Summary:
All articles in Senate section
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
(Senate - May 25, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S7423-S7459]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent
resolution.
Amendment No. 1184
(Purpose: To eliminate section 207 of the budget resolution)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Simon, for
himself, Mr. Pell, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment
numbered 1184.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike section 207 in its entirety.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a little-noticed provision of the budget
resolution will make it more likely that student loan cuts will come
out of the pockets of students, rather than banks, bureaucrats, and
other middlemen. Section 207 changes the way the loan costs are scored
in the budget by requiring administrative costs--such as collection
expenses--to be counted on a long-term--accrual--basis, rather than on
a cash basis over the 5-year budget window. While this may sound like a
reasonable change, it is accomplished in a manner that is inconsistent
and biased.
Section 207 is not applied consistently to all loan programs.
Instead, it targets student loans in particular. Furthermore, this type
of end-run around the Budget Act is not appropriate on a budget
resolution.
Section 207 is biased. There are a number of problems with the way
that loans are scored in the budget. Section 207 only fixes one of
them, skewing the scoring against direct student loans. This makes it
more difficult to achieve savings without eliminating the in-school
interest exemption or increasing fees and other student costs. A
complete reform of the budget scoring rules for loan programs would
consider:
Cost-of-funds. The most significant item that overstates the cost of
direct lending is the discount rate that is currently used. The
interest rates that students pay vary annually, and the subsidized
rates that the Federal Government promises to banks vary each quarter.
A Council of Economic Advisors memorandum of April 30, 1993, points out
that ``a multiple year loan with an interest rate that resets each year
should be treated for pricing purposes as having a maturity of one
year,'' meaning that a short-term rate should be used. But CBO and OMB
assume that the Government's cost-of-funds is a higher, long-term rate,
the 10-year bond. This makes direct lending appear much more costly
than it really is. Indeed, in a February 8, 1993, letter, GAO pointed
out that using shorter term interest rates would have more than doubled
the direct loan savings.
Tax-exempt bonds. Many student loan secondary markets use tax-exempt
bonds, costing the Federal Treasury an estimated $2.3 billion over 5
years. This cost is not considered when the Congressional Budget Office
determines how much direct lending saves, or how much the guarantee
program costs.
Taxpayer bailouts. When guaranty agencies agree to share the risk
under FFEL by paying a larger portion on defaulted loans, they are
using money that belongs to the Federal Government--so the Federal
Government is essentially sharing with itself. Furthermore, when any
agency can't pay its share, the Federal Government steps in. These
costs aren't currently considered.
I would hope that the chairman would reconsider this provision prior
to conference.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment simply strikes section 207 in
order to keep all of our options open to avoid imposing costs on
college students and their families.
The amendment has no cost impact. The amendment strikes budget
scoring rules in the budget resolution that single out a particular
program.
This amendment will allow committees of jurisdiction to look at these
issues in a comprehensive manner. First, last, and always, this
amendment protects students.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a slightly different impression.
The Simon amendment would strike language in the resolution that
corrects a bias against guaranteed student loans.
If adopted, the Simon amendment would favor the Clinton
administration policies for direct Government student lending. The
budget resolution does not do that.
I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 216 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1184) was agreed
to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1185
(Purpose: To reduce military spending by $100 to reduce the deficit)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] for Mr. Harkin,
proposes an amendment numbered 1185.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 7, line 15, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 8, line 1, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 8, line 10, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 9, line 14, decrease the amount by
$100. [[Page
S7424]]
On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by $100.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would simply reduce the
defense budget by $100. Let me repeat that. This amendment would simply
reduce the defense budget by $100 in fiscal year 1996. The savings is
applied to the deficit reduction.
Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my 30 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. If I were you, I would, too.
Mr. President, the sponsor of the amendment is here. I am willing to
accept this amendment without a vote. Would the Senator agree to that?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment is ludicrous on its face.
We will spend more than $100 printing the cost of this amendment and
wasting time of this Senate.
Amendment No. 1186 to Amendment No. 1185
(Purpose: To reduce swine research spending by $100 to reduce the
deficit)
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Craig,
proposes an amendment numbered 1186 to amendment No. 1185.
The amendment is as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed, insert the following:
On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 7, line 15, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 8, line 1, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 9, line 14, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by 0.
It is the sense of the Congress that the functional levels
assume that the swine research be reduced by $100.00.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa cannot reserve the right
to object.
Is there an objection to the dispensing of the quorum?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are at a critical moment here. I would
suggest that if the Senator from Iowa wishes to take $100 out of
defense, the second degree-amendment, as I understand it, would take
$100 out of swine research.
I would suggest to both sides, why do we not agree to sensibly take
$100 out of defense and $100 out of the swine program, and move the
Senate ahead.
Mr. DOLE. Or just raise $100.
Mr. EXON. I will pay it myself.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call of
the quorum be rescinded.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The clerk will
continue to call the roll.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska made a suggestion
a few moments ago that is now being seriously considered. I would
simply ask, since we are moving so rapidly, and since we are near
completing this in the next 2 hours if we hang on, I would just suggest
once again that we have a voice vote on the proposition that we take
$100 out of the defense budget and $100 out of the swine research
facility in Iowa.
I suggest that be agreed to on a voice vote. I would like to know. We
will put it in proper form if we can get approval of it on both sides.
Informally, I would ask if anyone would object if the Senator would
put it in written form, what I have just orally stated?
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there is no debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the regular order, the question is on
the amendment.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder for purposes of trying to move
ahead with the budget, if the Senator might agree, and we will agree to
take the two amendments, the one pending and the amendment to it, set
it aside without prejudice and let us move ahead with some of the other
amendments?
Mr. EXON. We agree. I think that is a good suggestion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Amendment No. 1187
(Purpose: To eliminate the firewall between defense and nondefense
discretionary accounts)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for Senators
Simon and Bumpers, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for Mr. Simon, for
himself, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered
1187.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 65, strike lines 13 through 18 and insert
``$477,820,000,000 in new budget authority and
$526,943,000,000 in outlays;''.
On page 65, strike lines 20 through 25 and insert
``$466,192,000,000 in new budget authority and
$506,943,000,000 in outlays;''.
On page 66, strike lines 2 through 7 and insert
``$479,568,000,000 in new budget authority and
$499,961,000,000 in outlays;''.
On page 66, strike lines 9 through 14 and insert
``$477,485,000,000 in new budget authority and
$502,571,000,000 in outlays;''.
On page 66, strike lines 16 through 21 and insert
``$492,177,000,000 in new budget authority and
$511,761,000,000 in outlays;''.
