[Pages S15999-S16014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just use a minute of my leader's
time.
I am now advised that there are at least 40 amendments on the other
side that will be offered, after we were at least hopeful yesterday and
we agreed to have up-and-down amendments on tier 1. We will probably
end up with maybe 25 tier 3 amendments. We have already disposed of a
number. So it seems we are going to exceed almost up to 50 amendments
in that category.
If you just took the votes themselves, you allowed 10 minutes, that
is 400 minutes. That is 7 hours. I am not going to stick around here
very long tonight, but I am very happy to come back early tomorrow
morning. We will go along and see how many of these--we have 13 over
here, so that is another couple hours. So if that is what we want to
do, we will have plenty of time this weekend to do it. We are going to
do it this weekend, but we are not going to stay up half the night to
accommodate somebody who has to be somewhere tomorrow.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Senator Kennedy has an amendment that we would like to
bring up at this time, so I yield him the 30 seconds to explain his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill raises the
Medicare age of eligibility to 67.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator please send the amendment to
the desk.

Point of Order

Mr. KENNEDY. I raise a point of order that section 7171, raising the
age of Medicare eligibility, violates section 313(b)(1)(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act.
It has been submitted to the Budget Committee, so I make that point
of order at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. If I could have order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate please come to order so we can
hear the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill raises the
Medicare age of eligibility to 67 beginning in the year 2003.
While the reconciliation provision is described as conforming to the
Social Security change enacted in 1983, it has significant differences.
Individuals affected by the Social Security change had a minimum of 20
years to adjust their retirement plans, while individuals affected by
this change have only 7 years. Social Security change continued to
allow individuals to receive benefits at 62.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts must send his
amendment to the desk.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask that the Budget Committee, where I submitted it--
if I could have their attention, please.
As I understand, the point of order was sustained, so I wonder why I
need to send something----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a time limit of 30 seconds on
the amendment. And if the amendment is not at the desk, the Senator
does not have any time.
Mr. KENNEDY. I made the point of order. It was sustained.
I ask, in place of sending the amendment, that I be entitled to the
same amount of time to speak on the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 30 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator has prevailed.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
Mr. DOMENICI. He has prevailed.
Mr. KENNEDY. I just say, if we are going to be taken off our feet
when the parliamentary situation is not clear, we will be staying
around for a long time.
I am asking for fairness, for the 30 seconds we were entitled to,
that I was told I am entitled to by the Budget Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 30 seconds.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
have an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for 30 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Social Security change continued to
allow individuals to receive benefits at age 62; the age of early
retirement, and age 65, the normal retirement age, although at reduced
levels.
Under this proposal, no Medicare benefits at all will be provided
until the individual is 67. The provision breaks faith with American
workers who paid into the Medicare system in the expectation they will
be provided health security at the age of 65 and will leave millions of
senior citizens without health insurance coverage.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I hope for purposes of management that Senators on our
side would leave it up to one of us, either the leader or I, in terms
of asking

[[Page S 16000]]
that people be recognized or granted time. I understand the Senator,
but I hope in the future the Senator will leave that up to us. He has
prevailed. We had no intention of stopping him. So I think this matter
is over. We yield back any time we might have had on the point of
order. It has already been granted.
The next amendment, I understand, is on our side by Senator Cochran.

Amendment No. 3004

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a
special marketing order to equalize returns on all milk used to produce
Class IV final products, to consent to the Northeast Interstate Dairy
Compact, and to require the Secretary to carry out an agricultural
competitiveness initiative)

Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and
Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 3004.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment helps farmers and markets
adjust to the changes in Federal dairy policy in this bill. It does so
by creating an export class for dairy products and establishing a
farmer-financed mechanism to boost exports. It saves money and provides
for research to make our products more competitive.
It will also grant the consent of Congress to the Northeast
Interstate Dairy Compact, which is supported by all the Governors and
legislatures in New England.
I urge Senators to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 30 seconds has expired.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senator Cochran,
Senator Leahy, Senator Gorton, Senator Cohen, and Senator Snowe in
supporting the creation of an export class for dairy products, and
granting the consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy
Compact. This amendment is vital to the future of the New England dairy
industry and the national dairy industry as a whole.
Mr. President, the Senate reconciliation bill cuts the cost of the
dairy program by 49 percent over the next 7 years. This comes on top of
a reduction of 69 percent in the last decade. While the dairy industry
is willing to accept some cuts, and I realize the need to cut, the
industry has already pulled its load. As it stands, this bill does not
address the critical need to increase sales of butter and nonfat dry
milk in the world market.
As the support price for butter and nonfat dry milk are eliminated,
their prices will fall and cause a glut of those products. This surplus
will either be cleared on the world market at a very reduced price, or
be converted into cheese. In either case, this will case a substantial
drag on the return to dairy farmers and manufacturers of these
products. This amendment will expand U.S. dairy markets by providing a
way for all producers to share the cost of moving those products to the
export market. It is GATT-legal, plus will reduce U.S. reliance on
export subsidies.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the conversion from
powder to cheese will increase Commodity Credit Corporation purchases
by $230 million. This amendment will help farmers and taxpayers--by
ensuring dairy products will be exported instead of being purchased by
the Government.
This amendment will also grant consent to the Northeast Interstate
Dairy Compact, an agreement among the six New England States to create
a commission that will have the authority to oversee the pricing for
fluid milk produced in the New England region. The compact will not
affect milk prices outside the compact region. In fact, it will act as
a useful pilot project for other regions, and is strongly supported by
many groups and individuals across the country.
Mr. President, the New England States have joined together to do what
many States do already on their own. If America had grown from west to
east I would not be standing here because New England would likely be
one large State and would not have to ask for consent of Congress.
All six States' Governors-Republican, Democrat, and independent and
their legislatures strongly support this amendment. On vote after vote
this year we have acted to give more responsibility back to the States.
Here is an opportunity for the Senate to do just that--in precisely the
manner the Founders laid out in the Constitution.
Mr. President, the National Milk Producers Federation strongly
supports this amendment as well as Mid-America, AMPI, Darigold, Milk
Marketing Inc., and many other farmer cooperatives and dairy farmers
from throughout the country. Supporting it is an opportunity to vote
for State's rights, and to vote for dairy farmers and to vote for our
taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Jeffords,
Senator Cohen, Senator Snowe, and Senator Leahy, as a cosponsor of this
amendment.
Mr. President, the Senate Agriculture Committee has eliminated dairy
price support purchases for butter and nonfat dry milk, and retains
such purchases for cheese. The dairy farmers in my State support this
provision, but only if a farmer funded class IV export program is
established. The Agriculture Committee failed to address export sales
of butter and nonfat dry milk to the world market. Our amendment
addresses this issue and according to CBO will save an additional $233
million in the next 7 years. These savings are in addition to $1
billion, the Government will save during the same 7 years by the
elimination of dairy support for butter and nonfat dry milk.
This farmer funded class IV export program has the support of many,
including; Darigold--80 percent of all Washington State producers,
National Milk Producers Federation, Mid-America Dairymen, Milk
Marketing Inc., AMPI, American Farm Bureau, Kansas Dairymen
Association, Utah Dairymen Association, NE Council of Farmer
Cooperatives, Michigan Milk Producers Association, Florida Dairy
Farmers Association, Dairlylee Cooperatives, United Dairymen
Association, Western Dairymen Cooperatives, and a legion of other
farmer cooperatives and dairy farmers across the country.
In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
this amendment.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont, and I rise in strong
support of the amendment.
Family dairy farms are facing hard times across the country, and this
amendment is designed to assist these farmers while protecting the
interests of the taxpayers and consumers.
The Jeffords amendment does two things. First, it creates a class IV
pool for nonfat dry milk and butter. This pool will help to offset the
financial impact on farmers of the reconciliation bill's repeal of the
price support program for these two products. The new pool would be
GATT-legal, allowing a greater volume of U.S. butter and nonfat dry
milk to be exported than would be the case if we do not create the new
pool. In short, the class IV pool will help farmers maintain their
incomes without increasing Federal expenditures.
Mr. President, the second provision of the amendment provides the
consent of the Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Like
the class IV proposal, the compact is designed to help family dairy
farmers survive in a very difficult market environment. But unlike the
class IV proposal, the compact does not involve the Federal Government.
It represents a regional, State-based solution to a regional problem,
and the Federal Government need only give its assent and then step out
of the way.
Today, New England is practically bleeding dairy farms. In Maine, for
instance, we have lost more than 200 farms since 1988, and this number
would have been far higher if Maine

[[Page S 16001]]
had not instituted a dairy vendor's fee to help stabilize farm income.
Unfortunately, that vendor's fee has been invalidated by a Federal
court, and farmers are exceedingly vulnerable once again.
The decline in New England's dairy farms can be attributed to low and
volatile dairy prices under the Federal marketing order program that do
not reflect the costs of production in the region. Because New England
farmers sell much of their milk in the fluid milk market, they face
substantially higher costs to get their milk to the plant, and they do
not have access to subsidized electricity like farmers in some other
parts of the country. Consequently, New England's dairy farmers receive
some of the lowest mailbox prices of any dairy farmers in the country.
In response to this farm crisis, the six New England States
negotiated an interstate compact in 1993 that allows them to add, if
they choose, an additional increment to the Federal marketing order
price in the New England region. These increments would have to be
approved by a commission created under the compact which consists of
representatives from each of the New England States, and which includes
both producer and consumer interests.

