

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to 

commend Senator FEINGOLD who, from 

day one, when both parties were talking about tax cuts, said, ‘‘This does not 

make sense. Our priority has to be to 

get this budget balanced.’’

As I have said half a dozen times on 

the floor, and I said it in the Budget 

Committee, I commend Senator 

DOMENICI for moving toward a balanced 

budget. I disagree with how we get 

there. But the question is right now on 

a tax cut. The next best thing to passing this amendment is to do what Senator MURKOWSKI said on the floor just a 

few minutes ago. He said, as a member 

of the Finance Committee he is not 

going to vote for a tax cut. And I commend him for that statement. 

When my friend from New Mexico 

says there ought to be a bonus, we 

ought to get something out of it, I 

think the bonus is to have this budget 

in balance to get our fiscal house in 

order. When he says we ought to get 

something out of it—I know he has 

more children, and more grandchildren 

I believe, than I do. If my three grandchildren can have a better future, that 

is what we ought to be interested in. I 

think, frankly, passage of the Feingold 

amendment moves us in that direction. 

I know the Senator from New Mexico 

well enough to know he will not be 

heartbroken if the amendment of the 

Senator from Wisconsin is agreed to. I 

hope it will be agreed to. I am certainly going to vote for it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

yields time? The Senator from New 

Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might 

I just take 30 seconds and say to my 

good friend, Senator SIMON, I think you 

know a lot. But you do not know 

whether I will be heartbroken or not. 

That is pure speculation. I spoke rather vigorously against it. All my instincts and all my abilities are to 

speak against it. I have done the very 

best I can. 

You draw your conclusion. I draw my 

own. 

Mr. SIMON. All right. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 1 minute to 

the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who has also been extremely 

helpful on this issue. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my 

friend for yielding for 1 minute. I find 

myself very much in the position just 

articulated by my friend and colleague 

from the State of Virginia. We have to 

make hard choices here. I felt about 

that amendment that he referenced 

about like he did. But if we are going 

to make the hard choices then I think 

we should make them. Therefore I endorse thoroughly the amendment offered by my friend from Wisconsin and 

my friend from South Carolina. 

Certainly, in times like these, when 

we are talking about the concern for 

the defense needs and all the other 

needs we have been talking about all 

during this debate, it seems to me we 

have no way or reason to be talking 

about a tax cut. If there is any money 

left over after doing what we think is 

obviously necessary for national defense and these other programs we 

would be talking about, then that is 

where the money should be spent. If 

not there, to reduce the deficit. 

I hope the Senator accepts the 

amendment that is being offered and 

debated at this moment. 

I yield any remaining time I might 

have. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the ranking 

member and ask how much time we 

have left on our side? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute and 10 seconds. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let 

me use the last brief period of time to 

say in response to the Senator from 

New Mexico that one thing has been 

accomplished even if we do not win on 

this vote. That is, the early effort to 

pretend there was not a tax cut in the 

Senate budget resolution is over. They 

are admitting it now, that there is this 

fund and they are not willing to eliminate it. That is progress. Because that 

was the first attempt. 

Why are we not able to support the 

resolution in this form? It is because 

the proposal of the Senator from New 

Mexico is out of balance in the year 

2002 because of this very problem of 

this $170 billion. In fact, what it is, is 

what is left of the crown jewel of the 

Republican contract. It is basically 

lying on the floor now after the vote 

earlier today; 69 to 31 the U.S. Senate 

rejected the Gramm amendment which 

was the crown jewel of the Republican 

contract. This is all that is left of it. 

This amendment is an opportunity to 

say what all the American people really know, which is we cannot afford 

this. As the Senator from Nebraska 

said, we are either going to do deficit 

reduction or we are not. This amendment is the one that allows both parties to come together and strike the 

iron while it is hot. 

I hope the Senator from Alaska is 

right and we get it done in the Finance 

Committee but we should do it now on 

the budget resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado controls 6 minutes 

and 36 seconds. 

The Senator from Colorado. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am an 

admirer of the Senator from Wisconsin. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7207 

He has, I think, forthrightly brought 

forth before the Senate a number of 

proposals that are meant to save 

money. So I rise out of concern over 

his amendment, not over concern over 

the Senator himself but concern over 

the implication. Let me simply go directly to the point. 

He made what I thought was a very 

interesting analogy. He talked about 

this amendment as a proposal to go on 

a diet, to eat carrots and celery and 

other such things. But then to put at 

the end of the diet a large piece of pie. 

I do not think that is an appropriate 

analogy. Let me tell you why. What 

this budget resolution is is a diet. I 

think the Senator from Wisconsin is 

right about that. There is no question 

the Federal budget is overweight and 

this is a diet. This is carrots and celery. As a matter of fact, I think it is so 

good there might be some lean beef in 

here, too, all of which is very helpful to 

lose weight. But the potential at the 

end of the rainbow here is not a piece 

of pie. What it is, is the question of 

whether or not, when you have gone on 

the diet, you can have your suit altered. What it is is a question of whether or not you can put a swimming suit 

on. 

If the Senator from Wisconsin wins, 

what he is going to say is you can go 

on your diet, which is the first time 

you have done it in many, many years. 

You can lose the weight, you can eat 

that celery, you can eat those carrots. 

But at the end of the period we are not 

going to let you take your suit off. You 

are going to have to walk around in the 

same baggy suit. There is no reward. 

You can do your job. You can make 

the tough decisions. But, by golly, you 

cannot put on a swimming suit and let 

other people see how trim and attractive you are. Believe me, America is 

trim and attractive, if ever it gets its 

budget in balance. 

Now, that is what the issue is. It is 

not a piece of pie. It is whether or not 

you can enjoy the fruits of your efforts. 

Mr. President, we have had lots of inflated rhetoric about budgets. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows every 

time we promise to get the budget in 

line, it has not worked. And the reason 

it has not worked is because this Congress continuously overspends its own 

budget. So we need some help. There is 

no question about it. And is the promise that if we mind our P’s and Q’s, if 

we eat our carrots and celery, that we 

will get some reward at the end, some 

help? I think so. We need some help. I 

do not think anybody can seriously 

suggest that this Congress does not 

need help in sticking with its budget 

resolution. 

Now, there is a unique aspect of this. 

This budget resolution does not commit to a tax cut. What it says is if you 

pass the budget resolution, if it all 

scores out and if you come back and 

fully reconcile it and fully pass that 

reconciliation—and I think everybody 

knows that is going to be tough and is 

perhaps unlikely—and if you reconcile 

in a way that the President signs—and 

that is an even more difficult question 

because the President has not been enthusiastic about signing things that 

cut spending—if you get all that, then 

you may be able to talk about this. 

So what we are talking about is a little incentive for a Congress that I believe is desperately in need of some incentive, is desperately in need. What 

happens here is if you eliminate any incentive and you have a Congress that 

goes back to its old ways of overspending its own budget, you make it 

much less likely that we will ever get 

to the promised land, that we will ever 

keep on our diet. 

Mr. President, what is the impact of 

going to someone who is on a diet and 

saying if you make the diet, there is 

going to be no reward at the end? Well, 

it is pretty clear. You diminish the incentive to get it done. 

It is my judgment, Mr. President, 

and I think one of the American people, that we ought to be talking about 

more incentives to get this Congress to 

stay on its diet, not less. I hope the 

Members will reject this amendment. 

Mr. President, I retain the remainder 

of my time. 

Mr. President, I believe the Senator 

from Maine wishes to speak on this 

subject. How much time do I have remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two 

minutes. 

Mr. BROWN. I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. President. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would 

like to yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from Georgia on 

the subject at hand. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. 

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank 

the Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. President, I rise in support of the 

Feingold amendment of which I am a 

coauthor, to apply the $170 billion fiscal dividend to deficit reduction. The 

$170 billion set aside in this resolution 

for a later possible tax cut is certainly 

more responsible than the House approach beginning with a $1.2 trillion 

deficit exercise by cutting taxes. The 

House approach to me is like going on 

the wagon and beginning with 

chugalugging a bottle of whiskey. To 

me that is the analogy. 

The Senate approach is to set the 

money aside until after a reconciliation bill is enacted and then making 

it available for a tax cut at the discretion of the Budget and Finance Committees and, of course, Congress’ later 

approval. 

Mr. President, I believe this fiscal 

dividend brought about by lower interest rates and higher economic growth 

will exist if we balance the budget by 

2002. I do not think it is funny money, 

but I think it is very fragile. If we 

touch it by using it either for increased 

spending or tax cuts, I am afraid it 

may break. There is a strong probability that the spending slowdown in 

Medicaid, Medicare, education, agriculture, and other areas will generate 

more and more opposition from substantial segments of America before 

the cuts are passed by the Congress and 

certainly before they are fully implemented over a period of years. 

There is also a probability that in 

cutting projected spending by over $1 

trillion in a 7-year period Congress will 

inadvertently make some serious errors which cause extreme hardship and 

which will have to be corrected. 

Mr. President, if my choice is to use 

the dividend, the $170 billion, for tax 

cuts or for easing the most severe impacts on Medicare, education and lowincome working Americans, I believe 

the priority should be on easing the 

impact, and my votes reflect this. 

However, those are not the only two 

choices. In effect, until this amendment is voted on, we will have been 

choosing between either spending the 

$170 billion or refunding it. In either 

case, we will be spending and refunding 

before we have earned the dividend, in 

my view. If I have a choice, as we do on 

this amendment, however, of using the 

$170 billion, which has not yet been 

earned because we passed no reconciliation bill—and even when we pass one, 

we all know, looking at catastrophic 

insurance and others, when the public 

rises up in arms over some action by 

the Congress, it does not take us long 

to step back, and that may happen. I 

hope it does not, but it may happen in 

some of these cuts. I think the Feingold amendment is the responsible way 

to go because we will be putting this 

$170 billion on the deficit from the very 

beginning, and it will in effect be a 

contingency fund so that if we have to 

back up or some of the cuts do not 

work out as projected, we can still 

work on the goal in the year designated. 

If this amendment passes, there will 

be a small cushion, a small margin for 

error in economic assumptions or other 

assumptions in this plan to achieve a 

balanced budget by 2002. 

I would also remind all of my colleagues who believe, as I do, that we 

should be balancing the budget without 

using the Social Security surplus, leaving the fiscal dividend alone and applying it to deficit reduction, as we will do 

if this amendment passes, would help 

us move toward the goal of a real balanced budget in the operating accounts 

rather than simply a unified balance 

which we all know simply postpones 

the day of pain when the general fund 

has to start reimbursing the Social Security fund for the billions and billions 

of dollars owed. In fact, it will be trillions by the 2010–2013 range. 

Mr. President, I understand the analogy my friend from Colorado used 

about going on a diet and eating celery 

and carrots and getting thin. But I 

would remind my colleagues that when 

we get to 2002, if everything works out 

in this budget as planned, we will still 

have to borrow the Social Security 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7208 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

trust fund of $107 billion. And if we 

keep adding to the deficit, we will, 

under this resolution, at the time we 

get to 2002, instead of being slim and 

trim in a swimsuit, we are going to 

still owe to the people holding bonds 

and notes and Treasury bills all over 

this country something to the tune of 

about $6 trillion to $7 trillion. I believe 

the number is now about $4.9 trillion 

that is the national debt. 

So we will not be slim and trim. We 

will be bulging over our bathing suits, 

but we will simply stop in that year 

adding to the fat and the bulge. So I 

am not sure we are going to all want to 

put on our bathing suits in 2002 and 

show the bulges that have been building up for the last 40 years. Nevertheless, that would be a rather optimistic 

view. 

While the exact estimate would depend on what savings and enforcement 

provisions were enacted in the reconciliation bill, CBO’s previous estimate of the fiscal dividend was about 

$350 billion in 2002. If we applied that to 

the deficit reduction, we could cut the 

real deficit, excluding Social Security, 

in half from about $100 billion to $50 

billion in that year. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used the 5 minutes yielded to 

him. 

Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield me 

1 more minute? I think I can complete 

in 1 more minute. 

Mr. EXON. If the Senator could complete in 1 minute. We are in a real 

crunch tomorrow for time, much more 

than most people realize. 

Mr. NUNN. I will complete in 30 seconds. 

Mr. EXON. One more minute. 

Mr. NUNN. Thirty seconds. 

We all know that someone has to face 

up to the Social Security problem. We 

all know the Social Security system is 

not going to be the same for those in 

their 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s today. It cannot 

be. And the longer we avoid facing up 

to that problem, the worse the problem 

is going to be. Balancing the budget 

without the continued use of the Social 

Security surplus to finance other Government spending is an absolute necessary first step in that effort. I urge 

my colleagues to strike the reserve 

fund in this resolution and thereby 

apply these funds to the deficit. We 

must focus all of our efforts on creating a fiscal dividend before we refund 

it or consume it. 

I thank the Senator from Nebraska. I 

thank my colleagues. 

Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senator from 

Maine is recognized. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1128

(Purpose: To increase funding for mandatory 

spending in Function 500) 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have an 

amendment to offer. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while 

that amendment is en route, might I 

ask, did I yield back the remainder of 

my time? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That 

time was yielded back. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the amendment. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Maine [Ms. SNOWE], for 

herself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. 

BROWN, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. COHEN, Mr. 

LOTT, Mr. CHAFEE, and Mr. SIMPSON, proposes an amendment numbered 1128. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the reading of 

the amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 26, decrease the amount on line 20 

by $200,000,000. 

On page 26, decrease the amount on line 21 

by $100,000,000. 

On page 27, decrease the amount on line 3 

by $200,000,000. 

On page 27, decrease the amount on line 4 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 27, decrease the amount on line 11 

by $200,000,000. 

On page 27, decrease the amount on line 12 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 27, decrease the amount on line 19 

by $200,000,000. 

On page 27, decrease the amount on line 20 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 28, decrease the amount on line 2 

by $200,000,000. 

On page 28, decrease the amount on line 3 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 28, decrease the amount on line 10 

by $200,000,000. 

On page 28, decrease the amount on line 11 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 28, decrease the amount on line 18 

by $200,000,000. 

On page 28, decrease the amount on line 19 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 31, increase the amount on line 12 

by $900,000,000. 

On page 31, increase the amount on line 13 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 31, increase the amount on line 20 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 31, increase the amount on line 21 

by $800,000,000. 

On page 32, increase the amount on line 3 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 32, increase the amount on line 4 

by $900,000,000. 

On page 32, increase the amount on line 11 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 32, increase the amount on line 12 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 32, increase the amount on line 19 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 32, increase the amount on line 20 

by $1,100,000,000. 

On page 33, increase the amount on line 2 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 33, increase the amount on line 3 

by $1,100,000,000. 

On page 33, increase the amount on line 10 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 33, increase the amount on line 11 

by $1,100,000,000. 

On page 48, decrease the amount on line 10 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 48, decrease the amount on line 17 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 48, decrease the amount on line 24 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 48, decrease the amount on line 25 

by $100,000,000. 

On page 49, decrease the amount on line 6 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 49, decrease the amount on line 7 

by $200,000,000. 

On page 49, decrease the amount on line 13 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 49, decrease the amount on line 14 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 49, decrease the amount on line 20 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 49, decrease the amount on line 21 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 50, decrease the amount on line 2 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 50, decrease the amount on line 3 

by $300,000,000. 

On page 54, decrease the amount on line 20 

by $400,000,000. 

On page 54, decrease the amount on line 21 

by $400,000,000. 

On page 55, decrease the amount on line 2 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 55, decrease the amount on line 3 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 55, decrease the amount on line 9 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 55, decrease the amount on line 10 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 55, decrease the amount on line 16 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 55, decrease the amount on line 17 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 55, decrease the amount on line 23 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 55, decrease the amount on line 24 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 56, decrease the amount on line 5 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 56, decrease the amount on line 6 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 56, decrease the amount on line 12 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 56, decrease the amount on line 13 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 64, decrease the amount on line 9 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 64, decrease the amount on line 10 

by $4,300,000,000. 

On page 64, decrease the amount on line 11 

by $6,500,000,000. 

On page 65, decrease the amount on line 17 

by $900,000,000. 

On page 65, decrease the amount on line 18 

by $500,000,000. 

On page 65, decrease the amount on line 24 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 65, decrease the amount on line 25 

by $800,000,000. 

On page 66, decrease the amount on line 6 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 66, decrease the amount on line 7 

by $900,000,000. 