On page 66, strike beginning with line 23 through line 3,
page 67, and insert ``$496,098,000,000 in new budget
authority and $517,258,000,000 in outlays; and''.
On page 67, strike lines 5 through 10 and insert
``$495,498,000,000 in new budget authority and
$518,160,000,000 in outlays.''.
On page 67, line 22, strike ``sum of the defense and
nondefense''.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Simon-Bumpers amendment eliminates the
resolution's provision that establishes a firewall between defense and
nondefense discretionary accounts. The amendment does not change the
levels of budget authority and outlays, and does not add a single cent
to the deficit.
The amendment simply assures that Congress maintains flexibility to
respond to changing spending priorities in a prudent, fiscally sound
way. That sort of flexibility is particularly important in light of the
vast uncertainties concerning the Nation's domestic and military
commitments in the years ahead.
As we debate the Nation's priorities within the overall constraints
of the balanced budget, we should not bind ourselves needlessly to
subcategories within the discretionary caps. Removing the firewall is a
vital step in achieving the necessary flexibility.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. [[Page
S7425]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while this does not change the numbers,
it permits the defense moneys and the nondefense moneys to be fungible
and move back and forth between the two.
The Budget Committee said we should not do that for the next 7 years.
I believe they are right.
I move to table the amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate we have lost about 10 or 15
minutes here. I would ask the clerk: At the end of the time we will
turn in the scorecard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the amendment.
The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 217 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--33
Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
Kassebaum
Mikulski
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1187) was agreed
to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I suggest that Senators ought to
take heed of this now. What we are going to do, there are three more
amendments from that side that we are ready to take up. Senator Exon is
going to explain each of the three. I will have a brief explanation.
Then everybody ought to stay here because we are going to vote on them
one after another. We are not going to have an explanation at the end
of each one. So three explanations, three amendments, and vote on those
three amendments in sequence and immediately upon completing one go to
another, no time interval for explanations.
Mr. EXON. I would just simply add then we will go on with the process
that had been established by the majority leader for 10 minutes and 10
minutes only thereafter. That does not mean----
Mr. SIMON. Nine minutes.
Mr. EXON. Nine minutes thereafter. That does not mean we are going to
change.
Mr. DOMENICI. Oh, no.
Mr. EXON. Anything other than to maybe expedite things for just a
moment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
Mr. EXON. We are getting very close.
Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Amendment No. 1188
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the inclusion of
reductions in Medicare spending in the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1996)
Mr. EXON. The first of the three amendments that have just been
suggested by the Budget Committee chairman I send to the desk in behalf
of Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy,
proposes an amendment numbered 1188.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REDUCTIONS IN MEDICARE
SPENDING.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Medicare protection is as important as Social Security
protection in guaranteeing retirement security and is truly a
part of Social Security;
(2) senior citizens have contributed throughout their
working lives to Medicare in the expectation of health
insurance protection when they retire;
(3) because of gaps in Medicare coverage, senior citizens
already spend more than one dollar in five of their limited
incomes to purchase the health care that they need;
(4) low and moderate-income senior citizens will suffer
most from Medicare cuts, since 83 percent of all Medicare
spending is for older Americans with annual incomes below
$25,000 and two-thirds is for those with annual incomes below
$15,000;
(5) at the present time, Medicare only pays 68 percent of
what the private sector pays for comparable physicians'
services and 69 percent of what the private sector pays for
comparable hospital care;
(6) piecemeal, budget-driven cuts in Medicare will only
shift costs from the Federal budget to the family budgets of
senior citizens and working Americans;
(7) deep cuts in Medicare could damage the quality of
American medicine, by endangering hospitals and other health
care institutions that depend on Medicare, including rural
hospitals, inner-city hospitals, and academic health centers;
(8) deep cuts in Medicare will make essential health care
less available to millions of uninsured Americans, by
endangering the financial stability of hospitals providing
such care; and
(9) cuts in Medicare benefits should not be used to pay for
tax cuts for the wealthy.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the provisions of this concurrent resolution assume that
reductions in projected Medicare spending included in the
reconciliation bill for fiscal year 1996 should not increase
medical costs such as premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance
or diminish access to health care for senior citizens, and
further, that major reductions in projected Medicare spending
should not be enacted by the Congress except in the context
of a broad, bipartisan health reform plan that will not--
(1) increase costs or reduce access to care for senior
citizens;
(2) shift costs to working Americans; or
(3) damage the quality of American medicine.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy's amendment urges that any
reductions in Medicare should not increase premiums, deductibles and
co-insurance for senior citizens and that Medicare reductions should
not be enacted except as part of a broader health reform.
I send a second amendment to the desk.
Mr. DOLE. Could I have an explanation of the one we just did, an
explanation of the first Kennedy amendment?
Mr. EXON. I thought we were going to do it in sequence.
Go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. We interpret the Kennedy amendment to propose that we
hold Medicare reform hostage until we have a national health care
reform package. But I am going to move to table it at the appropriate
time in any event.
Amendment No. 1189
(Purpose: To restore $28,000,000,000 in outlays over seven years to
reduce by $22,000,000,000 the discretionary cuts proposed in elementary
and secondary education programs and reduce the reconciliation
instructions to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources (primarily
affecting student loans) by $6 billion by closing corporate tax
loopholes)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, a second
amendment, offered by Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy, for
himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. [[Page
S7426]] Simon, and Mr. Pell,
proposes an amendment numbered 1189.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $28,300,000,000.
On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 31, line 12, increase the amount by
$28,300,000,000.
On page 31, line 20, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 31, line 13, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 31, line 21, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 32, line 4, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 64, line 9, decrease the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 64, line 10, decrease the amount by $4,600,000,000.
On page 64, line 11, decrease the amount by $6,000,000,000.
On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by
$26,700,000,000.
On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy's amendment would restore
$28 billion over the budget period for education, $6 billion to student
loan accounts, $22 billion to restore funding to elementary and
secondary education programs.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this increases taxes $22 billion and
provides for the expenditure thereof without any assurance it will be
spent that way under budget law.
Amendment No. 1190
(Purpose: To add $8,871,091,316 in budget authority and $6,770,659,752
in outlays to Function 500 over 7 years to restore funding to the Pell
Grant Program by closing tax loopholes)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send a third amendment by Senator Kennedy
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy, for
himself and Mr. Pell, proposes an amendment numbered 1190.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $65,246,479.
On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $430,766,179.
On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $832,941,958.
On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $1,222,899,409.
On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $1,648,270,247.