Mr. President, this compact is a regional solution to a regional
problem in the most literal sense. With very few exceptions, it affects
only the consumers, farmers, and dairy processors of New England. The
compact applies only to fluid, or class I, milk, and 97 percent of the
fluid milk consumed in New England is processed by New England-based
processors.
Approximately 75 percent of the milk processed by these processors
comes from New England farmers. The remainder comes from New York,
whose farmers would receive the same prices for their milk under the
compact as farmers in New England.
Although the compact only affects the participating States, the
cosponsors of the amendment have included explicit assurances to remove
any doubt. These assurances further clarify that the compact only
applies to class I fluid milk, that no new States can join the compact
without the formal approval of both Houses of Congress, that out-of-
region farmers who sell milk in the compact region will get the same
price as New England farmers, and that the compact commission will take
active measures to prevent increases in production.
Mr. President, the Jeffords amendment is profarmer, protaxpayer, and
pro-States' rights. It will help to ensure that good farmers have a
reasonable chance to stay in business, but at less cost to the Federal
Government. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by Senator Cochran to grant the consent of Congress
to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and to create a class IV
pricing system for milk used to make butter or powder.
Both of these provisions would take dairy policy in the opposite
direction in which congressional reformers are attempting to take all
agricultural policy--this amendment provides more market intervention,
more regulation, and more inequity.
It is unfortunate that the major changes that this amendment makes
and the enormous precedent that it sets will not be fully debated by
this Chamber. I am certain that few Members of this Chamber will have
an opportunity to actually learn and understand just what it is they
are voting on. I am also certain that this amendment will be approved.
This amendment balkanizes the U.S. dairy industry by insulating the
Northeast dairy industry from the market conditions that all other
farmers in this country must face.
This amendment will provide congressional consent to an interstate
compact, the like of which has never been approved by the Congress. It
is, Mr. President, unprecedented.
This compact will allow a Commission in the Northeast to set fluid
milk prices artificially high for the six States in the compact. It
allows dairy farmers in six States in the Northeast to enjoy higher
prices for their milk, erects barriers to keep out lower cost milk from
outside the compact walls, and will result in lower prices for
producers in the rest of the United States.
The compact would allow for an increase in the fluid milk
differential up to $17.40 per hundred pounds of milk, or in terms of
gallons--$1.50 per gallon. This is well over $3 greater than the price
producers in the New England order enjoy currently for fluid milk.
However, the compact we are being asked to approve also allows that
price to be increased with inflation, as measured by the CPI, since
1990. By the year 2,000 the cap could be well over to $20 if inflation
increases by 3 percent per year.
With those kinds of price increases, we can expect producers in
Vermont and elsewhere to increase their milk production in response to
those higher prices. And, Mr. President, as far too many dairy farmers
know, production increases in one region of the country drive down milk
prices for producers throughout the Nation.
One might ask why producers in the Northeast should be allowed to
have their milk prices adjusted for inflation each year, when that
privilege is given to no other commodity in any other region. One might
ask why we should allow one region of the country to increase consumer
costs when virtually every other effort in this Congress has attempted
to eliminate the burden on consumers from overly regulatory
agricultural policies.
We must ask, why should the Congress grant its approval to the
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact?
The answer is that Congress should not provide its consent for an
interstate price fixing compact.
The supporters of this amendment have tried to present this as a very
simple idea--that of a simple interstate compact designed to help the
struggling producers of that region in isolation from national markets
and having no effects on non-compact producers.
But, Mr. President, producers in the upper Midwest have learned
through painful lessons that regional changes in milk prices have
national effects and national implications.
The Northeast Dairy Compact is not a simple proposal. It is not an
innocuous interstate compact isolated to the participating States and
it will have national implications.
Mr. President, it is time to remove the artificial fluid milk price
differentials that discriminate against certain regions to the benefit
of others, distort markets, and cost consumers millions of dollars in
food costs annually--It is not time to enhance them.
I would urge my colleagues to think seriously about whether or not
this body wishes to endorse price-fixing compacts of any nature.
The precedent that congressional approval of the Northeast Interstate
Dairy Compact would set is very serious indeed--we will be allowing a
small group of States to fix prices for a product produced and marketed
nationally.
The second half of this amendment establishes a class IV pricing
system which benefits a few producers on the other coast of the United
States--the west coast powder-producing States, to the detriment of
producers elsewhere. This class IV pricing system is not necessary for
the U.S. dairy industry to expand exports. I have 30,000 dairy farmers
in Wisconsin that want to expand exports and are planning to do so, but
Wisconsin dairy producers oppose class IV pricing.
Why? Because it forces them to pay a tax to support producers on the
west coast. In fact, producers throughout the country will likely pay a
minimum of 15 cents per hundredweight to help producers on the west
coast continue to overproduce milk powder which will no longer be
supported by the Federal Government which is no longer demanded by the
domestic market. I would urge my colleagues to look with a skeptical
eye on projections that this amendment will greatly enhance producer
revenues to compensate for powder tax that all producers will pay. If
such projections were realistic, the thousands of milk producers in the
upper Midwest--the heart of this Nation's dairy country--would be
embracing this proposal, not opposing it.
Mr. President, this amendment provides help to producers in eight
States--the six Northeastern States that will benefit from the Compact,
and two west coast States that will benefit from the class IV system.
All other producers in between are the big losers.

[[Page S 16002]]

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It creates more
regulation, more market distortions, and discriminates against all but
a few producers in the country. Mr. President, this is bad policy.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it is difficult for me to oppose my friends
from the Northeast in their efforts to help the dairy farmers of that
region. But it is on behalf of the dairy farmers of my State that I
feel that I must. Not only because I believe his compact will have a
negative effect on the dairy farmers of regions outside the northeast,
but also because I believe it to be a inappropriate method of
addressing the problems of the dairy industry, which are national in
nature.
This measure is a regional compact. It is an effort by six
Northeastern States to require artificially increased milk prices for
the farmers in those States exclusively. It is at its heart
anticompetitive, and I believe that it is market distorting.
The sponsors of this measure claim that the Northeast is an island
unto itself, and that this compact will not affect any other region. I
believe that that statement ignores the complexities of dairy markets,
which are national in nature.
To predict the exact effects of the compact on other regions is
nearly impossible. But to assume that there will be none is to turn a
blind eye to the history of agricultural policy.
My region of the country, the upper Midwest, has learned this lesson
all too well. We, in this region, have seen our dairy industry become
the victim of unforeseen market distortions caused by the milk
marketing order system. This system, which was instituted in the 1930's
requires that higher minimum prices be paid to producers the farther
they are from Wisconsin. Since the upper Midwest was the traditional
hub of dairy production, the purpose of this regional discrimination
was to help dairy industries outside the upper Midwest develop, so that
every region could have a locally produced supply of fluid milk.
But that goal has been largely accomplished, and the policy that was
intended to give other regions an artificial ``leg up'' over the upper
Midwest, is now contributing to the decline of dairy farming in the
upper Midwest.
But make no mistake about it. This debate is not only about the upper
Midwest. And it is not only about dairy policy. This debate is about
the future direction of all agricultural policies.
I and many of my colleagues from farm States have been willing to
promote farm programs that we believe will provide a safety net to farm
prices, to help provide some security for the family farmers of this
Nation.
But the Northeast Dairy Compact goes beyond anything ever done in a
farm bill. And it goes far beyond any other regional compact presented
to the Congress for approval.
It is the product of one region's frustration with national policies,
and an effort by that region to remove themselves from that national
system and establish a regional dairy policy.
So why is this compact before the Senate? The answer is that the
Northeast needs Congress' approval in order to interfere with
interstate commerce.
The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that
States cannot infringe on interstate commerce. Court case after court
case has turned down efforts be individual States to do so. Most
recently, in the 1994 West Lynn Creamery, Inc versus Healy decision,
the Supreme Court turned down a Massachusetts milk pricing policy that
would have artificially increased the price of milk sold in
Massachusetts in order to bolster the dairy farmers of that State
alone. The Supreme Court turned down that effort as being a clear
violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. At that time,
even the State of Vermont argued in opposition to the Massachusetts
effort, claiming that it was ``economic protectionism that burdens
interstate commerce by interfering with competition.''
But now all six Northeastern States have banded together to do
something very similar to what Massachusetts tried to do on its own,
and that it to artificially increase milk prices in that region for the
benefit of the farmers in that region, and to protect their higher milk
price by placing a protectionist tariff on all milk coming into the
region for outside.
Clearly this too would be considered a violation of the commerce
clause if subject to the scrutiny of the courts.
However understanding the threat that this constitutionality question
poses to their efforts, the Northeast have been very cleaver in getting
around that question by packaging the pricing scheme as a compact.
The Constitution allows States to enter into a compact with other
States, as long as those compacts are approved by Congress. This
authority has been used many times, without controversy, by States that
seek to address multistate environmental or transportation concerns.
But it has never been used to allow States to engage in price-fixing
activities. And it has never been used as a way to circumvent the
commerce clause of the Constitution.
Make no mistake about it. This compact is unprecedented in the
history of the Nation.
While the context of this compact may be milk pricing, its
ramifications are far more significant. Congressional approval of this
compact is an invitation for all sorts of economic balkanization.
Our forefathers had the foresight to see the dangers of allowing
States and regions to erect economic barriers against other States in
the Union. They asked the question ``What are we, as a nation, if we do
not have a unified economic market?''
Last year, when the Northeast Dairy Compact was considered in the
Senate Judiciary Committee, many of my colleagues raised constitutional
concerns with the compact.
Senator Hatch commented on this matter. He stated:

I am afraid that this is the kind of precedent-setting
compact that will lead other States to seek the same type of
protection, to the economic detriment of all their bordering
States. More importantly, I would expect that other
industries will line up seeking compacts as a means of
protecting their particular States' interests, and we just
can't go down that route.