On page 66, decrease the amount on line 13 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 66, decrease the amount on line 14 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 66, decrease the amount on line 20 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 66, decrease the amount on line 21 

by $1,100,000,000. 

On page 67, decrease the amount on line 2 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 67, decrease the amount on line 3 

by $1,100,000,000. 

On page 67, decrease the amount on line 9 

by $1,000,000,000. 

On page 67, decrease the amount on line 10 

by $1,100,000,000. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I think 

that there is no question that education is one of the highest priorities 

that we can give in this budget resolution, and certainly we should do everything that we can to ensure that it receives our greatest attention. 

So I am very pleased to be able to 

offer an amendment in conjunction 

with many of my colleagues—Senator 

ABRAHAM, Senator GRASSLEY, Senator 

COHEN, Senator BROWN, Senator KASSEBAUM, Senator LOTT, Senator CHAFEE, 

and Senator SIMPSON—to restore $6.3 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7209 

billion in the education account. While 

education will play a key part in the 

future of America’s children, let us not 

also forget the goal of this entire process of this budget resolution and the 

debate we are engaged in to balance 

the budget by the year 2000 is the 

greatest gift we could possibly bequeath to future generations of Americans. 

I know there have been various efforts to restore funding towards education, but the amendments that have 

been offered have certainly contained 

fundamentally flawed funding mechanisms. There has been much talk and 

discussion here in the Senate about the 

dividend that the Congressional Budget 

Office may provide to score the budget 

if we put in place a balanced budget by 

the year 2002, and that we may achieve 

a savings of up to $170 billion. 

But that may or may not materialize 

at the end of 7 years and, obviously, as 

each year goes by, it will be determined whether or not the targets have 

been met under this balanced budget 

resolution that hopefully will be enacted into law, as well as reconciliation. 

But I do not think that on an issue as 

important as education that we can 

premise the restoration of funding 

through an illusory estimate that, as I 

said, may or may not be there at the 

end of this budgetary process. 

But furthermore, the purpose of the 

budget resolution is to provide instructions to the Appropriate Committees, 

both the authorizations as well as the 

Appropriations Committees, as to what 

funding levels they can rely upon in 

which to conduct their work. 

So they need to know what the bottom line is, and that is what the budget resolution is all about, to tell them 

how much they can spend and they, accordingly, make the determinations as 

to how they will proceed within the aggregate numbers that have been provided to them in the respective functions within the Federal budget. 

I think we are playing a dangerous 

numbers game if we think we are going 

to just restore funding based on this 

dividend that, again, may not materialize. I do not think that we can be 

fiscally presumptuous in basing these 

numbers on such a funding mechanism. 

I think that we have the obligation to 

provide reliable, straightforward, factual estimates and data to the appropriations committees and the other 

committees which will be engaged in 

the work in trying to determine how 

they reach these funding levels that 

will be contained in this budget resolution. 

But the amendment that I am offering today with my colleagues, as I said 

earlier, takes a fiscally responsible approach but, at the same time, helps to 

address the educational needs of the 

next generation. 

Mr. President, we restore $6.3 billion 

in additional funding, but at the same 

time we provide for specific offsets. 

Now, of course, the appropriate committees may not follow those recommendations. They have the option 

of pursuing other categories for specific reductions in spending. But we 

have provided the offsets by reductions 

in funding for the intelligent vehicle 

program, NASA R&D for commercial 

aircraft, new Federal building construction, reducing the executive 

branch air carrier fleet from 1,500 

planes to 1,350 planes and capping employee bonuses, Federal employee bonuses at $100 million from the present 

$300 million. 

We think that there are certain priorities that we should target in any 

budget resolution and throughout the 

budgetary process of this year, one of 

which certainly should be to help provide very critical and important assistance to low- and middle-income families who depend upon Federal assistance to provide the educational assistance for their children. 

Our amendment ensures adequate 

funding to protect several very important policies regarding student financial aid. What we want to do and accomplish as a result of this amendment 

is to ensure that the Labor and Education Committee is enforced to make 

changes in the student loan programs 

that affect home and farm equity, in 

the determination of eligibility for student loans, increasing the student loan 

origination fee or eliminating the 

grace period for beginning payments 

upon graduation. 

Our aim and goal is to ensure that 

there are sufficient funds within this 

account to preclude the Labor and Education Committee from taking these 

steps, and our amendment is intended 

to provide enough money to protect 

those policies. 

The impact of including home and 

farm equity in the calculations of eligibility for Federal assistance would be 

enormous on so many families all 

across this country. All we need to do 

is to examine the situation which occurred prior to the enactment and the 

reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1992, when home and farm 

equity was considered in determining 

income eligibility for student assistance. 

The inclusion of the value of family 

home or farm in the need calculation 

meant that many hard-working middle-income families were not able to 

qualify for student aid. These hardworking families, for whom their home 

or farm was their only real asset, were 

punished by being shut out of Federal 

student aid programs. 

So in 1992, Congress recognized what 

a serious problem this had become for 

many families in America. So, consequently, the 1992 higher education 

amendments exempted a family’s farm 

or principal resident from the student 

aid program in the calculations of their 

need. This made it possible for low- to 

middle-income families to receive help 

from the Federal Government to send 

their children to college, rather than 

requiring them to try to mortgage 

their home or farms in order to pay for 

their education. 

We want to make sure that Congress 

does not change the present law, which 

has made college more affordable for 

thousands of low- and middle-income 

families, and that is why we worked so 

hard to provide reasonable offsets 

which will hopefully guarantee the 

continuation of present law which 

eliminates consideration of the home 

and the farm from the needs analysis 

for student aid programs. We think 

that these offsets are a fair trade. 

As I said earlier, the committees may 

determine that they can use other offsets, and that is certainly within our 

purview and the prerogatives of the 

committee. 

Our amendment is intended to ensure 

that those individuals and families living off limited incomes will continue 

to have access to Federal student aid 

to send their children to college. The 

fact is that farms and homes should 

not be included in the calculation of a 

student’s eligibility for student grant 

or loan assistance because those assets 

are not liquid and cannot be easily converted to cash for students to use toward their college education. 

The second aspect of our amendment 

is student loan original fees which, I 

think, is also a critically important 

issue in terms of costs regarding education. OBRA 1993 reduced the original 

fee for both subsidized and unsubsidized loans from 5 percent to 3 percent. We believe that that is an important change and would like to see the 

Labor and Human Resources Committee maintain this policy. Increasing 

the loan origination fee increases the 

principal amount that borrowers must 

repay to the Federal Government and 

the amount of interest the student 

must pay. 

Our amendment would provide 

enough money to hopefully protect the 

present origination fee formula. Finally, our amendment would also ensure there is an adequate grace period 

for those students after they graduate 

from college. We know that certainly 

in these difficult economic times, students upon graduation do not easily 

find employment, and the current 

grace period is up to 6 months. 

We think it makes sense for us to 

continue to provide a grace period because students do not often find gainful 

employment immediately, and we do 

not want to force them into a situation 

where they end up defaulting on their 

student loan almost immediately upon 

graduation. So this grace period gives 

them a chance not only to find employment but also to begin planning so that 

they can eventually make the payments on their monthly loans. 

As we know from the cost of college 

education and postsecondary education, it has become a very, very expensive proposition for the students, as 

well as their families. 

We are offering this amendment because we recognize that productivity 

and the performance of our economy is 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

intertwined with the investments that 

we make as a Nation in education. 

The structural changes in the American economy, the revolution technology, have made it necessary for students to attain training beyond high 

school for the work force of the future. 

While nearly 40 percent of today’s 

jobs are in low-skill occupations, only 

27 percent will fall into that category 

by the year 2000. At the same time, 

jobs in high-skill occupations will rise 

from 24 percent to 41 percent of the 

work force. 

Looking at the new jobs that are 

being created, and will be created in 

this decade, more than half of the new 

jobs created presently between now as 

well as the year 2000, will require education beyond high school. 

In fact, the median year of education 

required by the new jobs is 13.5. This is 

a year and a half beyond high school. 

Therefore, every worker is going to 

have to recognize that they will require not only high school education 

but certainly a postsecondary education of some kind, whether it is a 4- 

year college degree or technical education. Whatever it will be, it will require not only postsecondary education 

but schooling beyond that, as well. 

Men and women who continue their 

education beyond high school, as we 

have seen in study after study, have 

consistently earned more money on average each year than those who do not. 

In 1990, for example, the average income for high school graduates was almost $18,000. For those who had 1 to 3 

years of a college education, earned on 

the average $24,000. Those who graduated from college and received a college diploma received on average salary of $31,000. These statistics are from 

the Census Bureau. 

The entire country benefits, as well. 

For every $1 we invest in education we 

get enormous returns as a result. Back 

in 1990, another study was conducted 

that analyzed the school assistance 

that was provided to high school students back in 1972. For every $1 that 

the Federal Government invested in 

the student loan programs at that 

time, the Government received $4.3 in 

return in tax revenues. 

According to a study by the Brookings Institute, over the last 60 years, 

education and advancements in knowledge have accounted for 37 percent of 

our Nation’s economic growth. 

At a time in which education is becoming paramount in this global arena, 

where it is going to make the difference for an individual and the kind 

of living that can be enjoying for themselves and their families, education 

puts them on the cutting edge. It puts 

our Nation on the threshold of competition for the future. 

If we deny individuals the opportunity to receive an education because 

they lack the financial assistance or 

the access to financial assistance, 

clearly, we as a Nation, are going to 

suffer. 

Costs of education have increased 

significantly, two to three times faster 

than the growth of median incomes. 

Without student aid, increasing costs 

make higher education out of reach for 

millions of Americans. 

At a time when college costs are increasing dramatically, in fact, since 

1988 college costs have risen by 54 percent. We know salaries and income for 

families have not increased 54 percent. 

We have to make sure that we carefully retain policies that will make 

higher education accessible to millions 

of low- and middle-income families. 

I also would like to read part of a letter from the American Council of Education which supports this amendment, 

saying ‘‘It will help millions of lowand moderate-income students fulfill 

their goal of a college education. Passage of your amendment is essential if 

the fundamental promise of the Federal student loan program is to remain 

available to future generations of college students. We are grateful to you 

for offering it, and we urge all Members 

to vote in favor of it.’’

I know this amendment will make a 

significant contribution to students 

pursuing a higher education. I am 

pleased to be joined by several of my 

colleagues who have cosponsored this 

legislation. 

I would now like to yield to the Chair 

of the Labor and Human Resources 

Committee who is a cosponsor of this 

amendment. 

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I 

appreciate the Senator from Maine 

yielding. I am very pleased to offer my 

support to the amendment that has 

been offered by Senator SNOWE and 

Senator ABRAHAM. 

As Senator SNOWE has pointed out, 

this amendment would soften the impact of the budget resolution on Federal student loan programs by reducing 

the reconciliation instruction to the 

Committee on Labor and Human Resources by $6.3 billion over 7 years. 

At the same time, it maintains the 

objective of the resolution to achieve a 

balanced budget by the year 2002 by 

making offsetting reductions in other 

budget functions. 

During the course of the debate on 

this budget resolution, I have listened 

to my colleagues speak about the significance of restoring sound fiscal policy. Many have spoken to the fact that 

the true beneficiaries of this effort will 

be future generations—our children. I 

strongly agree. 

I was privileged, and it was certainly 

a lesson in learning about the works of 

the budget and the Senate and the operations of Government, to serve on 

the Budget Committee for a number of 

years. I would like to at this time, Mr. 

President, particularly commend Senator DOMENICI, as chairman of the 

Budget Committee, who has for years, 

labored in the vineyards of budgetary 

policy and has put forward for the Senate, at this time, I think, an extraordinary budget. All who served on the 

Budget Committee should be commended because it is not an easy task. 

This amendment that is being put 

forward by Senator SNOWE and Senator 

ABRAHAM does not compromise the resolve to put our fiscal house in order. 

Nor does it impair the budget resolution. What it does is revise and realign 

our priorities just slightly in the context of the entire budget, but significantly in our ability to fulfill what I 

think most agree is an appropriate and 

valuable role for the Federal Government. 

I recognize that as chairman of the 

Labor and Human Resources Committee I might be accused of having 

adopted a ‘‘not in my backyard’’ attitude toward the budget resolution. Let 

me assure my colleagues that this is 

not the case. 

The committee will do its fair share 

toward reducing the size and scope and 

expense of Government. In fact, we 

started early making a 25-percent reduction in the committee’s own budget, which was the largest cut in any of 

the Senate committee budgets. 

This is an amendment that should 

pass. It has offsets that keep the budget on course toward balance. It makes 

no overly optimistic assumptions. It 

does not touch taxes. It is a serious attempt to stay within the parameters 

which a majority of the Senate Committee on the Budget endorsed in reporting this resolution. 

I think it is also important to remember what the budget resolution is. 

It is a resolution that makes no reference to any specific program; rather, 

it divides spending into broad overall 

categories. 

I understand this amendment assumes some specific outsets. There are 

many other assumptions that could 

have been used to specifically define 

those offsets. 

However, at this stage they are just 

that—assumptions—and nothing more. 

They are not mandates on authorizers 

and appropriators. In the ends, authorizers and appropriators will make the 

decisions on individual programs. 

Some of my colleagues may have objections to any specific offsets that 

may have been delineated and discussed in relation to this amendment. 

While I am concerned about some of 

the assumptions, one which may be regarding the NASA aviation research 

program, aviation research is vital not 

only to industry but also to public 

safety and the environment. 

However, Mr. President, it is important to remember that the amendment 

itself does not refer to the advanced 

subsonic technology program or highspeed research, or NASA, for that matter. 

It refers only to a slight reduction in 

the overall transportation function. 

Less than one-half of 1 percent, in fact. 

I would like to ask Senator SNOWE, is 

that not correct? 

Ms. SNOWE. I would like to answer 

the Senator from Kansas. The Senator 

is absolutely correct. We recommend 

offsets so that we determine the credibility of our numbers and ensuring the 

committee can reach those funding levels, but certainly it is within the prerogative of the respective committees 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7211 

to determine how they reach those 

numbers. 

They may choose to arrive at them 

in a different way and make different 

reductions and offsets than the ones we 

recommended. The specific offsets are 

not included in the legislation. We 

want to make sure they understand 

that we have some credible numbers 

that have been scored by the CBO. 

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I 

thank the Senator from Maine. 

I am confident, Mr. President, that 

the authorizers and appropriators will 

evaluate programs under their jurisdiction and set their own priorities. That 

has always been the case. It will continue to be the case. 

This amendment leaves them more 

than enough room to preserve a vital 

NASA function, for instance, aviation 

function, and meet the country’s pressing transportation infrastructure 

needs. 

Likewise, the budget resolution 

makes no specific assumptions about 

how the Senate Committee and Labor 

and Human Resources will meet its instruction on mandatory spending. Yet, 

the range of options available to the 

committee on mandatory programs is 

much more limited. 

Even the adoption of this amendment 

will not leave the committee with an 

easy task—as we still must produce 

over $7 billion in savings among a rather limited number of options. I would 

like to go further, but I do not believe 

it would be realistic to do so. 

I share the goal of assuring that our 

Nation’s young people do not face a future in which the burden of public debt 

smothers their capacity to benefit from 

the fruits of their own labor. 

I thought Senator SNOWE, in her 

comments, very eloquently laid out exactly why it was very important to be 

able to add this money back to assist 

with the student loan program in ways 

that I think we all recognize would be 

very beneficial. 

I believe the Snowe-Abraham amendment strikes a reasonable balance between these two important objectives. 

I urge its adoption by the Senate when 

this amendment comes to a vote. 

Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the 

floor. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 5 

minutes to the Senator from Iowa, 

Senator GRASSLEY. 

Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I want 

to speak briefly in support of the 

amendment offered by Senators SNOWE, 

ABRAHAM, and myself. 

Let me just say that as the 2d ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, and having served on the Budget Committee for over 14 years, how 

much the committee has benefitted 

from the infusion of knowledge, ideas, 

and energy from these two Senators, 

Senator SNOWE and Senator ABRAHAM, 

as well as Senator FRIST, the other 

newcomer to the committee. 

I am pleased to be joining these two 

Senators as an original cosponsor of 

this amendment which lessens the debt 

our undergraduate students will face 

and also ensures that students will not 

be denied eligibility for loans because 

of the value of their family’s home or 

farm. 

I commend the Senators for offering 

this amendment. 