On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $2,097,874,450.
On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $2,573,092,594.
On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by
$1,729,683,671. [[Page
S7427]]
On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 31, line 12, increase the amount by $65,246,479.
On page 31, line 13, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 31, line 20, increase the amount by $430,766,179.
On page 31, line 21, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by $832,941,958.
On page 32, line 4, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by $1,222,899,409.
On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by $1,648,270,247.
On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by $2,097,874,450.
On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by $2,573,092,594.
On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by $65,246,479.
On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by $430,766,179.
On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by $832,941,958.
On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by $1,222,899,409.
On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by $1,648,270,247.
On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by $2,097,874,450.
On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by $2,573,092,594.
On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment is about something that we
all know a great deal and have generally supported very well, Pell
grants. This amendment, also sponsored by Senator Pell, would restore
$8.8 billion over the budget period to protect the value of Pell grants
against inflation and increasing college enrollments. Under the pending
budget proposal, the Pell grants would decline in value by 40 percent
over the next 7 years.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, again, we are going to raise taxes by
$8.8 billion to spend that amount of money. I believe we have held firm
on that heretofore, and I hope we do so again.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
that all three amendments be ordered to be for a rollcall vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not waive a right to table the
amendments, do I, with that?
Mr. EXON. No, the Senator does not.
Mr. DOMENICI. Fine. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection. Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have a way to dispose of Harkin-
McCain. I would add that as a fourth effort and move to table the
underlying amendment--that will take care of both of them--and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object to make sure we understand
that----
Mr. DOLE. I have cleared it with Senator Harkin.
Mr. EXON. I believe what the majority leader just said has been
agreed to by Senator Harkin, but I do want to check with him. As I
understand it, you on that side will offer a tabling motion.
Mr. DOLE. I just did it.
Mr. EXON. The Senator just did it.
Mr. DOLE. To table both of them.
Mr. EXON. And that will be the fourth of the series of votes that we
have just scheduled.
Mr. DOLE. Right.
Mr. HARKIN. That is a motion to table Harkin.
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. EXON. Anyone may reserve the right to offer a motion to table.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, were the yeas and nays ordered on the three
amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, is this the Harkin
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request pending.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, was the request granted that the yeas and
nays will be in order on all three?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That request has been agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays on all three.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the first Kennedy amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1188
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--41
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1188) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the second Kennedy
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1189
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No. 1189, offered by the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:
[[Page
S7428]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1189) was agreed
to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is the pending business the third
pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1190
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Massachusetts. On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--44
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1190) was agreed
to.
vote on motion to table amendment No. 1185
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the motion
to table amendment No. 1185. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]
YEAS--73
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerry
Kyl
Leahy
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--26
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bumpers
Conrad
Craig
Daschle
Dorgan
Feingold
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Rockefeller
Simon
Snowe
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1185) was agreed
to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent--and I have talked
to Senator Domenici about this--that we might recognize the Senator
from California very briefly for a unanimous consent request that I
think will be approved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you very much.
Change of Vote
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to change my
vote on rollcall No. 220, amendment numbered 1190, from a ``yea'' to a
``nay.'' It will not make a difference in the vote count.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Amendment No. 1191
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the priority
that should be given to renewable energy and energy efficiency
research, development, and demonstration activities)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have an amendment submitted by Senator
Bingaman and Senator Jeffords that expresses the sense of the Senate on
renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and research
development and demonstration activities in these areas, and our
priority within the Federal Energy Research Program. Cosponsors of this
amendment are Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Leahy. I think it has
been cleared on both sides.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have no objection. We accept the
amendment.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Bingaman, for
himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, and Mr.
Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 1191.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE PRIORITY THAT
SHOULD BE GIVEN TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) section 1202 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 2956), which passed the Senate 93 to 3 and was signed
into law by President Bush in 1992, amended section 6 of the
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology
Competitiveness Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 12005) to direct the
Secretary of Energy to conduct a 5-year program to
commercialize renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies;
(2) poll after poll shows that the American people
overwhelmingly believe that renewable energy and energy
efficiency technologies should be the highest priority of
[[Page
S7429]] Federal research, development, and
demonstration activities;
(3) renewable technologies (such as wind, photovoltaic,
solar thermal, geothermal, and biomass technology) have made
significant progress toward increased reliability and
decreased cost;
(4) energy efficient technologies in the building,
industrial, transportation, and utility sectors have saved
more than 3 trillion dollars for industries, consumers, and
the Federal Government over the past 20 years while creating
jobs, improving the competitiveness of the economy, making
housing more affordable, and reducing the emissions of
environmentally damaging pollutants;
(5) the renewable energy and energy efficiency technology
programs feature private sector cost shares that are among
the highest of Federal energy research and development
programs;
(6) according to the Energy Information Administration, the
United States currently imports more than 50 percent of its
oil, representing $46,000,000,000, or approximately 40
percent, of the $116,000,000,000 total United States
merchandise deficit in 1993; and
(7) renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies
represent potential inroads for American companies into
export markets for energy products and services estimated at
least $225,000,000,000 over the next 25 years.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this
resolution include the assumption that renewable energy and
energy efficiency technology research, development, and
demonstration activities should be given priority among the
Federal energy research programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment (No. 1191) is
agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. At the suggestion of the majority leader, we have
engaged in taking three amendments in a row and explaining them in
advance, and then voting on them one after another so that there is no
time lost. Senator Exon is going to offer three amendments, all three
Bradley amendments. We know what they are.
I ask unanimous consent that it be in order now for the managers to
explain each of the three in sequence and thereafter, when the
explanations are completed, each of the amendments be voted in sequence
and that time for each amendment be 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the explanation.
Amendment No. 1192
(Purpose: To establish a process to identify and control tax
expenditures by setting a target for cuts)
Mr. EXON. I send an amendment to the desk, the No. 1 Bradley
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Bradley, for
himself and Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 1192.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 79, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. . IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF TAX EXPENDITURES.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any concurrent resolution on the budget (or
amendment, motion, or conference report on such a resolution)
that does not include--
(1) appropriate levels for the budget year and planning
levels for each of the 6 fiscal years following the budget
year for the total amount, if any, tax expenditures should be
increased or decreased by bills and resolutions to be
reported by the appropriate committees; and
(2) tax expenditures for each major functional category,
based on the allocations of the total levels set forth in the
resolution.
(b) CBO.--The Director of the Congressional Budget Office
shall include alternatives for allocating tax expenditures in
accordance with national priorities as required by section
202(f)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the
concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case
may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of
the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the
Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.