On the same matter, Senator Thurmond stated:

I believe that Congressional approval of this compact would
set a bad precedent. Approval would encourage other regions
of our country to form compacts to assist regional producers
in a variety of industries at the expense of those outside
the region. A breakdown of our nation into regional cartels
and economic infighting would be very harmful and should be
opposed.

At that same mark up in the Judiciary Committee last year, Senator
Grassley stated:

Historically, these compacts have dealt with border issues,
environmental cooperation, and other subjects limited to the
member States not having an impact on the rest of the
country. . . . Without Congressional approval, I believe that
the compact would be unconstitutional. Clearly, if one of the
States in the compact enacted State legislation along these
lines, the Commerce Clause would be violated. Protection of
in-state industry against out-of-State industry is
prohibited. I think that we should be very hesitant to allow
a group of States to do what a single State could not do
under our Constitution.

And lastly, my good friend from Illinois, Senator Simon added:

I tend to agree with Senator Grassley that this [Compact]
is probably constitutional. . . . But what it constitutional
is not necessarily wise.

Mr. President, the Senate Agriculture Committee has already started
the debate on the reauthorization of national farm programs through the
1995 farm bill. It is my sincere hope that as we begin that debate, we
can craft dairy policy changes that are beneficial to all the dairy
farmers of this country, not just those of one region.
I too want to help the farmers of this Nation. But I firmly believe
that the Northeast Dairy Compact is the wrong approach.
Another provision of this amendment authorizes a class IV price for
milk. The rationale for this provision is that since the Senate
Agriculture Committee eliminated the price support for milk powder and
butter, the prices for those products will fall to world prices.
However, the problem is that the class IV price would merely create a
tax on all dairy farmers nationwide, to be transferred to the farmers
in those few States that have excess milk production, and put that
excess milk into butter and powder. In short, this imposes a butter/
powder tax on the dairy farmers of all States, to be transferred to the
dairy farmers of those States producing those products.

[[Page S 16003]]

I urge my colleagues to join me in strong opposition to this compact
and the class IV pricing provisions.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. I raise a point of order against the amendment offered by
the Senator as not being germane.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator use his microphone. We cannot hear him.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the
amendment offered by the Senator on the basis it is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 65, nays 34, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 528 Leg.]

YEAS--65

Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Gregg
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerry
Leahy
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--34

Abraham
Bennett
Bingaman
Bradley
Brown
Coats
Conrad
DeWine
Dole
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Frist
Glenn
Grams
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Simon
Simpson
Specter
Thompson
Wellstone
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 65, the nays are
34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3004) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, it is our turn to offer an amendment. I
yield to the Senator from New Jersey 30 seconds for the purpose of
explaining and introducing his motion.

Motion to Commit

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] moves
to commit S. 1357 to the Committee on Finance with
instructions to report the bill back to the Senate within
3 days and insert provisions to limit any individual
income tax break provided in the bill to those with
incomes under $1 million, and to apply any resulting
savings to reduce proposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a fairly simple motion. It is
to recommit, to cut the tax breaks for those who make over a million
dollars a year, and to have the savings that occur apply to reduce the
cuts that are contemplated in Medicare and Medicaid. I hope that we can
finally reach a point at which we say across the board here that at
some point we are not going to give tax breaks to those with the
enormous incomes. We are talking about a million dollars a year on
this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Amendment No. 3005 to the Lautenberg Motion to Commit

(Purpose: To provide a $5,000 tax credit for the adoption of a child)

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment
numbered 3005 to the Lautenberg motion to commit.

Mr. CRAIG. 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:

In lieu of the instructions offered by Mr. Lautenberg,
insert the following with instructions to report the
following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following title:

TITLE XIII--CREDIT FOR ADOPTION EXPENSES

(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits), as
amended by section 12001, is amended by inserting after
section 23 the following new section:

``SEC. 24. ADOPTION EXPENSES.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this subtitle for the taxable year the amount of the
qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer
during such taxable year.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate amount of qualified
adoption expenses which may be taken into account under
subsection (a) with respect to the adoption of a child shall
not exceed $5,000.
``(2) Income limitation.--The amount allowable as a credit
under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall be reduced
(but not below zero) by an amount which bears the same ratio
to the amount so allowable (determined without regard to this
paragraph but with regard to paragraph (1)) as)--
``(d) Qualified Adoption Expenses.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualified adoption expenses' has the
meaning given such term by section 24(d).''
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by section 12001, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 23
the following new item:

``Sec. 24. Adoption expenses.''

(2) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section
137 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 137. Adoption assistance programs.
``Sec. 138. Cross reference to other Acts.''

(d) Effective Date.--The amendment shall be effective after
January 2, 1995.

Amendment No. 3006 to Amendment No. 3005

(Purpose: To provide a $5,000 tax credit for the adoption of a child)

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment
numbered 3006 to amendment No. 3005.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this is a very important, yet
understandable amendment. It changes the adoption tax credit of $5,000,
and we are offering this in this reconciliation package to an effective
date of January, and I believe the second-degree moves it to February
1995.
Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry; could we have a reading of the
second-degree amendment? Was it waived?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
Mr. KENNEDY. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement we have 30
seconds to respond to this amendment. For that purpose----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue to read the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following title:

TITLE XIII: CREDIT FOR ADOPTION EXPENSES

(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits), as
amended by

[[Page S 16004]]
section 12001, is amended by inserting after section 23 the following
new section.

``SEC. 24. ADOPTION EXPENSES.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this subtitle for the taxable year the amount of the
qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer
during such taxable year.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate amount of qualified
adoption expenses which may be taken into account under
subsection (a) with respect to the adoption of a child shall
not exceed $5,000.
``(2) Income limitation.--The amount allowable as a credit
under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall be reduced
(but not below zero) by an amount which bears the same ratio
to the amount so allowable (determined without regard to this
paragraph but with regard to paragraph (1)) as--
``(d) Qualified Adoption Expenses.--For purposes of this
section,the term `qualified adoption expenses' has the
meaning given such term by section 24(d).''
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by section 12001, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 23
the following new item:

``Sec. 24. Adoption expenses.''

(2) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section
137 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 137. Adoption assistance programs.
``Sec. 138. Cross reference to other Acts.''

(d) Effective Date.--The amendment shall be effective after
February 1, 1995.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President I yield the 30 seconds of our time to the
Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is happening here is quite clear:
Instead of just letting us vote on whether or not the other side is
willing to accept some level at which we are saying we will not give
tax breaks to those individuals, instead we are going to try to keep
the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid from being as high as they are.
Why, I do not understand, why can we not simply have a vote on it? I
think by not permitting a vote they are absolutely voting on the
Republican side. They are saying that we are not even going to cut off
our friends who make $1 million a year or more.
I hope we can get to a vote on my amendment, Mr. President.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the fact is that the tax bill before the
U.S. Senate, 90 percent of the tax cut goes to Americans earning
$100,000 or less. That is the fact.
This is a political amendment. We have a right to offer second degree
and when we find amendments like this we will do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired on the second-degree
amendment.

Amendment No. 3007 to Amendment No. 3005

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

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an
amendment numbered 3007 to amendment No. 3005.
Strike all after instructions and insert the following:
``to report the bill back to the Senate within 3 days and
insert provisions to limit any individual income tax break
provided in the bill to those with incomes under $1 million,
and to apply any resulting savings to reduce proposed cuts in
Medicare and Medicaid.''

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have not seen the amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the manager would permit me, it is
exactly the same as the amendment that I sent up originally, and I am
asking for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Can we substitute
for this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No further amendments are in order.
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.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 529 Leg.]

YEAS--55

NAYS--44

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3007) was agreed
to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3005

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 3005.
The majority leader.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Could you get a
little order?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can we have order in the Senate please, Mr.
President?
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, is it appropriate to withdraw the amendment
at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. Members cannot
hear.
Mr. DOLE. We withdraw the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3005) was withdrawn.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am trying to find out what they desire
to do at this point.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I am given the floor for a moment--
--
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield part of my time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
motion to commit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion is withdrawn.
The motion was withdrawn.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think Senator Nickles is ready for an amendment on
our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 3008

(Purpose: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996)

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), for himself, Mr.
Dole, Mr. Roth, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Chafee, proposes an
amendment numbered 3008.