It should not be forgotten though 

that it is this budget resolution and 

the tremendous work of Chairman 

DOMENICI that will do so much to benefit our students, both undergraduate 

and graduate. 

The lower interest rates that will be 

achieved by getting to balance by 2002, 

will translate into hundreds of millions 

in savings for students who are paying 

off their student loans. 

It is important to note that this 

amendment offers real offsets for the 

programs it wants to fund. This amendment doesn’t do across-the-board cuts, 

or worse, tries to pay for it by assuming funds from the economic dividend. 

This amendment provides real offsets 

from other discretionary spending. 

I would like to comment briefly on 

one of the offsets—cutting back part of 

the Government’s private airlines. 

I have asked the GAO to review the 

number of planes that are owned by the 

Federal Government. Incredibly, the 

Federal Government, not including 

DoD, has over 1500 planes—most of 

which are owned. 

Agencies like the Panama Canal 

Commission, the Resolution Trust Corporation, and the General Services Administration all have planes. 

Now many of these planes are necessary, and do have important missions. However, GAO has found that a 

significant number of these planes have 

as their primary mission ferrying senior Government officials around. 

Similarly, the President’s Commission on Integrity and Efficiency has 

found that many of these aircraft are 

not necessary. 

When we are asking others to tighten 

their belts we cannot continue to fund 

a private airfleet for Government officials. 

A good example of the wastefulness 

of these Government-owned aircraft is 

highlighted in a recent report by the 

NASA inspector general: 

Several NASA aircraft were used by NASA 

employees, other Government employees, 

and non-Federal travelers for official travel 

at higher costs than using commercial airlines. 

An analysis of fiscal year 1992 and fiscal 

year 1993 travel, comparing the cost of travel 

using seven of the eight aircraft—NASA 

owned aircraft—with the cost of using commercial air flights, showed $5.9 million could 

be saved annually by using the commercial 

flights. 

This amendment assumes the selling 

of only a small number of planes, 150, 

approximately the number that GAO 

believes are being used for travel purposes. The amendment still allows the 

Government to retain over 1,400 planes 

to achieve their missions. 

This is a good amendment, I am 

proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment that will help young people to attend college. 

I yield the remainder of my time. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it gives 

me a great deal of pleasure to yield as 

much time as he may consume to Senator ABRAHAM of Michigan, who helped 

in developing this amendment. I was 

pleased to work with him because we 

share the goal in advancing the needs 

for our families in this country with 

respect to education. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today 

I join Senator SNOWE in offering an 

amendment to restore $6.3 billion in 

mandatory education spending through 

offsetting cuts to corporate welfare and 

general Government. 

Before I discuss the details of the 

amendment, let me make clear that 

my sponsorship in no way detracts 

from the chairman of the Budget Committee or his resolution. Senator 

DOMENICI and his staff have done a Herculean task of putting this budget together and they should be applauded. 

In the area of education, however, I 

have some concerns. 

Mr. President, going to college has 

been an integral part of the American 

dream ever since Harvard University 

was established by the General Court 

of Massachusetts in 1636. For millions 

of young Americans from lower and 

middle-class families, a college education is the first step towards a 

brighter and more productive future. 

For many of these families, however, 

that dream is out of reach without 

some form of assistance. The student 

loan program makes it possible for 

children from families of modest means 

to attend college and get their degree. 

Because of the important role the 

student loan program plays in so many 

lives, I am concerned that the spending 

reductions included in the education, 

training, employment, and social services function will result in decreased 

access for low- and middle-income students to a college education. While it 

should be noted that the reductions in 

this function will not necessarily come 

out of the student loan program, the 

size of the reconciliation instructions 

included for the Labor and Human Resources Committee make such cuts 

possible. 

By reducing these instructions by 

$6.3 billion, I hope to relieve pressure 

on the authorizing committee so that 

in reaching their target, they don’t 

have to resort to some of the cuts listed in the CBO ‘‘Spending and Revenue 

Options’’ book for mandatory education spending. 

Options like increasing the student 

origination fee, including home and 

farm equity for when calculating financial need, and eliminating the 6-month 

grace period between graduation and 

when the loan payments begin hit students and then families hard when they 

can afford it the least. The goal of this 

amendment is to protect undergraduate students from higher outpocket-costs when they apply for Federal loans. 

To pay for this restoration of funding, we are offering the offsets from the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

transportation, general government, 

and allowances function. Speaking generally, I am certain a good case could 

be made for each of these spending 

areas. With the goal of balancing the 

budget, however, the Senate must set 

priorities, and trading corporate welfare for the dream of a college education is a good bargain. 

In conclusion, Mr. President, let me 

just say that the Federal Government 

has been helping students gain access 

to higher education for over 40 years. 

This partnership has enabled millions 

of men and women to go to college, get 

their degree, and go on to live more 

productive and creative lives. This 

amendment would protect that tradition and ensure that student loans continue to be available to all Americans. 

It is a good amendment, and I hope the 

Senate will support it. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would 

like to inquire as to how much time is 

remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 27 minutes 50 seconds. 

Ms. SNOWE. I would now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, 

Senator CHAFEE. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank 

the distinguished Senator from Maine 

for yielding me some time and congratulate her and Senator ABRAHAM for 

the amendment which they have presented and of which I am a cosponsor. 

I believe they are on the right track. 

Any time you make substitutions, as 

the Senator from Kansas pointed out, 

it is difficult. But I think the selection 

of the substitutions that Senators 

SNOWE and ABRAHAM made are good 

ones. So that is a fine amendment and 

I am glad to be a cosponsor of it. 

I would just like to say, if I might, a 

few words about this budget we are 

considering here today and will vote on 

tomorrow. It seems to me tremendously important that we bear in mind 

that for 33 straight years this Nation of 

ours, through wars and recessions, 

through good economic times and 

through bad economic times, the Federal Government has continually had 

to borrow money each year to pay its 

bills. Why is this so bad? What it 

means is that each year we continue to 

finance the Government with debt, and 

in doing so we steal the economic prosperity of our children and our grandchildren. Interest expenses this year 

totaled $235 billion. Not a penny of that 

for principal—$235 billion; 15 percent of 

the total budget of the United States 

now is being spent on interest on the 

debt. That amount of $235 billion will 

increase to $400 billion in just 10 years 

unless we do something about this 

budget. 

With the problem so clearly defined, 

you would think the President would 

have addressed it when he sent up a 

budget this year. But he did not. Instead, the President sent us a budget 

that had $200 billion of deficit this 

year, and over the next 7 years he continued with deficits of the same nature. 

I do not think that continuing on the 

path of deficit spending is acceptable. 

To me it is morally wrong to be sending these bills on to our children and 

future generations. Some Members on 

the other side of the aisle have suggested that selecting 7 years from now, 

the year 2002 is arbitrary. I mean why 

do you select 2002? How about 2005? 

There is nothing magic about 2002. But 

let us get on with the job. Once you 

start down the slippery slope of saying 

how about 2005, how about 2015 or 2020? 

I do not go with the thinking of postponing it beyond 7 years. Seven years 

provides us with enough time to implement the cuts in a manner that does 

not jeopardize our economy. 

Like every Senator, I have heard 

from people who come up to me, as 

every Senator here has had the experience, and they say, ‘‘I am for balancing 

the budget, but’’—the next word is always ‘‘but’’—‘‘but please protect this 

particular program I am interested in,’’

whether it is education or the environment or health care or doing something about law enforcement. You always hear that word ‘‘but,’’ but do 

something about greater research at 

the NIH—whatever it might be. 

If we are going to balance this budget, we have to have hits right across 

the board, in a whole series of attractive programs. Is this the perfect budget? I do not think it is. I suppose, if 

they had asked me to draw up a budget, I could have done a better job, probably. That is what I think. And every 

single Senator here thinks the same 

thing. But this budget is the first one 

in three decades that puts us on a path 

of fiscal responsibility. I congratulate 

the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator DOMENICI, for the extraordinary work he has done. Not only 

Senator DOMENICI, but the members of 

his committee likewise deserve congratulations. 

We have a choice. We can stick with 

the status quo. We can do nothing. And 

we can just go on with $200 billion of 

deficit this year going up to $400 billion 

in a few years. Or we can end these 

deficits and do it now. The budget before us leads America away from the 

red ink and toward a better future for 

our children. 

If we succeed in balancing this budget, as we are on the path to doing now, 

we will reap the benefits of lower interest rates, stronger economic growth, 

and the feeling, that wonderful feeling 

that we are passing this Nation on to 

our children in better condition than 

we found it. What could be more worthwhile than that? What more worthy 

goal than to say we are not going to 

continue passing these bills on to our 

children and grandchildren? 

Mr. President, I just hope this budget 

before us will receive the support from 

every single Senator when we vote on 

it tomorrow afternoon. Again, I congratulate the distinguished Senator 

from Maine and the distinguished Senator from Michigan for the excellent 

amendment which they have submitted. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would 

now yield 2 minutes to the Senator 

from Michigan. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I 

want to elaborate a little further on 

some of the reasons why I think this 

amendment is so important. As a candidate for the Senate during the 1994 

campaign, I traveled throughout my 

State. I was struck by the extent to 

which young people in Michigan, college students, high school students, 

and others really believe that it was 

important that we focus on the future. 

They were looking to us, I think, those 

of us had who were running, to try to 

address how we could make our Nation 

more competitive, how we could expand opportunities, particularly opportunities in the private sector in the 

next century, how we could be more 

competitive in a global environment in 

which we compete no longer with just 

three or four other industrial nations 

but with virtually the whole world. 

I think, as I talked to people, both 

those who might themselves be beneficiaries of student loans in this 7-year 

period we are discussing but also to 

leaders of industry in my State, it became increasingly clear to me that a 

top priority had to be a well-educated 

work force, a work force prepared to be 

competitive with the kind of global 

economy which we will encounter. 

That is why I think it is important 

that we make our citizenry as competitive as it can be. I believe this amendment, by producing the kinds of environments in which not only the volume 

of student loans that are available does 

not decrease but the access to those 

loans by people of more modest means 

remains unchanged, is the way by 

which we can fulfill for many people 

their dreams to be able to participate 

fully in the kind of competitive economic environment of the future. 

For that reason, I think the amendment particularly is sensible, one that 

I hope other Members of the Senate 

will join us in supporting when we cast 

our votes on this. 

Mr. President, I yield the remainder 

of my time. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to join Senators SNOWE, ABRAHAM, GRASSLEY, BROWN, KASSEBAUM, 

and others in offering an amendment 

to the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution to restore funds to valuable education programs by reducing funding 

for Federal building projects by 50 percent. 

I strongly support this amendment 

and believe that it represents a much 

better use of scarce Federal resources. 

I am very concerned about the cost of 

Federal construction projects. Last 

Congress, I introduced legislation to 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7213 

reform the way the Federal Government manages its office space. I was 

concerned that the Government had 

billions of dollars in construction 

projects in the works and did not seem 

to be focusing enough attention on 

whether these projects were being constructed or renovated in the most costeffective manner, whether the Federal 

Government was building in areas already glutted with commercial real estate, or even whether projects were 

truly needed. 

Numerous General Accounting Office 

[GAO], and General Services Administration [GSA], Inspector General [IG] 

reports over the years have consistently identified problems in GSA’s real 

estate portfolio and its chronic history 

of wasteful spending and mismanagement. The agency’s long standing problems have significantly impaired its 

ability to meet the property needs of 

the Federal Government in a cost-effective and business-like manner. My 

legislation directed OMB to review 

Federal property management policies 

and implement changes to ensure better coordination among Federal agencies, focus on longer term cost-effectiveness, and achieve cost savings. 

While my legislation was passed by the 

Senate, it was amended in conference 

to require GAO to do a study to determine the feasibility and effectiveness 

of establishing a single Federal agency 

responsible for selling and otherwise 

disposing of real property owned by the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], Farmers Home Administration, Department of Agriculture, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC], and the Resolution 

Trust Corporation [RTC]. This report is 

due out later this year. 

In July 1993, I held a hearing in the 

Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management to examine 

how GSA manages its real estate. The 

results were quite disturbing. The 

hearing highlighted the fact that the 

Federal Government was constructing 

it did not need and leasing buildings it 

could not afford. Last May, the full 

Governmental Affairs Committee examined waste in the Federal courthouse construction program. The hearing illustrated that the Federal Government was wasting millions of dollars on courthouses that were padded 

with extravagant features such as 

brass doorknobs, kitchenettes, custom 

lighting, and expensive wood paneling. 

During these hearings, R.S. Means, a 

Boston company that surveys construction costs, reported that the Federal Government was paying at least 

two to three times as much to build a 

Federal courthouse or office building 

than it cost to build a State courthouse or construct a building for the 

private sector. 

The GAO also found major flaws in 

the methodology used by the Federal 

judiciary for estimating future court 

space needs. As a result, future space 

needs for a 10-year period were overestimated by more than 3 million 

square feet which, if authorized, could 

result in $1.1 billion in unneeded courthouse space. I, along with a number of 

my colleagues, wrote GAO to request 

an audit of the Federal courthouse construction program. That report is due 

out later this year. 

Last March, Senator KERREY and I 

offered a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the fiscal year 1995 budget resolution calling for a 1-year moratorium 

on construction of new Federal courthouses. Although it passed the Senate, 

the provision was dropped in conference and a number of courthouses 

and other Federal office buildings were 

subsequently funded. 

More recently, I joined Senator 

KERREY in offering an amendment to 

the rescission bill that would have 

added over $300 million in deficit reduction to be taken from wasteful or unnecessary GSA projects. The amendment would have scaled back projects 

that were not authorized or that the 

GSA itself has either never asked for or 

said are unnecessary or lavish. Senator 

SHELBY offered a second degree amendment which expanded the projects covered to all Federal new construction, 

repair and alteration projects, including those that had gone through the 

normal authorization process, eliminating $1.9 billion in funding for Federal construction projects. Unfortunately, much of the $1.9 billion cut by 

the Shelby amendment was restored in 

conference. Mr. President, at a time 

when we are looking at cuts in education and many valuable programs, I 

find it hard to believe that we cannot 

find the means to cut funds for Federal 

building projects first. 

I have commended GSA Administrator Roger Johnson in the past for 

his efforts to reform GSA and save taxpayers’ dollars. At his confirmation 

hearing, I asked Johnson to suspend 

and review all Federal construction 

projects to determine if the projects 

were truly needed. GSA Administrator 

Roger Johnson’s time out and review 

looked at about 200 construction and 

leasing projects and recommended 

changes with potential savings of $1.2 

billion. While this is certainly a step in 

the right direction, more still needs to 

be done. 

As Congress looks for ways to address the Federal budget deficit, we 

must ensure that Government programs and agencies are operating in 

the most cost effective manner possible. In these times of tight budgetary 

constraint, this amendment makes 

sense. I am pleased to cosponsor this 

amendment which will reduce funding 

of Federal buildings projects by 50 percent, on top of the 25 percent already 

assumed in the budget resolution, and 

target these funds to helping students 

go to college. This amendment represents a better use of scarce Federal 

dollars and puts money back into important education programs. I urge my 

colleagues to support the adoption of 

this amendment. 

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in 

opposition to the amendment proposed 

by Senators SNOWE, ABRAHAM, GRASSLEY, BROWN, KASSEBAUM, COHEN, LOTT, 

and CHAFEE. 

I support the goal of the amendment—to provide increased funds for 

higher education. My record is clear 

and unequivical on education funding. 

These funds must be increased, but not 

in the way proposed by the proponents 

of this amendment. I would like to 

speak about two of the offsets that the 

amendment identifies and discuss the 

impact which these cuts would have on 

our economy. 

First, the amendment would zero out 

two important NASA programs. These 

programs are the R&D or seed corn 

type programs which many of my colleagues have heard me speak about in 

the past. This amendment would zero 

out NASA’s High-Speed Research Program, and NASA’s Advanced Subsonic 

Technology Program. 

Before I talk about these specific 

programs, I would like to observe that 

NASA has already absorbed more than 

its share of budget cuts. A couple of 

figures will illustrate what I am talking about: In fiscal year 1993, NASA’s 5- 

year budget request was about $122 billion. The fiscal year 1996 request is now 

$82 billion for the next 5 years. NASA 

has been cut by one-third in just over 2 

years. 