(e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new
entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall
be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this amendment makes a very simple point:
we can spend money just as easily through the Tax Code as we can
through the appropriations process or through the creation of mandatory
spending programs.
The amendment that I have offered would simply require that in our
annual budget process we establish targets for reducing tax loopholes--
just as we do for all other types of spending. Those targets would be
enforced through a separate line in our budget reconciliation
instructions for reductions in tax loopholes. We already do this for
other entitlement programs. There is no reason not to do so for tax
loopholes. The Senate would pass a budget resolution asking the Finance
Committee to reduce tax loopholes, for example, by $10 billion a year
or $20 billion or whatever the Senate decides is prudent. It would be
up to the Finance Committee to meet those targets through the
reconciliation process.
This separate tax expenditure target would not replace our current
revenue targets. Instead, it would simply ensure that the committee
take at least the specified amount from tax loopholes. In other words,
we would ensure that the committee would not raise the targeted amount
from rate increases.
I think we should be honest about the hundreds of billions of dollars
that we spend each year through tax loopholes. Spending is spending,
whether it comes in the form of a government check or in the form of a
special exception from the tax rates that apply to everyone else.
Tax expenditures are a large and rapidly growing form of spending by
the Federal Government. According to the Budget Committee, in 1996, tax
expenditures will cost over $480 billion; left unchecked, we will spend
roughly $4 trillion on tax expenditures between now and 2002. In 1986,
we dramatically scaled back these loopholes. However, since that time,
they have grown at an astronomical rate. At a time when we are properly
talking about other spending cuts, I do not believe that tax
expenditures should be off the table.
Tax expenditures or tax loopholes allow some taxpayers to lower their
taxes and leave the rest of us paying higher taxes
than we otherwise would pay. By requiring that Congress establish
specific targets for tax loopholes as part of the budget reconciliation
process, this amendment simply places tax loopholes under the same
budgetary scrutiny as all other spending programs.
Tax loopholes do not, as some would say, simply allow people to keep
more of what they have earned. Rather, they give the few a special
exception from the rules that oblige everyone to share in the
responsibility of the national defense and protecting the young, the
aged, and the infirm.
Mr. President, in the face of a Federal debt rapidly approaching $5
trillion, we cannot afford to be timid. Our children's way of life is
dependent upon our acting on the Federal deficit today and tomorrow and
every year thereafter until we restore fiscal sanity to our budget. We
cannot wait until we grow our way out of the debt. And we should not
and cannot wait until deficits start drifting up in the latter half of
this decade before we do something.
The Congressional Budget Office tells us that by 2004 the national
debt held by the public will rise to roughly $6 trillion. At that time,
the national debt will equal almost 55 percent of our gross domestic
product. By 2004, interest payments on that debt will be approximately
$334 billion, or over 3 percent of our gross domestic product. One
recent report stated that these interest payments will cost each of
today's children over $130,000 in extra taxes over the course of their
lifetime. Our national debt is nothing less than a mortgage on our
Nation's, and our children's, future.
Mr. President, let us not kid ourselves. As we have seen from this
week's debate, addressing our burgeoning debt will not be easy. If it
was, we would have done it years ago. Instead, it will require a very
thoughtful, and sometimes difficult, debate over our Nation's
priorities and what sacrifices [[Page
S7430]] we are willing to make in
order to balance the budget. This means that we are going to have to
take a hard look at what we spend the taxpayers' money on. And that
means all of our spending programs--tax expenditures included.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to try to draw the Senate's
attention to the very targeted spending we do through the Tax Code--
spending that is not subject to the annual appropriations process;
spending that is not subject to the executive order capping the growth
of mandatory spending; spending that is rarely ever debated on the
floor of the Senate once it becomes part of the Tax Code. The
preferential deductions or credits or depreciation schedules or timing
rules that we provide through the Tax Code are simply entitlement
programs under another guise. Many of them make sense, Mr. President.
And I would be the first to admit that. Many, however, probably could
not stand the light of day if we had to
vote on them as direct spending programs.
Given our critical need for deficit reduction, tax spending should
not be treated any better or worse then other programs. It should not
be protected any more than Social Security payments or crop price
support payments or Medicare payments or welfare payments.
What am I really talking about? I am talking about provisions that
allow wealthy Americans to renounce their citizenship in order to avoid
paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. That is already in the Tax Code.
I am talking about letting wealthy taxpayers rent their homes for 2
weeks a year without having to report any income. That is already in
the Tax Code. I am talking about providing production subsidies in
excess of the dollars invested for the production of lead, uranium and
asbestos--three poisons on which we spend millions of dollars each year
just trying to clean up. That is already in the code. I am talking
about tax credits for clean-fuel vehicles, cancellation of indebtedness
income for farmers or real estate developers, special amortization
periods for timber companies' reforestation efforts, industrial
development bonds for airports or docks, special treatment of capital
construction funds for shipping companies, et cetera, et cetera.
Mr. President, let me be clear that this bill does not pinpoint
specific programs and I am not suggested that we eliminate all tax
expenditures. In fact, I support many of them. Instead, I am simply
suggesting that we subject them to the same level of scrutiny as all
other entitlement programs.
If we are serious about deficit reduction--and for our Nation's
future I sincerely hope that we are--then every segment of spending
will have to be examined. We cannot do it fairly through discretionary
spending cuts alone. Indeed, that is an area of the budget that is
shrinking in terms of gross national product. Likewise, we cannot do it
fairly through entitlement cuts alone. In order to achieve equitable,
lasting deficit reduction, we will need to consider tax loopholes as
well.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for nearly a decade now, one of our
primary tasks has been to leash the burgeoning budget deficit and keep
it under control. As my colleagues well know, the process of reducing
the deficit is a painstaking one, during which every item of direct
spending is scrutinized. Even entitlements are today facing the budget
ax--for example, this budget resolution envisions $256 billion in
Medicare cuts alone.
This scrutiny, however, is reserved for direct spending items. Yet,
one of our largest areas of spending in the Federal budget is tax
expenditures--exclusions, exemptions, deductions, c
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
(Senate - May 25, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S7423-S7459]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent
resolution.
Amendment No. 1184
(Purpose: To eliminate section 207 of the budget resolution)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Simon, for
himself, Mr. Pell, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment
numbered 1184.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike section 207 in its entirety.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a little-noticed provision of the budget
resolution will make it more likely that student loan cuts will come
out of the pockets of students, rather than banks, bureaucrats, and
other middlemen. Section 207 changes the way the loan costs are scored
in the budget by requiring administrative costs--such as collection
expenses--to be counted on a long-term--accrual--basis, rather than on
a cash basis over the 5-year budget window. While this may sound like a
reasonable change, it is accomplished in a manner that is inconsistent
and biased.