Mr. NICKLES. 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 1332, beginning with line 5, strike all through
page 1336, line 17.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this amendment I send to the desk on
behalf of myself, Senator Dole, Senator Roth, Senator Snowe, and
Senator Chafee is an amendment that would eliminate section 7573, which
would require States to collect an annual amount equal to a $25
application fee and 6.6 percent of collections for non-AFDC families,
if they use child support enforcement services.
I think this provision should not have been in the bill. I mentioned
that

[[Page S 16005]]
during the Finance Committee hearings. I have worked with the majority
leader, and, also, Senator Roth says this section should be stricken.
That is what this amendment would do.
The Governors strongly support this amendment. They do not think that
they should be mandated to have the child support enforcement check
fees in this bill. I agree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, here we are. I am fearful. I am making
inquiry. Are we violating the agreement that we should have a copy of
this amendment? I thought we had agreed earlier they had been filed.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the question was asked, Is this a 10-
percent tax? My colleague from New Jersey raised this as well.
Originally, this was a 10-percent tax. I think the committee made
adjustments and made it 6.6 percent. I happen to agree with him that
even at 6.6 percent, the tax is too high.
Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Chafee be added
as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. We are eliminating the 6.6-percent tax.
Mr. DOMENICI. We do not need a vote.
Mr. EXON. It would appear to me, with the 30 seconds that I have on
this side of the aisle, that as of now this Senator has not been
advised that there is any opposition to this matter on this side.
Evidently, we have found this was given to us in a different order.
Does anyone wish to oppose?
Mr. BRADLEY. As I understand it, the amendment offered by Senator
Nickles is the exact content of the amendment that I was going to
offer. So I have no opposition.
Mr. EXON. Hearing no objection on this side, I yield back the
remainder of my time and suggest possibly this could be voice voted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Oklahoma.
The amendment (No. 3008) was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the next amendment that we have agreed to
consider would be by the Senator from New York. I yield the required
time allotted to us to the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Might we have order, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Chair asks
that conversations be taken off the floor.
Does the Senator from New York have an amendment at the desk?

Amendment No. 3009

(Purpose: To strike the reduction of indirect medical education
payments to teaching hospitals)

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) proposes an
amendment numbered 3009.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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 541, strike line 10, and all that follows through
page 542, line 8.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike the 40-
percent reduction in indirect medical education payments in the
reconciliation bill and restore $9.9 billion to teaching hospitals in
the years 1996 to 2002. This reconciliation bill seriously threatens
the future of medical research, physician training and care for the
indigent. Teaching hospitals are a national treasure. To abandon them
now would be a tragedy.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment adds $9.9 billion to the
deficit. In the Finance Committee bill, $1.7 billion is added back to
this. I think we ought to table this amendment and move on to the next
one.
Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment, and I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from New Mexico to lay on the table the amendment of the
Senator from New York. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 530 Leg.]

YEAS--51

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

NAYS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3009) was
agreed to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 3010 through 3014, En Bloc

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to send to the desk, with the
full concurrence of the ranking member and no objection that I am aware
of, six amendments en bloc. Let me just list them: a Dole-Kohl-Grassley
amendment with reference to truckers that has been agreed to on both
sides; the Hutchison amendment that we had a little while ago that was
withdrawn--it has been cleared on both sides--a Senator D'Amato sense
of the Senate.
Mr. BYRD. That amendment has not been cleared on both sides. I have
just been talking with Mrs. Hutchison.
Mr. DOMENICI. We withdraw it. I say to Senator Hutchison, that has
not been cleared on their side.
Senator D'Amato has an amendment cleared on both sides, a sense of
the Senate; Senator Grassley has one with reference to an advisory task
force; Senator Boxer has one on no pay--what do you call it, I say to
the Senator?
Mrs. BOXER. No pay. We already passed it.
Mr. DOMENICI. We already passed it. Senator Graham, an amendment to
ensure Medicare beneficiaries have urgent Medicare treatment. We have
no objection to it.
I send all five to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask they be reported en bloc and accepted en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S 16006]]

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes
amendments numbered 3010 through 3014, en bloc.

The amendments, en bloc, are as follows:

amendment no. 3010

(Purpose: To increase the deductibility of business meal expenses for
individuals subject to Federal limitations on hours of service and to
provide offsetting revenues)

At the end of chapter 8 of subtitle I of title XII, insert
the following new section:

SEC. . INCREASED DEDUCTIBILITY OF BUSINESS MEAL EXPENSES FOR
INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LIMITATIONS ON
HOURS OF SERVICE.

(a) In General.--Section 274(n) (relating to only 50
percent of meal and entertainment expenses allowed as
deduction) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Special rule for individuals subject to federal
limitations on hours of service.--In the case of any expenses
for food or beverages consumed by an individual during, or
incident to, any period of duty which is subject to the hours
of service limitations of the Department of Transportation,
paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `80 percent'
for `50 percent'.''
(b) Repeal of Special Transition Rule to Financial
Institution Exception to Interest Allocation Rules.--
Paragraph (5) of section 1215(c) of the Tax Reform Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2548) is hereby repealed.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1995.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering with
Senator Dole will restore the business meal deduction to 80 percent for
truckers, long-haul bus drivers, and others subject to Department of
Transportation hours of service regulations. My amendment would cost
$673 million over 7 years and would be offset by repealing the special
transition rule to financial institution exception to interest
allocation rules.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I understand Senator Kohl is expected to
offer an amendment that would restore the business meals deduction from
50 to 80 percent for workers using Department of Transportation [DOT]
hours-of-service regulations. The amendment specifically targets only
the segment of middle-income Americans who, due to the nature of their
employment, must eat away from home. Such individuals include truckers,
busdrivers, and some railworkers. The deduction for business meals and
entertainment expenses was reduced from 80 to 50 percent under the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and went into effect on
January 1, 1994.
I support Senator Kohl's efforts to restore the business meals
deduction to 80 percent for workers on DOT service hours. However, I
strongly believe that the amendment should go further than the
transportation segment of the population. I, along with Senator Hatch
and others, have introduced S. 216, which would restore the business
meals deduction to 80 percent of all industries.
The restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of
the food service, travel and tourism, and entertainment industries
throughout the United States. These industries are being economically
harmed as a result of this reduction. All are major industries
employing millions of people, many of whom are already feeling the
effects of the reduction.
Contrary to what many might believe, most individuals who purchase
business means are small business persons: 70 percent have incomes
below $50,000, 39 percent have incomes below $35,000, and 25 percent
are self-employed. Moreover, 78 percent of business lunches and 50
percent of business dinners are purchased in low to moderately priced
restaurants. The average amount spent on a business meal, per person,
is about $9.39 for lunch and $19.58 for dinner. The business meal
deduction is hardly the exclusive realm of the fat cats.
Again, I commend Senator Kohl for his efforts to restore the business
meals deduction to 80 percent for workers on DOT service hours. I urge
my colleagues to also support my bill, S. 216, which would restore the
business meals deduction to 80 percent for all industries.

AMENDMENT NO. 3011

(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the tax
treatment of conversions of thrift charters to bank charters)

At the end of chapter 8 of subtitle I of title XII, insert:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX TREATMENT OF
CONVERSIONS OF THRIFT CHARTERS TO BANK
CHARTERS.

In order to facilitate sound national banking policy and
assist in the conversion of thrift charters to bank charters,
it is the sense of the Senate that section 593 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to reserves for
losses on loans) should be repealed and appropriate relief
should be granted for the pre-1988 portion of any bad debt
reserves of a thrift charter.

Mr. D'AMATO. MR. President, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution would
express the will of the Senate that Congress should eliminate a
significant disincentive in the current law which prevents thrift
institutions from changing their charters. It also prevents thrifts
from diversifying into other lending opportunities. Given developments
in financial institutions and the debate in Congress over the future of
the thrift industry, it is desirable for Congress to seriously examine
this aspect of the tax law that applies only to thrifts.

AMENDMENT NO. 3012

On pages 764 and 765, section 2106. Medicaid Task Force,
under subsection (c) ``Advisory Group for the Task Force''
and new number (14) to read:
``(14) American osteopathic association.
Redesignate old (14) to be (15); redesignate old (15) to be
(16); redesignate old (16) to be (17); redesignate old (17)
to be (18).

AMENDMENT NO. 3013

(Purpose: To provide that Members of Congress and the President shall
not be paid during Federal Government shutdowns

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:

SEC. . PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT DURING
GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS.

(a) In General.--Members of Congress and the President
shall not receive basic pay for any period in which--
(1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations
for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure
to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing
resolution; or
(2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or
meet obligations because the public debt limit under section
3101 of title 31, United States Code has been reached.
(b) Retroactive Pay Prohibited.--No pay forfeited in
accordance with subsection (a) may be paid retroactively.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to one offered
to the D.C. appropriations bill that passed the Senate unanimously and
was cosponsored by both the majority and minority leaders, among
others.
Because this issue is so important and because the D.C. bill appears
to have stalled in the House, I believe it is important for the Senate
to revisit this proposal.
Under my amendment, if there is a lapse in appropriations for any
Federal department or agency or if the Government is unable to operate
because of a default caused by a failure to raise the Federal debt
ceiling, the pay for Members of Congress and the President will be
docked.
I believe this legislation is important for two key reasons:
First, it will help avert the predicted Government shutdown by
helping Members of Congress understand the fear and uncertainty now
being felt by the millions of Americans who rely on Government
services.
Second, it codifies a principle that all other workers in America
live by: If you do not do your job, you should not get paid. One of
Congress' most important functions is to pass the Nation's budget. If
we fail in that critically important task, it simply makes sense that
our pay should be docked.
Mr. President, this amendment makes common sense, and I thank the
managers for accepting it.

amendment no. 3014

(Purpose: to ensure medicare beneficiaries have emergency or urgent
care provided and paid for by medicare choice plans by establishing a
definition of an emergency medical condition that is based upon the
prudent layperson standard)

Beginning on page 476, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 477, line 3 and insert the following: such
individuals have contracted for) available and accessible to
each such individual, within the medicare service area of the
plan, with reasonable promptness, and in a manner which
assures continuity,
On page 481, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
``(h) Timely Authorization for Promptly Needed Care
Identified as a Result of Required Screening Evaluation.--

[[Page S 16007]]