NASA has stepped up to the plate to 

reduce bureaucracy and improve the 

way it does business. Under Dan 

Goldin’s leadership the agency is currently going through a painful process 

of reducing its budget by $5 billion over 

the next 5 years. Mr. Goldin believes 

that this can be achieved without 

eliminating programs. He has a tough 

row to hoe to achieve this. Further 

cuts in NASA’s budget will simply result in the elimination of current programs. 

Now, let me talk about the HighSpeed Research Program first. The 

goal of this program is to help develop 

the technologies industry needs to design and build an environmentally 

compatible and economically competitive high-speed civil jet transport for 

the 21st century. The technology developments are to reach an appropriate 

stage of maturity to enable an industry 

decision on aircraft production by 2001. 

Mr. President, the technologies currently needed to develop such a transport are beyond the state of the art. 

NASA estimates that industry will 

need to invest more than $20 billion to 

bring such a transport to market. 

Studies have identified a substantial 

market for a future supersonic airliner 

to meet rapidly growing demand for 

long-haul travel, particularly across 

the Pacific. Over the period from 2005 

to 2015, this market could support 500 

to 1,000 aircraft, creating a multibillion 

dollar sales opportunity for its producers. Such an aircraft will be essential for capturing the valuable longhaul Pacific rim market. 

As currently envisioned an HSCT aircraft should be designed to carry 300 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7214 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

passengers at Mach 2.4 on transoceanic 

routes over distances up to 6,000 nautical miles at fares comparable to subsonic transports. 

Now let me talk about the Advanced 

Subsonic Technology Program. 

The goal of NASA’s Advanced Subsonic Technology Program is to develop, in cooperation with the FAA and 

the U.S. aeronautics industry, high 

payoff technologies to enable a safe, 

highly productive global air transportation system that includes a new generation of environmentally compatible, 

economical U.S. subsonic aircraft. 

Some of the technologies and issues 

being studied and developed in this program include: 

Fly by light/power by wire: a fully 

digital aircraft control system which 

would be substantially lighter, more 

reliable, and efficient than current 

control systems. 

Aging aircraft: to develop new ways 

of inspecting aircraft to determine 

their airworthiness. New approaches 

are being developed to determine the 

residual strength in airframes using 

advanced nondestructive technologies. 

It might be worth thinking about this 

program the next time you are sitting 

in a 727 that is 20 years old waiting to 

take off on a cross-country flight. 

Noise reduction: This program is developing technologies to reduce aircraft noise by 10 decibels or more by 

the year 2000. 

Terminal area productivity: Technologies, chiefly involving air traffic 

control, that can improve the efficiency of operations on the ground at 

busy airports. 

Integrated wing design: New concepts, design methodologies, model fabrication and test techniques are being 

developed to provide industry an integrated capability to achieve increased 

aircraft performance at lower cost. 

Propulsion: Technologies to improve 

fuel efficiency of future commercial engines by at least 8 percent and reduce 

nitrogen oxides by 70 percent over current technology. These are only some 

of the technologies being developed 

under the program which the amendment’s proponents would completely 

gut. It is a truly shortsighted amendment that would eliminate these important applied technology programs. 

Mr. President, it is no secret that 

aerospace business is a Governmentprivate sector partnership. Historically 

our Government has funded aeronautics R&D, and industry has taken 

this basic technology and developed 

aircraft that have dominated the world 

market. Over the last decade or so, 

other governments have gotten into 

the act. Currently the U.S. Market 

share is about 65 percent, down from 

about 91 percent in the 1960’s. 

Cutting these two important programs will not help us regain this market share—quite the opposite. We will 

be sending a signal that the U.S. aircraft industry will be less competitive. 

In summary, the advanced subsonic 

technology: 

Meets future technology needs for 

next generation aircraft. 

Enables NASA to develop high-risk, 

high-payoff, precompetitive technology 

to prove feasibility so that industry 

may complete development and apply 

technology to specific products. 

Will result in accomplishments in 

noise prediction codes for quieter engines, nondestructive evaluation techniques for detecting corrosion, cracks 

and disbonds; analytical tools to understand airraft wake cortices for safe 

landings. 

Assists in preserving 1 million U.S. 

high-quality jobs and $25 to $30 billion 

annual positive balance of trade for 

U.S. aviation. 

The High-Speed Research program 

will: 

Enable NASA to develop early, highrisk 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 SnoweAbraham amendment. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would 

like to say in conclusion that I certainly appreciate the efforts by the 

Senator from Michigan, and other colleagues and cosponsors of this amendment, on a very critical and important 

issue in our estimation. We want to be 

sure that the American people understand and know that we consider education to be one of the highest priorities. That is why we are seeking to restore $6.3 billion in the education account. 

When you consider the fact that 

since 1988 students’ education costs increased by 219 percent, it is almost difficult to comprehend, because the average family has been struggling since 

that time in some very difficult and 

unusual economic times, considering 

the recession that we have had, certainly in my State of Maine and in the 

New England area, which was the hardest hit in addition to the other parts of 

the country, especially California. We 

represented a third of all of the jobs 

that were lost during the course of that 

recession. 

So when you consider the fact that 

education needs became more important, we have to make sure that they 

have access to adequate funding for financial assistance in the future. Not 

only is it essential for their future, but 

it also essential to this country’s future when you consider how important 

the educational experience is going to 

be for global competition in and for the 

economic world we will be facing in the 

next century and beyond. 

So I appreciate the statements that 

have been made by all of my colleagues. 

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

FRIST). Is there a sufficient second? 

There appears to be a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

yields time? 

Ms. SNOWE. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

yields time? 

Mr. EXON. I yield time for an inquiry 

by the Senator from Arkansas, or I will 

yield him what time he needs on his 

amendment. I guess what we were hoping for is to restore the balance of the 

time due on this side on the amendment offered by the Senator from 

Maine. I would make inquiry at this 

time, if the Senator from Maine would 

consider setting aside her amendment 

now that the yeas and nays have been 

ordered so that we can allow Senator 

BUMPERS to proceed with the offering 

of an amendment that he has that we 

will vote on tomorrow. 

Several Senators addressed the 

Chair. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was 

not here. But essentially there is time 

remaining in opposition to the amendment. I have to use a little bit of that. 

In fact, that is what I was discussing. I 

told the Senator I wanted to discuss 

this before I asked her to set her 

amendment aside. 

So I am willing that that time be 

charged in opposition, however, anybody would want to do it. If somebody 

wants to speak on the general budget, 

I will yield them time. Does the Senator from Alabama need time? 

Mr. SHELBY. I need 15 minutes. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 15 minutes in 

opposition to the Snowe amendment at 

this point. I am trying to make arrangements. 

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama. 

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, over the 

past few days Members on the other 

side of the aisle basically have claimed 

to represent the best interests of hardworking Americans. They stood up 

with charts and made passionate 

speeches, and say they know better. 

They criticized the Domenici budget, 

although they have no budget of their 

own. 

I believe that the budget resolution 

debate has been demagogued to death. 

This debate has been turned into an 

issue of who is compassionate and who 

is not, and rich against poor, even 

though the Senate budget resolution 

does not include $1 yet in tax cuts. 

Never mind we do not touch Head 

Start. Never mind that we do not touch 

the School Lunch Program. Mr. President, never mind that we do not cut 

Social Security. Never mind that we 

preserve Medicare, which will go bankrupt unless responsible leaders take action. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7215 

I believe we need tonight to discuss 

the real issues, like our tremendous national debt and our endless string of 

deficits. I believe that people on the 

other side of the aisle do not want to 

debate basically the fact that we are 

the biggest debtor nation in the world. 

People on the other side of the aisle I 

believe do not basically want to debate 

the fact that the dollar is, overall, losing its value against most major currencies, and that hard-working Americans are losing purchasing power every 

time the dollar depreciates. No, Mr. 

President, they will not debate the real 

issues. 

Mr. President, I was once told that 

on the other side of the aisle people see 

what they want to see, and that the 

Republicans have the unfortunate 

tendency of seeing what is there. I 

would like to show you what is there. 

Because what is there are the real 

issues. 

I want to share with you a chart, if I 

can, a chart that shows the Federal 

Government’s net financial assets beginning in the year 1946, which is over 

here, through 1993. Instead of an upward spiral, you see a downward spiral 

because these are real issues. 

This chart comes from data contained in the 1995 Economic Report of 

the President. It shows the Federal 

Government’s net financial assets, as I 

said, from 1946 to 1993. 

As one can see on the chart, the Federal Government is depleting the national wealth of the United States 

every year. It is going down. But look 

at it over here, how fast it is going 

down. The greatest country in the 

world, Mr. President, the United States 

of America, the great economic leader 

of our time, possessed net financial assets of nearly $3 trillion in 1993. Far 

from saving our children and investing 

in our kids for tomorrow, the spending 

machine of the Federal Government is 

squandering away our resources at a 

record rate. 

The chart says it better than we can. 

In fact, net financial assets of the Federal Government have been decreasing 

at a rate of 7.1 percent a year over the 

past 20 years, while private wealth has 

grown only 3.2 percent. The Federal 

Government is depleting national 

wealth at a rate twice as fast as the 

private sector can create. This is a 

trend that we cannot simply sustain as 

a Nation. 

There is a direct impact in the rise in 

Government budget deficits, which is 

to worsen the current account balance 

and place upward pressure on interest 

rates. Our current account stood at 

$104 billion in 1993. This means we either sold $104 billion in assets to foreign entities, borrowed $104 billion 

from foreign entities, or a combination 

of the two. 

Although a current account deficit in 

and of itself is not a bad thing, the accumulation of persistent current account deficits over time leads to an 

overwhelmingly external debt that we 

have today. These deficits identify a 

systematic shortfall of savings below 

investment due to an expansion consumption relative to income. 

The implication is that we borrowed 

to finance current consumption, expenditures that have no real effect on 

economic growth or future income in 

this Nation. In other words, the Government is borrowing abroad to finance 

the excess of expenditures over income. 

Projections of higher current account 

deficits run well into the foreseeable 

future, which does not bode well for 

this country. 

The increase in interest rates caused 

by budget deficits increase the cost of 

capital, home mortgages, car payments 

and any other goods that are financed. 

If the other side of the aisle really 

wants to help the hard-working, middle-class Americans, it seems to me 

they should help them reduce the cost 

of living instead of adding, Mr. President, to their already tremendous burden. 

It is true that hard-working, middleclass Americans need relief, but on the 

other side of the aisle I think a lot of 

the people just cannot accept the notion that relief does not have to come 

in the form of a check, Mr. President, 

in the form of a check from the Government every month. No, they do not 

have to accept the notion of freedom 

and free markets. They still believe 

that Americans depend on Government 

for their livelihood. 

I reject that notion wholeheartedly. I 

understand the unpleasantries of debtstricken countries. We all do. Let me 

tell you that the restrained growth in 

this budget resolution is more compassionate, more beneficial and more tolerable than any experience of a bankrupt country. The immediate gratification of consumption does not outweigh the tremendous long-term benefits of a balanced budget. 

Democrats supposedly believe in a 

balanced budget. However, they have 

presented no proposal that I have seen. 

President Clinton supposedly believes 

in a balanced budget, but he has not 

presented one here that I know of. 

President Clinton, I understand, will 

not even support a $16 billion rescission 

package much less the $175 billion in 

cuts necessary to balance the budget 

this year. And $16 billion, Mr. President, is only 9 percent of this year’s 

deficit. Come to find out it is only .3 

percent of the $4.8 trillion debt. 

The actions of President Clinton and 

his party do not match their words. 

Their idea of deficit reduction is the 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 

1993 that we all know included the largest tax increase in history. Did it reduce the deficit, Mr. President? Yes. 

Only temporarily, for a year or two. 

But if one looks at the outyears, deficit 

spending just keeps going up as far as 

the eye can see. 

What do we have to show for our $241 

billion tax increase? Nothing, I would 

submit—nothing but increasing deficits 

and reduced disposable income for 

hard-working Americans. 

The Congressional Budget Office has 

outlined the potential economic impacts of balancing the budget by the 

year 2002. They project long-term interest rates will fall by almost 2 percentage points. They also project an increase in real GNP of almost 1 percent, 

just from practicing a little fiscal discipline. 

Mr. President, a balanced budget is 

good for America today, tomorrow and 

forever. That is why I am going to support the Domenici budget. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

yields time for that purpose? 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Pardon me, Mr. 

President, for not being in the Chamber. I yield 15 minutes to Senator 

THOMPSON from Tennessee who desires 

to speak in opposition to the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we 

are now in the midst of a budget debate, but in listening to the debate 

over the last several days it has become apparent to me this is not just a 

debate over the budget, not just about 

the need to balance the budget or budget priorities. It is a debate over two 

conflicting sets of ideas, and ultimately it is a debate over how much 

faith we have in the American people 

to support a policy that we all know is 

right. 

Many Americans believe that our 

country is at a crossroads. While we all 

know that we were the victors of the 

cold war and we are still strong and 

prosperous, more and more of our people are coming to the conclusion that 

there are some things in this country 

that are simply wrong: the youthfulness and the viciousness of our crime, 

our welfare dependency and social disintegration that comes from that, a 

gradual slowing of our economy, our 

extremely low savings rate and low investment rate, a greater and greater 

dependency upon foreign money to 

prop our economy up. Americans wonder how long we can remain strong 

when we are losing so many things that 

have made us strong. 

We look at the lessons of history, and 

we see that the fate of other great nations where they have gone down the 

road of bigger government, higher 

taxes and increasing debt and moral 

and intellectual laziness. We see how 

they enjoyed their brief hour upon the 

world’s stage and then moved on and 

declined. And we wonder if ours is 

going to be the generation that oversees the decline of the United States of 

America to the role of a second-rate 

country. 

We certainly are not addressing the 

totality of this situation during this 

current debate. Indeed, we must question how much in the way of solution 

actually lies in the hands of the Federal Government. However, this debate 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

does involve an area that is largely 

under the control of Congress. Indeed, 

some might say that Congress was primarily the cause of it. And it is the 

most serious economic problem facing 

our Nation. That is a debt that is literally bankrupting our country. 

One of the things most basic to 

human nature, Mr. President, is looking out for those who we bring into the 

world, and for most of our country’s 

history we did just that. Through world 

wars, through a Great Depression, we 

paid for what we consumed. However, 

for a quarter of a century or so now, we 

have gone off on another track. We 

have gone off on a spending spree, and 

we are borrowing money now from future generations. Over the years, every 

interest group imaginable has organized itself and made its demand on the 

Federal Treasury. And since we are a 

system essentially of professional legislators whose primary interest is in 

reelection, the answer to these demands for more Federal dollars is usually yes. So program is piled upon program, and once a program is created 

and its constituency is created, it is 

never done away with. It is seldom 

even reduced. It is usually only expanded. And more and more people are 

increasingly dependent upon the socalled free money that we are borrowing from our children and grandchildren. 

Mr. President, it is obvious the 

American people have decided that this 

country cannot survive under this old 

way of doing business. They have rightfully decided that we cannot sustain an 

almost $5 trillion debt that is still 

growing. They have decided we will not 

saddle our future generations with 

higher interest rates, less affordable 

homes, fewer jobs, lower wages and a 

loss of economic sovereignty. They understand we are on the verge of bankrupting two of our most important social programs in this country, Social 

Security and Medicare, if we do not 

take immediate steps. 

In response to this clear mandate, 

the Republicans on the Budget Committee, without one Democratic vote, 

have produced a plan that will balance 

the budget by the year 2002 by slowing 

the growth in Federal spending from 5 

percent a year to 3 percent a year. It 

protects Social Security, saves Medicare from bankruptcy, maintains the 

Social Security safety net, reduces the 

Federal Government and removes 

power out of Washington back to the 

people. 

Of course, the defenders of the status 

quo continue to do everything possible 

to defeat these goals. They first denied 

the need to balance the budget. They 

are only following the President’s lead 

in that regard. He has submitted what 

the Washington Post called a ‘‘weak 

and directionless budget’’ that will add 

over $1.2 trillion to our national debt 

over 5 years. Then his senior economic 

adviser claimed that cutting the budget would actually be bad for the economy. These developments were met 

with universal dismay and derision and 

have since been abandoned by our 

friends across the aisle. 