Section 207 is not applied consistently to all loan programs.
Instead, it targets student loans in particular. Furthermore, this type
of end-run around the Budget Act is not appropriate on a budget
resolution.
Section 207 is biased. There are a number of problems with the way
that loans are scored in the budget. Section 207 only fixes one of
them, skewing the scoring against direct student loans. This makes it
more difficult to achieve savings without eliminating the in-school
interest exemption or increasing fees and other student costs. A
complete reform of the budget scoring rules for loan programs would
consider:
Cost-of-funds. The most significant item that overstates the cost of
direct lending is the discount rate that is currently used. The
interest rates that students pay vary annually, and the subsidized
rates that the Federal Government promises to banks vary each quarter.
A Council of Economic Advisors memorandum of April 30, 1993, points out
that ``a multiple year loan with an interest rate that resets each year
should be treated for pricing purposes as having a maturity of one
year,'' meaning that a short-term rate should be used. But CBO and OMB
assume that the Government's cost-of-funds is a higher, long-term rate,
the 10-year bond. This makes direct lending appear much more costly
than it really is. Indeed, in a February 8, 1993, letter, GAO pointed
out that using shorter term interest rates would have more than doubled
the direct loan savings.
Tax-exempt bonds. Many student loan secondary markets use tax-exempt
bonds, costing the Federal Treasury an estimated $2.3 billion over 5
years. This cost is not considered when the Congressional Budget Office
determines how much direct lending saves, or how much the guarantee
program costs.
Taxpayer bailouts. When guaranty agencies agree to share the risk
under FFEL by paying a larger portion on defaulted loans, they are
using money that belongs to the Federal Government--so the Federal
Government is essentially sharing with itself. Furthermore, when any
agency can't pay its share, the Federal Government steps in. These
costs aren't currently considered.
I would hope that the chairman would reconsider this provision prior
to conference.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment simply strikes section 207 in
order to keep all of our options open to avoid imposing costs on
college students and their families.
The amendment has no cost impact. The amendment strikes budget
scoring rules in the budget resolution that single out a particular
program.
This amendment will allow committees of jurisdiction to look at these
issues in a comprehensive manner. First, last, and always, this
amendment protects students.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a slightly different impression.
The Simon amendment would strike language in the resolution that
corrects a bias against guaranteed student loans.
If adopted, the Simon amendment would favor the Clinton
administration policies for direct Government student lending. The
budget resolution does not do that.
I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 216 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1184) was agreed
to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1185
(Purpose: To reduce military spending by $100 to reduce the deficit)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] for Mr. Harkin,
proposes an amendment numbered 1185.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 7, line 15, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 8, line 1, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 8, line 10, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 9, line 14, decrease the amount by
$100. [[Page
S7424]]
On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by $100.
On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by $100.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment would simply reduce the
defense budget by $100. Let me repeat that. This amendment would simply
reduce the defense budget by $100 in fiscal year 1996. The savings is
applied to the deficit reduction.
Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my 30 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. If I were you, I would, too.
Mr. President, the sponsor of the amendment is here. I am willing to
accept this amendment without a vote. Would the Senator agree to that?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment is ludicrous on its face.
We will spend more than $100 printing the cost of this amendment and
wasting time of this Senate.
Amendment No. 1186 to Amendment No. 1185
(Purpose: To reduce swine research spending by $100 to reduce the
deficit)
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Craig,
proposes an amendment numbered 1186 to amendment No. 1185.
The amendment is as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed, insert the following:
On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 7, line 15, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 8, line 1, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 9, line 14, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 66, line 10, decrease the amount by 0.
On page 66, line 11, decrease the amount by 0.
It is the sense of the Congress that the functional levels
assume that the swine research be reduced by $100.00.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa cannot reserve the right
to object.
Is there an objection to the dispensing of the quorum?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are at a critical moment here. I would
suggest that if the Senator from Iowa wishes to take $100 out of
defense, the second degree-amendment, as I understand it, would take
$100 out of swine research.
I would suggest to both sides, why do we not agree to sensibly take
$100 out of defense and $100 out of the swine program, and move the
Senate ahead.
Mr. DOLE. Or just raise $100.
Mr. EXON. I will pay it myself.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call of
the quorum be rescinded.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The clerk will
continue to call the roll.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska made a suggestion
a few moments ago that is now being seriously considered. I would
simply ask, since we are moving so rapidly, and since we are near
completing this in the next 2 hours if we hang on, I would just suggest
once again that we have a voice vote on the proposition that we take
$100 out of the defense budget and $100 out of the swine research
facility in Iowa.
I suggest that be agreed to on a voice vote. I would like to know. We
will put it in proper form if we can get approval of it on both sides.
Informally, I would ask if anyone would object if the Senator would
put it in written form, what I have just orally stated?
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there is no debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the regular order, the question is on
the amendment.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder for purposes of trying to move
ahead with the budget, if the Senator might agree, and we will agree to
take the two amendments, the one pending and the amendment to it, set
it aside without prejudice and let us move ahead with some of the other
amendments?
Mr. EXON. We agree. I think that is a good suggestion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Amendment No. 1187
(Purpose: To eliminate the firewall between defense and nondefense
discretionary accounts)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for Senators
Simon and Bumpers, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for Mr. Simon, for
himself, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered
1187.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 65, strike lines 13 through 18 and insert
``$477,820,000,000 in new budget authority and
$526,943,000,000 in outlays;''.
On page 65, strike lines 20 through 25 and insert
``$466,192,000,000 in new budget authority and
$506,943,000,000 in outlays;''.
On page 66, strike lines 2 through 7 and insert
``$479,568,000,000 in new budget authority and
$499,961,000,000 in outlays;''.
On page 66, strike lines 9 through 14 and insert
``$477,485,000,000 in new budget authority and
$502,571,000,000 in outlays;''.
On page 66, strike lines 16 through 21 and insert
``$492,177,000,000 in new budget authority and
$511,761,000,000 in outlays;''.
On page 66, strike beginning with line 23 through line 3,
page 67, and insert ``$496,098,000,000 in new budget
authority and $517,258,000,000 in outlays; and''.
On page 67, strike lines 5 through 10 and insert
``$495,498,000,000 in new budget authority and
$518,160,000,000 in outlays.''.