``(1) Access to process.--A medicare choice plan sponsor
shall provide access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to such
persons as may be authorized to make any prior authorizations
required by the plan sponsor for coverage of items and
services (other than emergency services) that a treating
physician or other emergency department personnel identify,
pursuant to a screening evaluation required under section
1867(a), as being needed promptly by an individual enrolled
with the organization under this part.
``(2) Deemed approval.--A medicare choice plan sponsor is
deemed to have approved a request for such promptly needed
items and services if the physician or other emergency
department personnel involved--
``(A) has made a reasonable effort to contact such a person
for authorization to provide an appropriate referral for such
items and services or to provide the items and services to
the individual and access to the person has not been provided
(as required in paragraph (1)), or
``(B) has requested such authorization for the person and
the person has not denied the authorization within 30 minutes
after the time the request is made.
``(3) Effect of approval.--Approval of a request for a
prior authorization determination (including a deemed
approval under paragraph (2)) shall be treated as approval of
a request for any items and services that are required to
treat the medical condition identified pursuant to the
required screening evaluation.
``(4) Definition of emergency services.--In this
subsection, the term `emergency services' means--
``(A) health care items and services furnished in the
emergency department of a hospital (including a trauma
center), and
``(B) ancillary services routinely available to such
department,

to the extent they are required to evaluate and treat an
emergency medical condition (as defined in paragraph (5))
until the condition is stabilized.
``(5) Emergency medical condition.--In paragraph (4), the
term `emergency medical condition' means a medical condition,
the onset of which is sudden, that manifests itself by
symptoms of sufficient severity, including severe pain, that
a prudent layperson, who possesses an average knowledge of
health and medicine, could reasonably expect the absence of
immediate medical attention to result in--
``(A) placing the person's health in serious jeopardy,
``(B) serious impairment to bodily functions, or
``(C) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield back all time assigned to us.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
numbered 3010 through 3014, en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 3010 through 3014, en bloc) were agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could I yield myself 1 minute for a
discussion with the Senators?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we sort of set a pattern here.
If the Senators could look at the remaining amendments--I say this to
both sides; we will do it on ours--if the Senators could look at
theirs, maybe they could package them with reference to subject matter.
If the Senators package them with reference to subject matter, then we
might get five amendments all of which deal with the subject. We think
we know how they are going to turn out, but that is not terribly
relevant. We could offer them en bloc.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope that we will be careful that we do
not try to streamline this silly process further. Now we are really
flying deaf, dumb, and blind. So I hope we will look at these so-called
packages with four or five amendments. I want to see them.
I am not going to set myself up as a traffic cop, but this process is
just entirely out of control. We do not know what we are voting on now.
Now we are just voting on amendments. They do not know what is in this
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Byrd for his
concern. We discussed this concern on the whole process, and,
hopefully, this is the last time we will have it under this process. We
should change it. But I have to get a bill through under this process.
We will be as careful as we can. If we need to, we will certainly
consult with a broad array of Senators before we proceed.
Is another amendment ready?
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, whose turn is it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I recognize the Senator from Connecticut for
the purpose of offering an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Nebraska.

Lieberman Motion To Commit

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk which I
offer on behalf of myself, and Senators Daschle, Harkin, Graham,
Rockefeller, Breaux, and Kennedy, who are members of a Medicare working
group.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], moves to
commit the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions
to report the bill back to the Senate within 3 days, not to
include any day the Senate is not in session, with the
following amendment, and to make sufficient reductions in the
tax cuts to maintain deficit neutrality.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to restore the
solvency of the Medicare part A trust fund for the next 10 years and
then to go on, beyond dealing with that immediate, obvious deficit
looming, to reform the Medicare Program and provide real choices to
Medicare beneficiaries by increasing the range of health plan options
available, providing better information so that beneficiaries can act
as informed consumers, and to require planning and action for the
changes that will come with the retirement, later in the first decade
of the next century, of the baby-boom generation.
This is a constructive Medicare alternative.
Mr. President, what we have here is a missed opportunity. Democrats
and Republicans agree generally that there are some problems with the
Medicare Program that we must address:
Problem No. 1. Our Republican colleagues argue that the Medicare
Program must be saved from impending bankruptcy in the part A trust
fund. Democrats agree that we must act to restore the solvency of the
part A trust fund. The Health Care Financing Administration's Actuary
tells us that it will take $89 billion in spending reductions to assure
solvency through the next 10 years--through 2006. Democrats have put
forward a strong proposal that would do this in a fair manner. It has
been scored by CBO and achieves solvency for at least the next 10
years.
Problem No. 2. The rate of increase in the cost of the Medicare
Program is unsustainable at 10 percent each and every year. We all
agree that this problem must be dealt with. Democrats and Republicans
have both put forward proposals that begin to bring competitive market
forces into the Medicare Program. I would argue that the Democratic
proposal is much stronger in this regard. We would strongly move the
Medicare Program toward competitive bidding among the private health
plans participating in Medicare. We would also tie rates of increase in
payments to private health plans to the private sector market place,
rather than to arbitrary budget targets. Ultimately, I am convinced
that competition among an expanded range of private health plans
serving Medicare patients will be the key to reducing long term rates
of growth in the Medicare Program.
We recognize that the Medicare Program is 30 years old and is showing
signs of its age. We have proposed changes that would bring the program
into the rapidly changing health care system of the 1990's and the next
century.
Problem No. 3. The most difficult problem looming on the horizon, Mr.
President, is the coming retirement of the baby boom generation--a
relatively huge number of Americans will begin to turn 65 starting
around the year 2010. There are 76 million individuals in the baby boom
generation. They outnumber by 50 percent the generation that preceded
them into retirement. Over the next 5 years, only about 10 percent of
Medicare cost increases will be attributable to more beneficiaries.
Once the baby boomers retire, however,

[[Page S 16008]]
the combination of, one, a declining base of workers and, two, longer
lifespans will double the combined costs of Medicare and Medicaid even
if medical inflation, above CPI is eliminated altogether.
If Medicare is not prepared for the implications of this demographic
shift, it may not be able to weather the storm. Democrats and
Republicans have both put forward Medicare reform plans that would set
up a high level, bipartisan commission to make the tough
recommendations that are needed to prepare for this historical shift.
The differences between the parties, nevertheless, remain stark. The
bill that is on the Senate floor today would cut $280 billion out of
the Medicare Program over the next 7 years. The problem, Mr. President,
is that this figure is based solely on a series of budget targets that
lead to a balanced budget and reductions in taxes of $254 billion over
the next 7 years.
The reconciliation bill before us is too long on squeezing
beneficiaries and too short on genuine reform. It treats Medicare as a
cash cow to be milked to keep promises of deficit and tax reduction
made in the campaigns of 1994.
The figure of $280 billion in Medicare cuts is not good for the
Medicare Program and the population it serves--those who depend on it
today and those who will depend on it in future generations.
In the end, Mr. President, I am convinced that we can find a solution
to all of these problems. What we have on the Senate floor today,
however, is not the solution. It maintains all of the problems of the
existing Medicare Program and underfunds them. It is a package of cuts,
not reforms.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a Democratic Medicare
plan printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the
Record as follows:

A Democratic Medicare Plan for the 21st Century

Since Democrats created Medicare thirty years ago over GOP
opposition, protecting this program has been a top Democratic
priority. Today, as Republicans propose the largest cuts in
Medicare's history--cuts made in the name of ``saving''
Medicare--Democrats once again are coming to Medicare's
defense.
Our proposal: To ensure that Medicare remains solvent and
strong by implementing reforms that strengthen and improve
the program.
Our position: That the GOP Medicare plan cuts Medicare
three times more than is necessary to restore Trust Fund
solvency--and raids Medicare to pay for their scheme of tax
breaks for the wealthiest.
Rejecting the Republican plan is not enough. Democrats will
offer a proposal which:
Preserves seniors' right to keep their own doctor while
giving them more choices of private health plans that provide
high-quality and comprehensive benefits;
Improves Medicare's traditional fee-for-service program by
making it more efficient and responsive to beneficiary needs,
without imposing unnecessary and unfair increases in out-of-
pocket Medicare expenses;
Tackles Medicare waste, fraud and abuse through programs
applauded by law enforcement officials; and
Guarantees solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund through the
year 2006 and prepares for the long-run challenge of the baby
boom generation that will begin to retire in 2010.
The GOP claims we must cut $270 billion in order to save
Medicare. That's just not true. According to the Health Care
Financing Administration's Chief Actuary--who produced the
estimates relied upon by the Medicare trustees--only $89
billion in cost reductions are needed to extend the life of
the trust fund through the fourth quarter of the calendar
year 2006.
In this proposal, we show that we can preserve and protect
Medicare without slashing needed services for the elderly or
increasing their out-of-pocket costs. Our plan places no new
burdens on seniors--and our hospital cuts are half the
Republicans'.

summary of democratic proposal to ensure solvency

I. Providing real choices

Medicare beneficiaries currently may choose from only two
options--the traditional fee-for-service program and health
maintenance organizations. Since 19 states have no Medicare
HMOs, seniors in many states have no choice at all. This plan
would ensure beneficiaries have access to a wide variety of
health plans. Specific reforms include the following:
Expand private health plan choices: Medicare's current
options would be expanded to allow the participation of
preferred provider organizations, point-of-service plans, and
provider sponsored networks. Plans would offer a basic
benefit package equal to the fee-for-service plan with
additional preventive services and lower cost-sharing.
Preserve a vital and affordable fee-for-service option: The
GOP's $270 billion in cuts will spell disaster for hospitals
and other health care providers all across the country,
particularly in rural and underserved areas. The Democratic
plan protects and improves fee-for-service Medicare--so
seniors will continue to have a real choice. It keeps
premiums affordable, saving seniors hundreds of dollars a
year.
Reform payments to private health plans: Medicare would pay
HMOs and other health plans a rate which would increase at
the cost of other private health plans, unlike the GOP plan
which arbitrarily caps payments at 4.3% and the current
outmoded system which ties payments to fee-for-service costs.
The Democratic plan would also require Medicare to test and
recommend options to Congress on ways to pay private health
plans through a market-based competitive bidding process.
Provide information on health plan options: Medicare would
provide to all beneficiaries information comparing plans
available in their region. The comparative plan information
would be in a standardized format, in language that is easily
understood. Such information would be provided to
beneficiaries before they become eligible for Medicare and
yearly after that during an open enrollment period.
Strengthen Consumer Quality Protections: Medicare would
enhance health plan quality standards to prevent improper
marketing and inappropriate incentives for utilization
reviewers and to ensure access to the full range of Medicare
covered services, including emergency and urgent care.