We tried to pass the balanced budget 

amendment. At this point the defenders of the status quo, being able to see 

which way the wind was blowing, acknowledged the need to balance the 

budget but forcefully argued that we 

should balance it without a constitutional amendment; that all we needed 

to do was exercise our responsibility as 

legislators. Besides that, they said, tell 

us how you are going to balance the 

budget. We want to see a plan. And 

they defeated the balanced budget 

amendment by a single vote. 

Now the Republicans have submitted 

the balanced budget resolution. We 

have detailed a plan, and we are ready 

to take on the responsibility. Now our 

colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle, backed into a corner, slip their 

favorite old worn out record on the 

Victrola. Side A is entitled ‘‘Scare the 

Sick and the Elderly.’’ Almost as popular with them is the flip side called 

‘‘Class Warfare’’—in other words, the 

same old record that they were playing 

during the last congressional elections, 

which proved so rewarding for them. 

They rail against tax cuts for the rich 

when in fact there are no tax cuts in 

this budget for anybody, much less the 

rich. However, they correctly point out 

that there might be $170 billion dividend if in fact a balanced budget is certified. And they seem petrified at the 

thought that this might actually result 

in some taxpayers getting the benefit 

of some of the money in the form of a 

tax cut; in other words, getting to keep 

a little bit of the money that they 

earned in the first place. So now instead of helping us balance the budget, 

they are busy trying to figure out how 

to spend this $170 billion that they had 

no hand in producing and that does not 

even exist yet. 

Clearly, the tax-and-spend philosophy that has gotten us into the trouble that we are in is alive and well. Mr. 

President, the opponents of this budget 

who for so long promoted big spending 

and every pork barrel project to come 

down the pike, including the President’s ill-fated stimulus package, and 

who have opposed the balanced budget 

amendment and a balanced budget are 

now saying that we are not balancing 

it in the right way. They say, ‘‘We definitely want a balanced budget, but not 

at the expense of group A or group B or 

group C’’ and the groups go on and on 

and on. In other words, we cannot reduce the rate of growth in any areas 

even where the growth rate is out of 

hand if it actually affects anyone. 

The defenders of the status quo talk 

about protecting children when it is 

their policies of the past that have 

robbed these children of their future 

prosperity. They talk about defending 

the college student when it is the philosophy of ‘‘spending is the solution to 

everything’’ which has greatly diminished the value of a college degree because so many of our students entering 

college nowadays cannot even read and 

write. 

They talk about defending the elderly when it is their policies, the policies 

of the past, that have put us on the 

verge of bankrupting both Social Security and the Medicare trust funds. 

They talk about making sure that 

the wealthy receive no additional 

breaks, and yet it is the wealthy who 

are the bond holders who are receiving 

the astronomical interest payments 

that we make on our national debt. According to the Congressional Budget 

Office, without deficit reduction, annual interest payments by 2002 will balloon to $334 billion. 

No, the plain truth is that the only 

way for these groups to get what they 

deserve and to prosper in the years 

ahead is to turn our backs on the failed 

policies of these so-called defenders 

and rectify the damage that they have 

already done by moving toward a balanced budget. The balanced budget resolution before this body is the first 

major step toward that end. 

These budget critics want to refight 

the eighties again, ignoring their own 

part in the spending binge that ran up 

the deficit. They say it was the President’s fault back then. I say to my 

friends on the other side, the constitutional authority of the President of the 

United States has not changed. If it 

was the President’s fault in the 

eighties, whose fault is it now? 

As a recent Washington Post editorial said: 

Democratic complaints about Republican 

budget plans will continue to have a hollow 

and unpersuasive ring until the Democrats 

begin to come up with specific alternatives 

of their own. Until then they will merely 

seem to be defending the present spending 

pattern, with its succession of $200 billion a 

year deficit reaching as far as the eye can 

see that President Clinton projected in the 

budget he sent to Congress last February. 

Now, it should be kept clearly in 

mind that we are not going through 

this exercise simply to avert disaster, 

although that would be reason enough. 

We are doing it to ensure future prosperity, Mr. President. Eliminating the 

deficit could bring widespread benefit 

in the form of lower interest rates for 

mortgages and business loans. That 

would spur a boon in housing construction and business investment which 

would create jobs and raise incomes. 

The Congressional Budget Office 

states that the package of a credible 

balanced budget plan would lead the 

bond market to bid down interest rates 

almost immediately. 

New home buyers would be clear winners. If interest rates dropped only 1 

percent, a young couple with a $100,000 

mortgage would save enough over the 

life of that mortgage to put one of 

their children through college for a 

year without any help from the Federal 

Government. 

Roger Brinner, chief economist with 

the forecasting firm of DRI McGrawHill estimates balancing the budget 

would raise America’s yearly output an 

extra 2.5 percent over the next 10 years. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7217 

That would mean an average of an 

extra $1,000 a year for each American 

family. He adds that the economy 

would create 2.4 million more jobs by 

the year 2005 than if the deficit remained unchecked. 

The General Accounting Office 

projects Americans living by 2025 

would enjoy per capita incomes of 

$9,500 higher if Washington succeeds in 

bringing the deficit under control. 

Many analysts believe that the dollar 

slide in March was due to our failure to 

pass a balanced budget amendment. 

The U.S. dollar has rebounded in foreign exchange markets during the last 

several weeks, in part because of a 

growing belief among foreign investors 

that the United States is finally moving to put its economic house in order. 

So, Mr. President, we must reject the 

ideas and practices of the past which 

have caused this problem. We must 

also reject the rhetoric which appeals 

to fear and prejudice and appeals to 

greed to use and consume everything 

we can get our hands on today and not 

concern ourselves with the future and 

the fact that it is our own children’s 

birthright that we are consuming. 

And so, Mr. President, let us get on 

about with what the people sent us 

here to do while it is still not too late 

to change our direction. We as Members of this body must have the courage to stand up to the demagoguery 

and any short-term political risk we 

might be taking by doing what we 

know is right. 

I am firmly convinced ultimately the 

American people are willing to do what 

is necessary to ensure a brighter future 

for our children, and we must have the 

wisdom to follow them and the courage 

to lead them. I yield the floor. 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

thank Senator THOMPSON. 

We are going to enter a unanimous 

consent request. 

Mr. EXON. May I suggest to my 

friend, possibly we can get started with 

Senator BUMPERS, and then I think we 

all know what the unanimous consent 

request is going to be. We can finalize 

it and type it up sometime during the 

debate. 

Mr. DOMENICI. It is coming right 

now. I agree, we could probably stammer around and between us we might 

be able to articulate the unanimousconsent request. 

Mr. EXON. As usual. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I have difficulty with 

that. Let me just make sure we have it 

down. 

Mr. President, I wonder, without detracting anything from Senator BUMPERS who is going to get 20 minutes very 

soon on his amendment and he can 

share that with Senator MURRAY, as I 

understand it, Senator STEVENS had a 

sense-of-the-Senate resolution cleared 

on both sides. I understand you all 

have cleared it. We cleared it. 

Mr. EXON. The Senator is correct. 

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENTS

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Snowe 

amendment be laid aside until 8 a.m. 

tomorrow in status quo. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I now 

ask unanimous consent that Senator 

BUMPERS be recognized to offer an 

amendment on which there be 20 minutes under the control of Senator 

BUMPERS and 10 minutes under my control; that no amendments be in order 

to the Bumpers amendment; and that 

when the Senate votes, it vote on or in 

relation to the Bumpers amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object. 

I have no objection. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the Bumpers 

amendment, Senator HATFIELD be recognized to offer an amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the request? 

Mr. EXON. I simply say that this is 

going to go push things back a little 

bit. We are trying to accommodate everybody here at one time. Is the Senator insisting on making an agreement 

at this time to go back to Senator HATFIELD’s amendment? 

Mr. DOMENICI. Not back to it. He 

never offered it. That will be rotating, 

and he has received assurance from me 

for 36 hours that he was the next thing 

after the Snowe amendment. We did 

not know about the Senator’s. That is 

to be put ahead of it, after the Democrat amendment. I must do that. I cannot agree on time, but I think it will be 

reasonable considering the circumstances. 

Mr. EXON. Under the circumstances, 

we have no objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished floor manager 

would be willing to also state that at 

the time the rollcalls occur on these 

amendments, that mine follow that 

amendment of the Senator from Maine, 

Senator SNOWE. 

Mr. DOMENICI. What about following Senator FEINGOLD’s? 

Mr. BUMPERS. That is fine. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

make that request. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. DOMENICI. Whatever the order 

is that the leader agrees to pursuant to 

the unanimous consent request, Senator BUMPERS will follow Senator FEINGOLD. 

Mr. BUMPERS. I thought it would be 

better if rollcalls followed the sequence 

in which the amendments are offered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. We do not know 

what is going to happen to Senator 

SNOWE’s amendment. It could have second degrees. 

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator, in order 

to keep the flow properly here, include 

as part of his unanimous-consent 

agreement that after the disposition of 

the Hatfield amendment that we would 

go back and meet a commitment that 

we have made through Senator BOXER

on this side, and that her amendment 

would follow the discussion of the Hatfield amendment? 

Mr. DOMENICI. So long as we make 

no agreements, other than that Senator BOXER is next, I so request. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the several unanimousconsent requests? 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

Senator BUMPERS if he could do me a 

special favor. 

Mr. BUMPERS. If this amendment of 

Senator STEVENS has been cleared, that 

is fine. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Without in any way 

changing the time allowed, I wonder if 

we could now recognize Senator STEVENS who has an amendment that has 

been approved on both sides. I will 

yield for 2 or 3 minutes and I ask that 

he be permitted to speak. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized. 

Mr. STEVENS. I thank my friend. I 

am apologetic that I did not appear before. I had constituents here. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1129

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

the Brain research) 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send 

an amendment to the desk and ask for 

its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. STEVENS], 

for himself and Mr. DOMENICI, proposes an 

amendment numbered 1129. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the appropriate place in Title III of the 

resolution insert the following new section: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING 

FULL FUNDING FOR DECADE OF THE 

BRAIN RESEARCH. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) long term health care costs associated 

with diseases and disorders of the brain have 

a substantial impact on federal expenditures 

for Medicaid and Medicare, and on the earning potential of the Nation; 

(2) to highlight the impact of brain diseases and disorders on the economy and well 

being of the Nation the Congress has declared the 1990’s the Decade of the Brain; 

(3) meaningful research has been initiated 

as part of the Decade of the Brain; 

(4) if fully funded this research could provide important new medical breakthroughs; 

and 

(5) these breakthroughs could result in a 

significant reduction in costs to the Federal 

Government. 

(d) SENE OF THE CONGRESS.—It is the sense 

of the Congress that in furtherance of the 

goals of the Decade of the Brain the appropriate committees should seek to ensure 

that full funding is provided for research on 

brain diseases and disorders in each of the 

fiscal years to which this resolution applies. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7218 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator DOMENICI as a cosponsor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this 

deals with the decade of the brain. 

Over 50 million Americans each year 

are affected by disease or disorders of 

the brain and central nervous system. 

The impact on society is approximately $300 billion a year. But even as 

scientific progress races ahead, public 

awareness is falling behind. The DANA 

Foundation has 10 attainable goals by 

the year 2000. These are; 

First, the identification of the genes 

that are defective in familial Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s diseases. 

Second, the identification of the 

genes responsible for manic-depressive 

illness. 

Third, the identification of new 

medications and therapeutic strategies 

to reduce nerve cell death and enhance 

recovery of function after strokes and 

other forms of brain injury. 

Fourth, the development of new 

drugs and other measures to alleviate 

the effects of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, motor neuron disease (e.g. 

ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s), Parkinson’s, 

and epilepsy. 

Fifth, the identification of new treatments to promote nerve regeneration 

following spinal cord and peripheral 

nerve injury. 

Sixth, the development of new and 

more effective treatments for manicdepressive illness, anxiety disorders, 

and forms of schizophrenia that at 

present resist treatment. 

Seventh, the discovery, testing, and 

application of agents that will block 

the action of cocaine and other addictive substances. 

Eighth, the development of new 

treatments for pain associated with 

cancer, arthritis, migraine headaches, 

and other debilitating diseases. 

Ninth, the identification of the genes 

that cause hereditary deafness and 

blindness. 

Tenth, the elucidation of the 

neuronal mechanisms involved in 

learning and memory. 

There have been many breakthroughs 

during the early part of the decade. 

Here are some of the recent discoveries 

or break-throughs; 

Identified the genes responsible for 

Huntington’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and the familial form of Lou 

Gehrig’s disease. 

Produced new medications for migraine headaches. 

Identified several genes that cause 

hereditary blindness and deafness. 

Launched tests of new drugs to enhance recovery from stroke and spinal 

cord injury. 

Produced new drug for the treatment 

of epilepsy. 

Made significant progress in understanding the addictive action of cocaine. 

CREB—a protein. One form of CREB 

turns on genes responsible for longterm memory storage, while another 

form turns them off. The activating 

form of CREB may dominate when important things are going on, and the 

memory-repressing form when unnecessary information needs to be filtered 

out. 

CRIF—brain chemical that may 

eventually control stress. It is a chemical that suppresses the body’s stress 

response. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania are currently 

studying it. 

Riluzole—An experimental drug that 

has shown some success in slowing the 

progression of the muscle-wasting Lou 

Gehrig’s disease. This disease affects 

30,000 people in the United States. 

Congress first authorized and President Bush proclaimed the ‘‘Decade of 

the Brain’’ in 1990. 

The growth in our knowledge of the 

brain over the last 5 years has exceeded 

anything we imagined. 

Now at the midpoint of the decade, 

new discoveries about the brain offer 

unprecedented opportunities to both 

lower health care costs and improve 

the quality of life for those suffering 

from brain disorders and diseases. 

The cost of neurological and psychiatric disorders currently exceeds 

$300 billion a year. 

Brain diseases account for more hospitalizations and more prolonged care 

than almost all other diseases combined. 

In the remaining 5 years of the decade, scientists are optimistic that even 

more important advances will be made 

in brain research. 

We must continue to make this research a funding priority, so as to reap 

the benefits of the groundbreaking 

work already underway. 

Over 50 million Americans each year 

are affected by disease or disorders of 

the brain and central nervous system. 

Today 1 in 5 Americans is affected by 

brain disorders, and everyone over 

their lifetime will be affected either individually or because a member of 

their family is afflicted. 

The results are often devastating. 

We have made great progress in the 

past several years. 

For example the simple step of a 

women taking folic acid vitamin supplements can prevent spina bifida, a 

disabling disease. This saves an enormous amount of pain and suffering for 

parents and children alike. 

The medical cost for a child with 

spina bifida can exceed $500,000 a year. 

We have also discovered new medications for the treatment of depression. 

We have identified the genes responsible for Huntington’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and the familial form 

of Lou Gerhig’s disease. 

We have produced new medications 

for migraine headaches. 

We have launched tests of new drugs 

to enhance recovery from stroke and 

spinal cord injury. 

But there is much still to be 

accomplised. 

Traumatic brain injury is the leading 

cause of death and neurological disorder among young Americans age 15 

to 25. 

Two million Americans a year suffer 

head injuries at a cost of more than $25 

billion a year. 

Since 1990 scientists have found that 

the permanent harm from traumatic 

brain injury increases with each hour 

and day after the injury. 

This produces a clear opportunity to 

develop powerful new emergency treatments. 

By the year 2000 effective therapies 

to limit brain damage now in human 

trials will be approved. 

Increasingly sophisticated neuroprotective strategies will be introduced. 

Alzheimer’s disease may be the single 

most important area of societal need 

for biomedical research, according to 

the National Academy on Aging (June 

1994). 

Four million Americans a year and 20 

million people worldwide are affected. 

The cost is more than $60 billion a 

year. 

Since 1990 scientists have discovered 

three genes that contribute to Alzheimer’s, identified key points where 

intervention might delay, or prevent 

it, and improved techniques for diagnosis. 

By the year 2000 several new drugs 

will be identified as promising to interfere with the progress of Alzheimer’s in 

order to delay its disabling symptoms 

for 5 years. 

This would allow millions of people 

to remain living independent and fuller 

lives. The cost to the public would also 

be greatly decreased by this step forward. 

Therapies to reverse the damage by 

replenishing lost cells or adding cells 

should begin to alleviate the suffering 

of those already affected. 

More than 500,000 people are affected 

annually by strokes with 3 million people disabled. This cost is about $25 billion a year. 

Strokes are the Nation’s third leading killer. 

Many patients survive stroke. There 

has been great progress since 1990. The 

number of strokes were reduced as 

some risks were clarified. 