On page 67, line 22, strike ``sum of the defense and
nondefense''.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Simon-Bumpers amendment eliminates the
resolution's provision that establishes a firewall between defense and
nondefense discretionary accounts. The amendment does not change the
levels of budget authority and outlays, and does not add a single cent
to the deficit.
The amendment simply assures that Congress maintains flexibility to
respond to changing spending priorities in a prudent, fiscally sound
way. That sort of flexibility is particularly important in light of the
vast uncertainties concerning the Nation's domestic and military
commitments in the years ahead.
As we debate the Nation's priorities within the overall constraints
of the balanced budget, we should not bind ourselves needlessly to
subcategories within the discretionary caps. Removing the firewall is a
vital step in achieving the necessary flexibility.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. [[Page
S7425]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while this does not change the numbers,
it permits the defense moneys and the nondefense moneys to be fungible
and move back and forth between the two.
The Budget Committee said we should not do that for the next 7 years.
I believe they are right.
I move to table the amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate we have lost about 10 or 15
minutes here. I would ask the clerk: At the end of the time we will
turn in the scorecard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the amendment.
The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 217 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--33
Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
Kassebaum
Mikulski
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1187) was agreed
to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I suggest that Senators ought to
take heed of this now. What we are going to do, there are three more
amendments from that side that we are ready to take up. Senator Exon is
going to explain each of the three. I will have a brief explanation.
Then everybody ought to stay here because we are going to vote on them
one after another. We are not going to have an explanation at the end
of each one. So three explanations, three amendments, and vote on those
three amendments in sequence and immediately upon completing one go to
another, no time interval for explanations.
Mr. EXON. I would just simply add then we will go on with the process
that had been established by the majority leader for 10 minutes and 10
minutes only thereafter. That does not mean----
Mr. SIMON. Nine minutes.
Mr. EXON. Nine minutes thereafter. That does not mean we are going to
change.
Mr. DOMENICI. Oh, no.
Mr. EXON. Anything other than to maybe expedite things for just a
moment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
Mr. EXON. We are getting very close.
Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Amendment No. 1188
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the inclusion of
reductions in Medicare spending in the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1996)
Mr. EXON. The first of the three amendments that have just been
suggested by the Budget Committee chairman I send to the desk in behalf
of Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy,
proposes an amendment numbered 1188.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REDUCTIONS IN MEDICARE
SPENDING.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Medicare protection is as important as Social Security
protection in guaranteeing retirement security and is truly a
part of Social Security;
(2) senior citizens have contributed throughout their
working lives to Medicare in the expectation of health
insurance protection when they retire;
(3) because of gaps in Medicare coverage, senior citizens
already spend more than one dollar in five of their limited
incomes to purchase the health care that they need;
(4) low and moderate-income senior citizens will suffer
most from Medicare cuts, since 83 percent of all Medicare
spending is for older Americans with annual incomes below
$25,000 and two-thirds is for those with annual incomes below
$15,000;
(5) at the present time, Medicare only pays 68 percent of
what the private sector pays for comparable physicians'
services and 69 percent of what the private sector pays for
comparable hospital care;
(6) piecemeal, budget-driven cuts in Medicare will only
shift costs from the Federal budget to the family budgets of
senior citizens and working Americans;
(7) deep cuts in Medicare could damage the quality of
American medicine, by endangering hospitals and other health
care institutions that depend on Medicare, including rural
hospitals, inner-city hospitals, and academic health centers;
(8) deep cuts in Medicare will make essential health care
less available to millions of uninsured Americans, by
endangering the financial stability of hospitals providing
such care; and
(9) cuts in Medicare benefits should not be used to pay for
tax cuts for the wealthy.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the provisions of this concurrent resolution assume that
reductions in projected Medicare spending included in the
reconciliation bill for fiscal year 1996 should not increase
medical costs such as premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance
or diminish access to health care for senior citizens, and
further, that major reductions in projected Medicare spending
should not be enacted by the Congress except in the context
of a broad, bipartisan health reform plan that will not--
(1) increase costs or reduce access to care for senior
citizens;
(2) shift costs to working Americans; or
(3) damage the quality of American medicine.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy's amendment urges that any
reductions in Medicare should not increase premiums, deductibles and
co-insurance for senior citizens and that Medicare reductions should
not be enacted except as part of a broader health reform.
I send a second amendment to the desk.
Mr. DOLE. Could I have an explanation of the one we just did, an
explanation of the first Kennedy amendment?
Mr. EXON. I thought we were going to do it in sequence.
Go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. We interpret the Kennedy amendment to propose that we
hold Medicare reform hostage until we have a national health care
reform package. But I am going to move to table it at the appropriate
time in any event.
Amendment No. 1189
(Purpose: To restore $28,000,000,000 in outlays over seven years to
reduce by $22,000,000,000 the discretionary cuts proposed in elementary
and secondary education programs and reduce the reconciliation
instructions to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources (primarily
affecting student loans) by $6 billion by closing corporate tax
loopholes)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, a second
amendment, offered by Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy, for
himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. [[Page
S7426]] Simon, and Mr. Pell,
proposes an amendment numbered 1189.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $28,300,000,000.
On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 31, line 12, increase the amount by
$28,300,000,000.
On page 31, line 20, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 31, line 13, increase the amount by $5,100,000,000.
On page 31, line 21, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 32, line 4, increase the amount by $3,600,000,000.
On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by $3,800,000,000.
On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by $4,100,000,000.
On page 64, line 9, decrease the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 64, line 10, decrease the amount by $4,600,000,000.
On page 64, line 11, decrease the amount by $6,000,000,000.
On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by
$26,700,000,000.
On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by $3,400,000,000.
On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy's amendment would restore
$28 billion over the budget period for education, $6 billion to student
loan accounts, $22 billion to restore funding to elementary and
secondary education programs.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this increases taxes $22 billion and
provides for the expenditure thereof without any assurance it will be
spent that way under budget law.
Amendment No. 1190
(Purpose: To add $8,871,091,316 in budget authority and $6,770,659,752
in outlays to Function 500 over 7 years to restore funding to the Pell
Grant Program by closing tax loopholes)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send a third amendment by Senator Kennedy
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy, for
himself and Mr. Pell, proposes an amendment numbered 1190.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 3, line 24, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 3, line 25, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $65,246,479.
On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $430,766,179.
On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $832,941,958.
On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $1,222,899,409.
On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $1,648,270,247.
On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $2,097,874,450.
On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $2,573,092,594.
On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 6, line 18, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 6, line 21, increase the amount by
$1,729,683,671. [[Page
S7427]]
On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 31, line 12, increase the amount by $65,246,479.