II. Strengthening traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare

Currently, 90% of Medicare beneficiaries are in Medicare's
traditional fee-for-service program. The vast majority of
seniors are likely to continue to enroll in this part of the
program, even with the new options available to them. Given
these trends, it makes sense to strengthen and improve
Medicare's fee for service sector.
Under this proposal, a series of reforms would transform
the fee-for-service program from a bill-paying insurance
program into a responsive health plan that uses a variety of
techniques to improve quality and service, restrain costs,
and hold providers accountable for improving the health of
their patients. To achieve this goal, Congress would provide
authority to Medicare to adopt the same types of successful
purchasing and quality techniques pioneered by private sector
payers. Specific reforms include the following:
Establish quality performance standards: Require Medicare
to establish explicit performance standards to allow
enrollees to assess the program's performance on the basis of
cost, quality, outcomes, and service. ``Report cards''
disseminated to beneficiaries would allow patients to compare
providers against professional benchmarks.
Streamline rule-making process for purchasing: Develop
options for simplifying the rule-making process and
increasing Medicare's flexibility in negotiating contracts
for specific services and categories of services.
Allow selective contracting with specialized programs:
Allow Medicare to contract with specialized programs that
manage chronic diseases like diabetes and congestive heart
failure, complex acute care needs and the needs of disabled
beneficiaries. Such specialized programs may include the use
of alternatives to inpatient or institutional care or the use
of specialized networks of caregivers. Private sector efforts
along these lines have resulted in higher quality care,
reductions in the need for institutional care and lower
costs.
Provide authority to designate and contract with centers of
excellence: Allow Medicare to use centers of excellence for
additional complex and expensive services like surgery and
cancer care. Medicare currently contracts with such centers
for heart and liver transplant operations.

III. Attacking waste, fraud, and abuse

The General Accounting Office and others have estimated
that up to 10 percent of health care expenditures and
billions of dollars in Medicare payments are lost every year
to fraud, waste, and abuse. These losses must be the first
target of any responsible plan to reduce Medicare
expenditures. This plan would take the most aggressive and
comprehensive steps ever proposed to stamp out Medicare
waste, fraud and abuse.
Specific measures include the following:
Expand abuse-fighting activities: Much abuse goes
undetected and unpunished because there are not enough
inspectors, auditors and prosecutors to do the job. Estimates
indicate that every dollar invested in anti-fraud activities
by the HHS Inspector General and Medicare contractors results
in up to ten dollars in savings to Medicare. The Democratic
Medicare plan more than doubles the current investment in
fighting fraud and abuse. The plan also requires greater
coordination of Federal, State and local law enforcement
efforts to combat health care fraud.
Strengthen penalties for committing fraud: The Democratic
plan would impose stiff penalties on those convicted of
health care fraud, illegally distributing controlled
substances, providing kickbacks, charging Medicare excessive
fees, submitting false claims, or engaging in other abusive
activities. This plan also strengthens available criminal
remedies.
End wasteful Medicare spending for certain items and
services: For example, Medicare

[[Page S 16009]]
pays $2.32 for gauze pads that the Veterans Administration purchases
for four cents. The Democratic Medicare plan would make
Medicare a more prudent buyer of certain types of durable
medical equipment, medical supplies, and other services while
assuring continued access to these important services.
Improve collection of inappropriate Medicare payments: The
Democratic Medicare plan would strengthen the Medicare
Secondary Payor Program, requiring Medicare to more
aggressively to collect payments due from private insurers.
It would also extend Medicare secondary payor provisions for
ESRD beneficiaries.
Employ more sophisticated, private sector computer
technology: Require Medicare contractors to employ code
manipulation detection software such as that widely used in
the private sector.
Increase incentives to expose Medicare fraud and abuse:
Establish rewards for reports by consumers that lead to
criminal convictions for health care fraud and encourage the
voluntary disclosure of fraud and abuse by health care
providers.
Simplify administration and reduce paperwork: Require a
uniform application process for health care providers seeking
to participate in Medicare.

IV. Ensuring Medicare's solvency

Only $89 billion in savings--not the $270 billion proposed
by the GOP--are needed to keep the Medicare Trust Fund
solvent through at least the next decade. The Chief Actuary
of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), whose
estimates form the basis of the Medicare Trustees'
recommendations, has certified that an $89 billion reduction
in the rate of growth of Part A expenditures over the period
1996-2002 would extend the life of the Medicare Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund through at least the fourth quarter of
calendar year 2006.
This proposal would call for a series of measures to reduce
Medicare spending by $89 billion over the next seven years.
Savings would be achieved through the above-mentioned reforms
to Medicare's fee-for-service program and Medicare's private
health plan options, while slowing the rate of growth of
payments to providers. Special provisions are included to
assist rural hospitals. No new costs would be imposed on
beneficiaries.
This plan provides more reasonable reductions in all
categories:

SENATE MEDICARE PLANS
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats Republicans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seniors and the disabled................ 0 68
Hospitals............................... 42 86
Skilled nursing facilities.............. 6 10
Home health............................. 9 18
Physicians.............................. 11 23
HMO's................................... 23 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

While preserving Medicare's solvency until 2006, the plan
would help Medicare prepare for the challenges it will face
when the baby boom generation begins to retire in 2010. A
commission would be created, charged with conducting
strategic planning for the Medicare program to ensure that
recipients in the 21st century have available to them the
high quality and secure coverage that current beneficiaries
enjoy.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is the amendment. It is very
difficult to understand what is in it. But let me make a point. This
pending amendment is not germane to the Budget Reconciliation Act. I
raise a point of order against the pending amendment.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, subject to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the section for the purpose of
considering this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act for the purpose of considering the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that [Mr. Lautenberg] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 531 Leg.]

YEAS--47

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

NAYS--52

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is rejected. The
point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate we are 6 minutes over on that vote. We
could almost have had a second vote. I think there is a feeling we
ought to try and finish this as quickly as we can. We are going to try
to stick to the 7\1/2\ minutes. I want everybody to have a fair
warning. We will try to do that.
Obviously, there is always some flexibility, but we would appreciate
everyone's cooperation.

Amendment No. 3015

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand now that if I send the
Hutchison amendment to the desk, which had previously been withdrawn--
Senator Byrd objected, and he now has no objection. I send it to the
desk for immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mrs.
Hutchison, for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Levin, Mr. Coverdell, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Thurmond, and Mr. Thomas, proposes an amendment numbered
3015.

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

(a) The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Human rights violations and atrocities continue
unabated in the former Yugoslavia.
(2) The Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights
recently reported that starting in mid-September and
intensifying between October 6 and October 12, 1995 many
thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Croats in Northwest Bosnia
were systematically forced from their homes by paramilitary
units, local police and in some instances, Bosnian Serb Army
officials and soldiers.
(3) Despite the October 12, 1995 cease-fire which went into
effect by agreement of the warring parties in the former
Yugoslavia, Bosnian Serbs continue to conduct a brutal
campaign to expel non-Serb civilians who remain in Northwest
Bosnia, and are subjecting non-Serbs to untold horror--
murder, rape, robbery and other violence.
(4) Horrible examples of ``ethnic cleansing'' persist in
Northwest Bosnia. Some six thousand refugees recently reached
Zenica and reported that nearly two thousand family members
from this group are still unaccounted for.
(5) The U.N. spokesman in Zagreb reported that many
refugees have been given only a few minutes to leave their
homes and that ``girls as young as 17 are reported to have
been taken into wooded areas and raped.'' Elderly, sick and
very young refugees have been driven to remote areas and
forced to walk long distances on unsafe roads and cross
rivers without bridges.
(6) The War Crime Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has
collected volumes of evidence of atrocities, including the
establishment of death camps, mass executions and systematic
campaigns of rape and terror. This War Crimes Tribunal has
already issued 43 indictments on the basis of this evidence.
(7) The Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights has
described the eye witness accounts as ``prima facia evidence
of war crimes which, if confirmed, could very well lead to
further indictments by the War Crimes Tribunal.''
(8) The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that
more than 22,000 Muslims and Croats have been forced from
their homes since mid-September in Bosnian Serb controlled
areas.
(9) In opening the Dodd Center Symposium on the topic of
``50 Years After Nuremburg'' on October 16, 1995, President
Clinton cited the ``excellent progress'' of the War Crimes
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and said, ``Those accused
of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide must be
brought to justice. They must be tried and, if

[[Page S 16010]]
found guilty, they must be held accountable.''
(10) President Clinton also observed on October 16, 1995,
``Some people are concerned that pursuing peace in Bosnia and
prosecuting war criminals are incompatible goals. But I
believe they are wrong. There must be peace for justice to
prevail, but there must be justice when peace prevails.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the Senate condemns the systematic human rights abuses
against the people of Bosnia and Herzegovena.
(2) with peace talks scheduled to begin in the United
States on October 11, 1995, these new reports of Serbian
atrocities are of grave concern to all Americans.
(3) the Bosnian Serb leadership should immediately halt
these atrocities, fully account for the missing, and allow
those who have been separated to return to their families.
(4) the International Red Cross, United Nations agencies
and human rights organizations should be granted full and
complete access to all locations throughout Bosnia and
Herzegovenia.
(5) the Bosnian Serb leadership should fully cooperate to
facilitate the complete investigation of the above
allegations so that those responsible may be held accountable
under international treaties, conventions, obligations and
law.
(6) the United States should continue to support the work
of the War Crime Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
(8) ethnic cleansing by any faction, group, leader, or
government is unjustified, immoral and illegal and all
perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide
and other human rights violations in former Yugoslavia must
be held accountable.