Doctors have adapted new preventive 

techniques. 

New drugs have been developed for 

limiting and possibly preventing stroke 

damage. 

One and a half million Americans are 

afflicted with Parkinson’s disease. The 

cost is about $6 billion a year. 

This disease is a slow progressive degenerative brain disease. Researchers 

have developed innovative ways to pinpoint damaged nerve cells. 

By the year 2000 at least one and possibly several major new drugs will be in 

human trials. 

Screening for Parkinson’s is likely, 

and new gene therapy should be available. 

I will include in the RECORD at the 

end of my statement an article from 

the Philadelphia Inquirer written by 

Dr. Leon Cooper, the winner of the 1972 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7219 

Nobel Prize in physics, and James Watson, the winner of the Nobel Prize in 

medicine for 1982. 

The article further expands on the 

importance of this research. 

I will also include a summary of recent brain research by the DANA Alliance. 

I would like to urge my colleagues to 

support this resolution which will ensure that this vital research is continued and that additional breakthroughs 

become reality. 

I ask unanimous consent that the article by Dr. Cooper and the DANA Alliance summary be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

(By Leon N. Cooper) 

The growth in our knowledge of the brain 

over the last five years has exceeded anything we imagined when Congress first authorized and President Bush proclaimed the 

‘‘Decade of the Brain’’ in 1990. Now at the 

midpoint of the decade, we are on the threshold of a new era that holds great promise for 

individual health and vitality. 

For all three stages of life—early development, maturity and aging—new and anticipated discoveries about the brain offer unprecedented opportunities to relieve suffering, improve the quality of life of those 

suffering neurological and psychiatric disorders, and lower health-care costs. 

The question today is whether or not the 

American public through its elected representatives will continue to make brain research a priority, so as to continue to reap 

the benefits of the nation’s spectacularly 

successful investment in basic research. 

Neurological and psychiatric disorders together account for more hospitalization and 

more prolonged care than almost all other 

diseases combined. Patient care and social 

spending caused by brain-related disorders 

represent a disproportionate amount of all 

health-care costs. 

In part because of prior successes of medical research, we have become very good at 

keeping people alive to older and older ages 

by treating or preventing respiratory, circulatory, reproductive and other assaults. 

But our aging population presents increasing 

challenges to the health-care system because 

of the vulnerability of the aging brain. 

In the remaining five years of this decade, 

scientists are optimistic that even more exciting advances will be made across the 

broad front of brain research. Work just 

coming off laboratory benches should enable 

us to intervene early in or medicate some of 

today’s incapacitating brain diseases and 

disorders. 

Brain-related disorders cost this country 

billions of dollars per year for patient care, 

hospitalizations and loss of savings. These 

costs could be significantly lowered if we 

could effectively treat the disorders, some of 

which began at or before birth and may last 

a lifetime. 

A new report by the Dana Alliance for 

Brain Initiatives—an organization of 135 neurosurgeons who champion research in the 

field—offers a few examples of impressive 

gains in various areas that we may see during the rest of this decade if adequate support for research continues: 

Childhood: More effective treatments for 

muscle spasticity in cerebral palsy and the 

prevention of a significant proportion of CP 

cases arising from low birthweight. The development of new medications for schizophrenia. The identification of several more 

genes that contribute to inherited forms of 

blindness, deafness and mental retardation. 

Adulthood: New insights into the cause of 

multiple sclerosis and the testing of new 

therapeutic approaches that alter the natural course of the disease. Understanding the 

molecules in the brain to which drugs of 

abuse bind should make it possible to develop more effective cocaine-blocking 

agents. Improved clinical care has already 

increased the proportion of patients with spinal-cord injuries who are able to return to 

their communities; this should continue and, 

in time, lead to the first effective methods to 

repair the injured spinal cord. 

Later years: Our growing knowledge of genetics and pathology of Alzheimer’s disease 

should allow us to rationally design drugs to 

treat the disease. Some of those drugs may 

well be in clinical trials before the end of the 

decade. A cell transplant therapy for Parkinson’s disease will probably emerge as a practical procedure for individuals who do not respond to L-dopa treatment. New drugs that 

increase resistance to brain-cell damage in 

cases of stroke will be available and begin to 

be tested in clinical trials. 

What do these advances hold for average 

Americans? The same kind of hope and solace that members of Congress would wish for 

their own families and for themselves. 

Ask Sen. John Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) 

what it means to watch the relentless destruction of a parent from Alzheimer’s disease or Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), who underwent surgery for a brain tumor. 

But it would be impossible to talk to all 

those members of Congress who have known 

the heartbreak of substance abuse by a family member, or the agony of manic-depressive illness, or the frustration of children 

with learning disabilities, or developmental 

disorders. They would tell you how they 

want these agonies banished from their lives 

forever. 

What all these illnesses and difficulties 

have in common is that they all involve the 

brain, and only brain research can unlock 

the secrets that will give those who suffer 

from these disorders (and their families) 

some hope. 

Sen. Mark Hatfield (R., Ore.), when announcing the introduction of the ‘‘Mo Udall 

Bill’’ to fund Parkinson’s research, personally lamented the fact that federal dollars 

for basic medical research are proposed to 

decrease in the administration budget by 

more than a billion dollars by the year 2000. 

Is that the message to the research community—that what has already been 

achieved in brain research, and what you are 

confident of achieving in the near future is 

not a national priority? 

No one doubts that neuroscience’s achievements to date are just the vanguard of even 

greater discoveries to come. The explosive 

growth of technology—particularly imaging—is providing unprecedented insight into 

the brain. 

The exciting developments in genetics will 

benefit brain research perhaps more than 

any other area of medicine, since about half 

of all our genes are involved in the development and operation of our brain. 

The message of the Dana Alliance report—

to be presented in Congress tormorrow—is 

one of opportunity and hope. What will be 

Congress’ message to the scienific community? 

DELIVERING RESULTS: A PROGRESS 

REPORT ON BRAIN RESEARCH 

SUMMARY

The most important and productive medical research happening today is the study of 

the brain. Since the Federal government declared the Decade of the Brain in 1990, researchers have solved some of the most stubborn riddles of the brain, and have created 

and improved treatments for the disorders 

that afflict it. The stunning progress of the 

last five years gives future researchers a 

higher vantage point on which to stand while 

scanning the horizon for cures. 

How does this affect you? One in five 

Americans is struggling with a brain-related 

problem at any given time; each of us will 

face such a struggle at some time in our 

lives. It may be pain, depression, memory 

loss, or one of the many problems like these 

that can be chronic and recurring. It may be 

swift, like head injury and stroke; or it could 

be degenerative and fatal, like Alzheimer’s 

and Huntington’s diseases. Or a lifetime of 

anguish could result from a child or grandchild’s battle with addiction or schizophrenia. Some of these afflictions are lifeending; all of them are life-diminishing. The 

cost in personal terms is beyond measure, in 

hard economic terms, it is more than half a 

trillion dollars a year. 

But now, the human brain is no longer a 

‘‘black box’’—the misunderstood and mysterious source of self, its maladies 

misdiagnosed and undertreated. Today, at 

the midpoint of the Decade of the Brain, it is 

clear that a new era has begun for individual 

health and vitality. For all three of the 

major stages of life that you and your family 

will experience—childhood, adulthood, and 

the later years—discoveries about the brain’s 

mechanisms, how it forms, grows and ages, 

how to heal and strengthen it, are raising 

our expectations for dealing with brain-related difficulties, giving you the realistic 

chance to avoid suffering. 

If your maternal grandmother died with 

dementia, the most common symptom of 

Alzheimer’s, should you worry that your 

later years will be marred by this disease? 

Scientists are discovering ways to find out. 

Also, by the time you reach the average age 

of onset, these same scientists could be able 

to fend off the disease. 

The causes of cerebral palsy, retardation 

and learning disabilities are being revealed, 

increasing the chances that it will be possible to prevent these horrible conditions in 

your own children. 

The discovery of drug binding sites in the 

brain is enabling researchers to work towards potential treatments for addiction, so 

that the lure of drugs will be much less likely to steal the youth, or the life, of someone 

you love. 

Most of the brain afflictions that can severely alter your life, by affecting you or 

someone close to you, are yielding to researchers. For all those who cry, ‘‘Why me?’’

when they are confronted with a brain disease, scientists are approaching the day 

when they will be able to answer. As the 

progress snowballs, and the discoveries come 

more quickly, the likelihood of your life 

being destroyed by a neurological ailment 

continues to shrink. 

Beyond the personal aspects, our nation 

itself has a massive stake in brain research. 

Today, neurological and psychiatric disorders together account for more hospitalizations and more prolonged care than 

almost all other diseases combined. No surprise there: Over the last hundred years, we 

got better at keeping people alive and ambulatory as far as their respiratory, circulatory, digestive and reproductive systems 

were concerned, but we were stymied by the 

brain. 

Now neuroscience is catching up. In the 

next five years, we will help brain and nervous system patients in large numbers, and 

because these patients number in the millions of people, developments in brain 

science will transform our assumptions in 

planning for the future. In particular, at the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

societal level, the view of crippling, chronic, 

long term, and mental illnesses will be much 

different. 

When the expanding numbers of aging 

Americans have less to fear from the brain 

diseases of aging, and when disorders that 

begin at or before birth, and last a lifetime, 

are progressively fewer and less disabling, 

then the lost work days (by patients and 

those who care for them) will fall, and leisure activities will rise. Reduced social 

spending, decreased work absences and improved quality of life all give relief to a troubled economy. 

The achievements outlined in our report, 

however, are just the vanguard of greater 

things to come. One of the most significant 

facts about the progress we have made in 

brain research is that more brain scientists 

today are working on questions of basic 

science. This accounts for the diversity of 

disorders we have been able to address in 

such a short time. Clinicians focusing on specific diseases now have better odds of finding 

the keys to the disorders they are researching because there is so much more information to draw upon. 

That is precisely what makes brain research so exciting. We understand it better 

each day. And because of that, we will solve 

problems of affliction that have truncated 

our lives since the dawn of humankind. Everything lying ahead of us is opportunity 

and hope. 

Here are some highlights of the progress 

report, and some predictions for the next five 

years. Join us in celebrating the hope offered 

for current and future victims of brain disorders: 

CHILDHOOD

Researchers believed that a major reduction of spasticity in cerebral palsy and prevention of one-third of all CP cases arising 

from low birthweight will occur within five 

years. 

New findings point to a family of drugs 

that may correct drug-induced developmental abnormalities in children. 

Thanks to recent public health studies, 

psychiatry now classifies schizophrenia as a 

developmental disorder, and promises more 

effective medications by the year 2000. 

Researchers identified genes that contribute to inherited forms of blindness and 

deafness and several forms of mental retardation, including the most common inherited form among males (Fragile X Syndrome). Growing evidence suggests that 

genes also play a role in learning disabilities 

and schizophrenia. 

ADULTHOOD

The first drug to block craving in alcohol 

addiction—Naltrexone—has recently been 

approved as an adjunct to psychotherapy. 

Success in treating depression now approaches 90% with more precise antidepressant drugs which avoid unwanted side effects. 

Obsessive-compulsive disorder has become 

treatable. 

For the first time ever, researchers have 

identified a treatment (and are testing another) which alters the natural course of 

multiple sclerosis. 

Researchers have identified the sites where 

drugs of abuse bind in the brain, and by 2000 

hope to have effective cocaine-blocking 

agents. 

Recent refinements to treatments leave 

many more epileptics seizure-free. 

Discovering serotonin-responsive proteins 

led researchers to develop sumatriptan, an 

effective treatment for migraine headaches. 

Improved clinical care now returns some 94 

percent of patients with spinal cord injuries 

to their communities. Researchers may have 

the first treatment to enhance spinal cord 

repair by 1996. 

Genetic research has identified specific 

genes that cause Huntington’s disease and 

familial Lou Gehrig’s disease. New findings 

show that genes may also play a role in addiction, manic-depressive illness, depression 

and epilepsy. 

THE LATER YEARS

Several genes have been found that lead to 

Alzheimer’s disease. Cognex (tacrine), approved in 1994, is the first drug for treating 

Alzheimer’s symptoms. A combination of genetic testing and position emission tomography (PET) scanning may yield an early diagnostic test for Alzheimer’s. Also possible: 

an eye-drop diagnostic test and a spinal fluid 

analysis test. 

The first animal model of Alzheimer’s disease (a transgenic mouse) has recently been 

produced, and it is already being used to test 

drugs to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s. 

An effective approach to gene therapy for 

Parkinson’s disease will emerge before 2000. 

Relief from Parkinson-like symptoms has 

been achieved in monkeys using dopamineenhancing drugs. 

A new bloodclot-dissolving drug can improve the outcome of stroke, if administered 

within two hours of onset. 

A chili pepper extract, capsaicin, now helps 

relieve chronic pain (even in cancer). Within 

five years, scientists expect to have developed non-addictive pain relievers. 

Recently discovered proteins that nourish, 

repair and promote the growth of nerve cells 

are leading to drugs (some already in trials) 

that increase resistance to stroke. 

TECHNOLOGY

Imaging: 

Now, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allows doctors to view the active 

brain, and at their desktops to interactively 

scan entire brain structures. 

Using charged Xenon gas, laboratory scientists improved MRI signal strength by a 

factor of 10,000, producing more clearly defined pictures in animals. 

Disease models: 

Scientists are working with living organisms in laboratory settings to test compounds and find new directions for investigation. Animal models available today include: 

Alzheimer’s disease 

Developmental disorders 

Several different forms of epilepsy 

Multiple sclerosis 

Pain 

Traumatic brain injury 

SOURCES FOR NUMBERS

THE DEVELOPING BRAIN

Developing Disorders (cost and patients): 

National Institute of Neurological Disorders 

and Stroke, 1993. 

Schizophrenia (patients): National Institute on Mental Health, Update August 1993. 

Schizophrenia (cost): NIMH, 1995. 

THE MATURE BRAIN

Blindness/vision loss (cost and patient 

numbers): National Eye Institute, 1994. 

Deafness/hearing loss (patients): National 

Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders, 1992. 

Deafness/hearing loss (cost): Hallworth, R, 

et al. ‘‘Hair Cells and Hearing’’ Press Conference, Society for Neuroscience Annual 

Meeting October 26, 1992. 

Depression (patients): National Institute 

on Mental Health, Update August 1993. 

Depression (cost): Rice, Dp and Miller, LS. 

‘‘The Economic Burden of Affective Disorders’’ Advances in Health Economics and 

Health Services Research 1993. 

THE AGING BRAIN

Alzheimer’s Disease (patient numbers): 

‘‘News Notes.’’ National Institute on Aging, 

1989. 

Alzheimer’s Disease (cost): National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 

1993. 

Mr. STEVENS. I commend to the 

Senate the decade of the brain and urge 

the Senate to become familiar with 

what is happening in this research 

area. My amendment merely assumes 

that we will continue this support, this 

endeavor, the research of the decade of 

the brain in the last half of this decade 

as we have in the first. I ask that the 

amendment be agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

further debate? 

Mr. EXON. I think the matter has 

been cleared on both sides. I urge its 

adoption. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all 

time is yielded back, the question is on 

agreeing to the amendment. 

The amendment (No. 1129) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. Under the previous arrangement, I believe the Senator from 

Arkansas is finally ready to be recognized. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1130

(Purpose: To strike the proposed change in 

the budget process rules which would permit the scoring of revenue derived from 

the sale of federal assets) 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I must 

say, sitting around here all evening 

waiting to offer an amendment can be 

a very frustrating experience. I have 

concluded that this is no way to run a 

railroad. I have watched this process 

now for 5 days and I have listened to a 

lot of powerful speeches. There are 

plenty of opportunities for press releases back home proving that you are 

a budget deficit hawk. 

But as a result of that, there are a lot 

of good amendments that are not going 

to be debated because we are running 

out of time tomorrow. This process 

should permit those people who have 

honest-to-goodness, legitimate amendments to offer and debate them. We 

should have a lot less—in this case 

about 30 hours—of political speeches. 

When debate on the budget resolution 

is complete, there are going to be a lot 

of amendments, many of which that 

would have improved the budget resolution, that will fail because their proponents will not have had time to 

present their case to the Senate. 

Mr. President, I do not know of a single amendment that has been offered 

on this side of the aisle that would increase the budget $1. We have tried to 

rearrange some of the priorities, but 

we have not tried, and would not try, 

to torpedo the legitimate goal of trying 

to balance the budget by the year 2002. 