On page 31, line 13, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 31, line 20, increase the amount by $430,766,179.
On page 31, line 21, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by $832,941,958.
On page 32, line 4, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by $1,222,899,409.
On page 32, line 12, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by $1,648,270,247.
On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by $2,097,874,450.
On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by $2,573,092,594.
On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
On page 65, line 17, increase the amount by $65,246,479.
On page 65, line 18, increase the amount by $13,049,296.
On page 65, line 24, increase the amount by $430,766,179.
On page 65, line 25, increase the amount by $137,045,490.
On page 66, line 6, increase the amount by $832,941,958.
On page 66, line 7, increase the amount by $503,890,941.
On page 66, line 13, increase the amount by $1,222,899,409.
On page 66, line 14, increase the amount by $902,889,932.
On page 66, line 20, increase the amount by $1,648,270,247.
On page 66, line 21, increase the amount by $1,300,174,427.
On page 67, line 2, increase the amount by $2,097,874,450.
On page 67, line 3, increase the amount by $1,729,683,671.
On page 67, line 9, increase the amount by $2,573,092,594.
On page 67, line 10, increase the amount by $2,183,925,995.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment is about something that we
all know a great deal and have generally supported very well, Pell
grants. This amendment, also sponsored by Senator Pell, would restore
$8.8 billion over the budget period to protect the value of Pell grants
against inflation and increasing college enrollments. Under the pending
budget proposal, the Pell grants would decline in value by 40 percent
over the next 7 years.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, again, we are going to raise taxes by
$8.8 billion to spend that amount of money. I believe we have held firm
on that heretofore, and I hope we do so again.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
that all three amendments be ordered to be for a rollcall vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not waive a right to table the
amendments, do I, with that?
Mr. EXON. No, the Senator does not.
Mr. DOMENICI. Fine. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection. Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have a way to dispose of Harkin-
McCain. I would add that as a fourth effort and move to table the
underlying amendment--that will take care of both of them--and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object to make sure we understand
that----
Mr. DOLE. I have cleared it with Senator Harkin.
Mr. EXON. I believe what the majority leader just said has been
agreed to by Senator Harkin, but I do want to check with him. As I
understand it, you on that side will offer a tabling motion.
Mr. DOLE. I just did it.
Mr. EXON. The Senator just did it.
Mr. DOLE. To table both of them.
Mr. EXON. And that will be the fourth of the series of votes that we
have just scheduled.
Mr. DOLE. Right.
Mr. HARKIN. That is a motion to table Harkin.
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. EXON. Anyone may reserve the right to offer a motion to table.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, were the yeas and nays ordered on the three
amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, is this the Harkin
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request pending.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, was the request granted that the yeas and
nays will be in order on all three?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That request has been agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays on all three.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the first Kennedy amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1188
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--41
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1188) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the second Kennedy
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1189
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No. 1189, offered by the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:
[[Page
S7428]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1189) was agreed
to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is the pending business the third
pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1190
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Massachusetts. On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--44
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1190) was agreed
to.
vote on motion to table amendment No. 1185
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the motion
to table amendment No. 1185. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]
YEAS--73
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerry
Kyl
Leahy
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--26
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bumpers
Conrad
Craig
Daschle
Dorgan
Feingold
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Rockefeller
Simon
Snowe
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1185) was agreed
to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent--and I have talked
to Senator Domenici about this--that we might recognize the Senator
from California very briefly for a unanimous consent request that I
think will be approved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you very much.
Change of Vote
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to change my
vote on rollcall No. 220, amendment numbered 1190, from a ``yea'' to a
``nay.'' It will not make a difference in the vote count.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Amendment No. 1191
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the priority
that should be given to renewable energy and energy efficiency
research, development, and demonstration activities)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have an amendment submitted by Senator
Bingaman and Senator Jeffords that expresses the sense of the Senate on
renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and research
development and demonstration activities in these areas, and our
priority within the Federal Energy Research Program. Cosponsors of this
amendment are Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Leahy. I think it has
been cleared on both sides.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have no objection. We accept the
amendment.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Bingaman, for
himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, and Mr.
Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 1191.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE PRIORITY THAT
SHOULD BE GIVEN TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) section 1202 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 2956), which passed the Senate 93 to 3 and was signed
into law by President Bush in 1992, amended section 6 of the
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology
Competitiveness Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 12005) to direct the
Secretary of Energy to conduct a 5-year program to
commercialize renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies;
(2) poll after poll shows that the American people
overwhelmingly believe that renewable energy and energy
efficiency technologies should be the highest priority of
[[Page
S7429]] Federal research, development, and
demonstration activities;
(3) renewable technologies (such as wind, photovoltaic,
solar thermal, geothermal, and biomass technology) have made
significant progress toward increased reliability and
decreased cost;
(4) energy efficient technologies in the building,
industrial, transportation, and utility sectors have saved
more than 3 trillion dollars for industries, consumers, and
the Federal Government over the past 20 years while creating
jobs, improving the competitiveness of the economy, making
housing more affordable, and reducing the emissions of
environmentally damaging pollutants;
(5) the renewable energy and energy efficiency technology
programs feature private sector cost shares that are among
the highest of Federal energy research and development
programs;
(6) according to the Energy Information Administration, the
United States currently imports more than 50 percent of its
oil, representing $46,000,000,000, or approximately 40
percent, of the $116,000,000,000 total United States
merchandise deficit in 1993; and
(7) renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies
represent potential inroads for American companies into
export markets for energy products and services estimated at
least $225,000,000,000 over the next 25 years.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this
resolution include the assumption that renewable energy and
energy efficiency technology research, development, and
demonstration activities should be given priority among the
Federal energy research programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment (No. 1191) is
agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. At the suggestion of the majority leader, we have
engaged in taking three amendments in a row and explaining them in
advance, and then voting on them one after another so that there is no
time lost. Senator Exon is going to offer three amendments, all three
Bradley amendments. We know what they are.
I ask unanimous consent that it be in order now for the managers to
explain each of the three in sequence and thereafter, when the
explanations are completed, each of the amendments be voted in sequence
and that time for each amendment be 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the explanation.
Amendment No. 1192
(Purpose: To establish a process to identify and control tax
expenditures by setting a target for cuts)
Mr. EXON. I send an amendment to the desk, the No. 1 Bradley
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Bradley, for
himself and Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 1192.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 79, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. . IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF TAX EXPENDITURES.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any concurrent resolution on the budget (or
amendment, motion, or conference report on such a resolution)
that does not include--
(1) appropriate levels for the budget year and planning
levels for each of the 6 fiscal years following the budget
year for the total amount, if any, tax expenditures should be
increased or decreased by bills and resolutions to be
reported by the appropriate committees; and
(2) tax expenditures for each major functional category,
based on the allocations of the total levels set forth in the
resolution.