Mr. EXON. I yield back our time and support the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. We yield back our time
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3015) was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3016

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow qualified
retiring farmers to rollover the gain from the sale of farm assets into
an individual retirement account, provide an offset by improving the
application of the capital gains tax to sales of stock in domestic
corporations by 10 percent foreign shareholders, and for other
purposes)

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in agreement with the other side, I am
sending an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Kohl on farmer
IRA's. It has been approved by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Kohl
proposes an amendment numbered 3016.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. DOMENICI. We yield back any time.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Kohl, who has worked on
this for a long, long time. It is a very good amendment. He has worked
with the majority leader on this. We are enthusiastic about this on our
side.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Byrd would like to have the amendment
explained.
Mr. KOHL. This amendment will allow family farmers--not farmers who
are not farming the land, family farmers--who farm the land for
generations, when they sell their farm to roll over up to $500,000 of
the proceeds into an IRA account. It only applies to hard-working
family farmers.
We offset it by requiring those individuals from foreign lands or
corporations, foreign lands who own U.S. stocks who are not now subject
to tax, when they sell that stock, they will in the future be required
to pay a U.S. tax on the sale of that U.S. corporation stock that they
own.
I think the offset is an outstanding offset and I think the purpose
of the IRA is to reward hard-working family farmers. I think it is a
really good amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3016) was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3017

(Purpose: To require the President to include a generational acounting
in the President's budget)

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a Simpson amendment to the desk
in his behalf.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Simpson
proposes an amendment numbered 3017.

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

At the appropriate place in the bill add the following:

SEC. . GENERATIONAL ACCOUNTING IN PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.

Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(32) an analysis of the generational accounting
consequences of the budget including the projected Federal
deficit, at current spending levels, in the fiscal year that
is 20 years after the fiscal year for which the budget is
submitted and the revenue levels (including the increase
required in current levels) required to eliminate the
projected Federal deficit.''.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that
all Senators should be able to agree on. It would require that the
President's annual budget continue to include a chapter on generational
accounting.
``Generational accounting'' is a way to consider the fiscal treatment
of different generations. Specifically, it indicates what the members
of each generation can expect to pay on average, now and in the future,
in taxes, as a result of current budget expenditures and revenues.
President Bush included a chapter on generational accounting in his
1993 fiscal year budget and President Clinton included a chapter on
generational accounting in his 1995 fiscal year budget--but he failed
to include any mention of generational accounting in this year's
budget.
Thirty of the 32 of us on the bipartisan commission on entitlements
and tax reform concluded that if we do nothing about the impending
entitlements crisis, by 2012 every penny of our Federal revenues will
be necessary to pay for entitlements and interest on our national debt.
In 2040, our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay 40
percent of the national payroll tax base in taxes.
It is crucial that we begin to take a longer term view of the future
and consider how the impact of our decisions today will affect our
children and grandchildren. If you truly are concerned about the burden
of taxes on those we love, then you will support this amendment.
For 2 days now, I have listened to my colleagues wail about the poor,
the young, the disenfranchised while they ignore the biggest crisis--
the impending bankruptcy of the Social Security Program. It is like
crying about slipping on a banana peel on the deck of the Titanic.
Our temporary fix for the Medicare Program is nothing more than
delaying the inevitable. My colleagues are cheering that Medicare will
not go broke in 2002, but rather in 2008. Now that is something to be
proud of. Yet, we only have ourselves to blame.
In the past, the Social Security Advisory Council provided guidance
on Social Security and Medicare issues. However, we got rid of the
Advisory Council and instead created an Advisory Board--except that
they no longer provide guidance on Medicare issues. How ironic. The
program that is going to the dogs first, is the program we decided we
do not want any guidance on.
So we have done it to ourselves. But we can stop this game-playing if
we are forced to consider what we are doing to future generations--and
this is why generational accounting is so important.
Mr. President, this amendment would simply require the annual budget
of the President include a chapter on generational accounting.

[[Page S 16011]]

The President of the United States, President Clinton, did a nice job
on that in the first budget message. It was left completely out of the
second one.
I think it is vitally important we tell the American people 20 and 30
years down the line who is paying the bills. I hope we can get back
what President Clinton put in his first budget. This requires that so
that we know what is out there 20 or 30 years from now--generational
accounting, who is paying the bills, who really cares about the
children of the country and also deals with that issue in an upfront
way.
Mr. EXON. We yield back our time and accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3017) was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3018

(Purpose: To provide States with the flexibility to continue to provide
medical assistance under the Medicaid program to certain disabled
individuals with incomes over 250 percent of poverty)

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have agreed on an amendment that has been
worked on for a long time by Senator Wellstone.
I yield 30 seconds to him for the purpose of introducing the
amendment which both sides have agreed to accept.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a Wellstone-Chafee amendment. I
send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and
Mr. Chafee proposes an amendment numbered 3018.

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

At the end of section 2171(b) of the Social Security Act,
as added by section 7191(a), insert:
``The Secretary may waive this section at the request of
the State for any category of individuals who, as of the date
of enactment of this title, would have qualified for coverage
under section 1915(c) and 1902(e)(3).''

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment that I send to the desk
with Senator Chafee would just provide States with the flexibility to
continue to provide medical assistance under the Medicaid Program to
disabled individuals, especially children that are staying home, in
order to make sure that they can continue to stay at home.
It is very important in the disability communities, and I am very
pleased to have the support from both sides of the aisle.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we ought to accept this
amendment. This says States have the right to continue the same kind of
service they are giving now for disabled people.
It eliminates any concern that they might now have and mandates
nothing. I think we should accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3018) was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I advise the Senate and the chairman of the committee that
the next four amendments all have to do with medical matters. We think
we have those bundled into one amendment that can be offered.
If required, though, I would like unanimous consent that we have
tentatively agreed to; roughly, that if we have situations like this--
in this case there are four introducers--if the introducers would like
30 seconds each, we would grant them that to encourage further melding
of these amendments that are similar into one amendment and therefore
expedite the process.
Mr. DOMENICI. Does the minority leader agree with that? I had talked
to him. It sounded a little different when he was proposing it.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no objection to that approach. I
think all Senators need to have the opportunity to express themselves,
whether it is a block of time or one person does it or individual
blocks of time.
I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is very concerned
that everybody have a complete appreciation of what it is that these
amendments include. In this case, all of the amendments deal with
Medicaid. They are interrelated and in some cases the original
amendments were overlapping. So it is our view it expedites not only
the process but the issue, in order to allow us to bring them up
together.
So I think all concerns are served in this particular amendment. I
hope we can support it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just address this for a moment. Senator Byrd, as
I understand it, if they would have sent their amendments up singly,
they would have had 30 seconds. That is the agreement. They are going
to send up four together--three--and they will have 30 seconds on each
of those and we will have 30 seconds to respond on each of those, which
I think does nothing more than save us the time of three votes. The
rest of the rights are all intact, as we have agreed to them here in
the Senate.
Mr. EXON. I was explaining that rather than four, we set aside the
Dodd matter, which will be considered separately. The Feingold,
Moseley-Braun, and Rockefeller amendments are embodied under the
agreement that we have worked out.
Pending final working out of some details, I suggest, since Senator
Dodd, whom I earlier thought was included in this, is not and since he
is next on my list, at this time I yield 30 seconds to Senator Dodd for
an explanation and the introduction of his motion that both sides have
received some time ago.

Dodd Motion to Commit

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes a motion
to commit.

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

Mr. President, I move to commit the bill S. 1357 to the
Committee on Finance with instructions to report the bill
back to the Senate within 3 days (not to include any day the
Senate is not in session) making changes in legislation
within that Committee's jurisdiction to reduce revenue
reductions for upper income taxpayers by $51,000,000,000 in
order to--
(1) restore current law Medicaid eligibility for children
and pregnant women;
(2) include coverage of prenatal care and delivery services
for pregnant women and Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) for children;
(3) strike the 20 percent cut from title XX of the Social
Security Act;
(4) strike the cap on foster care administrative expenses;

Mr. DODD. This does three things. It restores Medicaid coverage for
pregnant women and children, both eligibility and benefits; it restores
the cut in title 20, which States are widely using for child care
assistance; and, third, it restores the cut in foster care funds that
States use to investigate reports of child abuse and to recruit foster
parents. Again, these are three issues I think most people here believe
are critically important. This would restore those parts of the bill.

children: caring has a cost

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to speak today about the children
of this Nation, about my hope they will not give up hope, and my wish
they will look forward to a brighter future. I want to tell the
children of this country and of my state--despite what is going on in
this current budget fight--there are adults who care about them.
I do not want to say the adults in the majority party don't care
about our children. This budget plan does make me wonder, however,
whether some Members of this austere body remember what it is like to
raise children:
It makes me wonder whether some Members have ever really had to deal
with the modest problems and costs every working family has to deal
with: the costs of child care, the costs of medical care, the costs of
school lunch.