My own amendment, Mr. President, 

goes to a rule change that is proposed 

in the budget resolution that I think is 

disastrous. This proposed rule change 

involves the sale of assets that belong 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7221 

to the United States, where the taxpayers get a one-time windfall. The 

rule change would permit revenues derived from the sale of these assets to be 

scored for Budget Act purposes. 

When I was Governor, we had revenue 

sharing. The Senator from Kentucky 

seated here was Governor of his State 

at the same time I was, and the distinguished ranking member of the Budget 

Committee was Governor of his State. 

Three Governors here on the floor tonight who served together. 

One morning I went to my office and 

there was a check on my desk for $21 

million made out to DALE BUMPERS. I 

told my aide, ‘‘Call the airport, tell 

them we will be there in 15 minutes.’’

And $21 million was the first revenuesharing check we got. 

I sent it to the Arkansas Highway 

Department because I knew they would 

use it for things that would only be a 

one-time shot. To put that $21 million 

into the operating budget would have 

been irresponsible. I knew revenue 

sharing at some time was going to end 

and I would have had to raise taxes to 

continue the services that we were providing with that $21 million. 

I do not believe there is a single Governor in the United States that would 

take a one-shot windfall amount of 

money and put it into an operating 

budget. It is lunacy to do it. 

In 1987, the U.S. Congress, under 

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II, adopted 

the proposition that revenue derived 

from asset sales would not be scored. In 

short, the rule was intended to prevent 

the use of asset sales for operations. 

Since 1986, every budget resolution 

that has come to the floor of the U.S. 

Senate and been adopted by both 

Houses of Congress said specifically 

that revenue derived from asset sales 

could not be used to offset the deficit. 

In other words, revenue from asset 

sales could not be scored. 

Yet here we have a proposed budget 

which changes this long-time sensible 

rule and assumes the sale of a whole 

host of Government assets, including 

the Presidio, an Army base in San 

Francisco; the strategic petroleum reserve, the Naval petroleum reserve; the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 

Alaska. 

Now, Mr. President, my amendment 

would simply strike one section in the 

budget resolution in order to restore 

the old rule which prohibits revenue 

from asset sales to be scored. 

Mr. President, I have no objection to 

asset sales per se. We sell assets all the 

time. My amendment does not suggest 

that we cannot sell an asset. However, 

it suggests we cannot come in here 

with a big platter full of asset sales in 

order to balance the budget, where the 

Senate has not debated those items and 

simply say, ‘‘Here’s $4 billion in deficit 

reduction.’’ The budget resolution assumes that we will sell thousands of 

barrels of oil we have in the strategic 

petroleum reserve. It anticipates the 

sale of the Presidio in San Francisco, 

and that will never fly because San 

Francisco has so many ordinances nobody would give anything for it because it will never be able to be developed. 

If the proposed change in these longstanding budget rules is permitted to 

take place, let me tell Members where 

we will be headed. First of all, every 

budget reconciliation bill that comes 

before this body is going to have a 

whole host of asset sales. 

We are going to have a national yard 

sale. National parks, wildlife refuges, 

national forests, highways, power marketing administrations, water 

projects—all up for sale in order to balance the budget. 

Many asset sales do not even make 

financial sense. Assume we get $1 billion for the sale of the power marketing administrations. We cut the deficit $1 billion in 1996. If you assume 

that these assets, if retained under 

Federal ownership, would produce $100 

million a year in revenue, by the year 

2020 we will have lost revenues of $2.5 

billion in exchange for the one-shot 

deal in 1996. No businessman in his 

right mind would do such a thing. 

Mr. President how much time do I 

have remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes and 50 seconds. 

Will the Senator send the amendment to the desk? 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send 

an amendment to the desk and ask for 

its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. BUMPERS], for himself, Mr. BRADLEY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. BAUCUS, proposes an amendment numbered 1130. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike line 7 on page 76 through line 12 on 

page 77. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the 

House had a budget task force which 

recently adopted a Heritage Foundation recommendation that we should 

keep only those national parks and wilderness areas of national significance. 

It may be that the senior Senator from 

Alaska seated on the floor and his junior colleague may decide that Denali is 

not of national significance and throw 

it in the budget reconciliation bill—it 

would be gone. 

If we are only going to keep national 

parks and wilderness areas of national 

significance, who is going to decide 

that? Congress? It will be very tough if 

the budget is in dire need of revenue 

and no one wants to raise taxes. Here is 

where we could wind up. 

First of all, we could make the Grand 

Canyon available for sale. That could 

be the first to go. 

Then take Mount Rushmore. I have 

been out to Mount Rushmore. They 

have a thriving number of visitors out 

there. I think we can probably put a 

McDonald’s and maybe a Marriott 

there at Mount Rushmore. There is no 

telling what that place would bring. 

After we get rid of Mount Rushmore 

and Grand Canyon, here is the jewel, 

we would sell the Statue of Liberty. 

Now, Mr. President, that all sound 

very humorous. There is absolutely no 

reason whatever under this budget resolution, which allows the scoring of 

revenue from the sale of national assets, to believe that some things just 

as precious as the Statue of Liberty 

will not be put on the auction block. 

Last year I was Chairman of the National Parks Committee. I went out to 

see the Presidio. I had never seen it except at a distance. It is one of the most 

remarkable pieces of property left in 

the United States and certainly the 

most remarkable piece of property left 

in an urban area. Here we have already 

put it up for sale. Who knows where we 

go after that? 

Mr. President, I have offered the 

Bumpers-Bradley-Murray amendment 

this evening not only because the proposed rule change in the budget resolution would permit the sale of our national treasures, but because it is also 

bad economic policy, bad social policy 

and bad culture policy. We ought not 

to do it. We have lived very well for 205 

years without trying to balance the 

budget by selling assets. 

Finally, my amendment does not 

alter the bottom line of the budget resolution one bit. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee would still 

be required to find whatever amount of 

money the budget resolution instructs 

the Committee to find. 

I can tell you, Mr. President, again, 

you put this proposition to the people 

of this country, Do you think we ought 

to start selling off wilderness areas, national forests, some of our treasured 

national parks? I can just see it now. 

You cannot see all the Grand Canyon 

from the rim. We need a highway down 

through it so you can really enjoy it. 

We need a new Holiday Inn down at 

the bottom of the Grand Canyon so we 

can make more money. 

These things are disastrous. 

I hope a majority of the Senate tomorrow morning, when we vote on this, 

will agree that this is a terrible, terrible change in budgeting. It is a terrible change in national policy. 

I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished 

colleague from Washington, Senator 

MURRAY. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington. 

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise 

in support of the amendment offered by 

the Senator from Arkansas. 

The budget resolution before us has 

been termed an historic document. It 

certainly is. For the last decade, the 

Congress of the United States has recognized that our public lands are too 

precious to sell unless their sale is in 

the best interest of the public. That is 

good policy and one that has enjoyed 

strong bi-partisan support. 

But it is a new day. Today, we may 

well vote to sell our children’s heritage 

to pay our debts. I reject that approach 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7222 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

to debt reduction and I reject that approach to disposition of our Federal assets. 

What is at risk? Potentially on the 

sale block are assets ranging from oil 

supplies beneath the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge; to battlefields reminding us of the pain and sacrifice of the 

Civil War; to Power Marketing Associations that provide hydroelectric energy, transportation, and resource protection; to endangered wildlife living 

in our National Wilderness Preservation System; to toll-free interstate 

highways present in every State in the 

Nation; to public timber sold primarily 

to small businesses dependent upon National Forests for their wood supply. 

These assets should not be sold to reduce the deficit. And they, certainly, 

should not be sold to provide a tax cut 

to wealthy Americans. Instead, our 

Federal assets should be sold only 

when, after reasoned debate and a full 

public airing, we decide their sale is in 

the best interest not only of this generation—but of every generation that 

follows. We owe our children much 

more than a balanced budget. We owe 

them their heritage. 

I urge my colleagues to vote first for 

Senator BUMPER’s amendment precluding scoring of the sale of all Federal assets. 

While I have the floor I want to just 

mention two other amendments I will 

be offering tomorrow that my colleagues will be voting on. 

SENSE OF THE SENATE RESOLUTION ON IMPACT

AID

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, tomorrow I will send an amendment to 

the desk. 

Mr. President, my amendment is a 

sense-of-the-Senate that the Federal 

Government should live up to its responsibility to educate the children of 

our women and men in uniform 

through the impact aid program. 

At this point, I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to add my good 

friend, the Democratic leader, Senator 

DASCHLE, as well as Senators PRESSLER, AKAKA, HUTCHISON, LEVIN, BINGAMAN, PELL, DORGAN, BAUCUS and 

KERREY of Nebraska as cosponsors. 

Mr. President, you see, this amendment enjoys strong bipartisan support 

because the impact aid program is a 

vital component of the education portfolio of 48 States. 

It has strong support because Senators on both sides of the aisle know 

how important this program is to their 

States and to the country. 

More than 40 years ago, the Federal 

Government established the impact aid 

program. 

Forty years ago—great, forwardthinking legislators recognized that 

the Federal Government has a responsibility to communities which have 

been adversely impacted by Federal activities. 

Mr. President, this is exactly the underpinning of the legislation we passed 

earlier in this Congress. The unfunded 

mandates bill corrected a large-scale 

shift of costs from the Federal Government to the States and to local communities. 

Impact aid is a good program for 

States—it lives up to the true spirit of 

local control of education. 

Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not been living up to the spirit of the Impact Aid program. 

Funding levels for impact aid have 

been so far below authorized levels that 

we have unfairly shifted a large portion 

of funding for Federally connected students to local taxpayers. 

The end result is that, now—in many 

States—this program covers less than 

half of the costs to educate each student. The Federal Government has just 

been shifting its responsibility to the 

States to make up the difference. 

Mr. President, when I review the last 

several years of funding and rescissions, I am outraged with the trend I 

see developing—we have been abandoning responsibility to our kids by 

cutting funds for this program. 

And, there is no question that the 

importance of this program has increased over its 40 year history. 

Its importance has increased not just 

because it directly affects over 2 million students in our Nation—but also 

because of the tight budgets facing our 

States today. 

And, some States—such as my home 

state of Washington—do not rely upon 

an income tax for State funding. You 

see, Mr. President, the loss of property 

tax revenues makes State and local 

education funding even more difficult. 

Mr. President, let me take a moment 

to tell you about a school district near 

Tacoma, WA—it’s called Clover Park. 

Fort Lewis is in the Clover Park 

school district. Women and men in uniform are assigned by the Federal Government to serve our Nation there. 

And, their kids—like all American 

children—deserve to be educated. 

They should not be abandoned because their parents live on Federal 

property. 

Impact Aid makes up 7 percent of 

Clover Park’s budget. In Clover Park, 

this money goes directly to the school 

district and is free of bureaucracy. 

It provides basic support to the 

school district whose local school 

board determines how to use the funds. 

Now, Mr. President, if impact aid 

funds were cut off, school districts 

would have to increase taxes in the Tacoma community. Or, Clover Park 

would have to cut teachers and close 

buildings. Or, the schools would have 

to double-shift students. 

That is wrong. That is a total abdication of the Federal responsibility to 

our kids. 

Of course, we all recognize the budget 

constraints facing the Federal Government today. 

I know tough choices must be made. 

However, Mr. President, I believe we 

can achieve meaningful deficit reduction without passing on this huge unfunded mandate. And, without compromising our responsibility to our 

schools and our communities. 

Mr. President, I want to be sure that 

adequate resources are put into impact 

aid. And, this sense-of-the-Senate reconfirms our commitment—on both 

sides of the aisle—to making that happen. 

I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and support this 

amendment. 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, tomorrow I will send an amendment to 

the desk. My amendment is very 

straightforward. 

It allows the Senate to think twice 

before we pass reforms to the Medicaid 

system that would result in more uninsured American children. 

This amendment does not call for one 

dime of new spending. It is, by definition, revenue neutral. 

This amendment simply creates a 

point of order against any legislation 

which would cause children currently 

eligible to receive Medicaid to lose 

their health care benefits. 

And, that point of order is easily 

waived by a simple majority vote. 

Mr. President, as you know, this 

year, the Medicaid program covers 

health care services for over 36 million 

low-income Americans. 

Close to half of those Americans are 

children. Children who have no access 

to health care insurance on their own. 

Children with complex health care 

needs. And, children, I will say, Mr. 

President, who don’t have well financed lobbyists up here fighting for 

their interest. 

Most of the children covered by Medicaid live in low-income, working families. 

Mr. President, we are talking about 

families who have to choose between 

putting food on the table, or getting 

health care treatment for their child. 

I have visited Children’s Hospital in 

Seattle many times. 

Mr. President, I have witnessed firsthand the decisions these parents face. 

A typical family on Medicaid is a 

young, happy family, whose life is suddenly disrupted when they find out 

their child has been diagnosed with 

cystic fibrosis or leukemia or severe 

asthma or cancer. 

One parent has to quit his or her job 

to stay home and take care of the 

child. On just one income, family finances become increasingly difficult. 

Soon the health insurance runs out, 

and the family is forced to spend down 

to be able to receive Medicaid, just so 

their child can receive critical medical 

attention. 

The cost of care for the child will be 

passed along to the American taxpayer. 

Doctor and hospitals will simply raise 

their rates. Insurance companies will 

do the same. 

Everyone agrees that there are problems with the Medicaid system that 

need fixing, and everyone agrees with 

the need to reduce the Federal deficit. 

But, I am concerned that we don’t become lulled by the mantra of cut, cut, 

cut. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7223 

As the Congress cuts spending, I just 

want to make sure we raise a red flag 

when children’s health care is concerned. 

Medicaid is every child’s health insurance safety net. 

My amendment just makes us think 

twice before we yank that safety net 

away. 

You will hear some arguments 

against my amendment today, arguments that—frankly—make little 

sense. 

You will hear that this amendment is 

impeding deficit reduction, and impeding the actions of the Senate. 

On the contrary, the point of order in 

this amendment can be waived by a 

simple majority vote—just 50 votes. 

We have points of order against the 

mandates of environmental laws—I 

just want to make sure we have a point 

of order to protect the most vulnerable 

of our population—our children. 

You will also hear that this amendment says that we do not trust our 

Governors to protect children when 

Medicaid is block granted. Trust? 

Block grants, by definition, shift all 

responsibility to the States. If any 

kind of emergency or disaster happens 

in a State, such as an earthquake in 

California or flooding in the Midwest. 

I just want to make sure our overburdened Governors do not allow health 

care for our children to go by the wayside. This amendment simply makes us 

think twice about children. 

This is not a question of trust—it is 

a question of insurance. That is all. 

Finally, Mr. President, you will hear 

that this issue will be dealt with in the 

Finance Committee after the budget 

resolution is passed. 

We listened to a prolonged debate 

this morning on the EITC—which will 

also be a topic in the Finance Committee’s deliberations. If today is a good 

day to talk about EITC, today is a good 

time to talk about children’s health insurance. 

Let me conclude with a few words 

about priorities. 

When I offered this amendment in 

the Budget Committee, we were immediately subjected to a lengthy diatribe 

by the other side that sounded more 

like Presidential campaign speeches 

than a statement about our children’s 

health insurance. 

That happens all too often. As soon 

as we talk about children, the debate is 

trivialized. The discussion is kidnapped. 

And, so, I stand here again today and 

ask—what better time is there to talk 

about the future of our children than 

during this historic debate? 

We need to know if actions we take 

here today will hurt our children. 

My sincere goal with this amendment 

is to look out for the most vulnerable 

of our population. 

I know they do not vote. I know they 

do not give money to political campaigns. But they continue to get sick 

because their parents cannot afford to 

get them vaccinated. 

Congress cannot turn its back on its 

children. 

My amendment simply ensures that 

before Congress makes any changes to 

the Medicaid system, we will take a 

hard, thoughtful look at the possible 

damage these changes will cause. 

Let us put a little bit of conscience 

back into this budget. 

Let us protect our future. 

Let us protect our children. 

I urge all my colleagues to join Budget Committee members on my side of 

the aisle and agree to this amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to take 2 

minutes from the time controlled by 

this Senator, to briefly speak on the 

subject at hand. 