(b) CBO.--The Director of the Congressional Budget Office
shall include alternatives for allocating tax expenditures in
accordance with national priorities as required by section
202(f)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the
concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case
may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of
the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the
Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.
(e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new
entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall
be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this amendment makes a very simple point:
we can spend money just as easily through the Tax Code as we can
through the appropriations process or through the creation of mandatory
spending programs.
The amendment that I have offered would simply require that in our
annual budget process we establish targets for reducing tax loopholes--
just as we do for all other types of spending. Those targets would be
enforced through a separate line in our budget reconciliation
instructions for reductions in tax loopholes. We already do this for
other entitlement programs. There is no reason not to do so for tax
loopholes. The Senate would pass a budget resolution asking the Finance
Committee to reduce tax loopholes, for example, by $10 billion a year
or $20 billion or whatever the Senate decides is prudent. It would be
up to the Finance Committee to meet those targets through the
reconciliation process.
This separate tax expenditure target would not replace our current
revenue targets. Instead, it would simply ensure that the committee
take at least the specified amount from tax loopholes. In other words,
we would ensure that the committee would not raise the targeted amount
from rate increases.
I think we should be honest about the hundreds of billions of dollars
that we spend each year through tax loopholes. Spending is spending,
whether it comes in the form of a government check or in the form of a
special exception from the tax rates that apply to everyone else.
Tax expenditures are a large and rapidly growing form of spending by
the Federal Government. According to the Budget Committee, in 1996, tax
expenditures will cost over $480 billion; left unchecked, we will spend
roughly $4 trillion on tax expenditures between now and 2002. In 1986,
we dramatically scaled back these loopholes. However, since that time,
they have grown at an astronomical rate. At a time when we are properly
talking about other spending cuts, I do not believe that tax
expenditures should be off the table.
Tax expenditures or tax loopholes allow some taxpayers to lower their
taxes and leave the rest of us paying higher taxes
than we otherwise would pay. By requiring that Congress establish
specific targets for tax loopholes as part of the budget reconciliation
process, this amendment simply places tax loopholes under the same
budgetary scrutiny as all other spending programs.
Tax loopholes do not, as some would say, simply allow people to keep
more of what they have earned. Rather, they give the few a special
exception from the rules that oblige everyone to share in the
responsibility of the national defense and protecting the young, the
aged, and the infirm.
Mr. President, in the face of a Federal debt rapidly approaching $5
trillion, we cannot afford to be timid. Our children's way of life is
dependent upon our acting on the Federal deficit today and tomorrow and
every year thereafter until we restore fiscal sanity to our budget. We
cannot wait until we grow our way out of the debt. And we should not
and cannot wait until deficits start drifting up in the latter half of
this decade before we do something.
The Congressional Budget Office tells us that by 2004 the national
debt held by the public will rise to roughly $6 trillion. At that time,
the national debt will equal almost 55 percent of our gross domestic
product. By 2004, interest payments on that debt will be approximately
$334 billion, or over 3 percent of our gross domestic product. One
recent report stated that these interest payments will cost each of
today's children over $130,000 in extra taxes over the course of their
lifetime. Our national debt is nothing less than a mortgage on our
Nation's, and our children's, future.
Mr. President, let us not kid ourselves. As we have seen from this
week's debate, addressing our burgeoning debt will not be easy. If it
was, we would have done it years ago. Instead, it will require a very
thoughtful, and sometimes difficult, debate over our Nation's
priorities and what sacrifices [[Page
S7430]] we are willing to make in
order to balance the budget. This means that we are going to have to
take a hard look at what we spend the taxpayers' money on. And that
means all of our spending programs--tax expenditures included.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to try to draw the Senate's
attention to the very targeted spending we do through the Tax Code--
spending that is not subject to the annual appropriations process;
spending that is not subject to the executive order capping the growth
of mandatory spending; spending that is rarely ever debated on the
floor of the Senate once it becomes part of the Tax Code. The
preferential deductions or credits or depreciation schedules or timing
rules that we provide through the Tax Code are simply entitlement
programs under another guise. Many of them make sense, Mr. President.
And I would be the first to admit that. Many, however, probably could
not stand the light of day if we had to
vote on them as direct spending programs.
Given our critical need for deficit reduction, tax spending should
not be treated any better or worse then other programs. It should not
be protected any more than Social Security payments or crop price
support payments or Medicare payments or welfare payments.
What am I really talking about? I am talking about provisions that
allow wealthy Americans to renounce their citizenship in order to avoid
paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. That is already in the Tax Code.
I am talking about letting wealthy taxpayers rent their homes for 2
weeks a year without having to report any income. That is already in
the Tax Code. I am talking about providing production subsidies in
excess of the dollars invested for the production of lead, uranium and
asbestos--three poisons on which we spend millions of dollars each year
just trying to clean up. That is already in the code. I am talking
about tax credits for clean-fuel vehicles, cancellation of indebtedness
income for farmers or real estate developers, special amortization
periods for timber companies' reforestation efforts, industrial
development bonds for airports or docks, special treatment of capital
construction funds for shipping companies, et cetera, et cetera.
Mr. President, let me be clear that this bill does not pinpoint
specific programs and I am not suggested that we eliminate all tax
expenditures. In fact, I support many of them. Instead, I am simply
suggesting that we subject them to the same level of scrutiny as all
other entitlement programs.
If we are serious about deficit reduction--and for our Nation's
future I sincerely hope that we are--then every segment of spending
will have to be examined. We cannot do it fairly through discretionary
spending cuts alone. Indeed, that is an area of the budget that is
shrinking in terms of gross national product. Likewise, we cannot do it
fairly through entitlement cuts alone. In order to achieve equitable,
lasting deficit reduction, we will need to consider tax loopholes as
well.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for nearly a decade now, one of our
primary tasks has been to leash the burgeoning budget deficit and keep
it under control. As my colleagues well know, the process of reducing
the deficit is a painstaking one, during which every item of direct
spending is scrutinized. Even entitlements are today facing the budget
ax--for example, this budget resolution envisions $256 billion in
Medicare cuts alone.
This scrutiny, however, is reserved for direct spending items. Yet,
one of our largest areas of spending in the Federal budget is tax
expenditures--exclusions, exemptions, ded