[[Page S 16012]]
I would simply remind those Members: caring does have a cost, and the
cost is in no way reflected in this budget.
Children in this country feel like they have less to look forward to
than ever before. Many adults on this floor have decried the state of
our children's present and future, and many of us have felt the eyes of
these kids upon us as we have cast a vote or made a speech.
So, here is what the majority will do for our kids in this budget:
they will take away the health care coverage that allows kids to be
healthy and ready to learn and grow. They will take away the child care
that allows kids' parents to work. And, they will take away the foster
care that helps kids in serious need.
Well, we have an amendment to this budget reconciliation bill to
repair the damage: it will restore current Medicaid coverage for
pregnant women and their kids, restore child care, and restore foster
care funding.
On Medicaid, we need to preserve a basic safety net for children born
into families of modest means. Medicaid is not free tummy-tucks for
folks who don't need it.
Medicaid provides preventive and emergency care for needy kids, and
long-term care for disabled children--who could be the children of any
American family. We are restoring Medicaid coverage for these children,
on a per-capita basis, instead of a block-grant that would cause them
to compete against the elderly or other groups.
On child care, we cannot say to working mothers, struggling to stay
off public assistance, ``Oh, by the way, we are cutting money that
allows you to work for a living.'' The Republicans have cut $3.3
billion in title XX child care grants to States at the same time they
are promising $3 billion under welfare reform. Do not try and trick
anyone. They are cutting child care--our amendment restores the cut.
On foster care, the majority is now going after children who do not
even have birth-parents to rely upon. This cut is a classic: it tells a
child, ``we're really sorry that it's not working out with your folks,
and that this is the toughest time in your life, but we cannot afford
to pay for your foster care.'' Meanwhile, of course, the Republicans
want to give tax breaks to people who can already afford to leave their
children in the care of a high paid nanny every day.
Mr. President, our children are more important to us than a number on
a balance sheet. I understand and agree we must balance the budget. We
must preserve a future for our children, by not handing down our debts.
But let us keep families alive, and able to work to support and raise
their kids. Otherwise, we will shackle future generations with a much
worse kind of debt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Dodd motion.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table the
Dodd motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced, yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 532 Leg.]

YEAS--50

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

NAYS--49

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Wellstone
So, the motion to lay on the table the Dodd motion to commit was
agreed to.
Mr. EXON. 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. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, earlier we had suggested that three Medicare
amendments by Senator Feingold, Senator Moseley-Braun, and Senator
Rockefeller be combined into one. We agreed that each Senator would
have 30 seconds to explain their joint amendment.
At this time, I ask the Chair to recognize Senator Feingold, then
Senator Moseley-Braun, and then Senator Rockefeller.
I congratulate them for expediting the process.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not believe consent has been given to
package amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, may we have order in the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The senior Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if this were the only time we would have a
request for three amendments in one package, it might be all right. My
problem with this is two or threefold. One, if we start down this road
of packaging three amendments, the next time it will be four, and the
next time five. Suppose someone objects, and would like to vote against
one of the amendments in the package? He has to vote against the whole
package. That is No. 1.
No. 2, if permission is given for this request, then I would assume
our friends on the other side of the aisle will think they are entitled
to package three or four amendments, but there may then be some
objections over here.
So it seems to me to at least prevent ill will, hard feelings, and
streamlining the process further--we do not know what we are voting on
now. It is an absolute absurdity what is going on here.
I am not going to object in this one instance. But who is going to be
the next to make such a request?
I do not object in this one instance.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

Amendment No. 3019

(Purpose: To retain 1-year Medicaid coverage for recipients of
assistance under State plans funded under part A of title IV who lose
medicaid eligibility because of income when the recipient enters the
work force)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), for
himself, Mr. Feingold, and Ms. Moseley-Braun proposes an
amendment numbered 3019.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment appears in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to offer this amendment
with Senator Moseley-Braun and also Senator Feingold. It basically does
three things, and we combine them for the sake of efficiency.
We propose several improvements to the Medicaid Program. One is to
help low-income families get health care when they move from welfare to
work. Second is to help seniors get long-term care. And third is to
make it much better for pregnant women and children----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from West Virginia has
expired.

[[Page S 16013]]

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Twelve years and under to have standards for their
health benefit packages.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment provides for flexible
community and home-based, long-term care programs for individuals with
disabilities of any age that have been Medicaid funded by striking
provisions in the bill providing new tax expenditures for long-term
care insurance and expanded IRA's.
The amendment would save $2.3 billion over 7 years. It is based on a
very successful program in Wisconsin that has saved us hundreds of
millions of dollars by keeping people in the community rather than in
nursing homes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 20
seconds.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, the other part of the amendment has
to do with people who are transitioning from welfare to work so we can
provide that they will not lose health coverage, and particularly that
the children will not be put in jeopardy of losing their health care
when their parents go into the work force. Over a million children will
be involved with this, Mr. President, and I encourage support for
providing a minimal safety net for them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I appreciate your graciousness.
Senator Feinstein had an amendment like this and would like to be a
cosponsor, and I ask unanimous consent she be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Moseley-Braun's amendment
creates new entitlements, not germane, mandates on the States that are
not found in the bill. Senator Feingold's long-term care amendment
which has been added here--is that correct? Whose long-term care
amendment is here?
Mr. EXON. Senator Feingold.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Feingold, excuse me. He would destroy the badly
needed relief proposals and spend the money on Medicaid. The amendments
are filled with these kinds of things, but overall they violate the
Budget Act for germaneness, and I make a point of order.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act, I move to waive the sections of that act for the purpose of
considering the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the
motion to waive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act for the consideration of the amendment. The yeas
and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 533 Leg.]

YEAS--45

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

NAYS--54

Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 45, the nays are 54.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is Senator Pressler here? We are next on this side and
want to do his wheat amendment.
Has the Senator an amendment ready on his side?
Mr. EXON. Yes. I am ready.
Mr. DOMENICI. I might announce on our side, if Senator Pressler would
come to the floor. If he cannot make it for some reason, let us take
Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley will be next after the Democrat
amendment. All right.
Does the Senator have an amendment ready?
Mr. EXON. We do have the Mikulski amendment.
I recognize Senator Mikulski from Maryland for the purpose of--before
I recognize her, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order that the
Senator from Maryland be permitted to offer a motion to instruct
conferees on the clinical lab standards at this time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Was that a consent request?
Mr. EXON. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have to object while I speak for a minute on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
You have something else?
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thought it--recognizing the Senator's
right, certainly, to object--I thought it had been cleared that I could
offer my amendment and that it had been cleared with the Republican
leadership. So I am happy to wait and let another amendment go by. I
think we need to clarify this situation.
Mr. DOMENICI. Why does the Senator need consent to proceed with an
amendment? Why? Does the Senator need unanimous consent?
Ms. MIKULSKI. No.
I thought it was agreed that no one would object to this coming up, I
say to the Senator. I am surprised the Senator objected.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we are going to be able to agree
with the Senator shortly. Can the Senator wait a little bit?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I will be happy to wait.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, since the Mikulski matter has been set aside
temporarily, the next amendment is an amendment regarding dairy,
offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. I yield 30
seconds on our side to him for that stated purpose.

Amendment No. 2999

(Purpose: To strike the provision relating to the milk manufacturing
marketing adjustment which provides special treatment to California
cheese processors at a budget cost of $20 million)

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of
myself, Senator Pressler, Senator Grams, Senator McCain, and Senator
Kohl, which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr.
Pressler, Mr. Grams, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Kohl, proposes an
amendment numbered 2999.

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

On page 33, strike lines 21 through 24.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the 1990 farm bill contains a provision
designed to prevent California cheese

[[Page S 16014]]
processors from receiving artificial milk manufacturing incentives
which are significantly higher than those allowed in the rest of the
country under the Federal milk product support program.
The reconciliation bill repeals this provision resulting in a $20
million cost to the Federal taxpayer by the purchase of additional
cheese surpluses from California. This amendment strikes that provision
and leaves current law intact and saves $20 million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 2999.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is the amendment that was just described?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Do I not have 30 seconds to respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Agriculture Committee bill would
repeal section 102 of the 1990 farm bill. Section 102 was put in that
bill to override State operating orders. It has been in existence for 5
years and has never been used.
It seems to me we ought to remain consistent and we ought to defeat
the amendment.
I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No. 2999. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 534 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brown
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--42

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Biden
Bingaman
Bradley
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Glenn
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
McCain
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Smith
Stevens
Wellstone
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2999) was agreed
to.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am not quite certain where we are in the
process. Some have suggested that we take a couple hours recess here to
try to get the amendments into a little group. I do not know how many
are left. We do not have any idea how much longer it is going to take.
We are trying to decide whether to leave here at six and come back at
nine in the morning, or whether to take an hour break and see if we
cannot further winnow down the number of amendments. We would like to
finish it sometime tomorrow.

____________________