I first would like to ask if the Senator from Arkansas has added me as a 

cosponsor to his amendment or not? If 

he has not, I would like to be added as 

a cosponsor. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I 

would like to add Senators MURRAY

and BRADLEY as my chief cosponsors, 

the Senator from Nebraska, Senator 

EXON, Senator WELLSTONE, Senator 

BOXER, Senator FEINSTEIN—all as cosponsors. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. EXON. I also ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor to the 

amendment just addressed that the 

Senator will be offering tomorrow, the 

Senator from Washington, with regard 

to impact aid. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1130

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I support 

the amendment offered by Senator 

BUMPERS to strike the changes made to 

the asset rule in the budget resolution. 

The recent push to sell off physical assets in an effort to generate short-term 

budget savings is not a wise move. 

The asset rule was put in place in 

order to discourage these sorts of proposals which do not result in any structural decline of the deficit. In fact, 

many of the recommendations included 

in this budget resolution will not yield 

any budget savings over the long term. 

The savings resulting from the selling off of physical assets in this resolution will end up generating only $3.5 

billion in receipts over the next 7 

years. Many of these proposals end up 

costing the Government money in the 

out-years. 

I hope my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle will support this effort to rid 

the use of this sort of budget gimmickry in an attempt to balance the 

budget. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe there is 10 minutes reserved on 

this side. I yield myself 5 minutes to 

begin with. 

Is there not 10 minutes reserved for 

this side? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 

correct. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am 

reminded of what President Reagan 

said once, ‘‘Here we go again. Here we 

go again.’’

I have just heard these speeches that 

sound as though this is something that 

has been dreamed up by this side of the 

aisle. The President requested this. Is 

the other side of the aisle going to 

abandon the President again? The 

President asked for $8 billion in his 

budget. He specifically asked for this 

language. This language is the President’s language. 

What does it do? It allows scoring of 

the sales of assets that are already authorized by law to be sold. 

I would be ashamed to come here 

with pictures of places in this country 

that are loved by all citizens, and 

imply that anything in this budget resolution will sell one national park or 

refuge. It is an authorization to score 

the sale of assets. It is necessary to 

carry out the President’s budget. It is 

also a fact that people have used this 

budget gimmickry to prevent the leasing of 1.5 million acres on the North 

Slope of Alaska, one of the last great 

deposits of oil and gas in the United 

States, because it is considered to be 

the sale of an asset when it is leased. 

The Arctic coastal plain must be authorized by law to be leased. It has already been subject to three environmental studies. There is no opposition 

that I know of to the concept of the 

Mineral Leasing Act. That law has already been passed. This land should be 

leased. 

Oil and gas leases are called a sale 

under the concept of the Budget Act. 

And since you cannot score that sale, 

the act of leasing costs money and, 

guess what, that prevents us from proceeding to lease the land because you 

cannot score the money that comes in 

from the lease. But it costs you money 

to lease it. An absurd conclusion. 

The President came in and asked for 

a change in this law. He asked that we 

change this in his budget this year and 

he assumed $8 billion in asset sales—

that must be authorized by law—as 

part of that budget. I notice the picture of the Grand Canyon is right-sideup now, but even so the Grand Canyon, 

if someone wanted to propose to sell it, 

they would have to come here and secure the passage of a law. The things 

the President wants to sell must be authorized by law to be sold. What we 

want to lease in Alaska must be authorized by law to be leased. I never 

have heard such a ludicrous argument 

in my life. 

I have seen some of this stuff from 

the extreme environmental organizations that send this baloney all over 

the country and charge people fantastic sums of money. They rival the 

AARP in terms of the way they raise 

money and really convince people they 

are doing good when they are really 

paying themselves and sending these 

stupid letters out that imply that 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7224 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

somehow the President wants to sell 

the Grand Canyon. It is the President’s 

language. It is not my language. It is 

not the Alaskan language. It is the 

President’s request. 

I cannot believe what I am hearing 

on the floor of the Senate. I really cannot. 

Why do you not recognize the income 

from the sale of assets? The lease of 

the Alaska oil reserve lands would 

bring in over $1.4 billion in a 4-year period. If it is leased that is money that 

comes into the Federal Treasury. It is 

not a sale. It is what is paid for the 

privilege of producing oil and gas from 

Federal lands. 

Somehow or other, people have assumed that there is something sort of 

seditious in this concept of the President’s, that we are going to count 

money that comes into the Treasury as 

money. 

I have heard arguments on the floor 

of the Senate that embarrassed me before but I am embarrassed for those 

who offer this amendment. 

In the first place, they attacked their 

own President, not us. In the second 

place, it makes no fiscal sense to say 

when we sell an asset that produces billions, that we have to go out and borrow money in order to balance the 

budget because we cannot count that 

money that comes into the Treasury—

not in a budget sense. It is there in a 

physical sense but it is just added to 

the Treasury. You cannot count it 

under these stupid budget rules that finally even the President of the United 

States recognized are just that. They 

are stupid. It is time to change them. 

It is time for us to stop this Mickey 

Mouse business. 

Look, a ‘‘For Sale’’ sign on the Statue of Liberty. Would the President suggest selling the Statue of Liberty? 

Have we suggested selling Mount Rushmore? My God, I really cannot believe 

the depth of this argument, when it 

comes down to just say anything to 

scare people throughout the country. 

‘‘We are going to sell the national 

parks.’’ It is stupid. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

ASHCROFT). The time of the Senator 

has expired. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes off the time of this Senator. 

I would simply correct my friend 

from Alaska. The President of the 

United States, in his budget, suggested 

selective sales, including the Power 

Marketing Administration. This Senator and many on this side strongly 

disagree with the President on the selling of the Power Marketing Administration. 

We went down and had a meeting 

with him and we will fight that here 

and we will fight it all the way through 

this budget process. Certainly I think 

we can disagree. I believe the Senator 

from Arkansas made it very clear in 

his remarks that he realizes we are not 

suggesting this, but the main thing the 

Senator from Alaska is overlooking is 

the proposition in this budget changes 

the rules that could allow this to happen. They cannot happen under the 

rules the way they are. 

We objected to the President of the 

United States, our President, as you 

say, doing that. And we certainly object to the Republican Budget Committee going along in unison with the 

President of the United States, which 

in and of itself is quite unusual. 

We oppose your doing it. We opposed 

the President in doing it. And we hope 

we are alerting the Senate of the 

United States to this serious mistake. 

I reserve the remainder of my time 

and I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much 

time does the Senator wish? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 6 minutes. 

Mr. EXON. I am sorry, I thought the 

Senator was out of time. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the 

Senator from Alaska misunderstands 

what this debate is about. It is not 

about what the President recommended. I could not disagree with 

the President more. I went down to the 

White House and told him, along with 

the Senator from Nebraska and a host 

of others. This is bad policy and I told 

the President that. He is my friend but 

that does not mean I have to agree 

with him on everything and he understands that better than anybody. 

The fact that the President has proposed asset sales in his budget does not 

make it good policy. It is bad policy. I 

do not care who recommended it. 

The Senator from Alaska says he is 

embarrassed. He is embarrassed by this 

amendment. What we are trying to do 

is to restore the law where it has been 

for 10 years. I never heard the Senator 

from Alaska in the last 10 years say 

under the budget rule not scoring assets was an embarrassment. Now it is 

an embarrassment. The Senator from 

Alaska is my friend. He has been trying 

to get ANWR opened up for oil drilling 

since, as we say, ‘‘the memory of man 

runneth not.’’ I am not for it, and I 

don’t expect to be for it in the foreseeable future. 

This resolution assumes that we are 

going to charge the oil companies $1.4 

billion over the next 7 years for the 

right to drill in ANWR. What do you do 

after the scoring period to make up for 

the lost oil after the first 7 years? You 

are going to cut discretionary spending 

again. 

The budget resolution assumes $1.4 

billion from the sale of the power marketing administrations. That is a bad 

proposition from a business standpoint. 

No businessman in his right mind 

would decide whether to sell an asset 

by only considering the lost revenues 

associated with that asset for a period 

of 7 years. 

I will tell you something. If you are 

willing to sell the Presidio, the Grand 

Canyon cannot be very far behind. 

So, Mr. President, I plead with my 

colleagues not to buy into this idea 

that you can take these one-shot, onetime windfalls from the leasing of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the 

selling of the Presidio, the selling of 

these power marketing administrations. 

As I said in the opening of my remarks, my amendment does not preclude asset sales. It simply says deal 

with them in the usual course of business and do not score them for budgeting purposes. 

I am not only not embarrassed, I 

have never been prouder of an amendment. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is it 

in order now, before using all of my 

time, to ask for the yeas and nays? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield 

the floor and retain the remainder of 

my time. 

Mr. STEVENS. How much time is remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 5 minutes, 

and the Senator from Arkansas has 1 

minute 48 seconds. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Out of the 5 minutes, 

I yield 3 minutes to Senator STEVENS

from Alaska. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to put in the 

RECORD section 5 of the President’s bill 

indicating how he would treat the proceeds from the sale of transfer of lands 

under his proposal. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

PROCEEDS

SEC. 5. Proceeds from a sale or transfer 

under this Act shall be recited to miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. If the President so designates, the net proceeds shall be 

included in the budget baseline required by 

the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985 and shall be counted for 

the purposes of section 252 of that Act as an 

offset to direct spending, notwithstanding 

section 257(e) of that Act. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am 

embarrassed for the proponents of this 

amendment. I am not embarrassed by 

the President. I think the President is 

trying to make some sense out of the 

Budget Act, and it is time that we considered that. 

This is an attack on a proceeding to 

lease the Alaska oil reserve. It is not 

standing up straight. It is a duplicitous 

amendment. It is an amendment intended to kill the provision in the 

budget resolution that considers it a 

requirement of the Energy Committee 

to raise money. One of the ways they 

can raise that money is by bringing 

forth a bill to proceed to lease the one 

and one-half million acres on the Arctic coastal plain that has a fantastic 

potential for oil and gas. 

Furthermore, the Senator from Arkansas said, what happens in the next 

year? Hopefully in the next year you 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7225 

would discover oil. The last time I remember people standing on this floor 

saying there is no oil was when we 

were considering legislation to allow 

leasing on the North Slope of Alaska, 

when they said that it would only 

produce about 1 billion barrels at the 

most. Mind you, that would have been 

the largest deposit on the North American continent. But, as a matter of 

fact, we have already produced 10 billion barrels. Ten billion barrels came 

out of that bill that came before the 

Senate. The argument went for days. 

Finally, the tie had to be broken by the 

Vice President of the United States. 

Now, we are in the same situation 

here. Mr. President, you are going to 

see more wildcats coming across this 

floor when ANWR is brought up than 

anything you have here. They have 

more things they can warn the public 

of. Look at that. They say we are trying to sell the Statue of Liberty. It is 

absolutely ludicrous again I say. I have 

never heard an argument stretched to 

that point. 

This resolution does not authorize 

the sale of anything. All the President 

wants to do is count the money when it 

is authorized to lease or to sell something, and there already are a series of 

things authorized. The President is 

going to send up a bill to authorize the 

further sale of some of the assets on 

the Presidio at Monterey in California. 

As a matter of fact, it has already been 

leased. Do you know who it is leased 

to? Former Senator Cranston and the 

former leader of the Soviet Union, Mr. 

Gorbachev. They have leases there in 

the Presidio already. 

Now, when you look at it, all the 

President is saying is that in the process of acquiring money from the sale or 

lease of assets that are authorized by 

law, we ought to count them in the 

budget process. This amendment would 

deny the President that right. It would 

mean that he could not count the $1.4 

billion that will come in the first 4 

years of the leasing of ANWR. 

I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his courtesy. 

Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me 

say to the Senator from Alaska, my 

amendment does not stop the leasing of 

ANWR. That is not what this amendment is all about. You can go ahead 

and lease ANWR. But do not score it in 

the budget. That has been the law of 

the land for 10 years. 

All of a sudden we get this budget 

resolution presented to us and they say 

we are going to change the rules. If you 

can get $2 billion for Presidio, count it, 

score it. You have $4 billion in here, 

and next year you may not have $4 billion in asset sales so you are going to 

have to find it elsewhere. Why, I say to 

the Senator, you might even have to 

pay royalties on hard rock mining next 

year. 

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator 

yield for just one question? We are 

closing almost 50 bases in the United 

States. Why should we not count as income those portions of the bases we are 

going to sell? This amendment would 

not allow that. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there 

is not a Governor in the United States, 

including the person sitting in the 

chair at this moment, who is a former 

Governor, in my opinion, that will take 

an asset sale or one-time windfall and 

put it into his operating budget. My 

amendment does not prohibit the sale 

of those bases. It just says, let’s not 

change the budget rules to mask the 

deficit by scoring the revenues derived 

from these asset sales. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how 

much time does Senator BUMPERS

have? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twentyone seconds. 

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I 

have, Mr. President? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two 

minutes. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair 

very much. 

Mr. President, let me suggest there 

really are two arguments here. I think 

the paramount one is to get rid of any 

authority that the Energy Committee 

might have in its reconciliation instructions to direct that we begin leasing of ANWR. While asset sales generally seem to be the subject matter, I 

think that is the prime focus. 

And let me suggest for a minute a bit 

of arrogance about the United States, a 

bit of arrogance about those who think 

we can just continue to lock up our assets because we are so wealthy it does 

not matter. How does $180 billion worth 

of American assets called ‘‘oil’’ sound 

to average Americans—$180 billion 

worth? We will buy it from other countries because we think we are so 

strong, so powerful, so economically 

self-sufficient we can just throw away 

our assets—$180 billion. 

Now, I know that people do not like 

to think of America as being arrogant 

about anything; we are humble people. 

But I submit, Mr. President, it is arrogance to think that we can throw away 

$180 billion and say we will buy it from 

the Saudis. After all, it was only ours 

so why not just lock it up. 

Now, if there was harm coming to 

ANWR, many who will vote against 

Senator BUMPERS would vote with him. 

But that argument about how much 

damage is going to be done there just 

will not play too much longer. 

Now, let me make a second point. Let 

me make a second point on this issue. 

Mr. President, what happens if we fail 

to balance the budget and the American dollar keeps coming down? Do you 

know what might happen, I say to the 

Senator from Alaska? The Saudi Arabians may say, ‘‘Pay us in yen.’’ How 

does that strike you? ‘‘We do not want 

your American dollars. They are not 

good enough.’’

Mr. STEVENS. For oil. 

Mr. DOMENICI. For oil. Pay us in 

yen. We will pay them in yen and guess 

what will happen. Oil prices go up 300 

percent in America. 

Why should we not use our own rather than depend totally upon them? 

I yield the floor, and if we have no remaining time, I assume we are finished 

with this amendment and it will be appropriately stacked tomorrow by our 

leader. 

f 

RURAL HOUSING GUARANTEED 

LOAN PROGRAM 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish 

to engage in a colloquy with Senator 

DOMENICI, the distinguished chairman 

of the Budget Committee, with respect 

to the rural housing guaranteed loan 

program. 

In reviewing the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1996 Concurrent Budget Resolution, I note that the 

Senate Budget Committee recommends 

‘‘the reduction or elimination of certain subsidies provided by the federal 

government for a range of credit programs in the Small Business Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Rural Housing and 

Community Development Service.’’ Am 

I correct in understanding this to mean 

that the Budget Committee assumes no 

savings from the Rural Housing and 

Community Development Service’s 

Section 502 unsubsidized guaranteed 

loan program over the next seven 

years? 

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from 

Rhode Island is correct. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President. I will oppose the Roth amendment which takes 

a meat-ax approach to eliminating federal jobs. The administration has made 

laudable progress by downsizing the 

government by more than a quarter of 

a million workers by the end of the 

year. Under the leadership of Vice 

President GORE, careful evaluation, 

systematic studies, and cost-benefit 

analyses have been used to shape a 

leaner more effective Federal workforce. Because it is not based on such 

studies and analysis, the Roth amendment, by contrast, could result in the 

slicing away of essential jobs, such as 

those needed to get out the social security checks, staff the veterans’ hospitals, or to protect federal facilities 

and workers from another terrorist incident. Also, the Roth amendment, according to its author, assumes the 

elimination of the Department of Commerce, an action with which I do not 

agree. 

AFDC

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I intend to propose an amendment that 

will enable us to improve our welfare 

system rather than dismantle it. Under 

my amendment, Aid to Families With 

Dependent Children will remain a Federal entitlement program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS